• 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:
That's not historically right - slave workers tend to work less hard because they have less incentive to produce more. Slaves do as little work as they can get away with; hired workers do as much as work as they can. Slavery is a very inefficient economic system.
Yeah - That is right ...
And, in Addition to That, the Perspective of a Slave-Owner (Slave-Economy) could be, that He would (More or Less) spare his Slave, because "It" is his Property, because He had bought "It" ...
Whereas, the Perspective of a Capitalist (Capitalism-Economy) would be, that He has NO Incentive to spare his Workers, because They are NOT his Property, because He had (only) hired Them ...

Maybe, It could make more Sense, that "Slavery" is only a light Version of "Purging" ...
The Extinction of POPs via Slavery (No Breeding, because the Owner of the Slaves decides about the Survival of the Slave-Offsprings) needs Time (Dis-Advantage), but obtains more Acceptance (Advantage) ...
The Extinction of POPs via Purging is immediate (Advantage), but obtains less Acceptance (Dis-Advantage).
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Productivity went up after Haitian independence - it just wasn't focussed on exportable cash crops. This scheme is suggesting that slave economies' productivity is higher than non-slave economies'. That is simply not the case.

Production = Productivity * Unit Value of the Good/Service Produced

I agree with you that slave economies have low productivity. However, the fact that they can forcibly assign people to unpleasant tasks which have a higher unit value (for example, digging the white sea canal) instead of pleasant tasks with a lower unit value (for example, discussing Stellaris online) means that the overall production value can in some cases be higher.

To return to the Haiti example: If you're a planetary governor and you have a square on the planet grid labelled "Haiti" which you want to get sugar from, then you might not be happy with the local people replying "We're going to grow other crops instead", even if they have a higher productivity for those other crops. You didn't send them there to grow other crops, you sent them there to grow sugar, and if they decide not to grow it then other parts of your economy might grind to a halt. In such circumstances the unit value of sugar is high and the unit value of other crops is low, so the higher productivity won't compensate.

(Disclaimer: real-life slavery is a vile thing which shames the memory of humanity, and which still goes on today. Nothing in the post above should be taken as an endorsement of it for moral or economic reasons.)
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Let's just assume that some kind of intelligence is needed to build space empire, even for a worker. Taking that every POP has a trait and some kind of happiness I suppose we can assume hive mind isn't implemented (not that it would represent collectivist ethos).
I'm pretty sure pure hive-mind empires will use a completely different mechanic (it's been somewhat hinted in the DDs). It was just an example. You could solve it with various sub-species though and some of those POPs would be pretty suited for "slavery".

We are dominating species on the planet because in our earliest days we were (and still are) collectivist in nature. That allowed us to survive pretty much anything planet had to offer so far including some very strong predators because even the strongest one fears the superior numbers.
Of course but then I don't assume humans to be on any of the far sides of the collectivism-individualism scale but rather slightly to the left of the middle ground. We're certainly not "cats" and we're pretty damn far away from ants (from a evolutionary perspective).


By accident "species with individualistic traits" are predators rarely working together. You can keep tiger in your house, but its normal mode of operation is solitude existence interrupted only for mating purposes. Try to build space empire around that. Kingdom of animals is really bad example in discussion about civilizations.
Well Lions would be one of the exceptions where individualistic traits are still dominant while working as a social group. Not that it matters. I chose cats on the far side just because they're pretty extreme among individualistic mammals (that are common enough for people to still interact with on a broad basis) for the sake of the discussion.

An alien race evolved from individualistic animals could still use intelligence to form cooperative bonds and become a highly evolved spacefaring civilization. It's not in the collectivism or individualism but rather in cooperative ability when needed. Just because we on planet Earth needed intelligent collectivist apes to survive evolution and become modern man doesn't mean that other alien species would go the same path. Their evolutionary homeworlds could have completely different requirements and highly intelligent individualistic species might have evolved enough to start the technological revolution and become smart enough to actually cooperate through intelligence rather than collectivistic needs.

Then again you could have the post evolutionary side of things where collectivists become individualists through culture or thousands or millions of years of breeding or genetic tampering (or the other way around).
 
  • 2
Reactions:
However, slaves can be worked much harder than free workers would tolerate, and made to do work that's too unpleasant or dangerous for free workers to accept. This means that while each individual may slack off, the overall value of the work done could go up.

Historically, a good example of this was the Haitian sugar crop: prior to the slave rebellion Haiti exported immense amounts of sugar. After they won their freedom, sugar rapidly became replaced with less-profitable food crops and the overall GDP declined. Farmers simply couldn't pay the now-free Haitians enough to make them willing to do the extremely unpleasant work of sugar cultivation.

As XIX and early XX century proved you can work free worker as hard as slave or even worse. Because when you had slave you had to provide him with housing and food otherwise he would die and it would cost the slave owner his money. Meanwhile free worker? No worries, the only thing you need is unemployment.

Though I guess in the world of Stellaris, AI isn't really that much better than today, in fact in some ways it's worse. AI on ships can only improve efficiency, but biological crew members are still needed and fleets without admirals fare badly. I kind of like this break with realism for the sake of game play.

In the world of Stellaris AI is gonna be robust enough to be a POP.

Farcry Primal. Hunter gatherer societies were interesting to research. Since those habits have died out but the DNA potential for specialization is still there in some people. Animals also feared fire, especially given how much fur they have.

Funny thing is that when we watch a tv show where people are put in crisis situation we still expect certain things to happen. Like by the gut feeling we know they should group up but also logic recommends that manpower is hardly a bad thing.
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Well Lions would be one of the exceptions where individualistic traits are still dominant while working as a social group. Not that it matters. I chose cats on the far side just because they're pretty extreme among individualistic mammals (that are common enough for people to still interact with on a broad basis) for the sake of the discussion.

An alien race evolved from individualistic animals could still use intelligence to form cooperative bonds and become a highly evolved spacefaring civilization. It's not in the collectivism or individualism but rather in cooperative ability when needed. Just because we on planet Earth needed intelligent collectivist apes to survive evolution and become modern man doesn't mean that other alien species would go the same path. Their evolutionary homeworlds could have completely different requirements and highly intelligent individualistic species might have evolved enough to start the technological revolution and become smart enough to actually cooperate through intelligence rather than collectivistic needs.

Then again you could have the post evolutionary side of things where collectivists become individualists through culture or thousands or millions of years of breeding or genetic tampering (or the other way around).
An alien race evolved from individualistic animals (extremely unlikely as it is) which would start to cooperate would become a collective one. Individualist animal hardly stands another member of its species on its hunting or mating ground, you cannot make a civilization out of it. No advanced economy, no army structure, no government, nothing. Now, what it has to do with collectivists believing to be equal while accepting slavery, I do not know.

The closest thing we have to individualist society is anarchy and that is pretty much it.
 
As XIX and early XX century proved you can work free worker as hard as slave or even worse. Because when you had slave you had to provide him with housing and food otherwise he would die and it would cost the slave owner his money. Meanwhile free worker? No worries, the only thing you need is unemployment.



In the world of Stellaris AI is gonna be robust enough to be a POP.



Funny thing is that when we watch a tv show where people are put in crisis situation we still expect certain things to happen. Like by the gut feeling we know they should group up but also logic recommends that manpower is hardly a bad thing.

Eventually it will be, but not at first.
 
Exactly - they should be low cost and low production. But the DD said they're going to be high production. Not a big thing, but a thing nonetheless.

Pops don't have running costs associated with them, though. Having slaves have higher mining / farming output to represent the fact that they don't require luxury goods or more specialized food stuffs etc to support them seems like a fair enough representation.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Thank you for the development diary, Doomdark! I appreciate the possibilities in terms of migration, and slavery and purges sound like balanced mechanics.
 
That's not historically right - slave workers tend to work less hard because they have less incentive to produce more. Slaves do as little work as they can get away with; hired workers do as much as work as they can. Slavery is a very inefficient economic system.
That's why it was freemen and not slaves who built the Pyramids, the greatest feat of engineering in the early history of human civilizations. Wait a minute....
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
It's explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and by countless passover seders with insufferable relatives, that the slaves built the cities of Pithom and Rameses. That being said, slavery was more complex than the normally considered, with high ranking slaves owning other slaves and even running important sectors of the community.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
That's actually true. Most historians believe hired artisans constructed the pyramids not slaves.
If the workers were literally worked to death (great evidence of this) and their lives were considered a resource to use and abuse, I'd consider that slavery. Just because they were promised an honored place in the afterlife doesn't mean they weren't slaves. It just means they were willing slaves.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It's explicitly mentioned in the Bible, and by countless passover seders with insufferable relatives, that the slaves built the cities of Pithom and Rameses. That being said, slavery was more complex than the normally considered, with high ranking slaves owning other slaves and even running important sectors of the community.

First of all, i wouldnt consider the Bible to be a proper historical document.

Second, the Pyramids were built 2700 to 2500 BC. The Hebrew slaves were waaaaay later
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Nor would I, however the popular misconception is based on that.

Sorry, but any document can be considered an historical document. A magazine, newspaper article, photograph, a baseball bat.

The Bible certainly qualifies. (As does Pravda - by the way).

It all depends on the subject of investigation.

(Before you ask - yes I do have a History Degree)
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions: