Stellaris Dev Diary #22 - Alliances and Federations

[chrisjwmartin]

I'm not sure I agree with limiting declaring independent wars, but you could argue that the other factions in the alliance would be annoyed that an alliance member wasted troops, the alliance might need, to conquer something they do not care about.

Of course other factions in the alliance would be annoyed. That's what negative diplomatic modifiers are for. Instead this game system basically says that Iceland could have vetoed the Iraq War just because it's in NATO. It's ridiculous.

 

[Teije]

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.
...
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.

Agreed, the USA is definitely a federal state - people tend to forget - based on the world power of the USA itself - how decentralized internally it is.

A country even more explicitly federal and decentralized is Canada - laws & regulations vary widely from province and province, and substantial internal trade barriers between provinces mean that Canada has freer trade externally in many products than internally. Changing the constitution or federal governance structure is next to impossible, since there are high requirements for a majority, or even all, of the provinces to agree. The extreme decentralization of Canada is IMO a key factor in keeping Quebec in the federation (which has even more independent powers than other provinces).

 

[chrisjwmartin]

Just because the US does it all the time doesn't mean its the right way. If you don't want to work with your allies why did you ally them in the first place? If you want to go after other nations of your own choosing and without giving war spoils to others, maybe just go it alone and don't join an alliance. Seems to me you just want to exploit an alliance as a defense for yourself.

No one's claiming that it's morally right or that the US is a paragon of virtue when it comes to international affairs. But given that attacking without allies' support does happen - whether you think that's moral or not - it is unrealistic for the game to prohibit it.

 

[helicopterpizza]

For release, it will most likely be rotation only.

This is the only feature I can think of that has not been immediately met with thunderous applause and gratuitous back-slapping. I think there needs to be a little more detail presented to bring people along. I also think a justification for the release of this feature in an unfinished state (without other electoral models) is needed. That said, I'm a big fan of Paradox and am interested to see how you handle things like this when the rubber meets the road. Best of luck!

 

[Yenzen]

This is the only feature I can think of that has not been immediately met with thunderous applause and gratuitous back-slapping. I think there needs to be a little more detail presented to bring people along. I also think a justification for the release of this feature in an unfinished state (without other electoral models) is needed. That said, I'm a big fan of Paradox and am interested to see how you handle things like this when the rubber meets the road. Best of luck!

The (seeming) rigidity of alliances not allowing you to start a war on your own, only risking yourself, has been met with some skepticism. It seems very restrictive.

It'll make me very weary of allying more than one other faction.

 

[helicopterpizza]

The (seeming) rigidity of alliances not allowing you to start a war on your own, only risking yourself, has been met with some skepticism. It seems very restrictive.

It'll make me very weary of allying more than one other faction.

The rigidity of the alliances is a big issue, but my biggest concern is the diplomatic implications of the President of a Federation unilaterally wielding the power of all members. This seems pretty overpowered and would require all players to be in a Federation as a matter of basic survival. This puts the player in a position of having the majority of his/her foreign policy determined by AI or another person. This must mean that Paradox expects the eXpansion and eXploration portions to be good enough to stand on their own!

 

[Novek]

The (seeming) rigidity of alliances not allowing you to start a war on your own, only risking yourself, has been met with some skepticism. It seems very restrictive.

It'll make me very weary of allying more than one other faction.

Pretty sure thats the point. The AI can no longer be used as a meat shield and has its own goals.

Want to conquer everyone? Well you either give them planets they want or go it alone without allies to protect you while you make everyone angry.

 

[Brian Bóroimhe]

But will there be option to opt-out from some of the Federation's rules and/or threaten the Federation with referendum on leaving it if demands are not met?

Rule, Brittania, Brittania rules the gravitational waves!

The thought of space britain has reminded me of this:

I apologise to anyone who's never encountered a hard Scottish accent before, you're unlikely to understand much of that.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

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.

This. A true Federation would allow its various political entities to leave if they choose, otherwise it's just a nation state. Not one of the original colonies would have ever ratified the constitution if they thought they would never be allowed to leave. But as that generation died off, the idea of union began to be replaced by nation and eventually the States lost their right to leave. There is a reason the colonies choose to call themselves States and not provinces. Because a state is a nation, especially the 18th century definition of the word and a true state does not cede authority over it unless it voluntarily chooses to do so. When it does voluntarily choose to do so it assumes it retains the right to take it back should the federal government become a detriment to it's own interest. The federal government may still be called "federal" but that is just a hold over from history.

 

[ikki]

I noticed that there is an option to leave the federation you belong to in one of the screenshots. What would happen if, say, the presidential faction does this? Would it retain control of the federation's ships in a fait accompli? Or would control automatically revert to the federation's new president?

Would each faction in a federation get the highest techs from each of the members, or would those techs be temporary and limited to the federation president designing ships?

I would imagine there is a federal budget, pay 10% tax on minerals or some such.. and then its the PRESIDENTS fleet. Leave the federation and someone else is president and gets to fly them. Everyone leaves the federation and umm.. id presume its the last member who gets to keep them

Or maybe the captains sworn to the higher ideals of the federation just fly off to find worthier people to serve if it all falls apart.
Which could be an interesting event for a somewhat newly formed federation. A fleet of somewhat badly hammered ancient starships come out of warp, they claim to have been roaming the stars for millennia since the federation they served fell apart in civil disputes and are looking to serve you.

 

[Arkangilos]

The rigidity of the alliances is a big issue, but my biggest concern is the diplomatic implications of the President of a Federation unilaterally wielding the power of all members. This seems pretty overpowered and would require all players to be in a Federation as a matter of basic survival. This puts the player in a position of having the majority of his/her foreign policy determined by AI or another person. This must mean that Paradox expects the eXpansion and eXploration portions to be good enough to stand on their own!

Eh, I'm in favor of the "leader" of the federation declaring war without the consent of everyone else. After all, when congress declares war (or whatever legislative power of the federations in question), the state Governors don't have a say. Congress may be composed of representatives of each state, but that doesn't mean the state exactly controls them.
I think a good expansion would be fleshing it out so you could choose or your people could elect a representative to the federation "council" and that they would either vote for or against what the president chooses based on their ethics. You don't get to tell them how to vote, but you can choose them based on things that make them likely to vote certain ways.

This. A true Federation would allow its various political entities to leave if they choose, otherwise it's just a nation state. Not one of the original colonies would have ever ratified the constitution if they thought they would never be allowed to leave. But as that generation died off, the idea of union began to be replaced by nation and eventually the States lost their right to leave. There is a reason the colonies choose to call themselves States and not provinces. Because a state is a nation, especially the 18th century definition of the word and a true state does not cede authority over it unless it voluntarily chooses to do so. When it does voluntarily choose to do so it assumes it retains the right to take it back should the federal government become a detriment to it's own interest. The federal government may still be called "federal" but that is just a hold over from history.

Oh yeah? What definition says this?

And you know George Washington personally led an army to put down a rebellion that started over taxes right? I get the feeling that if a state would have seceded, he would have led an army to stop that, too.

 

[helicopterpizza]

Pretty sure thats the point. The AI can no longer be used as a meat shield and has its own goals.

Want to conquer everyone? Well you either give them planets they want or go it alone without allies to protect you while you make everyone angry.

OP was referring to "risking yourself," not using an ally as a "meat shield." The issue at hand is the inability to engage in independent, unilateral conflicts.

 

[Orkonkel]

O my god wow. A thousand times wow.

This is brilliant.

Please more meaningful decisions like this in other games (as EU4).

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I would think an expansion could have not only the ability to elect a single leader but various other forms as well. You could have a form where might makes right. The leader tries to force others to comply. Perhaps a ruler ship by council. Think of the UN there are lots of members but the security council wields the most power.

I like the idea of allowing others to purchase votes from various members of the alliance too. This could be similar to favors in CKII. Or how constitutional monarchy works in EU4. So if u want to be elected the boss you need to start making bribes. These bribes will help the lesser powers gain strength and it allows the top powers to be able to run the federation more. It's a win win

 

[I_AM_King_Midas]

I hope the way war works for federated members is similar to counts under a king in CKII when there is low crown authority. You can attack outside of your country and not expect the aid of the king but if they attack the country the whole country is involved.

 

[ashbery76]

Federations sounds like the non aligned worlds in B5.Something so the smaller factions can be relevant.The big boys would stay independent.I am curious how the A.I will be able to handle this mechanic for the bigger factions without hurting its own power.Obviously the human player can understand balance of power.

 

[brifbates]

OP was referring to "risking yourself," not using an ally as a "meat shield." The issue at hand is the inability to engage in independent, unilateral conflicts.

Except that "risking yourself" isn't the case when you are part of an alliance as the blowback will hit all members, (or, when played properly, be completely deflected by the presence of the alliance) . The alliance keeping you from retribution is the very definition of it being a "meat shield".

 

[Santander]

This. A true Federation would allow its various political entities to leave if they choose, otherwise it's just a nation state. Not one of the original colonies would have ever ratified the constitution if they thought they would never be allowed to leave. But as that generation died off, the idea of union began to be replaced by nation and eventually the States lost their right to leave. There is a reason the colonies choose to call themselves States and not provinces. Because a state is a nation, especially the 18th century definition of the word and a true state does not cede authority over it unless it voluntarily chooses to do so. When it does voluntarily choose to do so it assumes it retains the right to take it back should the federal government become a detriment to it's own interest. The federal government may still be called "federal" but that is just a hold over from history.

Erm, using this definition, there's never been a "true Federation" in the entire history of mankind. Redefining already defined terms does not make you right; in fact, it merely strengthens the other side's argument. A federation, as has been explained previously in the thread, is a government in which the subdivisions retain a large amount of power over their own inner workings. Whether this power includes being able to veto the government's top-level workings is irrelevant, as is the question of secession. The United States (for example) will only cease to be a federation when the constitution is changed so that any power not expressly given to the states lies in the hands of the federal government; right now, it is the other way 'round.

 

[Novek]

OP was referring to "risking yourself," not using an ally as a "meat shield." The issue at hand is the inability to engage in independent, unilateral conflicts.

I know that. My point still stands.

Since brif bates already responded how i was going to just read his post.

 

[helicopterpizza]

Except that "risking yourself" isn't the case when you are part of an alliance as the blowback will hit all members, (or, when played properly, be completely deflected by the presence of the alliance) . The alliance keeping you from retribution is the very definition of it being a "meat shield".

The word "unilateral" means on one's own. This inherently means that there is no "blowback" on your allies. What part are you having problems understanding?