• 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:
Dysfunctional democracy? Yes, in some ways, but they don't need to resolve to one ruling party or outright lying about election results - it's much easier to use propaganda and misdirection to stay in power just as AKP regained power in Turkey after the scattered election result.

Have you heard of a thing called "gerrymandering" in the US regarding elections? Now that is one way First Past the Post voting completely fucks up any semblance of democracy.

Is this the work of a functional democracy?

500px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png



Illinois_District_4_2004.png
You might also consider a "one party" system whereby there is the appearance of "two parties". All the people need is the illusion of choice.....and entertainment.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
Please fix this. This is probably the worst change to CK2 ever. More detailed reasoning in my signature :)

This isn't the place to make this request. Or to even discuss it, really. CK II forums exist and there's plenty of discussion of this issue over there you can join in.

As for the topic at hand, I personally hope that you can't operate independently of your alliance without dramatic penalties including the likelihood of getting tossed out. However, there should probably also exist a defensive alliance mechanic where nations can agree to assist each other solely in the event of an attack by a specific nation.
 
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
Oh yes, the reason it's kept like this is because the Democrats and Republicans would rather prefer only having to deal with the other. Better the enemy you know than five you don't.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh yes, the reason it's kept like this is because the Democrats and Republicans would rather prefer only having to deal with the other. Better the enemy you know than five you don't.

Good point. Then, there are all those "un-elected" "career-long Pentagon officials - that we never really know the names of - who plan and conduct the wars, as well as the "appointed" Federal treasury chair position. So many powerful people that are not elected.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Dysfunctional democracy? Yes, in some ways, but they don't need to resolve to one ruling party or outright lying about election results - it's much easier to use propaganda and misdirection to stay in power just as AKP regained power in Turkey after the scattered election result.

Have you heard of a thing called "gerrymandering" in the US regarding elections? Now that is one way First Past the Post voting completely fucks up any semblance of democracy.

Is this the work of a functional democracy?

500px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png



Illinois_District_4_2004.png
Like I said the US has it's problems too. The idea is an arrtifact from the time the US really was a federation, and why I am so hugely sceptical of non weighted voting.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Like I said the US has it's problems too.

Most important lesson here is that the way the US is a federation does not mean that every country has to have followed the same formula to also be a federation. It has nothing to do with how many ethnicities there are, how it came about historically, how its election system works or any of that - a federation is simply a nation state that affords a wider degree of self-governance to its component states, often to deal with being a large country and having vastly ifferent needs in different locales, but even Austria and Switzerland are functionally federations.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Most important lesson here is that the way the US is a federation does not mean that every country has to have followed the same formula to also be a federation. It has nothing to do with how many ethnicities there are, how it came about historically, how its election system works or any of that - a federation is simply a nation state that affords a wider degree of self-governance to its component states, often to deal with being a large country and having vastly ifferent needs in different locales, but even Austria and Switzerland are functionally federations.
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.
 
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions:
Most important lesson here is that the way the US is a federation does not mean that every country has to have followed the same formula to also be a federation. It has nothing to do with how many ethnicities there are, how it came about historically, how its election system works or any of that - a federation is simply a nation state that affords a wider degree of self-governance to its component states, often to deal with being a large country and having vastly ifferent needs in different locales, but even Austria and Switzerland are functionally federations.

With this definition, Germany is somewhat/or in some ways, more federated than the US (well...maybe not). I did a few papers at Uni on the re-unification and had to delve into the way the states set up taxes and work policies. It's much more "state oriented" than the average American might think. They have these 3-way bodies consisting of representatives from Labor, State Government, and the Business Sector that come together for policy formation. I found it quite interesting.
 
  • 1
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.

It was a federation at first with a very weak federal government (ironically bordering on what we would call a "confederation" now). Now it is a federation with a quite strong federal government. Each State of the US still has *much* more self governance compared to the subdivisions of unitary states such as France, Italy or the Scandinavian countries.

You are still a federation by any measure of the word.

Umm guys? Stellaris, not RL politics, please!

Sorry.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Very very good Dev Diary. I love how federations are being portrayed but I have one question. While the president can lead the united coalition armies I assume that other empires will be able to still fund their own personal fleets. Is this correct? People who aren't presidents would be unable to declare wars but still be able to do everything else. I hope down the line there can be politics down the line for members to put pressure on the president if he is a lame duck for instance.
 
Very very good Dev Diary. I love how federations are being portrayed but I have one question. While the president can lead the united coalition armies I assume that other empires will be able to still fund their own personal fleets. Is this correct? People who aren't presidents would be unable to declare wars but still be able to do everything else. I hope down the line there can be politics down the line for members to put pressure on the president if he is a lame duck for instance.

I guess that might be the price of federalization. If you could declare war or indirectly control the president even when you're not it, then it would be far too powerful a tool and basically just an extension of yourself.

It seems like a solution to be used if you find that you and your first neighbor's second neighbor has twice the star systems you do, and they're a bunch of xenophobic militants coming to destroy you. You then ally your first neighbor, eventually federalize... and once you've vanquished your enemy, you may choose to break it off.

For me, as a player, it'd be a desperation move to stay alive.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
It was a federation at first with a very weak federal government (ironically bordering on what we would call a "confederation" now). Now it is a federation with a quite strong federal government. Each State of the US still has *much* more self governance compared to the central governments of unitary states such as France, Italy or the NORDIC countries.
Fixed that for you, scandianvia is a peninsula thank you very much (and denmark is not on the scandinavian peninsula, Finland however is, partly).

You are still a federation by any measure of the word.
You just said we weren't... oh you think I'm from the US? Nope sorry, Swedish. And I argue that at a certain, undefined, point of the federal government being stronger than the local governments it is to similiar to an actual state to be considered a mere federation any more.
Also you are mistaken when in comes to the nordic countries, sweden has a system of subdivision too, in fact several overlapping systems, län (counties) , landskap (provinces), and kommuner (muncipalities). Local decisions are meant to be taken as close to the people they matter to as possible. That's not enough to make us a federation though, we fulfill far to many aspects of a nation state not to be considered as such.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
Fixed that for you.


You just said we weren't... oh you think I'm from the US? Nope sorry, Swedish. And I argue that at a certain, undefined, point of the federal government being stronger than the local governments it is to similiar to an actual state to be considered a mere federation any more.
Also you are mistaken when in comes to the nordic countries, sweden has a system of subdivision too, in fact several overlapping systems, län (counties) , landskap (provinces), and kommuner (muncipalities). Local decisions are meant to be taken as close to the people they matter to as possible. That's not enough to make us a federation though.

Fixed.. What? All of the Nordic and all of the Scandinavian countries are unitary states, the latter is not wrong to use, I just chose to include fewer countries?

And no, having subdivisions does make you a federation. Having powerful subdivisions with extensive legislative power does. The läns do not have the legislative power an American or German state does, compared to the central government.

To put it like this: You'll find many star empires of the Stellaris map will call themselves "federation" this and "federation" that, and the sectors could be said to be an example of federalization: They just don't meddle in foreign relations or military, but the rest, they control by and large... And yes a federation can be a member of a federation, otherwise stuff like the EU would be impossible.

Edit #4252: Sorry for mistaking you for a US citizens, but all the talk of federation and state rights is a very typical topic there, it seems.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
Don't really like the sound of those alliances. They sound way too similar to federations which I wasn't really planning on playing much, if ever anyway. Hope it's not too difficult to be powerful enough to go it alone. And as for federations I don't really like the idea that the presidency rotates, would be nice if there was an option to vote for who the leader added at some point. Might be more fun to actually play then, at the moment it seems like you're just giving up on a huge part of the game and letting someone else/the ai decide what you're doing which doesn't sound fun. Having more ways to get and then keep the leadership would give more incentive to actually join a federation IMO.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions: