Stellaris Dev Diary #22 - Alliances and Federations

[Derp2]

This is going to be great for Star Wars mods, since this seems like the only way to accurately portray the galactic republic.

 

[Fenrirwolf]

why not ask them permission to go to war alone? alliances egenrally shoudlnt care if you attack OnePlanetMinor that doesnt stand a chance against uou unless they like them a lot, but block you goign to war with someone dangerous as it threathens the stability of the allaince.

Probably so you cant go on a warmongering rampage and be part of an strong alliance of not-expansionist nations to protect you from reconquests or coalitions, while not having to give your alliance members anything. This would prevent situations like in eu4 where you ally, say, a strong france, spain, austria and poland and conquer absolutly everything around you with no fear of ae since your allies will prevent any coalition from forming, while not calling them in any wars so they dont get anything.
Ally someone with similiar goals like yours without causing friction, or go alone, no cheap exploits of alliances.

 

[helicopterpizza]

Like what - Cage match? Amazing race? Survivor?



They are doing so up front and telling you if you want to go declaring war on your own and make lots of enemies, leave the alliance first, because it's not in their interest to maintain an alliance with you. This approach probably makes it a heck of a lot easier for the AI to deal player diplomacy. Would you be happier if the alliance members simply kicked you out if you declared war unilaterally, rather than forcing you to proactively leave the alliance?

I think the defensive pact the civilizations share would still be in both of their interests -- if it's not, then the AI or player should dissolve it at such time that it becomes inconvenient. Just because one of the partners in the alliance is able to expand unilaterally would not be reason to dissolve the defensive pact they share (especially against these massive Federales that will be unilaterally wielding the combined might of multiple civs).

 

[SamuraiLordofWii]

I like this it look like a way deeper mechanic like in the games befor. Also i like the rotation idea it just show that anything can happen and ruin all like a bad ruler where the player have no influence on it. It would be nice to try to rebuild it after the AI maybe messed it up. I saw a lot people complain about to stable realms in other games so this would maybe be a idea to adress it when you have to face some troube. And bad leaders ruin some empires befor so i guess it will be intresting experince.

 

[puggle999]

Can Federations have allies? do individual civilisations have an independent foreign policy within the federation?

Also a neat idea would be to have a HRE type confederacy, with voting for president weighted on what goals the civs inside want - eg, you pick a platform for your civ for election (trade, expansion, defence etc.) and the ai will vote for the best civ it likes - say I'm an expansionist human race, I'd rather that the expansionist birds were president than the peaceful mushrooms. That way you state your policy for the federation before you get in and allows the player to retain control if they are able.

 

[Darksaber501st]

This is without a doubt the most exciting DD yet, I can't wait to form a Federation and liberate the galaxy

 

[Ornlu Wolfjarl]

Once again, I hate to be naysayer here, but I think this system of alliances does not sound ery fun to play. It sounds like alliances and federations pretty much serve the exact same function in restricting your ability to go to wars, and I ask: what is the point? I'm not saying such alliances shouldn't exist. I'd prefer if I was given the choice if I wanted to enter a long-term alliance, the way you describe it, or a short-term alliance to take out stronger enemies, which is something that is mostly missing from Paradox Games by the way. There should be different types of alliances depending on what you want to achieve and what kind of empire you are roleplaying. So, for example, we could have the kind of alliance you talked about in the dev diary, which is more restrictive, but provides more long-term benefits, is more stable and can lead to a federation someday. Or we could have alliances that are short-term, designed to fight a singular threat and not participate in any other wars (like a Coalition but on a smaller scale and not dependant on AE opinion to the target), but are less stable, they are likely to break at some point in the not so distant future, but could lead to the stronger type of alliance.

Federations on the other hand sound like a great idea. I hope to see more similar mechanics in the future.

I have to say that if CK2 was an inspiration here, I consider it a bad choice, since CK2's current system is not at all great.

 

[Wulfburk]

Federations? Alliances? BAH

 

[Valakhan]

Actually I pointed out that nationstate didn't work for the US. Hence that I chose to use the word federal state.

.

You should definitely consider taking basic political science courses before keeping on this subject, you're mixing concepts in every single one of your posts, and everything you say don't hold by the simple fact that you seem to be unaware of the consensual definitions of specific terms according to the political scientists.

The main core of your argument is just false, there is no opposition between nation state and federal state. A Nation State is "a form of political organization in which a group of people who share the same history, traditions, or language live in a particular area under one government". This government can be centralised or federal, it can have a long history of slow building, it doesn't matter. Germany is a federal nation state, while switzerland is a federal state, but not a nation state, and France is a centralised nation state. You are drawing boundaries where there is none. "Nation State" refers to the nature of a government, "Federal" or "centralized" refers to how this government is organised. There is no link at all between the two

And please, use better sources to back your claims than documentaries, they are rarely of any scientific value. Use peer-reviewed articles if you want to make a credible point. You can do a research on google scholar for that.

 

[stumason]

I don't think you know what a republic is then...

A republic isn't defined by having an amount of votes based on population. That was a *compromise* made by nations in order to get things passed. A republic is a system in which people don't vote for issues directly, they vote for people to make that choice for them. That means you can be a republic and have 3 representatives total, or 1,000,000 representatives. You can have one for every 10 people, or one for every state.

A federation had nothing to do with a republic, a federation is simply a group of autonomous states that give up a little bit of their autonomy for a more unified goal, so it's a layered level. Some federations have a lot of state autonomy, some gave up a lot more.

The United States is both a federation (each state is semi automous, with the biggest argument to how autonomous they are), and a republic (we don't vote on federal laws, we elect people to vote on them).

Weighted votes came around LONG after republics did. The whole reason we are a republic instead of a democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the masses, which is what happens when you do it based purely on population size.

Republics limit this by NOT having weighted votes, hence the senate has 2 per state, where the house or Reps has Pop size. But still, not everyone votes, just the representatives elected. Hence, a republic.

I don't think many people know what a Republic is - it is simply a State whose Head is not a Hereditary Monarch.. that's it. Anything else about voting rights, weighting etc is just fluff and has nothing to do with whether a state is a Republic. You can have republics like the US, which have 2 senators per state, regardless of population, or you could have Republics like North Korea, who shoot people for suggesting they should have a Senator.

A Republic can be a Democracy or a Dictatorship. Also, A Democracy can be a republic or a monarchy.

The two terms - Democracy and Republic - have nothing to do with each other and are not mutually exclusive.. I generally only see Americans getting hung up and confused over the concept. Some even argue that the US isn't a Democracy - it is because people have the right to vote and it doesn't mean "mob rule" - you can have democracies with many varied forms of voting to "avoid the tyranny of the masses", a Democracy isn't as simple as "majority rules". It is also a Republic, because it doesn't have a Monarch. Simples.

No doubt though, someone will come back to argue the toss...

 

[GC13]

It sounds like alliances and federations pretty much serve the exact same function in restricting your ability to go to wars, and I ask: what is the point?

I think it's fantastic: an anti-blobbing mechanism baked into the gameplay so it's seamless and therefore doesn't feel punitive. The games are at their most fun when you're actively contending for domination, and much less fun when you're simply steamrolling over everyone in your path (though if you've built up to that point it's quite enjoyable to enjoy your hard-earned dominance ^_^), so a legitimate challenge that lets you know that you're the big dog in town (with all the satisfaction that brings) but at the same time you still have to strive to expand is a great addition.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

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.

I understand it was defined and I'll concede to your point. But what we are talking about here is sovereign empires creating a political union of some form for mutual advantage. Advantage that each obviously believe they all benefit from otherwise they wouldn't join. My position is that it makes little sense for a sovereign power to join itself to another authority unless it believes it can peacefully withdraw when it no longer considers its membership to its advantage. How stupid would a space faring empire be if it did such a thing without that recourse should the new entity become abusive to it?

And using my definition there has been a "true federation" in the history of mankind. The original 13 colonies of the U.S. had the right to leave. If you don't believe that then please take a look at the minutes of the constitutional debates from the legislative bodies involved. Virginia, New York, and Rhode Island explicitly stated that their ratification of the constitution was contingent on their right as sovereign states to withdraw at a later date. Virtually all the delegates involved understood this. Even Hamilton, who easy could be considered the most ardent nationalist of the day, publicly stated this during the New York State Ratification Convention. Just because some states were not allowed to leave 70+ years later doesn't mean the U.S. was set up that way in the beginning.

I have to respectfully disagree with your last sentence though. The constitution doesn't have to change its wording if current practice is different from what it reads and no one mounts serious objection. It may say that power not given to the federal government lies with the states or the people, but in practice this has changed quite significantly over it's 200 year history to the point where the federal government generally assumes it has the power unless the constitution explicitly denies it. In large part this is thanks to the abuse of clauses such as the general welfare clause where the federal government claims it has the power because it's in the general welfare. Something Madison himself said was absolutely an abuse of said clause.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

I personally think it would be interesting if federations in game could grab more power at the expense of their member empires over time. Key word, could, not necessarily that it would happen every time, but I think it would be an interesting dynamic if member states had to keep a watchful eye on the federation's government. Perhaps there could be power grab events which would require the player to respond in some way either choosing to let it go or object in some fashion, or even threatening to withdraw.

Just as some here have already indicated they would be interesting in trying to consolidate their own empire's power essentially abusing the initial intent of the federation, I think it would be interesting if it also worked the other way where you need to be watchful that the federation government doesn't become too centralized and your the one that gets abused. You could find yourself trying to withdraw from the federation only to find the central government raising an army to stop you claiming you have no right to leave.

 

[Rubidium]

And using my definition there has been a "true federation" in the history of mankind. The original 13 colonies of the U.S. had the right to leave.

And the Articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual; nor shall any alteration at any time hereafter be made in any of them; unless such alteration be agreed to in a Congress of the United States, and be afterwards confirmed by the legislatures of every State.

The states discussed the ability to withdraw from the Constitution, but the Articles of Confederation (which predated it) explicitly forbade secession.

 

[OBRkenobi]

Can you declare wars separately of other alliance members?

 

[Atlantians]

In Star Trek, the human fleet is the same fleet as the Federation, with the capital world being the Human home-world, and the President being elected from any of the member worlds, but leading from Earth.

Besides humans, who maintain no planetary defence fleet (they do maintain other small civilian fleets) all other member states can and many do maintain their own racial fleets.

A system like this where the most prominent founding member creates a Government resembling the EU4 HRE mechanic would be interesting.

 

[Ancient Warrior]

The states discussed the ability to withdraw from the Constitution, but the Articles of Confederation (which predated it) explicitly forbade secession.

You are misunderstanding the intent at the time. I am fully aware of this in the Articles. The use of the word perpetual did not mean the states were forbidden to leave. It meant that the legal bond they were forming did not have an expiration which would require it to be re-certified in the future. The delegates understood this. Madison even claimed it was a moot point in Federalist #40. Besides, if a state withdraws it doesn't make the union not perpetual in the way you interpret it. It simply makes it smaller by the number of states that leave. As long as the remaining members support it, it will remain.

Also, note in the line you quoted from the Articles that it said if this legislation is changed it must be done by all the states, yet the new constitution did not require all the states for it to take effect, it only required 9 of 13. Furthermore, the new constitution also stated in article 7 that if only 9 ratified it that it would only apply to those 9 and the 4 that don't wouldn't be part of the new union against their wishes. I assure you, if you study the minutes of the debates as well as the writings of the very people that founded these pieces of legislation it becomes quite clear that not one single state, north or south, would have ever agreed to a union if they thought they couldn't withdraw.

 

[RickInVA]

You are misunderstanding the intent at the time. I am fully aware of this in the Articles. The use of the word perpetual did not mean the states were forbidden to leave. It meant that the legal bond they were forming did not have an expiration which would require it to be re-certified in the future. The delegates understood this. Madison even claimed it was a moot point in Federalist #40. Besides, if a state withdraws it doesn't make the union not perpetual in the way you interpret it. It simply makes it smaller by the number of states that leave. As long as the remaining members support it, it will remain.

Also, note in the line you quoted from the Articles that it said if this legislation is changed it must be done by all the states, yet the new constitution did not require all the states for it to take effect, it only required 9 of 13. Furthermore, the new constitution also stated in article 7 that if only 9 ratified it that it would only apply to those 9 and the 4 that don't wouldn't be part of the new union against their wishes. I assure you, if you study the minutes of the debates as well as the writings of the very people that founded these pieces of legislation it becomes quite clear that not one single state, north or south, would have ever agreed to a union if they thought they couldn't withdraw.

Agreed.

Further, as the Constitution is quiet on the ability of the States to leave, the 9th and 10th Amendments would, IMHO, clearly reserve that right to the people, who could then choose to leave the United States as an expression of that right.

 

[RickInVA]

Generally I think this looks good.

The rotating federation leadership should be especially popular with the anti-micro crowd as it will take a lot of that troublesome diplo micro away!

 

[moglus]

The approach that you are arguing for (the one presented in this dev diary) is limiting to the player in that players are no longer allowed to create conflicts without consent of the majority of allied partners. Others here have expressed their reservations to this as well. I appreciate you taking the time to present why you are for it, and I understand your reasoning, but I and others "respectfully disagree" with the direction. This dev diary has presented a move in a direction that limits rather than frees up players (at least until alliances, and especially federations, are fleshed out into a finished feature in DLC), so I am just adding my voice to those who have reservations. Thanks!

Look, alliances have pretty much always been a frustrating game of blindfolded "he who smelt it, dealt it" in previous games. constant alliance breaking on both the players side and the AI when the alliance was even the slightest inconvenience made the system dysfunctional in practice, making an alliance are more strong and serious commitment is a good thing imo.
Does that mean you have to weigh the pros and cons of it before committing? YES AS IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE!
A military alliance is not some sort of kindergarten BFF friendship bracelet that you give to 29/30 of the other children, it's a serious binding commitment of military support.
So if you want to declare your own wars without needing others approval, then there is a very easy solution for you...
DON'T COMMIT TO A MILITARY ALLIANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

if you want other nations to be your bitch, and help you in all your wars, while you still have complete control over war declarations...
then have vassals not allies.......