• 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:
Irrelevant to the question of whether xenophobes should like each other.

It's entirely relevant. Xenophobes ally for the purposes of maintaining their xenophobia. Empires that don't threaten that aren't regarded as enemy #1. That was true for the Dominion-Cardassian Alliance just like it was true for the Tripartite Pact.
 
It's entirely relevant. Xenophobes ally for the purposes of maintaining their xenophobia.
Xenophobes ally against common threats, which is already represented in-game. Stack enough modifiers like Threat and Mutual Rivals and Shared Authority and you can get a xenophobic empire to ally with basically anyone. I've done so, regularly.

An opinion bonus between xenophobes is nonsensical and unnecessary.
 
Xenophobes ally against common threats, which is already represented in-game. Stack enough modifiers like Threat and Mutual Rivals and Shared Authority and you can get a xenophobic empire to ally with basically anyone. I've done so, regularly.

An opinion bonus between xenophobes is nonsensical and unnecessary.

My concrete suggestion was not to give them a positive opinion modifier. It was to soften the other species negative modifier and give them a negative modifier with xenophiles. That way they would be more likely to have them as common rivals.

So yes, they would be less likely to ally if not threatened by xenophiles. The point is that they are more disgusted by the xenophile idea than the fact that someone is an alien.
 
Nah.

An alien is an alien is an alien. That's kind of the point of the Xenophobe ethic.

Go read the scholarship on racialist politics, then come back.

Xenophobia is about pursuing a homogeneous society. It doesn't necessarily oppose different kinds of homogeneous societies existing somewhere else.

Xenophobes of one type tend to ally with xenophobes of another type precisely because they want Those People to have "their homeland over there" so that we can have our homeland over here.
 
Irrelevant. Stellaris is a game and uses internal definitions for all its Ethics.

Here are the actual definitions:

Xenophobe
The stakes could not be higher as we reach into the vast uncharted expanses of the galaxy, for we are gambling with the very survival of our species! Never trust the alien; its false smile hides an unknowable mind...

Fanatic Xenophobe

Any alien influence must be ruthlessly quashed. Only by staying pure, and true to ourselves and the planet that gave us life can we guard against insidious Xeno plots. Even mastery over the Alien might not be enough to guarantee our own safety...

Now you could argue that "never trust the alien" means they never engage in diplomatic entanglements . . . except that the game allows all non-Purifier types to do that to some degree. So it cannot be taken literally.

The rest is all about "staying pure, and true to ourselves and planet that gave us life" and avoiding "insidious Xeno plots". If even "mastery over the Alien" is not enough, you might have to exterminate them. Or you might just have to maintain strict separation. Diplomatic agreements based on maintaining strict separation of demographics are compatible with that.

Basically, the gist is that you have to avoid aliens having any influence within your society. You can achieve that through proactive extermination, diplomatic isolation, demographic isolation (no migration or refugees), or slavery.

In most cases, this does not necessitate a lack of diplomatic arrangements.

And since xenophiles are the ones pushing for everyone to let aliens have influence within their societies, they are more of a threat to the fabric of your society than another group of xenophobes elsewhere.

Xenophobes who, if they are not exterminationists, want something 100% compatible with your own goals.
 
Last edited:
Now you could argue that "never trust the alien" means they never engage in diplomatic entanglements . . . except that the game allows all non-Purifier types to do that to some degree. So it cannot be taken literally.
"If you look at this figuratively, it means something, but we know that that figurative-thing is not true. Therefore, you cannot take it literally." - Um, WHAT?!
In most cases, this does not necessitate a lack of diplomatic arrangements.
LITERALLY NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. All people are saying is that two people being xenophobes does not AUTOMATICALLY mean they'll like each other, just that the Enemy of my Enemy effect can overcome their mutual dislike.

Jesus Christ, dude.
 
"If you look at this figuratively, it means something, but we know that that figurative-thing is not true. Therefore, you cannot take it literally." - Um, WHAT?!

No. If we look at it literally, it is not true. If we look at it figuratively, it is.

LITERALLY NOBODY IS SAYING THAT. All people are saying is that two people being xenophobes does not AUTOMATICALLY mean they'll like each other, just that the Enemy of my Enemy effect can overcome their mutual dislike.

And we have no disagreement.

Once again, in the simplest possible terms:

Xenophobes don't want alien influence, domestically.

Xenophobes oppose those that push that.

They oppose those that push that more than they oppose aliens cuz aliens.

If other aliens also don't want domestic alien influence, then they are in agreement as to their goals. They each want a society in which neither has any influence in the other. Unless their specific means of achieving that are to conquer or exterminate the other, it makes sense for them to cooperate for the sake of their compatible goals.

This is the reason why RL xenophobes are prone to allying.

If you wanted to more effectively model that kind of "pan-nationalist alliance against the globalists" in game, all you would need to do it make it so that mistrust of aliens cuz aliens is weaker than mistrust of xenophiles cuz xenophiles.

Then, you would have xenophobe empires choosing to rival the same xenophile empires. Their opinion bonus from "mutual rival" would overcome the opinion penalty from "alien", and you would see Dominion-Cardassian Alliances more often.

Bottom Line: As long as xenophiles are a concern, they are the primary enemy. It's worth making agreements with other aliens that share your values to oppose them.
 
Last edited:
No. If we look at it literally, it is not true. If we look at it figuratively, it is.
Ok, dude, listen to me.

It literally says 'never trust the alien'. You then said 'you could argue it means something else', which is the opposite of taking it literally, and then said 'because this something else is not true, that means we cannot take the original literal thing as true'.

You see the problem there, right? Surely you see the problem in your reasoning.
They oppose those that push that more than they oppose aliens cuz aliens.
You are making this up out of nowhere.
Unless their specific means of achieving that are to conquer or exterminate the other
Which, in Stellaris, is the default means for any Xenophobe that isn't also Pacifist.
If you wanted to more effectively model that kind of "pan-nationalist alliance against the globalists" in game, all you would need to do it make it so that mistrust of aliens cuz aliens is weaker than mistrust of xenophiles cuz xenophiles.
Which is nonsense. Why should my paranoid Imperialist Dragons be more afraid of the aliens that want to make a strong mutual alliance than the Fan-Egal Materialist aliens that just care about science?

Why would you be MORE afraid of the people who, by default, like you more? The answer is simple. You wouldn't, and you're wrong.
Bottom Line: As long as xenophiles are a concern, they are the primary enemy. It's worth making agreements with other aliens that share your values to oppose them.
Bottom line, you came up with this on your own.
 
Basically, the gist is that you have to avoid aliens having any influence within your society.

Such as making alliances with them, which involves them in your politics and therefore interfering with your domestic agenda?

And since xenophiles are the ones pushing for everyone to let aliens have influence within their societies, they are more of a threat to the fabric of your society than another group of xenophobes elsewhere.

Wouldn't that be true of any external influence? For example alien militarists could be seen as barabaric, so you couldn't have them in, or those spiritualists and their weird beliefs?

Xenophobes who, if they are not exterminationists, want something 100% compatible with your own goals.

But want completely different things, and can't trust anyone except themselves.
 
Ok, dude, listen to me.

It literally says 'never trust the alien'. You then said 'you could argue it means something else', which is the opposite of taking it literally, and then said 'because this something else is not true, that means we cannot take the original literal thing as true'.

You see the problem there, right? Surely you see the problem in your reasoning.

Sigh.

If you take this literally, they never ever make deals with aliens, because they don't trust them enough to do so.

If you take it figuratively, "never trust" is a hyperbole. They are reticent to trust, but they still make deals.

"You could argue" = If you want to argue a dumb literalist interpretation.

Not difficult.

You are making this up out of nowhere.

This is stock standard political history, backed by my previous examples. Seriously, read any of the modern scholarship on fascism.

Which, in Stellaris, is the default means for any Xenophobe that isn't also Pacifist.

A default means which gets compromised and redirected when they are faced with obstacles. I've played plenty of games where Slaving Despots and Hegemonic Imperialists cut deals because they had to, and refrained from conquering neighbors because they couldn't.

Nowhere have I argued that they wouldn't do this if there were no other threats and they could get away with it. I simply argue that, while xenophiles exist, they are the primary ideological targets of xenophobe aggression. Aliens in general are there, but still one step down. It doesn't mean they never jump anyone else. It doesn't mean they never declare war for material and not ideological reasons.

Which is nonsense. Why should my paranoid Imperialist Dragons be more afraid of the aliens that want to make a strong mutual alliance than the Fan-Egal Materialist aliens that just care about science?

Why would you be MORE afraid of the people who, by default, like you more? The answer is simple. You wouldn't, and you're wrong.

Because in the eyes of a xenophobe, their form of "liking" is a poison pill. It's sweet talk to get you to lower your defenses. They don't respect your species-identity. They want to strip away your identity and turn you into another bland soup-civ with no species-consciousness. They tell you that pride in your species is hate, to guilt you into submission. They're one step away from being a Driven Assimilator.

In short, xenophiles want to replace you.

Other xenophobes? They at least get it. Even if they don't care about you and your kind, they understand that one should care about one's own kind above all else.
 
Which means they're far more interested in actively enslaving, exterminating, or confining you.

Xenophobes have no reason to get along well with one another.

You mean like the Axis powers?

Meanwhile, in the modern world.

Thats horrible logic. You can make a deal with someon you don't trust, you just do so carefully/reluctantly.

Claiming that "distrustful" equals "completely isolationist" is a ridiculous leap on your part.

It requires that you trust they won't renege on the deal. Even if doing so would be suicidal for them, you are still trusting them not to be suicidal.

So it is trust, albeit to a minimal degree.
 
You mean like the Axis powers?

Meanwhile, in the modern world.

It requires that you trust they won't renege on the deal. Even if doing so would be suicidal for them, you are still trusting them not to be suicidal.

So it is trust, albeit to a minimal degree.

Ah, much like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That worked out well for Hitler

EDIT: Also, here is a historical article on the relationship with 40's Germany and Italy, that resembles a somewhat frosty relationship that came undone over time. Both countries at the time where ideologically similar.

https://m.warhistoryonline.com/world-war-ii/germany-italys-difficult-relationship-world-war-two.html

RE: Current right wing alliance in Europe - as many have said before, they are banding together to fight a perceived threat, but are massively divided on many issues due to their nationalistic viewpoints and foreign policy. This isn't 'oh so you're xenophobic as well, let's be buds', they're banding together because their deep seated nationalism means no one else will work with them.
 
Last edited:
Ah, much like the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact. That worked out well

Irrelevant to the Tripartite Pact.

Non-xenophobic polities also sometimes break deals.
 
Irrelevant to the Tripartite Pact.

Non-xenophobic polities also sometimes break deals.

Sorry, but the breakup of the Russo-German pact lead to a Xenophobe allying with the allies (supposedly xenophiles in your examples) to take on another xenophobe and the Italian/Germany tensions led to an occupied northern Italy, are your examples of xenophobes being friends 'just cuz'?

Am I literally or figuratively missing your point?
 
Sorry, but the breakup of the Russo-German pact lead to a Xenophobe allying with the allies (supposedly xenophiles in your examples) to take on another xenophobe and the Italian/Germany tensions led to an occupied northern Italy, are your examples of xenophobes being friends 'just cuz'?

Am I literally or figuratively missing your point?

The Tripartite Pact (Sept 1940) succeeded the Anti-Comintern Pact (Nov 1936). The former preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 1939), which only terminated with the Axis invasion of the USSR (June 1941).

The MRP didn't "breakup" before the TP, nor did said illusory breakup lead to the TP. In fact, as late as Nov 1940, the Soviets were offering to join the TP. Germany refused because of their demands for influence over Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Germany occupied Italy in 1943 to neutralize the military after they were half-occupied and wavering in their commitment to the war, despite Mussolini's loyalty. And when they rescued his ass, they gave him back control of most of northern Italy in the form of the Italian Social Republic. Sure, it was effectively a puppet rump state, but if xenophobes are all about direct conquest and purging/slavery at every opportunity then why bother? This isn't xenophobes turning on each other 'just cuz'.

I get the feeling that you don't know enough about history to be having this discussion.

On the note of xenophobes being friends "just cuz", it's interesting to compare the opinion of some Nazis toward the USSR prior to their war. Naturally many opposed them cuz communism = international Jewish plot, plus the desire for German colonization. There were other factions (most notably the Strasserites) that thought Stalin had improved the situation by purging the state of its Marxist internationalism and redirecting it toward a kind of Slavic fascism they could jive with.

To the point of favoring an alliance against the capitalist internationalism in the West. EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T FOND OF SLAVS.

So yes, even Nazis, the archetypal inspiration for the Fanatical Purifier civic, can and have proposed pan-xenophobe alliances against the forces of cosmopolitan internationalism. And stuck to them for meaningful periods of time.
 
The Tripartite Pact (Sept 1940) succeeded the Anti-Comintern Pact (Nov 1936). The former preceded the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact (Aug 1939), which only terminated with the Axis invasion of the USSR (June 1941).

The MRP didn't "breakup" before the TP, nor did said illusory breakup lead to the TP. In fact, as late as Nov 1940, the Soviets were offering to join the TP. Germany refused because of their demands for influence over Bulgaria and Yugoslavia.

Sounds like a pally bunch of xenophobes with a 2 year pact. Definitely fast friends.

Germany occupied Italy in 1943 to neutralize the military after they were half-occupied and wavering in their commitment to the war, despite Mussolini's loyalty. And when they rescued his ass, they gave him back control of most of northern Italy in the form of the Italian Social Republic. Sure, it was effectively a puppet rump state, but if xenophobes are all about direct conquest and purging/slavery at every opportunity then why bother? This isn't xenophobes turning on each other 'just cuz'.

No, but it does sound like xenophobes doing things in their own interest, almost like they are more important than their allied 'friends'.

On the note of xenophobes being friends "just cuz", it's interesting to compare the opinion of some Nazis toward the USSR prior to their war. Naturally many opposed them cuz communism = international Jewish plot, plus the desire for German colonization. There were other factions (most notably the Strasserites) that thought Stalin had improved the situation by purging the state of its Marxist internationalism and redirecting it toward a kind of Slavic fascism they could jive with.

To the point of favoring an alliance against the capitalist internationalism in the West. EVEN THOUGH THEY WEREN'T FOND OF SLAVS.

Which lasted all of 2 years until Germany tried to invade them...