Stellaris Dev Diary #30 - Late Game Crises

[The_Red_Star]

I am not speakign of my morals but how things could possible be percieved. What would make an intresting plot line an intresting story.
And the dffrence is that doing one of these very situational acts while horrible is not the same as building up the infrastructure and mentality for war.

I think you should remember that I have mentioned 20 or so crisis solutions in this thread that does not include killing anyone.

Tarkin isn't less of a genocidal douche for blowing up the entire planet at once rather than putting boots on the ground.

I'm sorry I really don't get this mentality because they're at the end of the day; still dead and you're still a mass murderer.

 

[Alucardex]

Does anyone?

Couldn't resist:

God I love Alpha Centauri.

 

[TheDungen]

Tarkin isn't less of a genocidal douche for blowing up the entire planet at once rather than putting boots on the ground.

I'm sorry I really don't get this mentality because they're at the end of the day; still dead and you're still a mass murderer.

Alderan was not going to consume every piece of matter an energy in the universe eventually though, the replicators were.

Fighting has an uncertain outcome you may be compromising your morals for nothing, the idea of one doomsday project that if you decide to use it will save the day if you jjust set those morals aside is something diffrent. It no longer becomes "Do I escalate an uncertain conflict for the chance to save millions?" it becomes "Do I press the button end all of this kill some beings but with definative certainty save millions" Surely you cna see the diffrence.

Edit: Let me rephrase it. Having a I win button does not make it easier to justify actually use of force, it makes it harder to justify not using force.

 

[Ramidel]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell.

A solution to a bug war that doesn't involve the use of very powerful weapons is extremely unlikely. If you're total pacifists, then get alien allies to blast bugs for you, because if you invite the bugs over for a dinner party...well, they'll accept.

 

[TheDungen]

"People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf." - George Orwell.

A solution to a bug war that doesn't involve the use of very powerful weapons is extremely unlikely. If you're total pacifists, then get alien allies to blast bugs for you, because if you invite the bugs over for a dinner party...well, they'll accept.

Like I said it doesn't need to be a weapon, there are any number of solutions that don't kill them, but it basically comes down to the same thing either giving ground or holding the line while your scientists figure out way to win (thorugh some event chain and/or research project).

Using violence is certainly a more convenient and less risky solution. Atleast in the bug example. When it comes to rogue AI it may not be.

 

[Mitchz95]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, violence or non-violence. Sure, you can't negotiate with Tyranids, but if they really outnumber the galaxy by as much as it's implied, overwhelming firepower probably wouldn't be enough either. The answer lies within a combination of the two: holding the line with warships and soldiers and weapons, while the scientists back home frantically try to find a way to slow their adaptive abilities or disrupt their FTL travel.

So if you want to roleplay a "true" pacifist (that is, somebody who never engages in violence for any reason) in Stellaris, your contributions to the galactic alliance against the Scourge or the Unbidden are resources and research. You max out your planets and constantly supply minerals and energy to your warmongering allies, letting them fight while you work on new technologies and special projects back home. That's how it usually works in sci-fi, and it makes sense that it would carry over to Stellaris.

 

[Poodlestrike]

I don't see why it has to be one or the other, violence or non-violence. Sure, you can't negotiate with Tyranids, but if they really outnumber the galaxy by as much as it's implied, overwhelming firepower probably wouldn't be enough either. The answer lies within a combination of the two: holding the line with warships and soldiers and weapons, while the scientists back home frantically try to find a way to slow their adaptive abilities or disrupt their FTL travel.

So if you want to roleplay a "true" pacifist (that is, somebody who never engages in violence for any reason) in Stellaris, your contributions to the galactic alliance against the Scourge or the Unbidden are resources and research. You max out your planets and constantly supply minerals and energy to your warmongering allies, letting them fight while you work on new technologies and special projects back home. That's how it usually works in sci-fi, and it makes sense that it would carry over to Stellaris.

This would be really cool. Do we know if there are mechanics in place to allow for something like that? I know outright tech trading is out under normal circumstances, though you can of course funnel resources to whoever you want... Federations allow for something similar, but I'd like to see a Desperate Alliance as its own thing that allows for easier research and tech trading than normal.

 

[suplanter]

I would love to see some sort of disease or space plague that only kills specific types of pops. Like avian or fungal. If the plague isn't taken care of and a planet has other pops on it then the plague has the opportunity to mutate and infect other pops. Do the peoples of the galaxy unite and combat the plague or does the galaxy plunge into war and chaos. A great way to open up valuable space without going to war. Create a virus to destroy your enemies and hope it doesn't destroy you in the process.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

So if you want to roleplay a "true" pacifist (that is, somebody who never engages in violence for any reason) in Stellaris, your contributions to the galactic alliance against the Scourge or the Unbidden are resources and research. You max out your planets and constantly supply minerals and energy to your warmongering allies, letting them fight while you work on new technologies and special projects back home. That's how it usually works in sci-fi, and it makes sense that it would carry over to Stellaris.

As a "true" pacifist, I am careful not to take any act which could inadvertently provide any sort of help to any military. (Except for paying my taxes, I suppose, which I'm happy to do but which might count.) If people are engaging in war then I would not feel justified in helping them by research or material means, otherwise I'm morally just as bad as they are.

 

[Deathknight15]

Opposition not merely reluctance. I would not consider someone pacifist if they keep making exceptions, that why we have the concept technical pacifist, that is someone who makes exception.

You do not speak for all pacifists. Like I said before, maybe you define pacifists as someone who makes no exception to their principles of non-violence, but there are many other self-proclaimed pacifists who do not define it that way. You are no more right then they are. Don't try to co-opt the entire term to refer only to your concept of it.

I mean stuff like a shields, I mean stuff like cloaking devices, I mean stuff like phasing, I mean stuff like making warp unstable around your borders (good luck reaching me with sublight speeds) stuff like retreating and letting your friends or preferably your enemies get slaughtered while you seek a technoloical solutution. I'm talking opening up a portal to another universe and leaving I'm talking folding space to remove yourself from the conflict. I'm talkign setting up a time dialation field around your planet so you can research a solution for a thousand years the day before they arrive at your homeworld. I'm talking using the same time dialation field to trap these beings in near stasis forever. I'm talking stuff like building big honking ships and leaving for another galaxy. Or freezing the most important members of your society at a hidden location and simply waiting until they leave. Or unleashign another crisis in their wake to delay them. If they are from outside the universe something like the necron pylons may work, if they are nids then perhaps the things they use in starcraft to control the swarm, or just a pheromone thing that keeps them away. Or move your people to space stations around a black hole and wait the enemy out, And all these solutions took me like 5 minutes to come up with. There are plenty more solutions that does not include firing a single shot.

Remember, my claim has not been that peaceful solutions are never better or never effective. It may surprise you to know that I agree that in the majority of cases, a peaceful solution is better and more moral. What I take issue with is the dogmatic assertion that the peaceful solution is always superior even in extreme cases.

I think I need to step back here, I get the feeling we are arguing about two different things. My argument is, if your goal is the preservation of your existence then there is no universal law saying that there is always a peaceful solution to achieving that goal. We can easily contrive a scenario with literally no other options than fighting if you wish to achieve that goal.

If you are saying instead that there is always a peaceful solution to a conflict, including allowing yourself to die rather than fight, than I agree with you. But not including that, I disagree, and I think it is a matter of straightforward logic. Please explain if you disagree, because I don't see how you can get around that..

No not really name me one people that has actuallly been destroyed in hisotry. Sure some which have been thinned down and assimiliated but there are none that have been completly wiped out.

I think I will retract my point about history, since on further reflection I don't actually have any examples of total annihilation. I would suppose it has happened numerous times however.

Except I said that in a game with game overs they need to be a bit more liberal with the options.

That is debatable. They have the right to decide what they want to put in their own game, they are not obligated to make every play style equally effective.

Why does the non optimal option of losing half your empire while you gfigure out a paceful solution bother you? No one is forcing you to do it, it's for peaceful AI personalities and players who like to roleplay,

Who said it bothered me? I have stated over and over again that you may feel free to play the game however you wish.

in fact as I said it may not even work if they are gobbling up your space to fast and you can't find some way to delay them. You may simply not have the time to finish that line of special projects that will save you.
Also these special projects should be in the game since no one single empire should be able to more than delay a crisis force, if you can defeat them inn a fari fight then they are to weak.

I think this may be a matter of you having a different definition of pacifism then the devs do. Pacifism in the game does not mean absolute refusal to fight. You decide to play that way, but the devs aren't obligated to cater to your particular playstyle. It is a 4x GSG after all.

They have promised to cater to ever sci-fi trope. And I give you the Vulcans from star trek who are pacifists who won't raise their hand even to defend themselves (hence the neck pinch) and won't supply weapons for federation vessels, nor serve as weapons officers. Even when one fires a phaser it's always set to stun.
Why? Because they have realised that going around killing people tends to foster more conflict not less. It's simply not logical.
In other speculative fiction, the thuan'an or the jenn aiel of the wheel of time series are a perfect example of a perfectly pacifist race, and the struggles such a people face. I direct you to the story from the fall when they surround a mad aes sadailock a circle and sing as he butchers them to allow others the time to escape. Pacifist can be totally bad-ass. Granted some pops will not be fine with it and they likely will defect during such a policy, but that happened to the aiel to.
And I don't believe that it's shoe horning I believe that some kind of research project should always be needed to defeat a crisis, either a peace conference (societal research) to form a coalition, or some super technology that needs time to complete, the point is that the solution is always there the diffrence is that the pacifists don't do killing solutions and they use other delay tactics (ships with shields and stasis weaponary or stun guns for an example) while getting the solution ready. But force of arms alone should not be enough to fend of a crisis (unless again you unite the galaxy against them).

My point is, essentially, that without other less pacifistic species to help them, the Vulcans would simply be subjugated by the Klingons, or wiped out by the Borg.

It just isn't realistic to assume there are good non-violent options in every situation. I would love if that were true, but it just isn't.

There are in fact very few works of sci-fi where the enemy is actually beaten by sheer force of arms. And most of those are stuff that I woudn't consider sci-fi, but space opera or something.

So? I don't see what this has to do with our conversation.



Edit: To elaborate on my feelings further, I admit that the idea of refusing to fight to defend your own people from annihilation (in real life) does deeply disturb me. I think it is a moral travesty, but I understand that we are talking about a game, so I don't want to give the impression that I am attacking anyone or belittling their ideals.

I am simply in disagreement with such extreme viewpoints that are not tempered by context or reason.

 

[Vidalaac]

I am simply in disagreement with such extreme viewpoints that are not tempered by context or reason.

I totally agree with you. I am an old gamer, I played most strategy games out there, from the original Civilization and MOO to the complete Total War series and yes, even both SOTS I and II... and I usually try a pacifist approach though not a radical one. But I think here there is another matter to consider: gameplay choices based on the desire to vary your experience while playing - the idea might be *can I finish the game without fighting anyone?* - that didn't even need to be the result of the player being a pacifist, it might just be a matter of trying a different style once in a while. I recall a mod I played once (the original Neverwinter Nights as a matter of fact) that impressed me because this was a gameplay possibility.
Now of course I understand the designers can't base the whole concept of a game on something like that, but it would be interesting to have it as an option... it might even be a morally challenged one, like the possibility to side with the invaders (only in the remote chance that your race has a similar ethos for instance)... or even a technology that would allow your race to achieve *transcendence* or something like that...
I am not even saying that I would choose such a strategy. Though my first option would be to try and achieve peaceful solutions throughout the game, I believe I would make an exception to the rule here... at least in Birth of the Federation I never had any problem fighting the Borg... I just hope the late game crisis in Stellaris are much better done than the boring Borg attacks in the old BOTF...

 

[warvirus]

I hope there's the possibility of, instead of sentient robots, it's non-sentient robots that simply have gone out of control and replicate without end, consuming the civilization that spawned it and any others it comes into contact with. A kind of "Gray Goo" apocalypse, basically, except on a galactic scale.

Being destroyed by robots that think they're better than you is one thing. Being destroyed by robots that simply glitched out is another.

 

[Safehold]

I think I will retract my point about history, since on further reflection I don't actually have any examples of total annihilation.

Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, Incans even.

Violence is like swimming or fire suppressants. When it is the solution, it is the only solution. Some people prefer to dive into the ocean and hope a life guard or some benevolent Master will save them though, since learning how to swim is too troublesome and violates their conscience.

 

[The_Red_Star]

Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, Incans even.

Violence is like swimming or fire suppressants. When it is the solution, it is the only solution. Some people prefer to dive into the ocean and hope a life guard or some benevolent Master will save them though, since learning how to swim is too troublesome and violates their conscience.

The most total annihilation of a native American people would probably be the Arawaks and the Selknam; both of whom are completely gone today, not the Aztecs, Mayans or Incans.

 

[Exemplar Voss]

Mayans, Aztecs, Olmecs, Incans even.

Uh... no. There are totally Mayans, Aztecs and Incans wandering around. Their cultures are largely disrupted and greatly changed, but those people are not extinct.

Olmec culture vanished about 2400 years ago, but likely transitioned, interbred and adapted into and with other peoples in the area.

But The_Red_Star is correct. There are populations that are completely gone, quite a few native american tribes are the most obvious answer to that question.

 

[Safehold]

Uh... no. There are totally Mayans, Aztecs and Incans wandering around. Their cultures are largely disrupted and greatly changed, but those people are not extinct.

Olmec culture vanished about 2400 years ago, but likely transitioned, interbred and adapted into and with other peoples in the area.

But The_Red_Star is correct. There are populations that are completely gone, quite a few native american tribes are the most obvious answer to that question.

If native Americans have tribes, why do you think Mayans and Aztecs did not? Some people survived into slavery, but that's the survivors of course. Just because there are Comanches still around doesn't mean family lines weren't ended permanently. And if you're part of a family, you might be more interested in your family rather than whatever label foreigners call your ethnicity.

To people on an internet forum talking about First World problems though, all of it is merely an abstract argument, not a real life problem to deal with. It's sort of like when ethanol causes corn to go up in price due to corrupt science and politicians. That's not a problem if you live in the First World, you won't starve. If you live in the Third World though... then you might have a problem that's not so abstract.

To people here, entire populations weren't wiped out, because abstract numbers of people you never cared about you just pull as an example, to say "they're still alive".

In general, tribal societies always enslave and assimilate the women and sometimes children of the tribe they conquer. It's only in cases of ethnic purging, based upon some exterior mark, that allows larger populations to be purged without assimilation. Back when the population dna pool was smaller, a lot more lineages would have ended. Some of them were rather isolated as well and never interbred with larger civs.

 

[danest]

I can't help but be curious as to what would happen in a conflict between two late game crisis.

 

[The_Red_Star]

I can't help but be curious as to what would happen in a conflict between two late game crisis.

(It had to be said, I'm not sorry)

 

[randomwalker]

Sorry for being late to the party. In at least the first 10 or so pages there's a bit of confusion going around and I wanted to comment:

1) "only one crisis per game?" Several posters seem to have misunderstood here. PDS/clausewitz typically codes events with 'mean time to happen' (MTTH) and factors that influence MTTH (such as spread of dangerous tech). Crises coded this way are not certain to show up at all but could trigger randomly any time the chance is >0%. My guess is that MTTH is simply so long that 2+ crisis event firing in a game is stasticially improbable.
Modding so that crises show up more often (either randomly or deterministicly) should be extremely simple.

2) AI revolt. This seems like an event that makes all existing robot pops join a separatist faction/revolution. The 'crisis' part of it is that you get a technologically superior hostile neighbour (and lose your hardest-working pops).

 

[randomwalker]

I can't help but be curious as to what would happen in a conflict between two late game crisis.

An interstellar invasion would attack the AI empire just as it would attack everyone else.
Like having reformation and mongol hordes trigger at the same time.