• 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 #26 - Migration, Slavery & Purges

Hi folks!

It has been a very busy week for yours truly, with a load of press demos and, of course, the grand Paradox press conference in San Francisco. Meanwhile, the rest of the team has been hard at work finishing up the revised start-up screens, but that’s not what I’m going to talk about today… Instead, through the confused haze of my jet lag, I thought I’d say a few words about how to manage your population in Stellaris! As you might recall from the dev diary on Policies and Edicts, your initial choice of Empire ethos will heavily affect what you can and cannot do and what your initial population will tend to frown upon. Three of the more interesting Policies concern Migration, Slavery and Purges.

stellaris_dev_diary_26_01_20160321_policies.jpg


Let’s begin with Migration. There are two ways in which Pops can move between planets; spontaneous migration or resettlement. If you are playing a Fanatic Individualist empire, you must allow at least your founding species Pops to move freely as they like (there is an option to disallow alien Pops from migrating - not popular with Xenophiles.) Pops who are allowed to migrate will tend to move to planets they like better than the one they currently live on. This is not just a matter of the Planet Class, but also things like whether the planet has Slaves (which Decadent Pops like), if there are alien Pops on the planet (which Xenophobes dislike and Xenophiles like), and whether the planet lies within a Sector or the core worlds (dissidents and aliens tend to move to Sectors to live with like-minded individuals.) If another Empire is granting you migration access, your Pops will also consider migrating to their planets.

Now, unless you are playing an Individualist Empire, you can also enact a Policy to allow the forcible resettlement of Pops. This will allow you to simply move Pops between planets; at a hefty cost, of course. There is one more way to control migration; fanatic Xenophobes can enact planetary Edicts to strongly discourage xeno immigration. In the same way, fanatic Xenophiles can strongly encourage it...

stellaris_dev_diary_26_02_20160321_resettlement.jpg


So that’s basically how migration works. Next, we have Slavery. Like the migration Policies, you have three options; allow it for all Pops, xenos only, or not at all. Fanatic Individualists cannot play with Slavery unless the founding species has the Decadent trait, and only Xenophobes can limit Slavery to aliens. Why use slaves? Well, reprehensible as it is, enslaved Pops are harder workers (but poorer scientists.) Of course, slaves can - and will - join Slave Factions, although Collectivist slaves are more accepting of their lot, for the Greater Good.

Finally, let’s talk Purges, which is simply a way of getting rid of troublesome Pops… permanently. Naturally, this is something that both your own population and other Empires tend to react to rather emphatically.

That’ll have to do for now. Next week, we’re aiming for a more cheerful dev diary about sound and music!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 139
  • 72
  • 4
Reactions:
Arguably either neutral or non fanatical collectivists, you could argue both reasonably, but yeah on deeper thought I would personally say the Turians are neutral in the context of Stellaris. The bonuses of Stellaris and implied meaning just do not fit well with the sort of collectivism they do have.

I put them as 1 collectivist and fanatical militarist. They perfectly resemble the saying about prussia "Prussia, is not a state with an army, but an army with a state." As the Turian government is its military and their is really no such thing as a civilian turian.

The turian military is the center of their society. It is not just an armed force; it is the all-encompassing public works organization. The military police are also the civic police. The fire brigades serve the civilian population as well as military facilities. The corps of engineers builds and maintains spaceports, schools, water purification plants, and power stations. The merchant marine ensures that all worlds get needed resources.


Because of this their collectism comes naturally to them. Their government model is almost exactly word for word what a military Junta is, which unsurprisingly for these military guys isn't really a democracy:

At the top are the Primarchs, who each rule a colonization cluster. The Primarchs vote on matters of national import. They otherwise maintain a "hands-off" policy, trusting the citizens on each level below them to do their jobs competently.

Also they do send people to hard labor for crimes if they are unable to be rehibilited but I don't think that is really implementable in Stellaris, as that is a punishment for crimes so the size is too small for a pop. Now modifiers could exist to represent this though.

Thing is they are not a fascist police state or Stalinist big brother government. They are clearly not a democracy at all(as mentioned their military is their government). So I feel comfortable in calling them collectivist 1. Especially when you consider their general culture.

While turians are individuals with personal desires, their instinct is to equate the self with the group, and set aside personal desires for the good of all.

that screams collectivism to me.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
In Stellaris, even moderately collectivist people *can't* be democratic.
Why? Direct democracy suit a slightly collectivism societies just fine. Every member of society vote for something he think is better for the whole society - that's how society decide it. Why someone must have more "weight" if individual doesn't matter - only society as a whole?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I put them as 1 collectivist and fanatical militarist. They perfectly resemble the saying about prussia "Prussia, is not a state with an army, but an army with a state." As the Turian government is its military and their is really no such thing as a civilian turian.




Because of this their collectism comes naturally to them. Their government model is almost exactly word for word what a military Junta is, which unsurprisingly for these military guys isn't really a democracy:



Also they do send people to hard labor for crimes if they are unable to be rehibilited but I don't think that is really implementable in Stellaris, as that is a punishment for crimes so the size is too small for a pop. Now modifiers could exist to represent this though.

Thing is they are not a fascist police state or Stalinist big brother government. They are clearly not a democracy at all(as mentioned their military is their government). So I feel comfortable in calling them collectivist 1. Especially when you consider their general culture.



that screams collectivism to me.

I would call them collectivists in a regular sense, but in the Stellaris sense, maybe, maybe not.

Why? Direct democracy suit a slightly collectivism societies just fine. Every member of society vote for something he think is better for the whole society - that's how society decide it. Why someone must have more "weight" if individual doesn't matter - only society as a whole?

I'm the wrong person to ask "why". In another post I've agreed that a direct democracy should be able to be collectivist. Hell, fanatical individualism should lock it. However, a design decision has been made where collectivism locks democracies, individualism locks autocracy, and oligarchies are locked by extremists in either direction.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
The problem isn't so much what people would define individualism or collectivism as, but rather what they mean in the game.

In Stellaris, even moderately collectivist people *can't* be democratic. They can't represent social democracy (or rather a state where such parties would win elections) because such a democratic rule would require elections in the first place. Democracies as they existed in the 19th and 20th centuries could not be allowed either.
That is rather strange, yes, but I feel like that has a lot to do with how they organized the governments. They needed a counterbalance to all individualists being cut out of the autocracies, so they went and cut the collectivists out of all the democracies.
 
Pops who are allowed to migrate will tend to move to planets they like better than the one they currently live on. This is not just a matter of the Planet Class, but also things like whether the planet has Slaves (which Decadent Pops like), if there are alien Pops on the planet (which Xenophobes dislike and Xenophiles like)

Will Xenophile Pops migration preference towards aliens be dulled or take into account whether a sizeable portion of the prospective target planet's Pops are composed of Xenophobe aliens?

It would make little sense for Xenophile POPs to move into a planet where the natives, alien as they may be, are exceedingly hostile in tolerating their newly arrived neighbours.
 
It would make little sense for Xenophile POPs to move into a planet where the natives, alien as they may be, are exceedingly hostile in tolerating their newly arrived neighbours.

Have you ever seen the way western anime fans are regarded in Tokyo? I think that's probably a good metaphor.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
I'm not convinced about the collectivists accepting slavery either. To take an example from SF, the Narn in Babylon 5 certainly are collectivist, but they are fiercely anti-slavery as well. Historically, one could argue that many slave revolts were built on collectivist ideologies (take, however, dramatized by the sources, Spartacus), as 'individualists' would be happy with personal manumission.
I get the impression that people have read Ayn Rand too much.
I think you are making the mistake of seeing Collectivism and assuming slavery.

Not every Empire with Militarism will be focused on aggressive expansion. Not every Xenophobe will be trying to purge the galaxy and enslave all aliens. Not every Spiritualist will attempt to spread the true faith across to those who don't want to hear it. Not every Collectivist will have slaves. Not every Pacifict will refuse to go to war to help those in need.
These are all choices, Collectivism is broad category that can have many definitions in your particular empire. Is your Collectivism a Caste system? Is it a society of true equals? Do you enslave criminals to make them pay off their debt to society?
Just because Collectives have a bonus to slavery doesn't mean they will run around enslaving everything in sight.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
The map of planet tiles looks really odd on second screenshot, due to its irregular shape.
Could this:
..0.0
00000
.0000
.0000
.0000

Look more like this?:
00000
00000
00000
0000.
.....
Why do you want this to be so boring and symmetrical? Not everything in nature (especially continent formation) is going to be all nice and ordered. Sure Africa is a fairly ordered landmass, more or less symmetric. But look at North America! Florida sticks off to the side, on the West coast there are also protrusions, Alaska extends much further than the land on the opposite coast. Plus if some tiles represent Islands then why should they be neatly placed in a row along with continental tiles? They should be off to the side (and I am glad to see they are!).
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, but the pop traits form sensible barriers to how collectivist the government can be. It's kind of assumed that the global culture has been unified in 2200.

it's not that they look favorably on it, but rather that it is less of a crime, as some cultures of Earth would have been permissive of towards in previous times. Some nations did not like their own "primary citizens" becoming slaves (Rome, pre-civil-war-USA), while others would not care about the ethnicity of the slaves.

True, but it slightly changes the perspective of how we look at game's mechanics. The notion that we can enslave our own people just to get slightly more production and they will be fine "because collectivism" is doing absolutely awful job at representing anything. Not only collectivism is incredibly broad term, it is wrongly tied to slavery and anyone will have hard time at role playing any SF species with somewhat more collective traits while trying to get anything meaningful out of the game. Slavery should be at least completely different set of ethics to make sense.


It's Slavery Tolerance, not Enthusiasm. It means that they are more willing to accept their poor lot in life as slaves, not that they are happy about it.

"Favourably" was probably too much of a word, but 100% Tolerance means that they are pretty much ok with it.
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Two points. Every form of government is collectivist in nature and those are pop traits. So if collectivist species has +50% tolerance to slavery it means it looks favourably at its own enslavement. Which is ridiculous.
I think you are confusing real world definitions with gameplay concepts.

Just because you can find a definition for 'Collectivism' that fits every government ever, doesn't mean that is what Collectivism means in Stellaris. It means whatever PDS wants it to mean. Individualist governments are, according to their descriptions, governments that support individual rights and freedoms, while Collectivist Governments are, again according to ingame descriptions, governments that support the idea of unity, collective good over individual good, etc.

All of you who are having trouble with the whole Collectivism/Egalitarian/Hierarchical stuff would be much happier if you accept that this is Paradox's game, their definitions, and not the real world (or even a fake real world). Real world definitions do not apply.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Will Xenophile Pops migration preference towards aliens be dulled or take into account whether a sizeable portion of the prospective target planet's Pops are composed of Xenophobe aliens?

It would make little sense for Xenophile POPs to move into a planet where the natives, alien as they may be, are exceedingly hostile in tolerating their newly arrived neighbours.

Look at it this way:

Xenophile (Blorg) immigrate to a planet filled with Xenophobes. Xenophobes hate it, and migrate to new colonies. Blorg then migrate to their BEST FRIEND's new planet.

After 4 or 5 cycles, the Xenophobe declare a genocidal war
 
  • 5
Reactions:
True, but it slightly changes the perspective of how we look at game's mechanics. The notion that we can enslave our own people just to get slightly more production and they will be fine "because collectivism" is doing absolutely awful job at representing anything. Not only collectivism is incredibly broad term, it is wrongly tied to slavery and anyone will have hard time at role playing any SF species with somewhat more collective traits while trying to get anything meaningful out of the game. Slavery should be at least completely different set of ethics to make sense.

There's a suggestion thread around here somewhere that if they changed the terms to Hierarchical versus Egalitarian instead of Collectivism verus Individualism then it would pretty much solve the issue with only some minimal tweaking. A fanatically hierarchical society having a large class of the population in subservience or bondage works fine, as does the idea of locking out democracies such that only those towards the top of the hierarchy are involved in decision making. Equally, egalitarian societies would of course be appalled at the idea of slavery and be more likely to rebel if enslaved and it makes sense that autocratic governments don't get employed because decision arent made collectively.
 
  • 11
  • 2
Reactions:
Why do you want this to be so boring and symmetrical? Not everything in nature (especially continent formation) is going to be all nice and ordered.
Because its already fairly abstracted. Those tiles are square and of equal size, not differently shaped provinces as in Eu4. Its not a map (if it was, it would have taken into consideration that planets are spheres), per see, has more common with diagram, and should be somewhat ordered, perhaps even sorted. It would make it easier to read, which should be priority.
Sure Africa is a fairly ordered landmass, more or less symmetric. But look at North America! Florida sticks off to the side, on the West coast there are also protrusions, Alaska extends much further than the land on the opposite coast.
What was the purpose of this geography reason? Those are planets, not continents,
Plus if some tiles represent Islands then why should they be neatly placed in a row along with continental tiles? They should be off to the side (and I am glad to see they are!).
What about ocean tiles? Tiles do not necessarily represent any particular biome, except those which aren't cleared-up for use. Their pictures do not indicate this in any obvious way.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
All of you who are having trouble with the whole Collectivism/Egalitarian/Hierarchical stuff would be much happier if you accept that this is Paradox's game, their definitions, and not the real world (or even a fake real world). Real world definitions do not apply.

"Shut up, you're not making it so you can't criticise it." Is a rubbish argument, I mean would you honestly be fine if was Pink/Banana instead?
 
  • 7
  • 4
Reactions:
Also, does one POP represent 1 billion individuals? So if Terra have 7 POP then there are 7 billion individuals?
I'd guess it's a little like in Small World boardgame. You have many species such as trolls and halflings but one tile is always of the same strength. So one tile of halflings is the same strength as one tile of trolls, implying that one tile of trolls is for example ten trolls while one tile of halflings is hundred of them.
So in stellaris one pop of humans may be about 1 billion of them, but in case you have massive, long living space mammoths it can be "only" 10 millions of them. And one pop of space ants is 100 billions.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Because its already fairly abstracted. Those tiles are square and of equal size, not differently shaped provinces as in Eu4. Its not a map (if it was, it would have taken into consideration that planets are spheres), per see, has more common with diagram, and should be somewhat ordered, perhaps even sorted. It would make it easier to read, which should be priority.
I disagree, but your point makes sense.
What was the purpose of this geography reason? Those are planets, not continents,
True, but presumably each tile on the interface represents a segment of the planet (whether it is an island, the coast of a continent, or an interior region). I doubt there is a real connection between the geography of a world and the tiles, but it is nice to RP it being so.

What about ocean tiles? Tiles do not necessarily represent any particular biome, except those which aren't cleared-up for use. Their pictures do not indicate this in any obvious way.
My guess is Ocean tiles are not productive enough to be shown in this interface, they might be conglomerated into Shore/Coast tiles (I think I've seen some tiles that show a coast line, not 100% though).
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The problem is that the fantatical versions of these does not come of all that diffrent from the normal ones, fanatical individualism should basically be rapture from bioshock or even worse becuase even there the people involved were humans who are naturally social beings. On the grand scheme of things even the US should only be individualist 1.
Collectivism also must be made possible to represent more systems, if both regular and radical collectivism means stalinism then why bother having two of them? And no the radical is not to represent hive minds, inherent traits are traits not ethoses. And even then there are hive minds that are "democratic" like the geth from mass effect who only act when there's a consensus of all individual geth programs. That's basically a direct democracy.
Disallowing even collectivism 1 from democratic government types, and not allowing individualist 2 to take plutocratic oligarchy. Is idealising liberalism in a way that even I a card carrying liberal find disturbing.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
"Shut up, you're not making it so you can't criticise it." Is a rubbish argument, I mean would you honestly be fine if was Pink/Banana instead?
I didn't say you can't criticize it, I said if you stop pretending it is something that it clearly isn't it will be easier to understand. It isn't Pink/Banana it is Collectivism/Individualism. Are there better words to describe the two ideas? Maybe. Is it worthwhile to change the name so that it will be more palatable for a few people on the forums and end up being less meaningful to others? Probably not.
A lot of people like the Collectivism/Individualism names, some people don't. The salient point is PDS likes them. If you want to keep arguing other names thats fine, but I wouldn't expect PDS to listen just because you guys create 5 threads on it, and argue the point back and forth endlessly. There are people who like both versions, and in such a stalemate PDS is likely not to change the name.
 
  • 4
Reactions: