• 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 #29 - Pop Factions & Elections

Greetings fellow Spacers!

Today’s dev diary is about Pop Factions and Elections, which might sound like two wildly different topics, but they actually have some common ground. Let’s start with the Pop Factions. Now, as you know, each individual unit of population (a.k.a. “Pop”), has its own race, ethos and possibly even genetic differences compared to its species of origin. People who live far from the capital world of an empire - especially those who live in Administrative Sectors - tend to diverge in their Ethics over time. When you combine this with alien immigration and the conquest of alien worlds, you will soon have to deal with a potentially explosive mix of cultural diversity. As your empire grows, it will get harder and harder to keep everyone happy and your core group of loyalists might eventually find itself a minority. Discontent can manifest in two ways; the happiness of an individual Pop, and the growth of “Factions”, a type of political movement.

stellaris_dev_diary_29_02_20160411_factions.jpg


Unhappy Pops will tend to join or start the most appropriate Faction, depending on the reasons for their discontent. The most basic (and probably most dangerous) type of Faction is the Separatists, who desire independence. There are actually three Separatist variations; some want freedom for a single planet, some want their Sector to secede, and some are integrated aliens who seek the restoration of their lost empire. Another important Faction is the Democracy Faction, whose member Pops might prefer a change of Government Form, or just the right to vote (for example in the case of alien Pops who are denied the vote through a Policy.) There are other Factions as well, but one thing they all have in common is that you can actually deal with them before things get violent. This is an important use for Influence (and sometimes Energy Credits.) For example, you could bribe the Faction leader to prevent a revolt for a time, or you could grant a Separatist Faction limited independence as a vassal state. There are different potential actions depending on which type of Faction it is.

This brings us to Elections and how they tie into the overall scheme. All of the Democratic Government Forms in the game have Elections, though the terms might vary. One difference between the various forms of democracy is which leader characters are the most valid and supported candidates for the chief executive office. In a Military Republic, for example, your Admirals and Generals tend to win the elections. However, all of the Faction leaders are also valid candidates; even the ones who seek independence for their species. If a Faction leader wins an election, that does not mean that their demands are immediately met, however. Instead, what happens is that the Faction becomes passive and will not revolt, which is great for you. Unfortunately, it also increases the attraction of the Faction, which means that it is likely to get far more member Pops…

stellaris_dev_diary_29_01_20160411_election.jpg


Does the player have any direct control over Election outcomes? Yes, you can spend Influence in order to campaign for the candidate of your choice, but it’s not a sure thing, and the cost can be prohibitive if the candidate enjoys little popular support.

The main point of the Faction system is that big empires should become unstable and challenging to keep together. You should see a lot of dynamism in the galaxy, with many big empires descending into civil wars and breaking up. Of course, a lot of this depends on your choice of Ethics and general play style (using slavery and purges, etc), which trades internal stability for increased external pressure…

That’s all for now folks! Stay tuned for next week...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 180
  • 83
  • 3
Reactions:
The problem is you are picking a handful of instances from an empire that lasted nearly 1500 years. It had more stable successions than not and with the exception of attempts at a coup most issues were due to no or multiple heirs. Even then, Emperors often appointed heirs without issue.

On the issue of genocide, it isnt just WH40K fans that like it, those of us that like options approve. It also happens to be realistic. Few species will share western human values, and like in some sci fi some may not even recognize individuals as life.

Stable? I don't think there was a clear rule of imperial succession till Diocletian... it was just the current emperor, or the army, or the senate, or all of them at same time, picking a candidate. Hell, Claudius was made emperor after being found cowering behind a curtain...
 
  • 2
Reactions:
To a certain extent you are correct, but the Tau are basically where humanity was right before the Dark Age of Technology. Soon enough they will start popping out Psykers, and if Chaos has its way, humanity will fall and the Tau will essentially repeat everything humanity did, just like humanity is following in the Eldar's footsteps, and they followed the Old Ones. 40k's overarching history is very cyclical. Everyone starts off all nice and good, then bam! Chaos subverts some psykers and shit hits the fan :)

Isn't estabilished that Tau can't be psykers because they don't have a warp presence, aka no soul?
 
There was hardly any rule for it after Diocletian, either, except for the first batch of successor Tetrarchs. Who then proceeded to have a massive civil war while Diocletian was still alive and in retirement. The period after Justinian wasn't much better, though the possibility of having a Europe-wide free-for-all every 20 years was significantly reduced with the territory.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
RE: the bloody minds of Stellaris fans. I don't think it's just WH40K influence. In both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis (I can't speak for other games), being a decent human being by any modern conception of the idea is a surefire path to pain, suffering, and destruction at the hands of enemies that appreciate the brutal realpolitik of history.

Well, in CK2 it's best to be a kind, compassionate ruler as far as traits go, and then conquering and destroying without any regard for compassion, kindness or human life. Kinda like being a total psychopath, which is even worse than plain evil, I guess...

There was hardly any rule for it after Diocletian, either, except for the first batch of successor Tetrarchs. Who then proceeded to have a massive civil war while Diocletian was still alive and in retirement. The period after Justinian wasn't much better, though the possibility of having a Europe-wide free-for-all every 20 years was significantly reduced with the territory.

Well, at least he tried:)
 
  • 4
Reactions:
So basically Foundation: The Mod? Starting with founding the Galactic Empire, then playing forward to its eventual decline and fall... then leading a group of scientists, or just a lucky and clever warlord, back to galactic hegemony? Sounds awesome :cool:. That's my favorite space opera, personally.
There's actually a lot of potential here for a Foundation mod. It would require some rather heavy tweaking, on the level of the Game of Thrones mod in CK2, but certainly doable. The analogy works even further, since HBO is working on a Foundation Trilogy adaptation which is likely to launch shortly after Game of Thrones concludes.

Stable? I don't think there was a clear rule of imperial succession till Diocletian... it was just the current emperor, or the army, or the senate, or all of them at same time, picking a candidate. Hell, Claudius was made emperor after being found cowering behind a curtain...
And because he was the last surviving adult male Julio-Claudian at the time of his nephew's assassination. It's not like he didn't have a reason to be cowering behind that curtain, either; his family was being purged by Gaius Caligula's assassins.

They also had a pretty solid rule of succession during the Antonine Dynasty (find a good young lad, adopt him, and groom him for the throne), until Marcus Aurelius blew it by naming his dipshit biological son as his successor... which is why the plot of the movie Gladiator makes more sense than most people give it credit for.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Isn't estabilished that Tau can't be psykers because they don't have a warp presence, aka no soul?
Naw, you are thinking of the Necront'yr. The Tau Ethereals are even hinted at in the lore as using subconscious Psy-power to control and enhance the other castes. Before the Dark Age of Technology humans had no active psykers either (there is some debate about the Emperor in this context as he is supposedly incredibly ancient), and the advent of the human psyker is what caused the original human empire's to fracture and fall apart (it was tied to the warpstorms that ran rampant throughout the galaxy at the time).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So basically Foundation: The Mod? Starting with founding the Galactic Empire, then playing forward to its eventual decline and fall... then leading a group of scientists, or just a lucky and clever warlord, back to galactic hegemony? Sounds awesome :cool:. That's my favorite space opera, personally.
The Foundation series, known for its many rapidly-expanding-humanity and xenoarcheology-themed plot strands.
Uhh...
Are you sure it's your favourite space opera?
Are you sure you've read it at all?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
The Foundation series, known for its many rapidly-expanding-humanity and xenoarcheology-themed plot strands.
Uhh...
Are you sure it's your favourite space opera?
Are you sure you've read it at all?

Well, it's not Xenoarchaeology, but there's that great bit at the beginning where the pompous Imperial official discusses the archeological evidence for Earth. And humanity did rapidly expand, it just happened thousands of years before Foundation starts ;)

But really it was just the all-human Galaxy* and the growth, decadence, decline and fall of a grand empire, and the squabbles among the pieces, that made me think of Foundation. So sue me, it's not a perfect match.

*Interesting story here: Apparently John W. Campbell (who from the anecdotes sounds basically like J. Jonah Jameson as the editor of an SF magazine) hated the idea of aliens who were superior to humans** and wouldn't let Asimov include them in Foundation. So he decided to just use all humans. Which was really a good choice IMO, because it makes the idea of universal laws of sociology only kind of absurd, as opposed to totally implausible.

**Which is weird, because the "Thing" in Who Goes There? is arguably superior to humans in a lot of ways. But I guess it's more like a clever animal than a true sentient, so maybe that's what makes it OK.
 
