• 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:
Why is everybody so fixated on genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression? I mean it's cool that it is in the game, which makes it feel realistic given all the atrocities from human history, but hell it sounds like half the people here are gonna spend their free time with virtual genocide come 9th of may, which I find.. weird?

It's simple. They either assimilate or I genocide them. It's their choice.
 
  • 14
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
They wouldn't have direct rulers, but they would have people who are smart and charismatic and whose word carries weight. Gandhi was never explicitly the ruler of anything but his word was still law amongst his followers, because they liked the ideas he came up with.

As Stalin once said:

It doesn't matter who votes. It only matters who counts the votes.

Wake up. There are at least 3 wars of genocide going on in the world right now. It's always happened and always will.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
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…

it seem that keeping together a large Empire will be very difficult in Stellaris.

sound interesting to me.
 
Excellent this all sounds great...gonna have a lot of fun managing factions.
 
One idea I had for factions, is that leaders could be allied to a faction, so if there is a faction that says want to change an autacracy into a democracy, perhaps one of the governors decides to join that faction, and thus in a civil war his/her planet or sector might rebel with him.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Independence movement demanding releasing them into vassal is little confusing - vassal state that can't declare their own wars can hardly be called independent.
They aren't demanding to be released as vassals. They are demanding independence and as a compromise you can give them limited independence as a vassal instead of risking losing them entirely.

Yes, this struck me as rather strange. The faction leader's main goal is independence. It's exceedingly odd that on ascending to power, that goal recedes further into the future. I mean, it might work that way sometimes, but I don't think it should be the normal course of events. I'd prefer that if the faction leader won, they would negotiate a peaceful separation (and potentially spawn a restoration faction that wants to bring the newly-independent group back).
How does a minority independence faction gain the majority to get their faction leader elected as the head of state? If they are the majority, then what exactly are they seeking independence from? Themselves?
Independence factions aren't the only possibility and I image it's more likely that other types of factions are the ones with a chance of gaining power. As for why their demands aren't immediately implemented:
Haven't you watched politics in our times? I saw many parties with radical demands which when they got elected easily became part of the establishement. Once they have their share in power and wealth they usually forget about their ideals if they ever really had ones.
Exactly this.
Also you can't just take player agency away without giving people the choice between meeting the demands or fighting the rebellion.

I too am worried this will come out cheapened... I'm all for genocide as an option - after all, alien civs could be even more ruthless than humanity - but it should be an option with the potential for a huge political and economical fallout, not a "erase this pop from the game" button.
I'm pretty sure they've said a few times that purging pops is an option with the potential for a huge political and economical fallout.

Yeah checks and balances are a thing but this seems to imply that democratic recourse cant force faction desires at all. If the independence movement garners enough support it should be able to get what it wants in a democratic system. Look at the Philippines and India.

I think it makes sense that it shouldn't be "as soon as the president wants it" but there seems to be no recourse at all.
The faction gaining more pops while in power means that afterwards you either have to acquiesce to some of their demands or face a large rebellion, possibly larger than you can handle at that time. That is the democratic recourse to forcing faction desires. Democracy can only ever get you so far. There comes a point where the rulers have to agree to give in, or the dissenters have to resort to the continuation of politics by other means.
This is the Clausewitz engine after all.

*wonders if I can get all this genocide and purge stuff at least moved to another thread by comparing it to the holocaust and talking about doing the space-holocaust so that we can talk about factions without it getting drowned out in purge talk?*
can we get the genocide mechanics in hearts of Iron. *tries to shut down that topic and gets it back to factions and elections*
Please drop the reductio ad Hitlerum. It's worse than the WH40K purge memes. At least they're just trying to have a bit of fun. If it upsets you so much, simply ignore it and focus on the discussion at hand.
Like you do here:
One idea I had for factions, is that leaders could be allied to a faction, so if there is a faction that says want to change an autacracy into a democracy, perhaps one of the governors decides to join that faction, and thus in a civil war his/her planet or sector might rebel with him.
This is a good idea, factions with similar goals could pledge to support each other in rebellions or even if their goals are very closely aligned they could wage a joint rebellion. That often seems to be the way real rebellions play out.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
So a serious question here. If I have a military dictatorship where no one votes and I pick the next leader how does this game mechanic work? I imagine the pops can ask for a change in government type or give all mad and maybe rebel but factions and the things described here don't fit well into a military dictatorship.

Doesn't this government type cry out for the removal of opposition faction leaders?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How does a minority independence faction gain the majority to get their faction leader elected as the head of state?

That's a good question. Perhaps they only need a plurality to get their leader in. If it was impossible it wouldn't have been given as an example.

If they are the majority, then what exactly are they seeking independence from? Themselves?

Maybe they want independence from the player's governing ethos and policies?

Independence factions aren't the only possibility and I image it's more likely that other types of factions are the ones with a chance of gaining power.

I find it even more weird in the case of factions with other goals. They campaign for a particular outcome, win the election but will never get that outcome until they lose? They can be safely ignored as long as they keep winning? Are faux democracies the only possible type in Stellaris?

Also you can't just take player agency away without giving people the choice between meeting the demands or fighting the rebellion.

The player agency comes in when they choose the government type and when they decide not to invest enough influence to have their desires carry the day. Perhaps the player, if they don't want a policy change as a result of an election, can choose to stage a coup.

The faction gaining more pops while in power means that afterwards you either have to acquiesce to some of their demands or face a large rebellion, possibly larger than you can handle at that time. That is the democratic recourse to forcing faction desires. Democracy can only ever get you so far. There comes a point where the rulers have to agree to give in, or the dissenters have to resort to the continuation of politics by other means.

Wouldn't it be more natural for that decision point to happen when the dissenters win, and the existing leaders have to decide whether or not to hand over power? As it stands, a dissenting faction can win the government, and due to attraction to their cause, will be more likely to win subsequent elections. They can go on winning for decades or centuries but they only stand a chance to implement their preferred policies once they lose substantial support and go back to losing? Does that really not strike you as at all strange?
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
He didn't say anything about a rebellion mechanic. Maybe it's in there and it's perfect and organic. Maybe it's clunky. I dont know. When I dont know, I worry.

From the DD:

Instead, what happens is that the Faction becomes passive and will not revolt, which is great for you.

The exception proves the rule: If a faction wins, they will be passive and will not revolt. This is implies that if they don't win, they aren't necessarily passive and may revolt.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
So will slaves be able to join factions, or will there be other ways for them to rebel?

And is there any chance that military units composed of certain species will defect and join rebellions.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So a serious question here. If I have a military dictatorship where no one votes and I pick the next leader how does this game mechanic work? I imagine the pops can ask for a change in government type or give all mad and maybe rebel but factions and the things described here don't fit well into a military dictatorship.

Doesn't this government type cry out for the removal of opposition faction leaders?

Military hierarchies have a nasty habit of elevating incompetents to high rank; or worse, of elevating competent generals to high political ranks for which they are utterly unsuitable. The payment of influence to pick a candidare can therefore be seen as your attempt to circumvent the normal rules of promotion and put the "right person" into power. The various "opposition" leaders could be seen as members of the General Staff who have different political views.

Military dictatorships also have a nasty habit of fracturing into civil war (or at least the serious risk of civil war) upon the death of the dictator. I'd go so far as to say that of all the government types, they're the least likely to have an orderly succession.
 
  • 10
  • 7
Reactions:
Military hierarchies have a nasty habit of elevating incompetents to high rank; or worse, of elevating competent generals to high political ranks for which they are utterly unsuitable. The payment of influence to pick a candidare can therefore be seen as your attempt to circumvent the normal rules of promotion and put the "right person" into power. The various "opposition" leaders could be seen as members of the General Staff who have different political views.

Military dictatorships also have a nasty habit of fracturing into civil war (or at least the serious risk of civil war) upon the death of the dictator. I'd go so far as to say that of all the government types, they're the least likely to have an orderly succession.
To be fair, they're often established in a non-orderly manner and often lack precedence for succession. Rome and the USSR did well with what were arguably dictatorships. Honorable mention to North Korea for stable succession, to. So long as there's a recognized, legal successor, there usually isn't a civil war. It's entirely possible for there to be a large movement for "to hell with that guy", though, especially if he's unpopular compared to other potential leaders and less legitimate.
 
  • 8
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be more natural for that decision point to happen when the dissenters win, and the existing leaders have to decide whether or not to hand over power? As it stands, a dissenting faction can win the government, and due to attraction to their cause, will be more likely to win subsequent elections. They can go on winning for decades or centuries but they only stand a chance to implement their preferred policies once they lose substantial support and go back to losing? Does that really not strike you as at all strange?
Yeah, that's a very good point. Although maybe some sort of critical mass of support should be required. As in first election they have gained enough support to get their faction leader in power and then during that term they gain more support and so by then next election they have enough of a majority to push through whatever they were looking for and so on re-election there is a prompt to either enact the reform or face additional unrest.

I think though that we do see in real world politics very often that politicians will say what they need to to get themselves elected and don't always follow through on them. In Ireland a few years ago the leader of the Labour party was caught out tacitly admitting on camera that what you promise during elections can be "subject to change" once you're actually in power. I don't really follow American politics too closely although it can often be impossible to avoid (can't completely ignore the global hegemon after all) but it seemed like Barak Obama never really delivered as much 'change' as he promised (although of course some detractors try to imply that he tried turn america into a Communist state by providing a meagre amount of subsidised healthcare xD) and anyone who genuinely thinks that Trump has any intention at all of implementing any of the policies that he espouses, or that he would be allowed to even if he did, is frankly delusional.

So, yeah, I think that candidates simply maintaining the status quo when elected into positions of power, and real changes pretty much only ever being implemented either through rebellion or fear of it, is probably the more realistic approach to the issue.

That being said, I wouldn't be opposed to a future DLC greatly expanding on all the political content. And of course, not having played the game, I can only wait with excitement to see how the mechanics that are already implemented play out.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Why is everybody so fixated on genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression? I mean it's cool that it is in the game, which makes it feel realistic given all the atrocities from human history, but hell it sounds like half the people here are gonna spend their free time with virtual genocide come 9th of may, which I find.. weird?

Yeah, it worries me too. I love Paradox games, but some of their fanbase are a little worrying.

It is pretty disconcerting to read all this "genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression" for month. I mean, It's not like that option isn't already in the game, so no reason to say it in every second thread or news.

I too have concerns about people in this forum. People who think games should be played their way and no other, people who confuse reality and video games. People who find it 'worrying' what people do on their own, with their own money and time. People who find it disconcerting to read about people who are excited to Role Play as their favorite fictional empires.

Accept that people have interests that differ from yours. Accept that others have better imaginations than you, and can play as an evil empire without being evil themselves. Accept that you have no right to say they shouldn't enjoy playing out a fantasy version of their favorite space operas.

Listen to the heretic, give medical aid to the mutant, wash the unclean.

I don't know why people keep confusing the Imperium for a sympathetic character.

Cute, I approve :)
Honestly the Imperium is interesting because it cannot be judged by modern morals. It lives in a universe where it is quite literally possible for your thoughts to not only kill you, but damn you to eternal damnation. An open mind is easily manipulated by the powers of chaos, and someone with the best intentions can find themselves driven insane and become the very thing they once despised.
I don't think anyone would say the Imperium is 'good' by our standards, but it is 'good' by the standards of the universe in which it lives, which to me makes it a very interesting empire.

Fascist savagery, exceptionalism, and xenophobia appear to be sharply on the rise in today's society, so while it's distressing, it's not really surprising that it would be reflected in sub-cultures like ours.

Of course, no-one can role play anything, if someone makes a space slaver empire that must actually be their true hidden desires.
/s

Next thing you know people'll say everyone who goes on a murder spree in GTA actually have homicidal & maniacal tendencies.
 
  • 23
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions: