• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #162 - New Diplomatic Features

Hello everyone!

Today we thought we’d talk about some of the smaller changes coming to diplomacy with the free 2.6 update. Although the Galactic Community and the reworked federations are sure to have a large impact on galactic diplomacy, it's also important to talk about the smaller things!

Envoys
One of the more important things we’ve added are the Envoys. Envoys function very similar to Diplomats in EU4, and they are required for certain diplomatic actions such as:
  • Improve / Harm Relations – it is now possible to send an Envoy to improve or harm relations which can affect Opinion by up to (-400 / +400 ). More on Opinion and Relations later.
  • Assigned to Federation (to increase monthly Cohesion by +1)
  • Assigned to Galactic Community (to increase Diplomatic Weight)
upload_2019-11-28_10-28-45.png upload_2019-11-28_10-29-6.png upload_2019-11-28_10-29-20.png

Although Envoys are characters, they do not currently have any character-mechanics such as traits. We didn’t think it would be fun to have to micromanage and switch Envoys around to better fit certain jobs depending on their traits.

Diplomacy Interface Updates
We’ve finally gotten around to give a bunch of diplomacy-related interfaces a facelift! First up, let’s talk a little about the general diplomacy screen.

You are now able to more clearly see things such as Civics, Origins, Relative Power breakdowns, your ongoing diplomatic agreements, and also the new diplomatic stances!

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-2.png

This Hegemonic subordinate was kind enough to act as a model for the new diplo screen!

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-30.png

Declaring rivalry never looked so appealing.

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-57.png

The diplomatic offers are now a bit more clear on what is going on (not final text). A downside, however, is that it's now much harder to fool colleagues into becoming your vassal in our internal multiplayer sessions.

Diplomatic Stances
Sometimes we like concept that our colleagues have put into some of our other games, and the diplomatic stances from Imperator: Rome were a good example. Although not exactly the same, we like the general idea. We wanted empires to be able to set a diplomatic stance that dictates their behaviour towards other empires on a galactic stage.

upload_2019-11-28_10-31-19.png

Diplomatic Stances are Policies and can be changed once every 10 years. There are a bunch of different stances, and some may also be unique to certain empire types (e.g. Isolationist is called Mercantile for Megacorporations).

upload_2019-11-28_10-32-17.png upload_2019-11-28_10-32-7.png upload_2019-11-28_10-31-55.png upload_2019-11-28_10-31-37.png upload_2019-11-28_10-32-27.png

Stances are designed to be quite different, and to facilitate different playstyles. Perceptive readers might notice that the Belligerent stance seems very similar to Supremacist, and that is true, except that Supremacist stance is designed for all empires that want to be “a big player”. Supremacist empires will dislike other empires with the same stance, so it is almost like a soft rivalry of sorts.

Stances also have some effect on internal politics, as some of your factions may have certain preferences when it comes to your foreign policy.

Relations and Opinion
We wanted an easier way to measure how the diplomatic relations between two empires is doing, so we’ve added a new aggregate value called Relations. Relations exists in different levels ranging from Terrible <- Tense <- Neutral -> Positive -> Excellent, and they do have an effect on which type of diplomatic actions that are available.

We want diplomacy to be less fickle, and more mechanical. Players should now have more ability to influence what other empires’ opinions are of them. Overall diplomacy should feel less static and more prone to evolving over time.

Form Federation requires Excellent Relations, and pacts like Migrations, Research or Commercial require Positive Relations. Similarly, Rivalries require Terrible Relations. This is also the case in player-to-player diplomacy, so it’s important to maintain a good standing.

Some of these restrictions can be bypassed by having an Envoy to harm or improve relations.

upload_2019-11-28_10-32-53.png

Favors
Finally we want to talk about Favors. Although Favors were primarily added to give players agency within the Galactic Community, they can also be used to influence the AIs likelihood of accepting certain diplomatic agreements.

upload_2019-11-28_10-33-11.png

Favors is a new mechanic that allows you to increase your Diplomatic Weight for certain votes or proposals in the Galactic Community. An empire can owe another empire up to 10 Favors, and each Favor will increase Diplomatic Weight by “10%”.

For example – Empire B owes 10 Favors to Empire A. Empire A spends influence to call in all 10 Favors and adds 100% of the Diplomatic Weight that Empire B has. Empire A will add the Diplomatic Weight from Empire B, for a specific vote, without Empire B losing their Diplomatic Weight.

In effect, Favors allows an empire to manipulate vote results towards their point of view. It is not possible to Call in Favors when an empire is already voting the same way as you are. Multiple empires can call in favors from the same empire, and it's designed in this way to reduce the complexity of having to figure out which favors should have priority, or which favors should matter more.

upload_2019-11-28_10-33-30.png

Pretty please. You owe me.

In addition to the Galactic Community, Favors can also be called in to increase acceptance chance by +5 when offering certain diplomatic deals.

Favors can be gained through diplomatic trades, or or some cases randomly through events.

---

That is all for this week! Next week we’ll be back with some more details on the Juggernaut and the Mega Shipyard.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Xenophobia is believing your species is superior to others, including other species who believe they are more superior than yours
Technically xenophobia is the fear of aliens. Not necessarily the thinking one's own race is superior.

I agree with @BlackUmbrellas, Xenophobes shouldn't dislike each other less; on the contrary, they met aliens who also fear and perhaps hate them.
On the other hand, you might dislike the xenophile as well but you know they don't fear or hate, but like, you.
 
Technically xenophobia is the fear of aliens. Not necessarily the thinking one's own race is superior.
TECHNICALLY Xenophobia is the aversion to the different, not even necessarily fear.
 
TECHNICALLY Xenophobia is the aversion to the different, not even necessarily fear.

Which, TECHNICALLY, is displayed as a sense of the different being inferior to established norms, because different things are considered abhorrent or lesser than the familiar which is considered better, where xenophiles embrace differences, and are enthusiastic to learn from them.
 
I think of xenophobia like racism. If you're xenophobic, you don't like those dirty aliens and you're gonna tell some lies about them and maybe whisper some jokes when they're not around. You probably say the A-word with a hard N. But if you're fanatic xenophobic, you put on some kind of uniform to march around waving a torch and screeching about aliens not replacing you.

Neither of these groups is ever going to like an alien, even if that alien also hates aliens. They might grudgingly admit that some alien or other is "one of the good ones," but they're sure as hell never going to go help the aliens paint their community centre.
 
Technically xenophobia is the fear of aliens. Not necessarily the thinking one's own race is superior.

I agree with @BlackUmbrellas, Xenophobes shouldn't dislike each other less; on the contrary, they met aliens who also fear and perhaps hate them.
On the other hand, you might dislike the xenophile as well but you know they don't fear or hate, but like, you.

If we take real life racism as a proxy, you'll note that racial separatists of all types tend to get along better with each other than with the advocates of multiculturalism. Why might this be?

Because even though they are different races, they share similar worldviews. Each agree with the fundamental idea that groups should not mix in society/geography, at least not as full members with equal rights. While they may disagree on which of them is "better", they don't view the other side as wrong in their priorities.

The real enemy is those that don't share their world view. Another Xenophobe may hate you, but they don't want things are actively transgressive to the integrity of your race. They might try to kill you, but at least they're not trying to xeno-compatibly marry your sister and produce hybrid offspring.
 
If we take real life racism as a proxy, you'll note that racial separatists of all types tend to get along better with each other than with the advocates of multiculturalism. Why might this be?

Because even though they are different races, they share similar worldviews. Each agree with the fundamental idea that groups should not mix in society/geography, at least not as full members with equal rights. While they may disagree on which of them is "better", they don't view the other side as wrong in their priorities.

The real enemy is those that don't share their world view. Another Xenophobe may hate you, but they don't want things are actively transgressive to the integrity of your race. They might try to kill you, but at least they're not trying to xeno-compatibly marry your sister and produce hybrid offspring.
That's specifically xenophobic isolationists. Hell, even ingame isolationists will tell a xenophobic empire that they're happy to meet someone else who understands the separation of species.
 
That's specifically xenophobic isolationists. Hell, even ingame isolationists will tell a xenophobic empire that they're happy to meet someone else who understands the separation of species.

Supremacists have a similar lane-policing attitude. Aliens can't have full citizenship and should preferably be dead or slaves. The point is that they don't want an integrated society, and the advocates of one (Xenophiles) are deeply and conceptually disgusting in a way that another supremacist is not.
 
If we take real life racism as a proxy, you'll note that racial separatists of all types tend to get along better with each other than with the advocates of multiculturalism.

The Klan and the Nazis might get along better with each other than with the average citizen, but they are never going to go partner up with the Nation of Islam.

And that's within the same species.
 
Supremacists have a similar lane-policing attitude. Aliens can't have full citizenship and should preferably be dead or slaves. The point is that they don't want an integrated society, and the advocates of one (Xenophiles) are deeply and conceptually disgusting in a way that another supremacist is not.

Isn't this represented through the diplomacy bonus/malus with xenophobia and xenophile?
 
This has literally happened several times.

More accurately, it was attempted once over fifty years ago and didn't work out. I stand by my assertion: they are never going to partner up. They may be civil to one another in public or even say nice things to or about one another here and there, but they are not going to coordinate their actions in any meaningful way.
 
More accurately, it was attempted once over fifty years ago and didn't work out. I stand by my assertion: they are never going to partner up. They may be civil to one another in public or even say nice things to or about one another here and there, but they are not going to coordinate their actions in any meaningful way.

It's weird how they don't feel obliged to be "civil" or "say nice things" about xenophiles of the other side. Or their own side.

For an example of more substantive coordination, the Anti-Comintern Pact and later Tripartite Pact included both European and East Asian members. Prior to that there was the Sino-German Alliance with the Republic of China. So yes, Nazis have in fact partnered up with non-European xenophobes.

"Its desire to remain racially pure is a proof of the vitality and good health of a race. Pride in one's own race - and that does not imply contempt for other races - is also a normal and healthy sentiment. I have never regarded the Chinese or the Japanese as being inferior to ourselves. They belong to ancient civilizations, and I admit freely that their past history is superior to our own. They have the right to be proud of their past, just as we have the right to be proud of the civilization to which we belong. Indeed, I believe the more steadfast the Chinese and the Japanese remain in their pride of race, the easier I shall find it to get on with them."
- Adolph Hitler, The Political Testament of Adolph Hitler, 1945
 
Isn't this represented through the diplomacy bonus/malus with xenophobia and xenophile?

It's more or less okay as it stands. I would argue that xenophobes should have weaker penalties toward other species in general, and stronger penalties toward xenophile empires.

If you take the relationship of the Commonwealth of Man with the United Nations of Earth, they simply have no innate malus toward them, because they are also humans. It stands to reason that they should be deeply not okay with other human authorities allowing aliens to integrate into a human-majority society.

Then the day comes when the UNE adopts xeno-compatibility . . .
 
If we take real life racism as a proxy, you'll note that racial separatists of all types tend to get along better with each other than with the advocates of multiculturalism. Why might this be?

Because even though they are different races, they share similar worldviews. Each agree with the fundamental idea that groups should not mix in society/geography, at least not as full members with equal rights. While they may disagree on which of them is "better", they don't view the other side as wrong in their priorities.

The real enemy is those that don't share their world view. Another Xenophobe may hate you, but they don't want things are actively transgressive to the integrity of your race. They might try to kill you, but at least they're not trying to xeno-compatibly marry your sister and produce hybrid offspring.
Multiculturalists don't get along worse with each other than racial separatists. They just disagree more often, because unlike racial separatists, they're willing to have a conversation with each other about those disagreements. And because there are just more of them, there are more conflicting viewpoints, so you see those disagreements a lot more often. There just are not that many out-and-out racial separatists in the public conversation.

When racial separatists of different races disagree with each other, they do not have a conversation (or even an argument) about their differences. Usually they just fight each other.
 
When racial separatists of different races disagree with each other, they do not have a conversation (or even an argument) about their differences. Usually they just fight each other.

Sure, when they disagree with each other they're more likely to hit the "war"button, because they see animosity as the fundamental "truth" of the world.

But they can agree that each should stay in their own backyards. Because of that, they are prone to uniting for the purpose of backyard-policing. Supremacists at least are also not bothered by another side oppressing an alien minority, provided it's not members of their species.
 
So yes, Nazis have in fact partnered up with non-European xenophobes.

And I stand by my statement. Let me make it more clear for you.

While two specific racist/xenophobic organisations may work together, there will always be other specific racist/xenophobic organisations with which they will never work, because of the underlying nature of their racism/xenophobia.

Since it is not in any way a foregone conclusion - or even statistically likely - that because two organisations are both racist/xenophobic they have compatible forms of racism/xenophobia, it is irrational to suggest that racist/xenophobic organisations should automatically like one another more because they are racist/xenophobic.

Honestly, an example is just an example. Digging into the specifics of it because you don't like its implications is aggressively missing the point.
 
Sure, when they disagree with each other they're more likely to hit the "war"button, because they see animosity as the fundamental "truth" of the world.

But they can agree that each should stay in their own backyards. Because of that, they are prone to uniting for the purpose of backyard-policing. Supremacists at least are also not bothered by another side oppressing an alien minority, provided it's not members of their species.
They will always disagree with each other simply because of what they believe. Xenophobes are fundamentally supremacist. If group A says "we're inherently better than everyone else" and group B also says "nuh-uh, we're the ones that are inherently better than everyone else", they cannot both be right. There is no middle ground to reach that does not involve one or both of them giving up their position.

They may ignore their ideological conflict if they happen to have converging goals or mutual threats, but they are not going to be on good diplomatic terms otherwise.
 
And I stand by my statement. Let me make it more clear for you.

While two specific racist/xenophobic organisations may work together, there will always be other specific racist/xenophobic organisations with which they will never work, because of the underlying nature of their racism/xenophobia.

Since it is not in any way a foregone conclusion - or even statistically likely - that because two organisations are both racist/xenophobic they have compatible forms of racism/xenophobia, it is irrational to suggest that racist/xenophobic organisations should automatically like one another more because they are racist/xenophobic.

Absolutist claims are easily falsified, which is why you're strawmanning mine as one.

What you say is also true of xenophilic organizations, and yet they have a blanket opinion bonus with everyone (including other xenophiles). In game terms, whether they would or wouldn't cooperate is represented by the choice to do so or not. The bonus is necessarily a simplification of many specific positions. It simply means that, on the whole, xenophiles are more likely to do so in certain broad types of situations.

Xenophobes are also, on the whole, more likely to cooperate with other xenophobes because they share similar priorities. Complaining that they wouldn't take every deal is trivial, because that can be said about literally every type of cooperation between every combination of ethics.

Honestly, an example is just an example. Digging into the specifics of it because you don't like its implications is aggressively missing the point.

Or more accurately, I demonstrated that the implications weren't what you claimed. Now you're backpedaling because you don't like the real implications of your own cited example, while continuing to aggressively deny them.
 
They will always disagree with each other simply because of what they believe. Xenophobes are fundamentally supremacist. If group A says "we're inherently better than everyone else" and group B also says "nuh-uh, we're the ones that are inherently better than everyone else", they cannot both be right. There is no middle ground to reach that does not involve one or both of them giving up their position.

They may ignore their ideological conflict if they happen to have converging goals or mutual threats, but they are not going to be on good diplomatic terms otherwise.

This assumes that all xenophobes inherently want to purge the entire galaxy. That is not necessary to the definition. If it were, the Fanatical Purifiers civic would be redundant, because it would always be assumed. This an unfortunately common blindspot in most people's political awareness, which leads to them being unable to recognize xenophobia unless it is screaming for global genocide.

Xenophobes believe that societies should be pure. They should not mix on equal terms, in ways that require the dominant species to surrender control, and thus lose its racial identity. Thus, they can unite with others for the purpose of mutual lockdown of their respective spheres.

There is no ideological conflict, because the ideology is not inherently about supremacy but about animosity toward difference. It's about what an ideal society should look like. Their primary conflict is with people that believe the ideal society is open to difference. And they can appreciate others that share their general worldview, even if they don't belong to the same tribe.
 
Last edited: