• 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:
Now, I don't follow irl politics much, but I'm pretty sure envoys don't go around spitting in people's drinks, swearing at the foreign leaders, etc and that no nation would actually let in an envoy that does.
They can do other stuff like making unreasonable demands or trying to interfere in local politics. Enough to piss off the host country, but not enough to expel them.
 
Am I the only one who thinks being able to send an Envoy specifically to worsen relations seems pretty immersion breaking? Now, I don't follow irl politics much, but I'm pretty sure envoys don't go around spitting in people's drinks, swearing at the foreign leaders, etc and that no nation would actually let in an envoy that does.
Why do you think an envoy represents someone schmoozing?

I assume that both forms of relation manipulation boil down to making contacts and leveraging favours/information moreso than anything else. To benefit relations, you send an envoy to make positive contacts, make deals that benefit the host nation, etc. To harm relations, you send an envoy to sow dissent and burn bridges with the host nation.
 
Why do you think an envoy represents someone schmoozing?

I assume that both forms of relation manipulation boil down to making contacts and leveraging favours/information moreso than anything else. To benefit relations, you send an envoy to make positive contacts, make deals that benefit the host nation, etc. To harm relations, you send an envoy to sow dissent and burn bridges with the host nation.

Plus being embedded in another country puts you in a position to manufacture excuses for outrage. You cite grievances that you know will be snubbed, so that the press secretaries at home can run and tell the papers what a jackass that other empire is, who then respond in kind.

It's all about pretexts, really.
 
There are two kinds of spiritualist- both hate robots/AI equally. In fact, its less accurate to say there are "two kinds" of any ethic and more to say that "Fanatic" whatever represents that ethic having a disproportionately large focus within their culture/government.

There actually ARE two kinds of xenophobia, in contrast to EVERY OTHER ETHIC having only one kind, though: Isolationist and Supremacist, as represented by their factions.

I've argued that this is a good model to apply to every ethic. Each one should have two factions with mostly opposing demands, and that attract different kinds of pops.

Right now it's just trivially easy to please your official factions, because most of their demands are things you'd be doing anyway. With both supremacists and isolationists present in the same empire, you're forced to choose which conception of xenophobia to follow, and then have to control the displeased other.
 
I've argued that this is a good model to apply to every ethic. Each one should have two factions with mostly opposing demands, and that attract different kinds of pops.

Right now it's just trivially easy to please your official factions, because most of their demands are things you'd be doing anyway. With both supremacists and isolationists present in the same empire, you're forced to choose which conception of xenophobia to follow, and then have to control the displeased other.
I'm unsure. I kiiiiind of like the sound of that, but it also sounds like it'd make factions even more of a zero-sum game than they already are? You already wind up displeasing some factions by catering to others and it already balances everything out for the most part.

I'd really rather that factions got their bite back than see them add more counter-balancing factions. Maybe if factions MATTERED, it'd be cool to see more of them.
 
I'm unsure. I kiiiiind of like the sound of that, but it also sounds like it'd make factions even more of a zero-sum game than they already are? You already wind up displeasing some factions by catering to others and it already balances everything out for the most part.

I'd really rather that factions got their bite back than see them add more counter-balancing factions. Maybe if factions MATTERED, it'd be cool to see more of them.

The existing faction system is simpler, but it has the issue of some faction combinations being drastically less workable than others.

For example, Egalitarian-Xenophobes are pretty much screwed, because the Egalitarian faction's demands also apply to aliens. Having a second "nativist populist" faction that was focused on enfranchisement and class equality for the primary species only would be useful.

We also have a Pacifist faction that insists on staying out of conflicts at all costs, rather than playing interventionist peacekeeper. It's far more compatible with Xenophobes than Xenophiles.

I figure we need either multiple factions, or for each faction to contain exclusive demands within itself, and some mechanism to represent different blocs throwing their weight around.
 
For example, Egalitarian-Xenophobes are pretty much screwed, because the Egalitarian faction's demands also apply to aliens. Having a second "nativist populist" faction that was focused on enfranchisement and class equality for the primary species only would be useful.

Really? What demand of Egalitarians conflicts with the Xenophobes? The Xenophobes just care that the xenos are *not* full citizens (Supremacist) and can't immigrate (both), the Egalitarian faction could care less about those issues. The freedoms from Egalitarians don't bother the Xenophobes one bit.
 
The existing faction system is simpler, but it has the issue of some faction combinations being drastically less workable than others.

For example, Egalitarian-Xenophobes are pretty much screwed, because the Egalitarian faction's demands also apply to aliens. Having a second "nativist populist" faction that was focused on enfranchisement and class equality for the primary species only would be useful.

We also have a Pacifist faction that insists on staying out of conflicts at all costs, rather than playing interventionist peacekeeper. It's far more compatible with Xenophobes than Xenophiles.

I figure we need either multiple factions, or for each faction to contain exclusive demands within itself, and some mechanism to represent different blocs throwing their weight around.
Eh. Again, I'd rather see factions, well, MATTER long before we tried to overhaul the "one faction per ethic except xenophobes to handle conquered alien POPs" thing. I'm not sure that I DISAGREE with your ideas, I just... don't see that as a very high priority atm.
 
Really? What demand of Egalitarians conflicts with the Xenophobes? The Xenophobes just care that the xenos are *not* full citizens (Supremacist) and can't immigrate (both), the Egalitarian faction could care less about those issues. The freedoms from Egalitarians don't bother the Xenophobes one bit.

Prohibited Resettlement Policy and No Migration Controls rights for every species
Prohibited Population Controls Policy

Note that the prohibition on Migration Controls and Population Controls apply even if the species in question is enslaved. Prohibited Resettlement does not apply to slaves, but it does apply to Residents.

We could easily fix this by having those demands only apply to Citizens rather than all species or all free species. Xenophobes by default cannot grant Full Citizenship to aliens, and Xenophiles almost certainly will.
 
Last edited:
Eh. Again, I'd rather see factions, well, MATTER long before we tried to overhaul the "one faction per ethic except xenophobes to handle conquered alien POPs" thing. I'm not sure that I DISAGREE with your ideas, I just... don't see that as a very high priority atm.

I agree that it's more important to give factions teeth and demands before considering expanding their number. More faction events would be nice. Fixing ethic attraction is also way more important.

Perhaps the idea is that blocs within factions should only appear for ruling ethics. It makes sense that in an Authoritarian empire, the Egalitarians are more concerned with fighting their common enemy than their own disagreements.

I imagine the two Xenophobe factions were never something the devs intended as a feature. It just didn't make sense for conquered aliens to join the supremacist faction, and xenophobes have the tools to either kill them or deprive them of political power in ways that other ethics don't.
 
I imagine the two Xenophobe factions were never something the devs intended as a feature. It just didn't make sense for conquered aliens to join the supremacist faction, and xenophobes have the tools to either kill them or deprive them of political power in ways that other ethics don't.
Exactly this, yeah. Just kind of a weird edge-case they foresaw and handled. Stands out as a result of being a unique case.

My main hangup with the idea of giving each ethic paired opposing factions (with or without your "only for governing ethics" idea, which I quite like) is that it SOUNDS to me like a zero-sum game, and those... just aren't super interesting? Like. What's it matter if you support one or the other if their interests run opposite to each other? You'll ALWAYS have one hate you as much as the other likes you. That's already an issue with the current factions- if you do stuff to make the Materialist faction happy, the Spiritualist faction usually winds up angry, etc, and you wind up with no real tangible change to your faction Influence income.
 
Exactly this, yeah. Just kind of a weird edge-case they foresaw and handled. Stands out as a result of being a unique case.

My main hangup with the idea of giving each ethic paired opposing factions (with or without your "only for governing ethics" idea, which I quite like) is that it SOUNDS to me like a zero-sum game, and those... just aren't super interesting? Like. What's it matter if you support one or the other if their interests run opposite to each other? You'll ALWAYS have one hate you as much as the other likes you. That's already an issue with the current factions- if you do stuff to make the Materialist faction happy, the Spiritualist faction usually winds up angry, etc, and you wind up with no real tangible change to your faction Influence income.

There's a couple benefits I see to this:

1) It's plausible and challenging that there are always some people that oppose your government's policies, but certain setups make it too easy to avoid. This could be a way to insert it. In a Xenophobe-Pacifist empire, there are some Xenophobes that are tired of playing "city on a hill" and barking for expansion, and there are some Pacifists that think you should engage in humanitarian intervention instead of ignoring the wars outside your borders. So even in ideologically homogeneous empires, you have the basis for political intrigue, unrest, and civil wars.

2) It provides an additional lever for espionage, whenever we get the ability to support factions in other empires. For example, it's really hard for a Xenophile to shift a Fanatical Purifier all the way out of Xenophobia. But it could be comparatively easy to shift them from one interpretation of Xenophobia to another. The next time they go to war, there's an Inward Perfectionist rebellion.
 
Diplomatic actions will be locked behind positive/negative relations.

Insulting or rivalling an empire will almost certainly not be possible if your relations are positive. You would need to FIRST undermine them using an envoy, THEN move forwards with making them worse.

Still this can be a problem if relations are already poor (negative) to begin with and you try your best to improve them, but the AI then just randomly spams you with insults/rivalries to wipe out everything you have achieved with one action (like I at least find it doing quite often nowadays).

To me a good diplomacy model is both understandable (shows at least roughly why the AI thinks what it thinks), nuanced and your actions affect it, and currently with some species, like those normal xenophobes for example, it often feels like the AI just overall hates you and there isn`t even much you can do about it because of those insults/rivalries that quite often come flying your way anyway. So mostly with these species I just focus my diplomatic effort on those AI species who only either hate me a little or if an AI empire for one reason or another ends up liking me a little. Now what is the problem with this? Well it is that the AI is completely in control of my diplomacy and I as the player am only a passenger waiting for some bones to be thrown my way. But hopefully future changes like the envoys for example will help with this as well.