Stellaris Dev Diary #249 - New Friends

[verybad]

Why on or off earth would an orbital assembly building that blocks out the suns for half the year make you more loyal to the Overlord? You do know it doesn't really love you and is only building up that planet because IT wants more stuff from YOUR planet. I say rise up against the fiend, if you become a member of our society, you'll get things like an Aid Agency just for pledging loyalty to our (mostly) hands off leader. It's great in this empire!

 

[FleetMaster]

Why on or off earth would an orbital assembly building that blocks out the suns for half the year make you more loyal to the Overlord?

That's nothing compared to the potential shadows cast by planetary orbital rings.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I mean, if you're getting loyalty for literally reducing happiness with your armies, at least the building could give some loyalty.

Sure, anything could be coded to give loyalty, but why should it?

Stationing forces to maintain loyalty of subject states is a traditional part of statecraft. More to the point, it's an option specific to a specific civic- there is a higher opportunity cost in being able to access it, which combines some bonuses of 'mitigate my vassal's ability to threaten me' and loyalty.

The other building is not at such a high opportunity cost, nor is it tied to such a historical trope.

 

[DeanTheDull]

You are missing the context. Someone asked why the orbital assembly complex didn't give some unity, given it was a purely helpful holding. The dev replied it's because you got alloys out of it. I'm pointing out that other buildings which grant loyalty also give direct resources to the overlord, so that alone isn't enough of a reason imo.

Why not?

The point of beneficial buildings is that they give something beneficial, not that they give all beneficial things. 'Why not X?' 'Because it already gives Y' is a sufficient answer.

The orbital construction also requires an upfront investment of 300 alloys for the construction ships that sit around, which cuts into the first decade worth of alloys. And if you wanted alloys, I am almost certain that using the ministry which steal alloys or simply increasing the tribute of advanced resources will give you significantly more. Even if an empire is only making 100 alloys monthly, 15% of that is nearly twice what an orbital assembly building would give.

And yet, the alloy ministry comes with a loyalty cost, which in turn affects how many vassals you can hold at what levels of tribute without gaining net loyalty. That's the difference, which in turn creates a difference of strategic roles.

The orbial construction requires an upfront of 300 alloys, and gets 700 alloy profit within a decade if you maximize construction ships, while not dropping loyalty.

And given that tributaries and prospectorium have to give an even percentage of ALL basic resources, you will likely have significant amounts of excess food even with only a couple. It's still a cost, since that food could be sold or traded, but it won't be a pop cost.

Which comes back to different overlord buildings fitting different roles. An aid agency is a way to give a rebate to basic resource tributaries to maintain loyalty, either offsetting the cost of additional vassals or creating the option for a steeper level of tribute. For different kinds of subjects, that's neither necessary nor necessarily desirable, depending on the goal of the specific tributary.

 

[Tamwin5]

Why not?

The point of beneficial buildings is that they give something beneficial, not that they give all beneficial things. 'Why not X?' 'Because it already gives Y' is a sufficient answer.



And yet, the alloy ministry comes with a loyalty cost, which in turn affects how many vassals you can hold at what levels of tribute without gaining net loyalty. That's the difference, which in turn creates a difference of strategic roles.

The orbial construction requires an upfront of 300 alloys, and gets 700 alloy profit within a decade if you maximize construction ships, while not dropping loyalty.




Which comes back to different overlord buildings fitting different roles. An aid agency is a way to give a rebate to basic resource tributaries to maintain loyalty, either offsetting the cost of additional vassals or creating the option for a steeper level of tribute. For different kinds of subjects, that's neither necessary nor necessarily desirable, depending on the goal of the specific tributary.

My main point is that for all the other overlord holdings so far, loyalty has been primarily associated with the effect on the vassal. If it's bad for the vassal, then it costs loyalty, and if it's good for the vassal, it generates loyalty. A few, that are a bit of both (like emporium) or beneficial, but distasteful (like dread encampment, re-employment center, or communal housing) that are neutral. From the subject's perspective, the orbital assembly complex is all good.

So either the holding should give some small amount of loyalty (0.1 per construction ship sounds fine), or there should be some cost to the subject (maybe 5 minerals per construction ship assigned? That would also make the alloys not just be summoned from thin air).

I fully agree that this building serves a different strategic role than the other ones mentioned. The point I was trying to make was that giving it some loyalty production wouldn't make it OP.

 

[Verx90]

My main point is that for all the other overlord holdings so far, loyalty has been primarily associated with the effect on the vassal. If it's bad for the vassal, then it costs loyalty, and if it's good for the vassal, it generates loyalty. A few, that are a bit of both (like emporium) or beneficial, but distasteful (like dread encampment, re-employment center, or communal housing) that are neutral. From the subject's perspective, the orbital assembly complex is all good.

So either the holding should give some small amount of loyalty (0.1 per construction ship sounds fine), or there should be some cost to the subject (maybe 5 minerals per construction ship assigned? That would also make the alloys not just be summoned from thin air).

I fully agree that this building serves a different strategic role than the other ones mentioned. The point I was trying to make was that giving it some loyalty production wouldn't make it OP.

well.. is not the only building that doesn't give\take loyalty ( apart from the fact that we don't yet realy understand how loyalty work ) ... emporium doesn't give\take loyalty too ... as many others.

the remployement center litteraly give the subject "free pops" , but dosn't increase loyalty.

i think that loyalty buildings are those that do very little harm to the subject freewill , and give them something while giving the overlord very little in return .

you should considerate the very existence of "holdings" as a negative aspect . those buildings that don't take away loyalty , are probably barely accetable from a subject prospective .

In the case of the orbital thing , it gives nothing to the subject ( building speed is .. nothing realy. ) , but doesn't realy cost the subject much apart from the holdings on theyr planet , so i see it as a " we are annoyed you builded your things on our world, but thats ok " .

 

[verybad]

That's where the fun comes from. The Overlord has to balance loyalty with market value from his dukes and such. If he's got a valuable subject, he may be less likely to put holdings on that make them unhappy (i.e. Duke with nearly as much power as the emperor isn't likely to have holdings built on them that make them sad).

On the OTHER tentacle, using newly captured solar fiefdoms to make a bit o' the old cash even if it makes the pops there feal like they're working 28 hours a day isn't all wrong, but if they're strong enough they won't stand for it. If you make loyalty rise for every damn thing you make in their society it makes loyalty, get very useless because you don't have to make a choice, you always make the best one. This is based on subjects being happy enough to serve you and provide you the taxes you need.

Loyalty having value is the absolute best thing they've done for Stellaris since release and I'm very excited about this.

 

[TranscendentalDragon]

Sure, anything could be coded to give loyalty, but why should it?

Stationing forces to maintain loyalty of subject states is a traditional part of statecraft. More to the point, it's an option specific to a specific civic- there is a higher opportunity cost in being able to access it, which combines some bonuses of 'mitigate my vassal's ability to threaten me' and loyalty.

The other building is not at such a high opportunity cost, nor is it tied to such a historical trope.

OK, but I just checked, and previous dev diary made no mention of Overlord Garrison being tied to any civics, or ethics for that matter. And stationing useless armies you want to have anyway is way less of an opportunity cost than 10 minerals and 3 construction ships that could be building something. Iunno, +0.1 loyalty? Or even! Make it +0.3 and reduce it by 0.1 for each construction ship in orbit!

 

[SeraphAscending]

Mercenaries shouldn't count towards your naval capacity. Maybe they have some upkeep but not more than that. You're paying for them after all.

Maybe precisely the other way around.
They increase your naval cap, but have 0 upkeep. That way they might be a good emergency support if you lost your main fleet (and thus are significantly below naval cap) or if you don't have any significant fleet in the first place and choose to rely on mercs - you can just ignore naval cap at that point.

 

[The Wolf with the Dragon]

Maybe precisely the other way around.
They increase your naval cap, but have 0 upkeep. That way they might be a good emergency support if you lost your main fleet (and thus are significantly below naval cap) or if you don't have any significant fleet in the first place and choose to rely on mercs - you can just ignore naval cap at that point.

Hmm. I guess so. If mercenaries don't cost any upkeep, even if you are way over your naval capacity, I guess you could have as many as possible. If you can afford the upfront cost. But it will be detrimental to anyone trying to have both mercenaries and regular fleets, since the mercenaries will increase your naval capacity and thus increase the upkeep of your regular fleets.

 

[SeraphAscending]

I actually think the GC resolutions are bad if you're centering your economy around mercs? Like if you're building yourself up to the go to empire for mercenary ships to the point where you want to make it illegal to not hire mercenaries.
Why would you want to give everyone the ability to make their own mercenaries?
Instead of a base bonus to mercenary enclave capacity have each level boost mercenary capacity by a percentage in line with the naval capacity debuff. That way most of the galaxy can't just loophole past the resolution by making their own mercs and leaving the merc specelized empires with no customers.

Very simple:
Otherwise there are waaaay too few merc companies. If the total number of fleets is less than the total number of empires, we have a major issue.

 

[Verx90]

Otherwise there are waaaay too few merc companies. If the total number of fleets is less than the total number of empires, we have a major issue.

well... think about it .

this is a "extreme" resolution , t4 and t5 in particolar .

since the naval capacity is limited, any fleet cost ALOT of upkeep , and you need to have a mercenary fleet active . this mean that only economic powerhouses will be able to maintan a fleet ( apart for the GDF ) .

so , if you can't afford a mercenary fleet, you will only have a miserable military, and those that can sustain the mercenary will be the only with an active military , and +40% diplomatic weight . meaning that they will be the one that decide what the GC does.

its an extreme "distopian" were those that can afford to pay the mercenary decide the destiny of the galaxy .

one thing you should worry about ( if you think that the end game crisis is real ) is that this resolution decrease the naval power in general of the galaxy .

evryone ill be able to build at least 1-2 mercenary group , so they can have the discount for be theyr patron .

a mercenary focused empire may lose some income from the t4-t5 resolutions, i think only economic powers should push for those resolution to pass, as this would probably destroy all minor empires naval power.

 

[SeraphAscending]

well... think about it .

this is a "extreme" resolution , t4 and t5 in particolar .

since the naval capacity is limited, any fleet cost ALOT of upkeep , and you need to have a mercenary fleet active . this mean that only economic powerhouses will be able to maintan a fleet ( apart for the GDF ) .

so , if you can't afford a mercenary fleet, you will only have a miserable military, and those that can sustain the mercenary will be the only with an active military , and +40% diplomatic weight . meaning that they will be the one that decide what the GC does.

its an extreme "distopian" were those that can afford to pay the mercenary decide the destiny of the galaxy .

one thing you should worry about ( if you think that the end game crisis is real ) is that this resolution decrease the naval power in general of the galaxy .

evryone ill be able to build at least 1-2 mercenary group , so they can have the discount for be theyr patron .

a mercenary focused empire may lose some income from the t4-t5 resolutions, i think only economic powers should push for those resolution to pass, as this would probably destroy all minor empires naval power.

But you do have to consider that with this resolution passed, defeating the endgame crisis must still be possible.
If you have 10 empires left, but only a total of 7 merc fleets that essentially means that 3 empires (minimum) can't even have any significant fleet at all. Enabling everyone to create merc fleets means that everyone still has access to military when need arises - even if potentially under less than preferable conditions.

Also, if you have too few merc fleets available, then one empire could just preemptively buy most of them, declare war on someone and there is literally not even a hint of a chance for them to fight back. You could just steamroll the entire galaxy with no one to pose any threat to you, even if opponents are economically and technologically similar.

 

[LucyCM]

But you do have to consider that with this resolution passed, defeating the endgame crisis must still be possible.
If you have 10 empires left, but only a total of 7 merc fleets that essentially means that 3 empires (minimum) can't even have any significant fleet at all. Enabling everyone to create merc fleets means that everyone still has access to military when need arises - even if potentially under less than preferable conditions.

Also, if you have too few merc fleets available, then one empire could just preemptively buy most of them, declare war on someone and there is literally not even a hint of a chance for them to fight back. You could just steamroll the entire galaxy with no one to pose any threat to you, even if opponents are economically and technologically similar.

I understand what you guys are saying from a balence perspective, but in game logic even taking the t4 and t5 resolutions out of the equation, if I were an empire that makes my money off of mercenaries. I would never support the first level of the resolution because it's strictly a bad idea for the very empires it's meant to appeal to.

A mercenary empire supporting a resolution that gives everyone mercenary capacity is like a car company lobbying for better public transportation.
From an outside perspective its much better if everyone is able to travel, but from the perspective of the car company it's signing away all but the laziest or richest customers.

Now back to balence If the worry is there not being enough mercenary fleets for the galaxy to be able to deal with the "crisis"(really it's just some space bugs stop overreacting) then the solution would be to give mercenary enclaves the ability to support more than 1 fleet. Tying the resolution to improving the strength of existing enclaves and the capacity of mercenary empires would allow there to still be decent balance pre t4 without making the entire resolution tree feel like a bad idea from the start.

 

[SeraphAscending]

I understand what you guys are saying from a balence perspective, but in game logic even taking the t4 and t5 resolutions out of the equation, if I were an empire that makes my money off of mercenaries. I would never support the first level of the resolution because it's strictly a bad idea for the very empires it's meant to appeal to.

A mercenary empire supporting a resolution that gives everyone mercenary capacity is like a car company lobbying for better public transportation.
From an outside perspective its much better if everyone is able to travel, but from the perspective of the car company it's signing away all but the laziest or richest customers.

Now back to balence If the worry is there not being enough mercenary fleets for the galaxy to be able to deal with the "crisis"(really it's just some space bugs stop overreacting) then the solution would be to give mercenary enclaves the ability to support more than 1 fleet. Tying the resolution to improving the strength of existing enclaves and the capacity of mercenary empires would allow there to still be decent balance pre t4 without making the entire resolution tree feel like a bad idea from the start.

Well, enacting something that at first lowers your benefits, because you are playing the long game is just basic politics.

Also, just because everyone CAN found mercenary enclaves, doesn't mean everyone will or it is necessarily a smart move for them to sink a lot of resources into.
All you are making sure in the long run is that your services will be more and more required and other people not as specialised in that either depend on paying you are or working hard to keeping up an alternative to you.

I do agree that potentially increasing the power of enclaves instead of more enclaves might be a good idea.
But i do think that the t5 resolution without at least a +1 to enclave capacity would be game breaking, because of a simple lack of enclaves - irrespective of how powerful these are.

 

[Bananabus]

How are shroud beacons going to affect "become the crisis" playthroughs? The playable crisis really wants to get into the shroud realm and here we have an estate simply selling an entry into it

 

[SeraphAscending]

One feature i would love is for gestalts to get "release as vassal". Creating Sub-Hives or Sub-Cores.
I really like the Idea of an AI core that splits of into subsystems as it expands and coordinates with them.

 

[Verx90]

But you do have to consider that with this resolution passed, defeating the endgame crisis must still be possible.

thats the point ,you can't defeat the crisis with it , so you have to repell it , or hope the GDF will work .

Also, if you have too few merc fleets available, then one empire could just preemptively buy most of them, declare war on someone and there is literally not even a hint of a chance for them to fight back. You could just steamroll the entire galaxy with no one to pose any threat to you, even if opponents are economically and technologically similar.

again , while this may not be in the interest of those that focused on building mercenary , thats the idea of the resolution, weakiening evryone that can't afford massive investiment in mercenary , and making mercenary the ones that work in war .



the idea itself is not bad ( i mean, is madness , but a working one) . as all t4-t5 resolutions , this will be quite hard to achive or push for anyone if not a snowballing player. so i don't see it happening realy "randomly" .

(edit: i can see an emperor wanting to decrease the naval power of the members, and having the GDF be the only major fleet in the galaxy)

A mercenary empire supporting a resolution that gives everyone mercenary capacity is like a car company lobbying for better public transportation.
From an outside perspective its much better if everyone is able to travel, but from the perspective of the car company it's signing away all but the laziest or richest customers.

the main factor that i think will make you want at least the t1-t3 resolutions are the additional money you will get from your mercenary . the ban from being at war without mercenary and the decrease of naval capacity of evryone . apart from the 15% trade value if you are a megacorp and focused on that ( i can't realy see anyone else realy going full on mercenary that is not a megacorp) . and the power up for yours mercenary enclave naval capacity that you managed from the game start.

t4 is an intresting one, because you probably don't actualy want it in any shape or form , as you don't want to use your mercenary if you are not at war. and that diplo weight from merc are going to work against you .

it would have been better if that was a "+10% diplomatic weight for evry mercenary you are patron of ". in that case, you probably would have wanted that.


t5 is a bit extreme , so even you ( as a empire focused on making mercenary ) may not want to pass it , in any shape or form. as you want your mercenary to work for other, not yourself.

 

[great lakes]

question that i don't think have been raised - will we have starbase buildings to cooperate with the new enclaves, along the lines of the curator think tank? also, could that cooperation be at all expanded?

 

[Alfray Stryke]

if I were an empire that makes my money off of mercenaries. I would never support the first level of the resolution because it's strictly a bad idea for the very empires it's meant to appeal to.

In one of our internal MP test games both myself and another dev were trying to pass the resolutions as quickly as possible as we were sustaining our economies off the merc dividends.