• 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:
Fixed that for you, scandianvia is a peninsula thank you very much (and denmark is not on the scandinavian peninsula, Finland however is, partly).

No, the Scandinavian countries as an ethnic, linguistic and cultural construct and the Scandinavian peninsula are two completely different things. 9/10 hits if you search for "Scandinavia" refers to the former - so "Scandinavia" most often refers to the former unless specified. Just because you're ashamed of the Danes does not mean you get to exclude them like this.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
No, the Scandinavian countries as an ethnic, linguistic and cultural construct and the Scandinavian peninsula are two completely different things. 9/10 hits if you search for "Scandinavia" refers to the former - so "Scandinavia" most often refers to the former unless specified. Just because you're ashamed of the Danes does not mean you get to exclude them like this.
Hence why I used scandinavian peninsula, the reason I object to using the term scandinavian is exactly because this, the peninsula contains finland but not denmark, the "scandianvian countries" however includes denmark but not finland. Hence nordic is a better term, and much more used in the actual languages. If you actually wish to exclude finland (as well as estonia latvia and lithuania, who are kind of nordic) I would reccoment north germanic countries, because then you don't forget about poor iceland (which is again Nordic but not Scandianvian (in either of the definitions)).

And scandinavia as a cultural construct is a lie, there's a rift rigth down the middle of the nordic countries, denmark and norway (and iceland) on one side and sweden and finland on the other. So of course to me as a swede finland matters more than denmark (depsite the fact that I could see denmark if I climbed my roof).
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Am I correct in reading that independent, unilateral wars of aggression will not be permitted for members of alliances and federations?
 
Unanimous agreement to declare war? No autonomy whatsoever? A simple rotation in federation presidents and no way to influence it?

This on top of EU4's rivalry system are huge steps back in the innovation I have come to expect from Paradox. I hope this gets changed by release otherwise if I do end up buying Stellaris, I suppose alliances just won't be worth it.
 
  • 10
  • 6
Reactions:
Warmongers beware! No more using allies as a shield against unchecked aggression! Either you're all in agreement about a war or you're out in the cold on your own.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
Are there defensive pacts, where we can declare war as we want and our ally is only called in if we are attacked?
 
  • 3
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I on the other hand am glad they are putting their foot down on it.

You are in an alliance, you do not have allies, you are a member.

You cant have your cake and eat it.

To be fair, with the favor system of EU4, sometimes the AI nations makes you make cake for them before they'll entertain your fancy ideas. I kind of like how it handles things.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I feel like this dd was a bit unsatisfying. No the actual mechanics involved but the info presented itself. Almost like it was only an introduction to the subjects as it razes so many questions that are unanswered. Will there be more detailed diarys on alliances and federations?
 
  • 14
Reactions:
To be fair, with the favor system of EU4, sometimes the AI nations makes you make cake for them before they'll entertain your fancy ideas. I kind of like how it handles things.
Except it's a bit to stable. But then again so does this seem to be.
 
I'd REALLY like a vote based federation system.

If I as a superpower want to start stuffing all the minor powers in to my federation for mutual benefit, why should they get to rotate in as president? An HRE system where the most powerful player puppy guards the weaker federation members would be far better.

You guys mention multiplayer but forget the chief aspect of multiplayer and that is large powers leading alliance blocks. Weaker players (or less skilled players) would be forced by game mechanics to become the federation leader which goes against... well pretty much everything multiplayer.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
Except the US is not a federation, it hans't been a federation since the civil war. The US is very much a state that emerged from a federation. It however has a lot of legal artifacts from it's time as a federation.

Look through this, it's pretty good, except he uses the term nation state for the US which I disagree with.
Yes it is. Just read te constition (it's only 8 pages) and read each state's separate constition.

The fact that in one state you can smoke dope and in the others you can't, that in one state you can buy alcohol on Sunday and in another you can't, is proof that the states have far more autonomy than a unitary state. The federal government has *very specific* powers, and the state's *have all of the other powers*. In a unitary state, the government has almost all of the power, and allows autonomy.

For example, when congress tried passing the Affordable Care Act under the commerce clause it was originally rejected by the Supreme Court, saying that the federal government did not have the power to do so (I mention that because state governments force auto insurance, the state government *does* have the power to force an insurance, not the federal government). However, they do have the power to tax in order to provide for the common good, and so it was allowed *as a tax*.

The state governments could then *refuse* to comply. The only thing that would happen is that the federal government would not fund the state.

In France, if the government were to say it did not to have the power to force an insurance, would the provinces be able to?

Another important thing is that our governors do not work for the federal government, and they do not answer to the president. It takes some serious stuff to override the state, and the federal government can only do it when the state conflicts with the constition directly. The constition can only be changed by the ratification of it in 38 states.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the idea of having nice, hard definitions for "alliance" and "federation" at launch, where its virtually all-or-nothing. This makes design and implementation much easier and leads to better overall balance.

It also makes room for interesting future expansions!

To clarify some questions, it state quite clearly that in an alliance, a member requires agreement from all members to start a war. As well, all members are called to a war when any other member is attacked.

The same applies to a federation, except that the term president of the federation makes decisions. For the members, however, it is still a matter of "all in or all out."

One of the big advantages of the federation is that the term president can design a federation-fleet using the BEST of all technologies from amongst the federation members. This would make a small federation EXTREMELY powerful if it includes specialized members. Especially with a single authority wielding the power.

It would be worth dealing with an unwieldy alliance in the short-term if it meant building towards the federation.

While the player is not holding the term presidency, he/she would have free reign to build diplomatic relations with specific members within the federation and focusing on developing civilian infrastructure. The federation has your back, you should try to get ahead in other ways while you can.

Lots of good potential here.

I'll betcha that those "xenophobic" societies would be hard to bring in to an alliance/federation, but once they are in, they'd be solid participants. Its not the 'xenophobic' aspect, but how sociable the society is over-all.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Why not make alliances like the series that you ignore, HOI? Right now all alliances are identical it seems. Doesn't matter if the empires are diplomatic, pacifist or aggressive. Going down the HOI route allows for different alliances along with different restrictions and benefits.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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.

View attachment 160100

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…

View attachment 160101

That’s all for now. Next week’s topic is Multiplayer!

Will we be able to 'name' these alliances from the standard Federation or other. Also, it seems a bit odd to see a confederacy in a federation. Are these not two different in many ways?