> The Culture
> Not grimdark

You do realise that every single Culture novel is Banks criticising utopian hegemonic imperialism, right?
The author said it himself a billion times. He thought the Culture were the bad guys. They just had good PR.

I challenge anyone who reads Look To Windward to not want the smug bastards to get nuked.

I never saw it that way, but I was also never able to read Look to Windward thanks to Audible being dicks and not selling half the series in the US even though it was available in the UK.

Can you link to an interview or anything where he says the Culture are the bad guys? Sure they are smug and self important, but that hardly makes them bad.
 
I challenge anyone who reads Look To Windward to not want the smug bastards to get nuked.

This is the truest thing I've heard all day.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
> The Culture
> Not grimdark

You do realise that every single Culture novel is Banks criticising utopian hegemonic imperialism, right?
The author said it himself a billion times. He thought the Culture were the bad guys. They just had good PR.

I challenge anyone who reads Look To Windward to not want the smug bastards to get nuked.

CNN: Would you like to live in the Culture?
Iain M. Banks: Good grief yes, heck, yeah, oh it’s my secular heaven....Yes, I would, absolutely. Again it comes down to wish fulfillment. I haven’t done a study and taken lots of replies across a cross-section of humanity to find out what would be their personal utopia. It’s mine, I thought of it, and I’m going home with it — absolutely, it’s great.


Banks does an interesting thing with his Culture books. That he never lets the ideals and thoughts behind the Culture stand unchallenged. And those who challenge these ideals, are not (mostly) straw-men. The first books in the series is Consider Phlebas, were the protagonist is helping an theological empire, that he doesn't like, because he find the Culture a bigger threat in the long run. In some ways they are Star Trek without an prime directive, so they interfere and sometimes they make mistakes, that cost billons sentient being their life. But that is the price they willing to pay, or let other pay for. Because the alternative to do nothing is considered worse

If you have the time for it, check out this article
The new Atlantic has an article "The Ambiguous Utopia of Iain M. Banks" http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-ambiguous-utopia-of-iain-m-bankshttp://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/the-ambiguous-utopia-of-iain-m-banks

And yes, I would like live in the Culture, even if it's a flawed and ambiguous utopia
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If there are pro democracy factions is there the possibility that collectivists will form anti democracy factions?
Otherwise I feel like you will get the Victoria 2 thing where the game gets progressively more democratic as it goes on. Which is fine for Victoria but not really a valid assumption for a space game.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Well, in CK2 it's best to be a kind, compassionate ruler as far as traits go, and then conquering and destroying without any regard for compassion, kindness or human life. Kinda like being a total psychopath, which is even worse than plain evil, I guess...
Actually, look at troop maintenance costs next time you go to war. And not just yours, your vassals' as well. War is very costly in CK2. It won't make you go bankrupt, but generally for every war you pass up on you could build a whole new town that would generate more money than whatever ravaged county you're thinking of taking over. A town you could own yourself too, rather than handing it to some ungrateful bastard that'll try to overthrow you when his new place becomes worthwhile. Your vassals probably could make their holdings a lot better as well, if it weren't for the fact that they prefer throwing parties and organising grand hunts.

The remaining issue then becomes that the game is a little boring when you don't declare wars of pure aggression..
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Can the dominant/ruling species of an empire change?
i.e. can you start off playing one species and end up playing another?

like, is there an EU/CK style accept culture shift decision/event
or is it V2 style, primary culture can never change even if all pops are minorities?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Can the dominant/ruling species of an empire change?
i.e. can you start off playing one species and end up playing another?
We don't know enough about the mechanics. Yes, with the right initial government/ethos, you can grant governing rights to xenos or possibly even robots, so you rulers and characters can potentially all be xenos. And yes, you initial pops can be out-bred or out-lasted by previous minorities. But we don't know for sure if your "empire" screen changes without a complete empire/government overhaul. For example, if the Blorgs become extinct and replaced by Sibulan space owls, does the empire/faction UI still show a Blorg diplomat, ethos/preference for Tropical planet, even though the space owls prefer Continental and have different ethos?

like, is there an EU/CK style accept culture shift decision/event
or is it V2 style, primary culture can never change even if all pops are minorities?
Don't know yet on the exact mechanics and how rigid the initial empire ethos/species preference is, but empire/governments can change.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I am what people call a "lurker" on these forums, but I feel a need to comment on Iain Banks thinking that Culture are the bad guys thing - he did not.
See this interview: http://strangehorizons.com/2014/20141103/1banks-a.shtml where he directly says on this matter:

"JR: To what extent does your writing about the Culture endorse the Culture's point of view?

IB: Probably too much. I started out bending over backwards to present the opposite point of view in Consider Phlebas, making it look like the Culture represented the bad guys, at the start, at least, but, let's face it; La Culture: c'est moi."

and

"JR: To what extent do you think your political perspectives and attitudes inform your writing about the Culture?

IB: A lot. The Culture stories are me at my most didactic, though it's largely hidden under all the funny names, action, and general bluster. The Culture represents the place we might hope to get to after we've dealt with all our stupidities. Maybe. I have said before, and will doubtless say again, that maybe we—that is, homo sapiens—are just too determinedly stupid and aggressive to have any hope of becoming like the Culture, unless we somehow find and isolate/destroy the genes that code for xenophobia, should they exist. Plus we'd have to develop AIs and let them be themselves; another big ask."
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
RE: the bloody minds of Stellaris fans. I don't think it's just WH40K influence. In both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis (I can't speak for other games), being a decent human being by any modern conception of the idea is a surefire path to pain, suffering, and destruction at the hands of enemies that appreciate the brutal realpolitik of history. It is, of course, Just a Game, but in order to quash the moral dissonance of pragmatically committing the very sins that would sicken them if found in a history book, Paradox players seem to often develop a demented sort of cartoon supervillain humor towards running their empires. (They might even have Dwarf Fortress players beat. Hard to say, though, especially given a fair amount of overlap.) So while the glorious future could allow us to build the beautiful Star Trek utopia of our dreams, force of habit has linked "Grand Strategy" with genocide and other wacky shenanigans.

Plus, once a player gets really good at a grand strategy game, they start coming up with challenges. Challenges like "is it possible to make my empire successful while basically turning into King Joffery every time somebody has an even legitimate complaint against me"?

This, futhermore, Paradox games on multiplayer unfold a terrible monster inside all of us in order to simply survive among the rest of monsters. Stellaris won't be different, infact I'm praying to the all mighty GOD EMPERAH for proper stability. Because the rest simply looks perfect for eteral plot and drama in the dark grim future of Paradox multiplayer community.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, yes. All of the arguing over whether going on about purging is annoying, or whether complaining about going on about purging is annoying, aside...

@Doomdark Could you possibly elaborate on how random it is if you don't pay influence to pick a candidate? Is it literally an equal chance for each candidate, or is it weighted in some way according to their suitability/popularity?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
RE: the bloody minds of Stellaris fans. I don't think it's just WH40K influence. In both Crusader Kings and Europa Universalis (I can't speak for other games), being a decent human being by any modern conception of the idea is a surefire path to pain, suffering, and destruction at the hands of enemies that appreciate the brutal realpolitik of history. It is, of course, Just a Game, but in order to quash the moral dissonance of pragmatically committing the very sins that would sicken them if found in a history book, Paradox players seem to often develop a demented sort of cartoon supervillain humor towards running their empires. (They might even have Dwarf Fortress players beat. Hard to say, though, especially given a fair amount of overlap.) So while the glorious future could allow us to build the beautiful Star Trek utopia of our dreams, force of habit has linked "Grand Strategy" with genocide and other wacky shenanigans.

Plus, once a player gets really good at a grand strategy game, they start coming up with challenges. Challenges like "is it possible to make my empire successful while basically turning into King Joffery every time somebody has an even legitimate complaint against me"?
I think a lot of people, myself included, like to do this sort of thing for the same reason they like to cause horrible senseless destruction in GTA or whatever -- because it's the exact opposite of how they act in real life. Speaking as someone who in my everyday life is deliberately and self-consciously unpatriotic, sceptical and liberal, sometimes it's fun to throw off those self-imposed constraints and play a demented nationalist, foaming-at-the-mouth religious zealot or brutal oppressor. And there's no point in doing that if you're not going to go all the way. People acting this way in games can be a sign that they're at the other end of the scale in reality, not that they're a latent Nazi. (Sorry GrinningMan, I know you're not saying this, I've just been wanting to jump in on this and saw an opportunity.)
 
  • 3
Reactions: