Stellaris Dev Diary #22 - Alliances and Federations

[Fawr]

Federations sounds like a nice alternative to badboy wars and coalitions. If someone looks scary then people will start to work together against them...

 

[TheDungen]

The reason why the US can wage independent wars outside of NATO is because the US provides the super majority of the logistics, transport, strategic weapons, and force projection for the alliance itself, both offensive and defensive units and weapons. Europe is less of an ally and more like a protectorate, weaker than Japan or Israel. The protectorate doesn't want their protector's military force squandered in foreign countries, they want it at home, defending them, as the US bases in Germany remains to this day for that purpose.

Not even the British or the Russians can transport a significant number of troops to Kuwait without the approval and use of US logistics ships due to the naval advantage.

There was a summation quote some time ago, that the US Navy's strength is equal/greater to the next 7 strongest navies in the world, combined. Though that will change in time due to China and Japan.

Now that raises a different issue for in game alliances, since usually someone with 75% or a majority of the military power in the galaxy wouldn't need an alliance, just a non aggression pact as they take over individual territory piecemeal, similar to Hitler vs Poland and Hitler over Rhineland.

In a military alliance, a faction's say rests upon their personal military forces and what they offer to the table. The other sides in this "multilateral" alliance isn't necessarily all that multilateral in the EU or UN sense. In order to prevent their strong ally and protector from walking away from the alliance, they tend to give concessions, in return for a lot more than they could get while going alone. The UN's veto is due to the world's desire to keep the former superpowers from each other's nuclear throats, that's why they made it so that enemies could veto each other, rather than wage war over it. It was designed to produce gridlock, not alliances.

An alliance between near equals would be about the only alliance where a veto might come into play. A veto implies that there's some ultimate benefit to not leaving the alliance for those involved, or the threat of the group ganging up on the one who left. There's some kind of coercion or threat behind the veto, since obviously anyone can leave the organization if they don't abide by the single party veto.

In a defensive alliance, the priority is always on protecting the members from foreign invasion. Not on offensive wars. In that sense, NATO would apply even though the Warsaw pact it was designed to defend against no longer exists, which causes most of the members to have lost almost all of their offensive force projection powers; it raises doubt on why the alliance even exists, what purpose does it have, except making Western Europe into a permanent protectorate of the US. Having a veto on when they should defend a member state, would produce a lot of gridlock and often times invalidate the purpose of the alliance itself.

An alliance between China, Japan, Russia, and the US would be one of "near equals". A veto in that alliance would be something the members would require before joining. As they would not want their foreign policy controlled by any single or even majority of member states.

Given the design decisions in latest CK2 version concerning alliances pulling the members into a war automatically, they seem to want to spread that to Stellaris as well, because the new mechanic is something they have faith in. Whether that fits within the context of the gameplay, remains to be seen.

To illustrate France's situation, France has the Foreign Legion in North Africa and in other parts of their (former) colonies doing... something. The US did not attempt to veto that. Of course, NATO has historically seen France doing whatever it pleases. So they were always an outlier.

We've been over this yes the US has a load of stufff but their tactics rely on having a loads more stuff than everyone else, all their branches of military are increadibly innefficient. Most other militaries not being able to field a navy as large as the seven second largest navies have switched to a stealth based approach that the US would find very hard to cope with (if facing down a lot of them all at once), for an example a single swedish sub in a excercise a few years back managed to hide for months from the US forces meant to hunt it down, eventually the US forces had to forfeit and the sub surfaced right next to their command vessel.
And that's kind of the poing most smaller nations knows they can't take on the US fighting fairly so they have designed their militaries around not fighting fairly. The US performance against guerilla fighters in basically every modern war they have commited ground troops in will show you their inability to deal with the changing tactics of modern military conflict. What good is a carrier group when your enemies can hide in a crowd of civilians?
Funny thing is for the US less is more has been true, conflicts where they have contributed less have been the ones where they have achieved the most success, Libyia and Yugoslavia for an example, while the ones where they have put boots on the ground like vietnam or iraq they have usually just managed to turn a bad situation worse.

 

[Prophet of ReShrek]

Sounds great.

 

[Safehold]

We've been over this yes the US has a load of stufff but their tactics rely on having a loads more stuff than everyone else, all their branches of military are increadibly innefficient. Most other militaries not being able to field a navy as large as the seven second largest navies have switched to a stealth based approach that the US would find very hard to cope with (if facing down a lot of them all at once), for an example a single swedish sub in a excercise a few years back managed to hide for months from the US forces meant to hunt it down, eventually the US forces had to forfeit and the sub surfaced right next to their command vessel.
And that's kind of the poing most smaller nations knows they can't take on the US fighting fairly so they have designed their militaries around not fighting fairly. The US performance against guerilla fighters in basically every modern war they have commited ground troops in will show you their inability to deal with the changing tactics of modern military conflict. What good is a carrier group when your enemies can hide in a crowd of civilians?
Funny thing is for the US less is more has been true, conflicts where they have contributed less have been the ones where they have achieved the most success, Libyia and Yugoslavia for an example, while the ones where they have put boots on the ground like vietnam or iraq they have usually just managed to turn a bad situation worse.

The US primarily uses nuclear submarines, not diesel and hybrid engine submarines, with the diesel subs being much more quiet on sonar. Their endurance and strategic speed suffers, as a result.

The nuclear powered submarines, are like the nuclear powered carriers, designed to project power over long periods, offensively, not merely used for scouting or defensive purposes. Projecting power, escorting supply convoys for ground troops, etc. Although nuclear powered submarines were designed to stay submerged for extreme periods of time, so that the Russians could never figure out where they all were, in the case of a nuclear First Strike. That's gotten slightly obsolete over time, and maintaining all those MIRV missiles from those nuclear subs was also getting expensive.

So the US is budgeting down its navy, but its efficiency was designed for a different war.

As for Libya, that's basically a horror story.

The reason why I raised the point of the difference in power is not to pit the US vs the world. I was illustrating why in certain alliances, if you have such a large imbalance in military logistics and power between the members, vetos don't tend to be used. The veto would only be effective if it was backed up by some kind of threat or enormous power. That would be the only way to enforce it.

 

[Safehold]

Uh, what? I mean, the non-US NATO members represent significantly larger military forces than Japan or Israel. They are not the Federated States of Micronesia. The Israel example is a bit perplexing, since a few years back Netanyahu was saber rattling with threats to unilaterally bomb Iran if the US wouldn't agree to bomb Iran with him, but it never happened in part because, as critics immediately pointed out to Netanyahu, Israel would have required US mid-air refueling to even reach Iran.

The Japan example is also fairly perplexing, since the argument that Japan has been a de facto US protectorate since WWII is the more typical one, given that the US occupied Japanese territory for decades and also because the UK and France both spend significantly more on their military than Japan and Germany spends close to the same amount while not having much of a navy.

I am unaware of any provision of the NAT that prevents NATO members from waging offensive wars without NATO.

Many nations require mid air refueling of that sort from the US. It's part of the service US logistics provides in coalitions, subsidized by all that US military funding which has been shrinking for some time now. If people had a carrier/group, that they were willing to use that far out it might be different.

Japan, like South Korea, has been under US protection for some time, true, but that relationship has been changing, from both ends. With the US failure in Iraq and Afghanistan to redeem Vietnam/Fall of Saigon and domestic political problems, budgeting is shifting, mostly to social welfare and national healthcare.

The strength ratio I was using concerned combat experience, national willpower, and logistics, combined with military technology. Israel has fought several active wars and their technology is quite on par, if still inferior to latest US R and D in weapons tech and drone tech. It's probably just a budgeting issue at this point, they are pretty small to provide a sufficient economic and logistics base for any wars beyond defensive ones.

Japan doesn't have much experience at all, but they have absorbed a significant chunk of military training with US Marines and other forces overseas, for their Ministry of Defense. And their total economy and national culture is still sufficient to support quite a large budget, once they reform their Constitution or get hit by an attack that the US refuses to help deal with.

UK and France has some of Western Europe's best military still. Their willpower to use it and their funding for it, is probably insufficient at this time compared to the other nations.

As for NATO, the veto was more of a UN issue. I was replying to an earlier issue here about why alliances needed a vote for a member to declare war. For the most part, it doesn't seem to need a vote, but the US is still in NATO nonetheless, even though NATO is kind of useless now. So people were free to do their own foreign policy in NATO, but I think the ones with the most military power in an alliance tend to have the most pull and the most freedom. They generally aren't forced to leave an alliance just to declare a war that nobody else in the alliance wants.

 

[Orinsul]

What happens if an alliance/federation member has a civil war? can they call on the federation to fight the rebels, if called upon can the federation choose to back the rebels instead?
or a revolution? will the new government be kicked out of the federation or instantly allowed in and legitimised?

Could a federation try and impose ethnics or government types on federation members? consolidate authority with EU3 HRE type reforms?
If the federation fleet gets too powerful and then isnt paid enough or the federation tries to reduce it, can the fleet attempt a military coup? or go rogue? or try and conquer one of the federation members?

will leaving the federation require all fed members voting yes to you leaving? or the pres. signing off on it? and if you dont get consent you have to go to war to get out?
or just be a matter of leaving?

Could there be CK2 faction style plots or rebellions/palace-coups to become president when its not your turn?

Will AI federations generally be expected to last the game or eventually collapse?

 

[Yenzen]

Will large AI factions, in general, be more averse to creating federations, and also leave them if they end up making up more than 60-70% of the total power?

I really don't hope Space Austria, Space France and Space Ottomans are as likely to join together as Space Anhalt, Space Ulm and Space Siena.

 

[persovs]

Will large AI factions, in general, be more averse to creating federations, and also leave them if they end up making up more than 60-70% of the total power?

I really don't hope Space Austria, Space France and Space Ottomans are as likely to join together as Space Anhalt, Space Ulm and Space Siena.

never forget space holstein

 

[Kayden_II]

Will large AI factions, in general, be more averse to creating federations, and also leave them if they end up making up more than 60-70% of the total power?

... That makes Sense in this Case, How a Federation in Stellaris works.

 

[Merlyn612]

So in an alliance all members need to approve a war, and in a federation the members take turns being president of destroying relations. (If I'm understanding)

My question really is only about how long a particular president stays president before another civilization gets a chance, and how the ongoing wars of the prior president can be handled.

 

[freeaxle]

Loving the dev diaries for this - massively excited for Stellaris (and for seeing some of these features in Victoria 3 )

One question - will there be the possibility for members of a federation to try to basically take over the Federation, maybe in a coup? It'd be cool to be part of a Federation but secretly plotting to take over the whole thing for yourself...

 

[Wessexking]

So, can alliances/Federations have civil wars? Does it treat local revolts of a member as revolts against itself?

 

[SgtSmuckers]

So it's basicaly formable HRE... in SPACE!

*twitches* Must... Dissolve... THE EMPIRE!

 

[Person012345]

ALL of the allies have to agree? That... sounds like a bad idea if say EUIV is anything to go by. IF you have an alliance of like half dozen nations, 5 can all be happy to start a war and it's just blocked by one obstinate guy? Is there a mechanic to eject them from the alliance?

 

[Yenzen]

ALL of the allies have to agree? That... sounds like a bad idea if say EUIV is anything to go by. IF you have an alliance of like half dozen nations, 5 can all be happy to start a war and it's just blocked by one obstinate guy? Is there a mechanic to eject them from the alliance?

The more I read about them, the more it seems like an anti-blobbing mechanism. If there are very aggressive and expansionist factions nearby, the AI is encouraged to form alliances and federations.

It is not a tool to achieve more player dominance, as many players wish for a way to make it by "taking it over from the inside!". It is a survival strategy that most non-federation builder AI's will not not undertake out of anything but necessity.

 

[helicopterpizza]

If you want to declare wars as you please... then do it. the game doesn't restrict you there. it just says you can't have everything. You need to choose. Either risk go it alone but have more options or take the safer way (alliance) and need approval from the others for decisions. Again. Why do you want to start an alliance in this game? (your answer will provide further proof for my point of view)

Thanks for the reply! I like hearing other people's opinions on this. You asked why I would want to start an alliance and I guess that would have to vary game to game and situation to situation. You might want to make an alliance defensively if there was a larger, aggressive civ close by. If you were playing aggressively you might want to form an alliance with another aggressive civ to expand even more rapidly. I think there are a lot of reasons why civs would want to join their military might. My reservation with this direction is, as you said, you can't "have it all." I think there are plenty of good reasons why one partner in an alliance should be allowed to take unilateral aggressive actions toward smaller states. Say, for instance you are in an alliance with another civ and you are both posturing to expand to a star system near your shared border. Both civs would probably want it, right? How do you resolve this in this current system? They would both present the war option to conquer this one star system civ and the other would decline it because they also want it. I think in this instance (one of many) the alliance system becomes awkwardly restraining to the player. Interested in your feedback! Thanks!

 

[Person012345]

The more I read about them, the more it seems like an anti-blobbing mechanism. If there are very aggressive and expansionist factions nearby, the AI is encouraged to form alliances and federations.

It is not a tool to achieve more player dominance, as many players wish for a way to make it by "taking it over from the inside!". It is a survival strategy that most non-federation builder AI's will not not undertake out of anything but necessity.

If my experience in previous paradox games is anything to go by, joining one of more than 1 other empire will mean you can never declare war for any reason ever again. I mean, that actually sounds kind of fine for a federation, but for an alliance it doesn't make sense that you can't declare a unilateral war against someone while still benefitting from the defensive alliance. If it's supposed to work like NATO, the US was still able to have a war with Iraq without NATOs approval. Of course, we'll have to see, I'm entirely open to the concept that the system may make it easier for everyone to agree to a given war than in EU (where I will rarely get all my allies in any offensive war).

 

[KonradKurze202]

I rarely RP in EU or Vichy, I sometimes will a little in CK, but in general I try to play more 'optimally' and less 'what would this nation/king/etc actually want?'

In Stellaris it looks like it is going to be very easy to RP, make a Federation of Planets, or a Galactic Empire, or anything else you want! Stellaris looks like it is taking all the best qualities of EU, CK, Vichy, & HoI.

 

[Sellt]

Thanks for the reply! I like hearing other people's opinions on this. You asked why I would want to start an alliance and I guess that would have to vary game to game and situation to situation. You might want to make an alliance defensively if there was a larger, aggressive civ close by. If you were playing aggressively you might want to form an alliance with another aggressive civ to expand even more rapidly. I think there are a lot of reasons why civs would want to join their military might. My reservation with this direction is, as you said, you can't "have it all." I think there are plenty of good reasons why one partner in an alliance should be allowed to take unilateral aggressive actions toward smaller states. Say, for instance you are in an alliance with another civ and you are both posturing to expand to a star system near your shared border. Both civs would probably want it, right? How do you resolve this in this current system? They would both present the war option to conquer this one star system civ and the other would decline it because they also want it. I think in this instance (one of many) the alliance system becomes awkwardly restraining to the player. Interested in your feedback! Thanks!

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).

 

[TheDarkMaster]

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).

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.