• 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 #22 - Alliances and Federations

Greetings fellow gamers!

The topic for today is “Alliances and Federations”. Now, we have modelled alliances quite differently in most of our games. In Crusader Kings II, for example, alliances are bilateral, and allies are (since the last patch) automatically dragged into wars with no option of opting out and breaking the alliance. In Europa Universalis IV, alliances are also bilateral, but you can decline a “Call to Arms” at the cost of Prestige. In Stellaris, alliances are multilateral (they can have any number of members, not just two), and are thus more like NATO and less like the complex web of mutual agreements that existed at the outbreak of the Great War. This means that members of an alliance need a greater say in matters that concern the entire alliance, notable declarations of war (and some things are simply not allowed if you are an alliance member, such as guarantees of independence.)

If I am a member of an alliance in Stellaris and I want to declare a war, all the other members of the alliance need to approve. This ties back to what I talked about in the dev diary two weeks ago; if the goals I declare with the war are only beneficial to myself, my allies are of course less likely to approve. Therefore, I will likely have to dicker with the war goals in order to satisfy all of my allies (depending on their opinions and strategic concerns, naturally.) Of course, members can always just leave an alliance (while at peace) if it won’t permit them to achieve their goals.

stellaris_dev_diary_22_01_20160222_allience_opinion_of_war.jpg


If an alliance works well, however, the members can instead choose to deepen their cooperation and form a Federation. There are pros and cons to this choice. Alliances can be paralyzed by vetoes from the member states, but a Federation is governed by a single President who has the power to act with impunity. On the other hand, the presidency rotates between the member states, so for long periods members will have little control over their foreign policy. Federation members also share victory, which might be a problem for certain types of players…

Another interesting feature of Federations is that they have a special joint space navy in addition to the forces of the separate member empires. The Federation president gets to design these ship templates using all the best technologies of all the member empires. The president also gets to control these fleets, of course. As a rule of thumb, several fairly equally matched empires might want to form a Federation, especially in the face of aggressive, significantly larger neighbors, but it might not be the best idea for empires who are dominant in their own right. Of course, there is also an element of role-playing to the choice…

stellaris_dev_diary_22_02_20160222_federation.jpg


That’s all for now. Next week’s topic is Multiplayer!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 220
  • 60
  • 6
Reactions:
The thing is that neither of you would be able to take that planet without the other's consent, at least so long as it is from a war. The war goals must be chosen before the war starts and all allies must agree. If the two of you cannot agree to let the other take that one planet, then by all accounts you should dissolve the alliance then.

Or let them claim it, win the war.

Then backstab them after you let them do most of the work and claim it for yourself.
 
Do federations have a maximum size? Is it possible for every empire in the galaxy to join together in a federation? Like have a Galactic federation?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Do federations have a maximum size? Is it possible for every empire in the galaxy to join together in a federation? Like have a Galactic federation?
I hope so! It's unlikely though that every empire would actually want to join that federation. Unless there are only a few left of course ;)
 
  • 1
Reactions:
In paradox games we've always been free to chose our own endgame... I can see myself having a lot of fun trying to unite the entire galaxy in a federation. Especially if nations and empires kept splintering off....
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Interesting, but I am hoping for several levels of alliances, rather than just Full Military Alliance, and Federation.
Ideally there would be:
Defensive Pact - Agree to assist each other in defensive wars only. Bilateral agreements.
Coalition - Promise your help in curtailing a specific Empire's aggression. Non-lateral agreement (each nation enters without consent or approval of others, no leader).
Military Alliance - Agree to assist each other in all wars. Multilateral Agreements.
Federation - Combine resources as a unified, but autonomous set of nations. Multilateral Agreement.

The Guarantee option looks like it'll help, I hope there is also a 'warn' option.

Also: I think anyone in an alliance should be able to decline the call to arms (hopefully at a much more severe penalty than in EU), except under 2 circumstances. Nations in a Federation should not be able to decline a call to arms, as the federation is, essentially, 1 state. In addition I think the aggressor should have the option of declaring a war against either an individual nation (which prompts a Call to Arms normally) or against an alliance (which forces all members of that alliance into the war, no call to arms, as the declaration was against all members of the alliance, not just a single nation).

Although as I've said elsewhere I understand that there is a limit to what can be included in the vanilla game, so I would not be averse to having this type of more detailed interactions be included in DLC at a later date.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The three different kinds of alliance you listed are all kind of represented already: alliances are automatically defensive pacts, since allies come to each other's aid, and are probably going to be a natural step in responding to a specific empire's aggression. Then, of course, the alliance can engage in offensive wars, so long as each ally is okay with it. You don't need three separate agreements for what is possible with one, though...

While allowing allies to declare their own offensive wars at will while using the alliance as a shield from retribution is probably something that the alliance system was very intentionally designed to disallow, the idea of a special coalition intrigues me. If there was the option for an alliance to only target a single enemy, but not cover wars with any other empires, that would give some room for really interesting diplomatic activity. Maybe the big empire would have the ability to wage proxy wars by providing advisors (and maybe "advisors") to enemies of the coalition members while staying clean itself. Maybe it would even be possible to force a vassal declare to war by itself; since it wouldn't technically be the big empire, it wouldn't trigger the coalition. The big empire could step into the fray, diplomatically or militarily, if things went poorly for the vassal and it was willing to directly face the coalition.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The three different kinds of alliance you listed are all kind of represented already: alliances are automatically defensive pacts, since allies come to each other's aid, and are probably going to be a natural step in responding to a specific empire's aggression. Then, of course, the alliance can engage in offensive wars, so long as each ally is okay with it. You don't need three separate agreements for what is possible with one, though...
Well what I meant was Defensive Pacts are only defensive, and are strictly bilateral (So if A has a Pact with B, and B has a pact with C, C will not join a war declared against A). Military Alliances are both defensive and offensive, and can be multilateral. So in a sense a full Alliance is an upgrade of a Defensive Pact. This would allow two moderate sized Empires to band together for defense against a larger hostile empire, without also being dragged into whatever offensive wars their 'ally' gets up to. It is more an alliance of convenience than a true alliance.
Also, from my understanding a nation cannot be in 2 different alliances. The system is very reminiscent of HoI3, a nation is either independent, Allies, Axis, or Comintern. So if you have a Pact you cannot join an Alliance (and vice versa), and since Alliances are often more beneficial (especially for smaller nations) it might be a bad idea to rely on Pacts when your 'friends' decide to instead form an Alliance, meaning you are either part of their alliance (and subject to offensive vetos) or your Pact ends.

I am not saying the game should include this kind of feature, I am just saying expanding alliances to include all these different possibilities is something that I hope will be explored in future DLCs. You are right that it would allow aggressive nations to 'hide' behind an alliance, but at the same time something like a Defensive Pact wouldn't necessarily treat Aggressive Expansion (or the equivalent) the same as a full Alliance would. So if one member of a Pact got too aggressive then maybe the other party would decide to end the pact, for fear of their neighbor growing too large.

While allowing allies to declare their own offensive wars at will while using the alliance as a shield from retribution is probably something that the alliance system was very intentionally designed to disallow, the idea of a special coalition intrigues me. If there was the option for an alliance to only target a single enemy, but not cover wars with any other empires, that would give some room for really interesting diplomatic activity. Maybe the big empire would have the ability to wage proxy wars by providing advisors (and maybe "advisors") to enemies of the coalition members while staying clean itself. Maybe it would even be possible to force a vassal declare to war by itself; since it wouldn't technically be the big empire, it wouldn't trigger the coalition. The big empire could step into the fray, diplomatically or militarily, if things went poorly for the vassal and it was willing to directly face the coalition.
Indeed, these types of complex political maneuvering would be very interesting to eventually see in Stellaris.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
But if i'm in an alliance with some one who goes to wars i don't approve.. i would leave the alliance. I think i would feel like being a shield for him and nothing more. If you are in an alliance and both want the same planet thsi system makes even more sense then just letting you go alone! I mean he wants the system too! So either you work something out in the alliance or it breaks up. I can't see any scenario where two allies stay allied after one take something the other wants too. I certainly wouldn't (it would just invite more moves like that).
My questions stands. If you have two aggressive civs in an alliance, how do you resolve expansion when they share points of interest? Genuinely curious if you've heard anything from developers or what you think is a good idea. Do they have to now dissolve their alliance? Is that the only option? If so, it wold make it difficult for militaristic, expansive civs to maintain alliances. Is that something you are okay with?
 
Alliances are clearly designed as natural anti-blobbing mechanisms: weak, pacifistic empires will use them mostly as defensive pacts, ordinary empires will be able to agree on some targets as well as defend themselves, and aggressive expanders will probably be in competition for the same planets as you expect. Either they can agree on a division of the spoils, in which case the alliance can wage aggressive war just fine, or they both want the same territory and refuse to compromise, in which case the alliance dissolves (and rivalries are probably declared).
 
My questions stands. If you have two aggressive civs in an alliance, how do you resolve expansion when they share points of interest? Genuinely curious if you've heard anything from developers or what you think is a good idea. Do they have to now dissolve their alliance? Is that the only option? If so, it wold make it difficult for militaristic, expansive civs to maintain alliances. Is that something you are okay with?
It sounds like one empire will attempt to declare war on the shared interest state, he will add that System his list of war goals under his name (meaning control goes to him at the war's end). His Ally will say 'no' to that declaration of war, and will instead attempt to declare war himself, with that System under his list of war goals. The first empire will veto this declaration of war. No-one will get the system, until either: The two empires abandon their alliance and whoever declares war first wins, or one Empire decides to augment the Wargoals of the proposed war with other goals their ally wants to placate them into allowing the first empire to take the land both of them want.
 
About the Federations ...
the presidency rotates between the member states
What's about the Idea, that the Presidency does not rotates between the Federation-Member-States ...
Instead, It rotates, which Federation-Member-State the Player would controls directly ? ...

So the Player would (directly) control his own Empire A during Presidency-Period A ...
In Presidency-Period B, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member B ...
In Presidency-Period C, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member C ... etc. ...

And obviously, this is only a Suggestion for the Single-Player.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
About the Federations ...

What's about the Idea, that the Presidency does not rotates between the Federation-Member-States ...
Instead, It rotates, which Federation-Member-State the Player would controls directly ? ...

So the Player would (directly) control his own Empire A during Presidency-Period A ...
In Presidency-Period B, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member B ...
In Presidency-Period C, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member C ... etc. ...

And obviously, this is only a Suggestion for the Single-Player.
Why? You aren't those empires...
 
About the Federations ...

What's about the Idea, that the Presidency does not rotates between the Federation-Member-States ...
Instead, It rotates, which Federation-Member-State the Player would controls directly ? ...

So the Player would (directly) control his own Empire A during Presidency-Period A ...
In Presidency-Period B, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member B ...
In Presidency-Period C, the Player would (directly) control the Federation-Member C ... etc. ...

And obviously, this is only a Suggestion for the Single-Player.
No offence meant. But that is a terrible idea. You'd have to surrender control of your faction that you spent 100+ years building up to the whims of the AI while you take over some shitty AI factions that you incorporated into your federation as buffer states? Why would anyone ever want to do that? It's not like you're a vassal while you don't have the federation leadership. You just don't control the federation SuperFleet. You still have access to all your own stuff.

If you're worried about the federation restricting your ability to warmonger rampage across the galaxy, then you shouldn't be in a federation, unless they are all rampaging warmongers too.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why? You aren't those empires...
My own Empire is my Realm, but in the Case, that I'm in a Federation, this Federation is my new Realm ...

You'd have to surrender control of your faction that you spent 100+ years building up to the whims of the AI while you take over some shitty AI factions that you incorporated into your federation as buffer states?
We have Administrative Sectors, so that We have not the full (direct) Control of our own Empires, so that We have to deal with the AI as the Manager of the biggest Part of our own Empires ...

But Yes, the Federation-Members act more like Vassals, so that We have to avoid It, that the AI does really stupid Shit ("wrong" Research for Example) with my own Empire, during the Time, I would lead the Federation via the Presidency and Control of an other Federation-Member ...
We could avoid It, that (only) my own Empire would acts as an/1+ Administrative Sector/s, during this Time.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I don't understand the idea that the Form Federation option should be equivalent to the Offer Vassalization option (except without that annoying liberty desire to muck things up).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand the idea that the Form Federation option should be equivalent to the Offer Vassalization option (except without that annoying liberty desire to muck things up).

Some people want their cake (using the federation mechanics that are in their favor like shared tech) and to eat it to (not having the down side that you don't get permanent control of the federation).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
My own Empire is my Realm, but in the Case, that I'm in a Federation, this Federation is my new Realm ...


We have Administrative Sectors, so that We have not the full (direct) Control of our own Empires, so that We have to deal with the AI as the Manager of the biggest Part of our own Empires ...

But Yes, the Federation-Members act more like Vassals, so that We have to avoid It, that the AI does really stupid Shit ("wrong" Research for Example) with my own Empire, during the Time, I would lead the Federation via the Presidency and Control of an other Federation-Member ...
We could avoid It, that (only) my own Empire would acts as an/1+ Administrative Sector/s, during this Time.
That's not at all anything that the Federation is supposed to be...

It's basically a super alliance that gets to use the best part of every member. The federation does not research its own tech...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The Federations should be elections between member civilizations, without the ability to vote for your own.
 
  • 2
Reactions: