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

It's not an absolutist claim.

Xenophobes are not necessarily well-disposed toward other xenophobes.

That is the only claim I am making. I have supported this by asserting that some racist organisations are not well-disposed toward one another, and using two specific organisations as an example.

If you are claiming that the Klan and the Nazis are in fact well-disposed toward the Nation of Islam, well, that is my mistake. I am not an expert on the history of these organisations, and have only a passing familiarity with their belief systems. I probably look pretty stupid, if you are in fact deeply familiar with the intricacies of these groups. I should probably use a better example.

Notice how my initial assertion has not changed? That's how examples work. Arguing with my example just makes me replace it with a new one. I can do this all day. Try addressing the initial assertion instead.

Oh hey that actually makes the new example irrelevant, so I won't include it. That way you can't miss the point and try to argue with the example again.
 
Xenophobes are not necessarily well-disposed toward other xenophobes.
In fact, cases of IRL xenophobic organizations aligning with one another along common goals are already represented in-game- if OUTSIDE FACTORS align, xenophobes can make friends with most other nations to fight against a shared enemy. But with no other overriding reason, a xenophobe has every reason to distrust another xenophobe.
 
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.
That's not what I said. Just because one group believes that another group is inferior doesn't mean they think the other group should be murdered or evicted. It just means they think that their group should rule over the others. I'm well aware that there are more kinds of xenophobia beyond rabid genocidal lunacy.

I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what xenophobia is. It is the fear of that which is different or alien. It is not the fear of cultural or racial "dilution" in general. That is definitely a concern some xenophobes may have, but it is not universal. Xenophobia does not imply that someone cares about what other cultures are up to. It doesn't even imply that you have any ideology at all. So it is quite possible to be xenophobic and not care whether another culture gets "diluted" or not. In stellaris xenophobes can enslave, sell, or outright annihilate other cultures if they so choose.

Superiority, on the other hand, is inherent to xenophobia. If someone fears that which is different, then they will necessarily prefer that which is familiar. Therefore, xenophobes will want to enshrine their species/culture/race/whatever over all others wherever they have control.
 
I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what xenophobia is.

And I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a xenophobe in Stellaris is.

A xenophobe in Stellaris is a species exhibiting a nonspecified variety of xenophobia within a narrow band of possibilities, which has these in-game effects.

You may invent whatever justification you would like for those in-game effects. It does not even have to be xenophobia. It could be any number of irrational, undesirable, socially-unacceptable beliefs.

You may believe that other species enjoy being slaves, and hence prefer to enslave them, even though you personally do not understand their preference and would really rather let them be free people just like you. But who are you to dictate the preferences of others? Since they like being slaves, we will begrudgingly enslave them, so they can be happy. We like them. They are nice. That is why we send them to slave in the mines, because it makes them happy and they are nice so we like them and want them to be happy.

Good news, people of this new planet! We have declared a new age of prosperity for your people. You shall be taken to our glorious factories, where you may have all the work your hearts desire. No more frustrating leisure and tedious entertainment; you shall be free to work as much as you like, from the moment you wake until you fall unconscious at your station, and we will provide you all the bland, tasteless porridge you need without the needless choice of varied flavours or spices. Rejoice. Your paradise is here. Now let us just kill all these pesky soldiers who are oppressing you with a life of indolence and luxury. How very dare them
 
And I think you are fundamentally misunderstanding what a xenophobe in Stellaris is.

A xenophobe in Stellaris is a species exhibiting a nonspecified variety of xenophobia within a narrow band of possibilities, which has these in-game effects.

You may invent whatever justification you would like for those in-game effects. It does not even have to be xenophobia. It could be any number of irrational, undesirable, socially-unacceptable beliefs.

You may believe that other species enjoy being slaves, and hence prefer to enslave them, even though you personally do not understand their preference and would really rather let them be free people just like you. But who are you to dictate the preferences of others? Since they like being slaves, we will begrudgingly enslave them, so they can be happy. We like them. They are nice. That is why we send them to slave in the mines, because it makes them happy and they are nice so we like them and want them to be happy.

Good news, people of this new planet! We have declared a new age of prosperity for your people. You shall be taken to our glorious factories, where you may have all the work your hearts desire. No more frustrating leisure and tedious entertainment; you shall be free to work as much as you like, from the moment you wake until you fall unconscious at your station, and we will provide you all the bland, tasteless porridge you need without the needless choice of varied flavours or spices. Rejoice. Your paradise is here. Now let us just kill all these pesky soldiers who are oppressing you with a life of indolence and luxury. How very dare them
That's a delusion, not an ethos. Even taking it at face value, that sounds closer to an authoritarian empire than a xenophobic one.
 
It's not an absolutist claim.

Xenophobes are not necessarily well-disposed toward other xenophobes.

That is the only claim I am making. I have supported this by asserting that some racist organisations are not well-disposed toward one another, and using two specific organisations as an example.

Examples which I disproved, which you are now trying to claim don't matter, since they're actually counter-examples.

The claim you're making now is trivial. Of course some organizations of Ideology-X are not well disposed toward every other organization of Ideology-X. You could just as easily claim that not all xenophiles are well disposed to all other xenophiles. The question is whether xenophilia, as a whole, disposes them to an affinity with other xenophiles, all things being equal.

My actual claim . . .

In fact, cases of IRL xenophobic organizations aligning with one another along common goals are already represented in-game- if OUTSIDE FACTORS align, xenophobes can make friends with most other nations to fight against a shared enemy. But with no other overriding reason, a xenophobe has every reason to distrust another xenophobe.

. . . is that, on balance, that applies to xenophobes. Xenophobes have an affinity with each other because of their xenophobia. Not just because of outside factors.

The general worldview takes precedence over the specific species-focused manifestation. Even before fearing and distrusting the alien, they fear and distrust the idea that they must accept the alien. So they can trust those aliens that also reject the idea, even while distrusting them on another level for being alien.

The kinds of alliances they make are different from the kinds of alliances that xenophiles make, but they are alliances all the same.
 
Last edited:
Xenophobes have an affinity with each other because of their xenophobia.

Martians hate aliens.

Venusians hate aliens.

Do Venusians like Martians?

No. They hate aliens. Martians are aliens. Ergo, they hate Martians.

And I'm done. I don't give a shit what else you have to say. Your assertion is false, it will always be false, and that has been adequately demonstrated by multiple people. I don't have to listen to you or talk to you anymore, so I won't.
 
And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how you end an argument like an adult. Well done.

"You're wrong. Here's my example of why you're absurdly wrong. Checkmate bro."

*cites evidence to the contrary

"Well actually examples don't mean anything cuz special pleading argle blargle!"

. . . some time later

"Fuck you, I'm taking my ball and going home!"
 
Martians hate aliens.

Venusians hate aliens.

Do Venusians like Martians?

No. They hate aliens. Martians are aliens. Ergo, they hate Martians.

Here's a fictional example that requires being older than five. Try to keep up now:

The Dominion Founders hate solids. They seek to control them where possible.

The Cardassians hate the Federation because of their gooey xenophile insistence that they give rights to minorities, like the Bajorans.

Realistically they should hate each other, right? Nope, they form an alliance. This alliance doesn't at all the resemble the internal alliance of the Federation, which involves an integrated military, equal rights for all aliens, free travel across member worlds, interspecies relationships etc. It is an alliance that maintains the strict separation of their societies. The Founders keep control of their worlds in the Gamma Quadrant, while the Cardassians are promised control of the Alpha Quadrant.

Sure, neither side really trusts the other. Solids are still solids, and aliens are still aliens. But the Founders know the Cardassians will maintain total control of their political structures when they own the Alpha Quadrant, and the Cardassians know that the Founders don't give a shit about how they treat their alien slaves. Neither side is going to try and prod the other into becoming a more open society, like the Federation would. On a fundamental level, they share similar priorities.

The Romulans eventually allying with the Federation? That's an example of other factors compelling xenophobes to overlook their xenophobia.
 
To try and bring this back on track, I think the point that @BlackUmbrellas mentioned earlier is the thing @Jin_Cardassian is getting at. Xenophobes will team up, but only when there is a mutual threat, in whatever capacity, however I don't think there should be an exclusive bonus to relationships between xenophobes.

I guess if they shared other things in common, such as ethics or authority, that could reduce the malus as it does now.
 
To try and bring this back on track, I think the point that @BlackUmbrellas mentioned earlier is the thing @Jin_Cardassian is getting at. Xenophobes will team up, but only when there is a mutual threat, in whatever capacity, however I don't think there should be an exclusive bonus to relationships between xenophobes.

I guess if they shared other things in common, such as ethics or authority, that could reduce the malus as it does now.

Depends on the xenophobe I think. Supremacists would fall into conflict without an outside threat. Isolationists would probably try to maintain an indefinite NAP.
 
Depends on the xenophobe I think. Supremacists would fall into conflict without an outside threat. Isolationists would probably try to maintain an indefinite NAP.

Agreed, however this is factored into civics. I could see an arguement to give inward perfectionists an opinion bonus towards each other as you're saying, but purely from the civic, not something factored into the GC
 
The Dominion Founders hate solids. They seek to control them where possible.

The Cardassians hate the Federation because of their gooey xenophile insistence that they give rights to minorities, like the Bajorans.

Realistically they should hate each other, right? Nope, they form an alliance.
Because of a shared rivalry against the Federation.
 
Agreed, however this is factored into civics. I could see an arguement to give inward perfectionists an opinion bonus towards each other as you're saying, but purely from the civic, not something factored into the GC
I would not pack that into the civic.
All Inward Perfectionists are isolationist but not all isolationists are Inward Perfectionists.
Both Decadent Hirarchies and Xenophobic Isolationists have a positive modifier on accepting e.g. non-aggression pacts.

Also, with the upcoming changes, the player empire's opinion is going to weigh more into diplomacy than now.
 
Last edited:
I would not pack that into the civic.
All Inward Perfectionists are isolationist but not all isolationists are Inward Perfectionists.
Both Decadent Hirarchies and Xenophobic Isolationists have a positive modifier on accepting e.g. non-aggression pacts.

Also, with the upcoming changes, the player empire's opinion is going to weigh more into diplomacy than now.

Agree, I was simply stating how you could achieve what was being asked, aka a mutually beneficial relationship between two xenophobic empires who wish to keep to themselves, via an opinion bonus for sharing that civic.

I would personally feel though that an empire focused exclusively on itself wouldn't really care if someone else felt the same way about their own empire, so wouldn't get a bonus. They would only consider banding together if something else was a threat to both empires in question, which is already simulated in the game.
 
Because of a shared rivalry against the Federation.

And why do they hate the Federation specifically? Xenophilia

They could have chosen any number of Alpha/Beta Quadrant empires to be their rivals. Note how they don't have such a viscerally bad opinion of the Romulans, or the Tzenkethi, or the Tholians, or the xeno-slaving Breen (who eventually join their alliance). All of which are xenophobic.

The Cardassians do hate the Klingons, due to a recent defeat at their hands. The Founders themselves are pretty lukewarm. The Klingons are quite neutral on the xenophobe/xenophile axis, and care more about someone's personal bravery than their species.