Stellaris Dev Diary #159 - Galactic Community

[Pointyearedgit]

Players generally have a problem with this despite it being entirely probable. Why shouldn't a corrupt sector governor be able to make that deal?

A more advanced international trade system with comparative advantage would facilitate this kind of economic leverage: "Give us the system or the Consumer Goods get it!" Unfortunately strategy games all have a tendency toward autarky.

I appreciate that the Galactic Market streamlined a lot of routine purchases, but it eliminates the ability for empires to pull OPEC type stunts to get their way. It's unlikely the devs will reverse that course, but similarly players were a bit underwhelmed by the idea of a single Galactic Market owner with a flat 10% discount.

Imagine if instead the Galactic Market gave everybody a "control level" based on their total economic power, and then additional actions they could take to increase it (influence expenditures, calling in favors etc). You could then "spend" this control to take economic actions, such as raising a particular empire's market fee. Trade Leagues could act as a single unit, under the president's control.

Then you could take economic actions available in the Galactic Market, put them on the table in a negotiation, and use them as leverage: "Give us the system or you'll be paying a +100% market fee for the next 10 years."



I think it comes down to human psychology. People that disliked the Civ cultural influence mechanic did so for two reasons.

The first is because it was passive. Although they could do things to increase their influence, it didn't particularly feel like they were doing things. The connection between building a temple and influence growth was too dissociated. They felt like they needed to click a button at some point, just to confirm that they had control.

The second was because it lacked finesse. The culture balance was always going to swing one way or the other from the outset and there was little you could do to stop that. There were no costly measures you could take, no sacrifices or sense of meaningful choice.

If you applied this to the war system, you wouldn't be building or directing armies. Instead you would build a barracks, which would give a passive "military power" growth over time and eventually "conquer" the nearest city at some undecided date.

In Stellaris, you have to consciously build and direct fleets and armies. For cultural conquest to feel satisfying, you have to consciously build and direct "influence units". Focusing on one front should mean neglecting others. Focusing on offense should mean sacrificing defense. Fighting a costly influence war should drain your resources. It needs to take time, so defenders have a chance to react to it.

Basically, it needs to feel like cultural combat rather than an "I win button" or a toothless accessory to the war system. Diplomacy needs to be the same. You can fight it, but you can't just ignore it anymore than you can ignore an incoming fleet.

The addition of the favor system to the Galactic UN is definitely a step in the right direction. We have the makings of diplomatic combat. The problem is that it looks like it still comes down to war to enforce the UN's demands.

We have the federation system with integrity, and the need for empires to cooperate. How do we enforce compliance with the federation's demands? We haven't been told how, but I imagine it's going to come down to war.

I do hope that we can jockey for control of the galactic market!

So war is going to be an enforcement mechanism for militarist run GCs almost certainly lol.

However, in the case of other ethics dominating, if the bonuses of being in the GC are cumulatively comparable or better than, say, a Fanatic Purifier, getting sanctioned would not be a very enjoyable experience and leaving the GC would be akin to changing your FP ethics to survive. Ok, maybe that example is too extreme, but you can see where I’m going here, no?

 

[Pointyearedgit]

Hey, don't get me wrong, map painting is pretty tedious too when none of the star systems feel particularly special and each war is just adding another sesquillion tonnes of burning hydrogen to your pile of stars.
But at least map-painting scratches the itch that CKII and EUIV classically-conditioned into me.
I'm a rat in a Skinner Box, fair enough. But you don't even get that satisfaction, wtf r u doin guy?

I do enjoy a good map painting now and then, but some of us also want to paint the map with our diplomatic influence . The kind of ppl that want to be the Habsburgs puppet-mastering european politics from Iceland. Sometimes that’s the itch I want to scratch.

 

[DrNukeLear]

I do hope that we can jockey for control of the galactic market!

So war is going to be an enforcement mechanism for militarist run GCs almost certainly lol.

However, in the case of other ethics dominating, if the bonuses of being in the GC are cumulatively comparable or better than, say, a Fanatic Purifier, getting sanctioned would not be a very enjoyable experience and leaving the GC would be akin to changing your FP ethics to survive. Ok, maybe that example is too extreme, but you can see where I’m going here, no?

Hopefully there will be a variety of sanctions the community can deploy. For example the following spring to mind:

• Reduced diplomatic weight for 10 years.
• Banned from voting in the community.
• Increase trade costs in the market,
• Closed borders between you and all community members.
• A fine or other financial penalty.
• Reduced naval capacity.
• All envoys are returned home.
• Removal from the galactic council.

As you can see war is not the only thing you can resort to.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Well, thats the worst-case scenario solution. We know "sanctions" exist, so... there are steps that can be taken to try to influence an uncooperative empire before it comes to war.

The question is: will these sanctions directly take away an empire's Resources, Board Position, or Build Options? Or will they just make the target less able to defend these things in a subsequent war?

Unless sanctions lead directly to riots, coups, secessionist revolts, dead pops, subversive apocalypse cults, defecting fleets and starbases, plagues, crazy mad scientists, ruined buildings, destroyed planetary ecosystems or the like, then they are an accessory to war.

If sanctions in turn make it easier to forcefully take things from an empire through diplomacy, cultural power, or economic power alone, then they are not just an accessory to war.

But if the only way to take things from an empire that has been sanctioned is to jump them, then they are.

 

[The Founder]

My concern is that they're showing off the fancy new stuff before the fundamental reworks, the exact opposite of what happened in the dev diaries leading up to 2.2. This makes me worried that the reason for this is because there isn't much of a fundamental rework coming. It's something I very much hope I am wrong about.

You did not answer the question. Wich was hard, given that it was a Yes/No - but please with expanation - Question.

If I understand you right, the information wich parts are actually in the DLC have no impact on you complaining about there being too much in the DLC/not enough in the free patch. Wich is exactly why we do not take you seriously.
If I understood you wrong, please correct me.

I'm looking forward to news on your efforts to improve late-game performance and the AI.

Then you need to stop looking into the wrong direction:
"We are always working on late-game performance and the AI".

This is of course entirely dependent on diplomacy being as powerful as war. Which it almost certainly won't be, because strategy games are never ever like that and players will just scream about how "gamey" it is to have things like trade deficits and political corruption in a game about trade and politics. Realistically, diplomacy is going to be weak window dressing around the war system. Just like Research and Unity are fundamentally about how hurty your ships are and how effectively you can produce them.

If you mean "powerfull" as in a Game Mechanic? Potentially more powerfull, as it would be hard for anyone to go up against a united Galaxy.
Powerfull as a tool of Emergent Storytelling? There justt he teased mechanics already beat Warfare.. There are only so many noteworthy things that happen in warfare (capturing a important System, large battles).

To really offer options other than war, we would need crises that can't be solved with war.

Plagues are an obvious example. You can shoot your way out of WW1. You can't shoot your way out of the Spanish Flu.

The concepts of "Quarantine" and "Purge" would beg to differ

But what such a mechanic missed, was a way for the Galactic Community to combat it. Like a Emergency Resolution starting a help Operation
The Emergency System in Civ 6: Gathering Storm is actually close to what you want.
And it's Mechanics are also in the Shared Quests of the Endless Series.

And, repeat after me: Stellaris already has arbitrarily-acquirable CBs on demand, so providing another one doesn't actually do anything

1st Resolution: "All Warfare without GC approved CB's is against GC Law."
2nd Resolution: "Everyone violating GC Law can be attacked with a GC approved Casus Beli and has relationship penalties/sanctions applied to them."

Please repeat after me:
"The it is not now, so it will never be argument is stupid."

Hey, don't get me wrong, map painting is pretty tedious too when none of the star systems feel particularly special and each war is just adding another sesquillion tonnes of burning hydrogen to your pile of stars.
But at least map-painting scratches the itch that CKII and EUIV classically-conditioned into me.
I'm a rat in a Skinner Box, fair enough. But you don't even get that satisfaction, wtf r u doin guy?

1. I am smarter then a rat
2. I am not in a skinner box. As if I was, being smarter then a Rat I could easily escape
3. Why on earth would you reduce CK or EU to "map painting simulators"? With Hearts of Iron I can understand it. But the others are all about Emergent Storytelling. And have so many additional mechanics.

 

[Foefaller]

Hey, don't get me wrong, map painting is pretty tedious too when none of the star systems feel particularly special and each war is just adding another sesquillion tonnes of burning hydrogen to your pile of stars.
But at least map-painting scratches the itch that CKII and EUIV classically-conditioned into me.
I'm a rat in a Skinner Box, fair enough. But you don't even get that satisfaction, wtf r u doin guy?

At the moment, I'm setting everything up so my primary species can live in great ecuminopoli, sustained by the countless thrall worlds where the conquered toil for the glory of their masters. Noone's food yet, but there's some cheeky Fox Fanatical Purifiers that look tasty.

This is one of my more violent playthroughs though. Last one I was a Lithoid Megacorp and Fed president using the free fed fleet my fellow fed members were building for me as meatshield to try and kill all the leviathans while I also built all the megastructures, until the lag got so bad that even that was no longer amusing enough.

I'm also extremely OCD about allowing the AI do any sort of automation, so I tend to constantly jump around building districts or buildings to accommodate new pops. Some might find that tedious to no end, but I can do that sort of macro work all day and almost never get bored of it.

...and it's not like every game I'm Inward Perfection building up in my little corner of the Galaxy (unless I'm exploiting Chosen One's forced civics change to become conquering slavers near the end of the midgame) But roflstomping AI that can't keep up with me is just no fun. Don't usually play higher difficulties though; current one is the hardest setting I've tried in a while, no scaling, and It's kept the fighting entertaining long enough that I should be in control of at least a quarter of a large galaxy before I'm left to amuse myself with my RP min/maxing waiting for Khans or Tempests or AEs or Crises.

 

[Methone]

You did not answer the question. Wich was hard, given that it was a Yes/No - but please with expanation - Question.

What yes or no question? You asked me if you had misunderstood and to correct you if you had. And I said that you did, and then corrected you; ie did exactly what you asked. If you asked me a yes/no, I missed it.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

If you mean "powerfull" as in a Game Mechanic? Potentially more powerfull, as it would be hard for anyone to go up against a united Galaxy.

Go up against them . . . in war.

Powerfull as a tool of Emergent Storytelling? There justt he teased mechanics already beat Warfare.. There are only so many noteworthy things that happen in warfare (capturing a important System, large battles).

Emergent storytelling can be grafted onto any game. Roleplaying the personality of your shoe in Monopoly doesn't mean that mechanics exist to support it. Can you win the game by talking about how your shoe finds love, starts an orphanage for abandoned shoes, becomes a national hero and gets a holiday dedicated to its name? The answer is no. All that matters is how much property your shoe acquires.

To the extent that this a game about building and maintaining empires and teams of empires:

• Do you have means of building capacity for victory types other than war?
• Can you defend this capacity through means other than war?
• Do you have means of taking or suborning this capacity from other empires besides war?

Manipulating other empires to war on your behalf doesn't count. All that means is that you can use diplomacy to enhance war.

If the answer to these questions is no, then it is a wargame with a bunch of accessory systems.

The concepts of "Quarantine" and "Purge" would beg to differ

But what such a mechanic missed, was a way for the Galactic Community to combat it. Like a Emergency Resolution starting a help Operation
The Emergency System in Civ 6: Gathering Storm is actually close to what you want.
And it's Mechanics are also in the Shared Quests of the Endless Series.

Every single one of these except the Religious one is resolved through war.

We do know that you can use the UN to rally the galaxy to cooperate on defeating the existing crises.

Crises that attack you with ships. In war. Which you defeat. Through war.

 

[Fulgrymm]

The heavy war slant makes sense, given Paradox's history with war games. It is limiting in some respects, but they're trying.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

The heavy war slant makes sense, given Paradox's history with war games. It is limiting in some respects, but they're trying.

After the Rhyse and Fall mod for Civ4, I concluded that no 4x had any excuse for failing to model non-military threats. Ecological devastation, public health emergencies, and cascading political collapse should be standard in any game that claims to feature habitability, population management, and internal politics.

If you want a good example of what a toothful diplomacy system would look like, check out Diplomatic Negotiation - Diplomacy 3.0. You wouldn't have to change a damn thing about the war system to integrate it.

 

[Monturiol]

1st Resolution: "All Warfare without GC approved CB's is against GC Law."
2nd Resolution: "Everyone violating GC Law can be attacked with a GC approved Casus Beli and has relationship penalties/sanctions applied to them."

Everyone can already be attacked with a causus belli, and the approval/disapproval of your neighbours doesn't matter because they always already hate you anyway due to the oppositional-ideology-neighbour-spawn algirithm, so you have changed literally nothing in practice[/QUOTE]

Please repeat after me:
"The it is not now, so it will never be argument is stupid."

Hey if you don't wanna use the past as implicative of the future then that's on you. I know it's not stupid.

1. I am smarter then a rat
2. I am not in a skinner box. As if I was, being smarter then a Rat I could easily escape
3. Why on earth would you reduce CK or EU to "map painting simulators"? With Hearts of Iron I can understand it. But the others are all about Emergent Storytelling. And have so many additional mechanics.

I think you have missed the point of my analogy. I was doing the opposite of maligning CKII or EUIV. In the sense that "At least if you make external war in Stellaris you're following in the tradition of two good Paradox games. If you don't make war idk what you are doing".

...and it's not like every game I'm Inward Perfection building up in my little corner of the Galaxy (unless I'm exploiting Chosen One's forced civics change to become conquering slavers near the end of the midgame) But roflstomping AI that can't keep up with me is just no fun.

I think we're going to have to agree to disagree. Tailoring my race for internal optimisation is so boring I'd just turn the game off. Meanwhile, roflstomping an AI that can't keep up with me is great fun.

 

[Verx90]

Everyone can already be attacked with a causus belli, and the approval/disapproval of your neighbours doesn't matter because they always already hate you anyway due to the oppositional-ideology-neighbour-spawn algirithm, so you have changed literally nothing in practice

[/QUOTE]

wut? ... you know, random its random ... in all our example possible, its nothing but logic for anyone to be "threatened" by a rapidly and aggressive expansion of a neighbor , and by "affirming theyr hate" they find frineds in the target of theyr hatred , its what sprone diplomacy in the first place .

if you start asap to expand via war, i'm not surprise evryone around you will hate you. its kinda logic and normal .
i played some games, and when i don't want to go "full warlike" i always find friends and enemy at the start . and is cute that xenophobe are pushed to have non-aggression patcs , if they are not militaristic , so xenophobe empires are the easyer to make friend in early . if there are some other empires .

but if you start the game and see a -10 in relationship with someone as "impossible to befriend" then yes, evryone hates you and is out for your head. i mean, only fanatic xenophile and identical ideology will ever like you when they meet you .

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Everyone can already be attacked with a causus belli, and the approval/disapproval of your neighbours doesn't matter because they always already hate you anyway due to the oppositional-ideology-neighbour-spawn algirithm, so you have changed literally nothing in practice

My neightbours don't always hate me. I have regularly swayed aggressive neighbours to be more friendly, even managed to get them into a Federation.

Your statements are provably false.

 

[Monturiol]

My neightbours don't always hate me. I have regularly swayed aggressive neighbours to be more friendly, even managed to get them into a Federation.

I do not believe you.

Opposite-ideology malus is too strong to overcome, absent some sort of play-on-Cadet-and-send-them-3K-alloys-a-month strategy.

 

[Methone]

My neightbours don't always hate me. I have regularly swayed aggressive neighbours to be more friendly, even managed to get them into a Federation.

Your statements are provably false.

I do not believe you.

Opposite-ideology malus is too strong to overcome, absent some sort of play-on-Cadet-and-send-them-3K-alloys-a-month strategy.

No, I can back her up. +Favorable Trade can go up to +100, so it can overcome a LOT, especially if compounded with Mutual Rivals. And you only need to do it one big trade to get your foot in the door.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

No, I can back her up. +Favorable Trade can go up to +100, so it can overcome a LOT, especially if compounded with Mutual Rivals. And you only need to do it one big trade to get your foot in the door.

Exactly. "Opposite Ideology" maluses have never been strong enough to totally diplo-lock me. I think the last time nothing I did mattered with an otherwise normal empire was when I was trying to get some Honorbound Warriors friendly enough to have them join a Federation, but their personality type tacked an extra -100 willingness on top of the rest and it was too much to surmount.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

Exactly. "Opposite Ideology" maluses have never been strong enough to totally diplo-lock me. I think the last time nothing I did mattered with an otherwise normal empire was when I was trying to get some Honorbound Warriors friendly enough to have them join a Federation, but their personality type tacked an extra -100 willingness on top of the rest and it was too much to surmount.

Honestly, you usually don't even need gifts, in my experience, if you're willing to only be friends with some of your neighbors. See who the empires around you are rivaling, and rival them too (if necessary, trade for contacts before their opinion penalty sets in and they're unwilling to trade). If there's a genocidal in the area, it's easy; mutual rivals + mutual threat will solve that handily. Some empire types are zealous enough that it'll take extreme measures to get them to ally (you can get a Democratic Crusader and slaving monarchist to make nice, but only if something else is really scaring the shit out of them), but usually it's not that hard to find potential friends. Cultivate them - avoid claiming border systems if you can, tweak your policies if there's anything the really dislike, keep borders open as much as possible, and most importantly make nice with their friends and rival their enemies - and you can usually manage to get a NAP without ever making an imbalanced (by the AI's standards) trade. Once you've got a NAP, you can usually escalate it to other kinds of treaty (migration is one of the best; it costs no influence, has a substantial trust cap, and if your species aren't mutually habitable it gives you access to more planets without worrying about their shitty, random-traits morons breeding on your main colonies).

 

[The Founder]

Go up against them . . . in war.

Or Diplomacy.
It does not mater how much war potential you have, if you can not go up against all other empires.
If their defense pact is too powerfull and their Sanctions cripply your industry, it never comes to a war.

There is a reason Genocidal Empires have such massive bonuses. And they offset the part where you have to fight the entire Galactic Community.

Every single one of these except the Religious one is resolved through war.

We do know that you can use the UN to rally the galaxy to cooperate on defeating the existing crises.

Crises that attack you with ships. In war. Which you defeat. Through war.

????
I have no idea if you even talk about the Endless series or Civ 6 mechanics. Becaue for both, it is equally wrong.

Please specify.

My neightbours don't always hate me. I have regularly swayed aggressive neighbours to be more friendly, even managed to get them into a Federation.

Your statements are provably false.

I do not believe you.

Opposite-ideology malus is too strong to overcome, absent some sort of play-on-Cadet-and-send-them-3K-alloys-a-month strategy.

+100 Shared Rival. Maybe some shared threat or a Guarantee Independance. Done.

Your believing is entirely unessesary. This is a observable and prooveable fact.
And really only shows that you are fanatic incapable of accepting other viewpoints. Wich is a large reason people do not take you seriously.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Or Diplomacy.
It does not mater how much war potential you have, if you can not go up against all other empires.

. . . because combined, they have more war potential.

Unless diplomacy is about more than just uniting militaries, it is an accessory to the war system. You're using diplomacy to get more ships to fight a war, and not as an alternative to war.

You can function in the game through pure military power, without diplomacy. Can you function without a military, and just diplomacy? Getting allies to fight a war doesn't count because you're still doing the same thing, you're just acquiring your ships through means other than alloy production.

If their defense pact is too powerfull and their Sanctions cripply your industry, it never comes to a war.

Defensive pacts are about using diplomacy to enhance war. This is a straightforward case of exactly what I'm talking about.

Sanctions have the potential to be different, I'll grant. These can directly deny Resources and Build Options to the target. But based on the current state of the game, they're probably going to take the form of pitifully weak modifiers like "-10% to mineral production" or "+15% fleet upkeep".

If they were harsh enough to directly cause political collapse on par with losing a bunch of planets in war, then sanctions would be a powerful alternative to war.

But it looks like it has to come down to war, in the final analysis. Everything else is just about setting you up to win that war.

There is a reason Genocidal Empires have such massive bonuses. And they offset the part where you have to fight the entire Galactic Community.

Fight them . . . in war.

I see nothing about using the UN to, say, bombard that Fanatical Purifier with subversive peace memes until their populace paralyzes their industry with a general strike. Or jointly fund a research project to hack that Determined Exterminator's Gibson and cause their drones to de-cohere.

Maybe that's outside the scope of the UN, but if we don't have a means of doing that somewhere in the game mechanics then it all comes down to prepping for war.

????
I have no idea if you even talk about the Endless series or Civ 6 mechanics. Becaue for both, it is equally wrong.

Please specify.

Here are the Civ 6 Emergencies:

Military Emergency

• Cause: A civilization that is leading in some victory type has just conquered another civilization's city.
• Resolution: The Members must capture cities from the Target. This can only be done through war.

City-State Emergency

• Cause: A civilization has captured and is occupying a city-state.
• Resolution: The Members must liberate the city-state. This can only be done through war.

Religious Emergency

• Cause: A civilization has converted the Holy City of another Religion through a Religious Spread action.
• Resolution: The Members must convert the Holy City away from its new Religion, for a number of turns, before the Emergency expires. This CANNOT be done through war.

Nuclear Emergency

• Cause: A civilization has used a nuclear weapon.
• Resolution: The Members must capture cities from the Target. This can only be done through war.

Betrayal Emergency

• Cause: A civilization has declared war on another civilization, with whom they had a high-level Alliance.
• Resolution: The Members must capture cities from the Target. This can only be done through war.

Every single emergency besides the religious one is both instigated and solved through war, and war alone. Civs that fight them get military bonuses. They also get diplomatic bonuses, but the only use for these is to make it easier to work together when fighting the inevitable war.

 

[Sir Roderick]

Agreed. Going over your manpower limit could instead give some sort of nerfs to your ship damage and such, so you can't just easily go over it and take the upkeep hit. Especially in the late game when you have more than enough energy/alloys from focusing on production so much, that going over the cap doesn't mean anything anymore. Some technologies could reduce this hit (like sapient combat computer, maybe it could passively run part of a ship, reducing the need for manpower), but it's something you need to plan for. Fortresses could give bonus manpower instead of naval cap, so could anchorages, but there could be other things. Like passive AI systems (maybe an equivalent for Psonics/Bio-Ascension, idk).


Yeah, the added benefit would be that the devs would need another way of making ally's, or keeping Empires at bay, which I hope things like Envoys could be (or are being?) expanded into. Gifts should be just that, gifts. Maybe they could allow you to get minor deals, and get your foot in the door. But you shouldn't be able to dump a bunch of alloys and some of your strategic resource stockpile on them, before getting every available agreement.


In case you haven't seen it: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/making-strategic-resources-strategic.1269918/

Manpower? This isn't EU4, Earth starts with 8 billion people in 2200, the text in game says Citadels have a few thousand at best of people, so why would manpower be a problem for an interplanetary empire with some planets?

Considering the game relies on an FTL system to get ships from system to system, what if the FTL drive itself had a special fuel resource? Like the user above mentioned space oil. If you are out of FTL juice your ships can't leave any system. So you can build as many ships as you have alloys but your fleet operations have logistics attached. I like this idea better than manpower.

Heck, kill two birds with one stone. Larger ships have increasingly larger 'space oil' requirements so sending a battleship has more cost than the equivalent fleet-power of, say, destroyers. Break up the mono-battleship late-game fleets due to logistics concerns unless you got space-oil out the wazoo.

Speehs oil? Except that reactor clearly go on fission, then fusion, then cold fusion, then antimatter, zeropoint energy and then dark matter, so at least the last 3 shouldn't have any problems since they are creating energy ex nihilo (maybe not the antimatter one but the zeropoint and dark matter reactor definetely create energy ex nihilo).