Stellaris Dev Diary #159 - Galactic Community

[Flyte95]

1. Galactic Hub Nominations are silly and really need a rework. It shouldn't be based on random chance with the planetary decision giving you a random boost to the random chance... that just feels horrible and sloppy... like temporary code put in place to make it look fully functional until you got a working system in the game that actually uses trade value or diplomatic weight... now that both exist it'd be nice to use them and not random numbers.

What a nice description of Stellaris code since 2.2

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

Will (non-killer) xenophobes have a reason to join?

 

[Omniscient]

Will (non-killer) xenophobes have a reason to join?

It's a prime opportunity to insult everyone.

 

[Verx90]

Will (non-killer) xenophobes have a reason to join?

xenophobe have very different form, but the main " pure" xenophobe want to have nothing to do with otherspecies , not even war , thats why they push for non-aggression pacts all around the place .

i would say that they would probably don't like the joining of a GC , but they would come to the logical solution that joining the GC would increase chance of non-aggression than stayng outside of it .

naturaly , evrything changes when the GC start to make laws that go against the ideology of xenophobe ( for example IF there are decision to force all GC members to have treaty of migrations, or perpetual open borders .)

 

[Pale Blue]

Real quick, I just want to throw in my huge support for bureaucrats.

I don't completely understand the animosity towards them, and I'm glad there's some affirmation that's still going to be a thing. I've never liked mechanics that cap your expansion, especially via arbitrary penalties you can't do anything about, in a 4x game. That's part of the appeal of this game - expansion. If I want to play wide, I can now invest in playing wide. I can be absurd and dump an insane amount of effort into increasing my bureaucratic power so I can be the Russia in space. I have the choice to do that now, rather than waiting patiently for repeatable techs with escalating costs (by that point, the AI is gobbling up all the free space anyways), or being extremely choosy on which systems or which direction I expand in because I'll be limited (in other words, omit the expansion in 4x), or I just landgrab and grit my teeth through the anti-fun penalties. I understand the POINT of the penalty is balance but that's not creating meaningful choices to me. That's just forcing me to play wide-to-a-point (ultimately forcing me to be tall; Civ V all over again, basically).

What's the problem with bureaucrats? Micromanagement? If you're going wide, you're gonna' micromanage somewhat anyways. Or if you don't micromanage, you're playing like you don't care anyways, so it won't much affect you. Is the concern imbalance for tall? You don't have to waste your workforce on what is basically a negligible job for you. Your play style isn't impacted at all really. So what's the problem?

I like the general idea, but from what we have seen so far pops are a major Contribution to sprawl. It doesn't matter if you put them on a few planets or dozens. But a wide empire would have a lot more building slots to produce bureaucrat jobs to lower the penalty. Currently there is the fear that the pop contribution is too large compared to other sprawl sources like system count. But we don't know a lot about bureaucrats yet. Maybe there is a way for tall empires to create a lot of bureaucrat jobs on city worlds or letting clerks produce administrative power.

 

[Hugh Mann]

How will the AI handle this? Will it understand that if it is in breach of galactic law it will have #TODO something about it?

 

[Col. W. T. Philmore]

How will the AI handle this? Will it understand that if it is in breach of galactic law it will have #TODO something about it?

AI will be too busy trying to keep economic mess together and shuffling pops, and will not even bother.

 

[DrFranknfurter]

Except that being the galactic market hub just gives a 10% reduction in market fee. It has no other effect, other than RP.

Also, see history:
Amsterdam stock exchange
Timbuktu
Probably others but I'm not a history professor.

It is not uncommon for tiny or otherwise inconsequential places to become hubs of trade for various reasons. The free market does what it wills.

I think there are two important points here:
1. 10% reduction is not a small, inconsequential thing only important for roleplay. It's the biggest single bonus to a stat that cannot be boosted by technology, ascension perks, pops, edicts, buildings etc. The only other reductions come from: one -10% from traditions for some empires but not all empires, -5% from leader agenda for some authority types and -5% from the trader enclave starbase building with a max of 3 of those if you cover the entire galaxy and all the enclaves are yours. Only the tradition bonus isn't random. And 10% vs 20% reductions in costs on trades of thousands of alloys/food/minerals is an absolutely massive amount over the course of the game.

2. The real life examples aren't random.
Amsterdam stock exchange was "established in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company" i.e. it's a megacorp planet in Stellaris terms.
Timbuktu, the city of gold, "wealth and very existence of Timbuktu depended on its position as the southern terminus of an important trans-Saharan trade route", "Timbuktu flourished from the trade in salt, gold, ivory, and slaves"... in Stellaris terms it was a slaver empire (slavery policy enabled) with lots of trade value coming from naturally existing space deposits (salt, gold, ivory)... small population count but high trade value.

The real-life equivalent would be nominating a place with no imports, exports or trade at all as a market hub (by throwing a dart at the map and having a 2.78% chance of hitting Antarctica based on random chance, or % of earth surface covered). I imagine there are examples where something similar was indeed done for political or strategic reasons and that would be interesting to read about all the details... but in the game it would only be done because there was a lottery and a 1-planet primitive won, not for the complex reasons in real life.
A quote from the wiki on it:
"Note that despite not having made any nominations, empires E, F, G, and H still have a chance to win the Galactic Market nomination. Also note that despite having only met one other empire, empire H may still win the Galactic Market nomination and if empire H were to win then only empires B and H could utilize the Galactic Market until additional empires met empire H."
That's how extremely silly it can be currently.

Suggestion:
I would rather use diplomatic weight to do the nomination but have the weight modified by empire trade value.

If you have the highest trade value then you have the highest modifier to your diplomatic weight, all other things being equal, then you have the highest diplomatic weight and win the hub (unless another empire is just ridiculously stronger than you in every other value). A small, unknown, tall empire could still easily get the galactic hub - they would just push for more clerks in the 7+ years before the resolution, increasing their "diplomatic weight from empire trade value" modifier. They'd convert a few starbases to trade collection and make a few commercial pacts, build some commerce buildings etc. But a race that doesn't trade wouldn't get it randomly without being good at something (really high diplomatic weight from pops, tech, fleet power etc. or pulling in favors) and you'd be able to see the race to win the prize on the galactic community screen, so it wouldn't be as unsatisfyingly random.

 

[Edorath]

What did you expect? you killed billions and/or just doomed them to be permanently trapped inside the shield, people aren’t going to let that go easily.

 

[Commandante]

So does each Federation have their own Galactic Community, or is it the same Community for the entire galaxy (potentially encompassing several Federations)?

 

[Ikael]

Another great Developer Diary! You guys are on a winning streak!

Ok, time to analyze it:

- I really like how every single resolution has drawbacks. We need more of these at every level *eyes civics* Only thing is that I would make resolution's maluses and bonuses even meatier (as in, at least twice times stronger), but otherwise seems like a really good mechanic
- Love to see how we will get new systems without the paid DLC, such as the Galactic Community. Great!
- "Guardian angels"? Is that a new resolution focusing on pre-FTL civilizations and primitives? I wonder...
- Some kind of environmentalism mechanic sounds awesome (watches "Natural sanctuaries" resolution closely)
- The thing that I like the most about all of this is that now xenophiles and pacifists might get their time under the sun. Increased diplomatic weight, extra envoys or increased votes from favours look like really appropriate bonuses for their themes
- With this whole diplomacy rework, Stellaris is just one Leader and internecine politics rework away from having the best spy system of its genre
- The whole "favour" system is intriguing, but then again it mostly benefits bigger players. Diplomacy is a wonderful opportunity for making small empires punch above their weight, don't waste this chance, please!

 

[Mr Thursday]

Another great Developer Diary! You guys are on a winning streak!

The Dev Diaries for MegaCorp were great too, and that is still an unfinished bug ridden mess.

 

[Ikael]

The Dev Diaries for MegaCorp were great too, and that is still an unfinished bug ridden mess.

You all sound very positive and constructive.

 

[Edorath]

You all sound very positive and constructive.

I mean they do have a point. 2.2 sounded great but ended being a buggy mess. Sure, Paradox may be owning to it and this update seems to be far more fleshed out and ready to go, but i can understand people being afraid of another rushed christmas build, especially seeing how everything points at it being released around the same date.

 

[amm015]

Galactic Council
It is possible to reform the Galactic Community to include a Galactic Council. The council will be composed of a number of empires with the highest Diplomatic Weight. By default, the council will have 3 members, but the number can be changed through Resolutions.

And the REPUBLIC will be REORGANIZED.. into the FIRST. GALACTIC. EMPIRE. For a more safe, and secure society.

 

[Mr Thursday]

You all sound very positive and constructive.

It's easy to make a fine speech, it's implementation that counts. And for the last 12 months implementation has been lacking.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Will (non-killer) xenophobes have a reason to join?

I don't see why not. It gives them a chance to decide on galactic policy, which may very well include proposals like Stay Out Of Your Neighbour's Yard or Legalize Slavery.

 

[Valentin Vattista]

I think there are two important points here:
1. 10% reduction is not a small, inconsequential thing only important for roleplay. It's the biggest single bonus to a stat that cannot be boosted by technology, ascension perks, pops, edicts, buildings etc. The only other reductions come from: one -10% from traditions for some empires but not all empires, -5% from leader agenda for some authority types and -5% from the trader enclave starbase building with a max of 3 of those if you cover the entire galaxy and all the enclaves are yours. Only the tradition bonus isn't random. And 10% vs 20% reductions in costs on trades of thousands of alloys/food/minerals is an absolutely massive amount over the course of the game.

2. The real life examples aren't random.
Amsterdam stock exchange was "established in 1602 by the Dutch East India Company" i.e. it's a megacorp planet in Stellaris terms.
Timbuktu, the city of gold, "wealth and very existence of Timbuktu depended on its position as the southern terminus of an important trans-Saharan trade route", "Timbuktu flourished from the trade in salt, gold, ivory, and slaves"... in Stellaris terms it was a slaver empire (slavery policy enabled) with lots of trade value coming from naturally existing space deposits (salt, gold, ivory)... small population count but high trade value.

The real-life equivalent would be nominating a place with no imports, exports or trade at all as a market hub (by throwing a dart at the map and having a 2.78% chance of hitting Antarctica based on random chance, or % of earth surface covered). I imagine there are examples where something similar was indeed done for political or strategic reasons and that would be interesting to read about all the details... but in the game it would only be done because there was a lottery and a 1-planet primitive won, not for the complex reasons in real life.
A quote from the wiki on it:
"Note that despite not having made any nominations, empires E, F, G, and H still have a chance to win the Galactic Market nomination. Also note that despite having only met one other empire, empire H may still win the Galactic Market nomination and if empire H were to win then only empires B and H could utilize the Galactic Market until additional empires met empire H."
That's how extremely silly it can be currently.

Suggestion:
I would rather use diplomatic weight to do the nomination but have the weight modified by empire trade value.

If you have the highest trade value then you have the highest modifier to your diplomatic weight, all other things being equal, then you have the highest diplomatic weight and win the hub (unless another empire is just ridiculously stronger than you in every other value). A small, unknown, tall empire could still easily get the galactic hub - they would just push for more clerks in the 7+ years before the resolution, increasing their "diplomatic weight from empire trade value" modifier. They'd convert a few starbases to trade collection and make a few commercial pacts, build some commerce buildings etc. But a race that doesn't trade wouldn't get it randomly without being good at something (really high diplomatic weight from pops, tech, fleet power etc. or pulling in favors) and you'd be able to see the race to win the prize on the galactic community screen, so it wouldn't be as unsatisfyingly random.

Not to forget that Amsterdam was both a natural harbor with a larger capacity than any other harbor on the continent whatsoever, and the dutch were still a major (naval) power back then. Timbuktu was not only on top of a trade route, but also became a part of Mali in during the 14th and 15th century, which at that point was the wealthiest country in existance. One of its rulers, Mansa Musa, is still the richest person to have ever lived.

Simply because both of these cities seem somewhat unimportant today doesn't mean they never were. Another example is Naples, which used to be europe's largest city until like the 16th century, and was still te third largest city of the world in 1848.

 

[brbonfire]

I have no doubt that the AI will work with the Council and Community. The devs will simply assign weights based on ethics, favoured policies and government types, including a weight to leave the council if enough "bad" things happen. That should be simple enough.

...Unfortunately, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have a feeling that the actual effects of the community, council and federations upon the economy will not be so kind to the AI. Will an AI empire hit rock bottom harder than before to satisfy the council if its weights say it shouldn't leave? Will an AI empire set itself up so that only the bonuses from a precarious federation leave it held together, resulting in catastrophe? Will militarists bankrupt themselves with things like Military readiness? I have a sinking feeling that the answer to all those questions is yes.

 

[GnoSIS]

I have no doubt that the AI will work with the Council and Community. The devs will simply assign weights based on ethics, favoured policies and government types, including a weight to leave the council if enough "bad" things happen. That should be simple enough.

...Unfortunately, and at the risk of sounding like a broken record, I have a feeling that the actual effects of the community, council and federations upon the economy will not be so kind to the AI. Will an AI empire hit rock bottom harder than before to satisfy the council if its weights say it shouldn't leave? Will an AI empire set itself up so that only the bonuses from a precarious federation leave it held together, resulting in catastrophe? Will militarists bankrupt themselves with things like Military readiness? I have a sinking feeling that the answer to all those questions is yes.

Makking choices based only on weights has severe limits. If empires can't combo decisions and have plans, agendas and memory, then AI is not AI but just a bunch of rigid pre-determined choices. Hence why the player gains a significant advantage in the game as time passes by. This is evident on most PDX titles I've seen and played.