Are the developers allergic to "Internal Politics" and "Ground Invasion"?

[mrt1212]

So heres an idea on how Devs could develop Internal Politics over time so we can check in, see if we like hows its going, test and try things out:

if nobody says they play Cut Throat Politics Civic - turn that Civic entirely into an Internal Politics and Events Civic that models and functionally plays through its own Internal Politics. At the very deepest end of it in potentially brutal always-on, cant-escape ways, which could then be reduced or less brutal for more general deployment one day.

I keep thinking a step in any direction with it is better than none, limiting it to a self selected choice is better than forcing it on all even if parts might make it to all one day, and ive never heard anyone use this Civic and it has the name that signals it already. And itd be brutal, so everyone who says they want some high drama from the inside can see how true it is.

But id certianly give it a whirl if available, and told this was the development plan for it. Opt in, put on the test helmet, see whats new in being shot out of cannons, sure.

 

[dawedqafdAD]

Ah yeah, "internal politics" aka the civil war simulator. Respectfully no thank you.

 

[GhostDanny]

Ah yeah, "internal politics" aka the civil war simulator. Respectfully no thank you.

I mean, we do have revolts already, basically civil wars right there.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Ah yeah, "internal politics" aka the civil war simulator. Respectfully no thank you.

This feels very strawman-y.

While that’s one interpretation of what an internal politics update might be, it’s pretty dismissive of what people are actually saying.

 

[ASGeek2012]

Ground combat is adequate. It gets the job done.

I would much rather the devs work on the many bugs that are still open, some for several years. That I feel is a better use of the devs time than reworking ground combat.

Though I do agree with those who say that the ground combat UI could use a pass.

 

[dawedqafdAD]

This feels very strawman-y.

While that’s one interpretation of what an internal politics update might be, it’s pretty dismissive of what people are actually saying.

Hardly. The general gist is "make having a large empire hard", business as usual.

We can call it whatever but the reality is its going to be a frustrating mechanic geared towards breaking up large empires. If were not going to be honest in saying that's the goal then i dont know what else to say. I really haven't read anything that suggests this isn't the case, or at least the expectation.


I'll put it this way, what does a small empire composed of a few species/ethics really get from internal politics as its been described here? From my point of view not too much. How about large empires? Well it seems to me they get nothing but frustration from having more then a few ethics, how is that fun? Is it meant to be unfun? How do you get rid of unwanted ethics? can you even do so? and what kind of penalties will you have to suffer in the process? these are the questions I'm asking myself and i dont particularly want to have to deal with any of that.

I suppose we could go even deeper into the space feudalism direction and have everything be completely decentralized with planets having completely different rules, customs, laws, etc. but again how would that be fun to deal with?


My problem with this idea is that all it seems to be is something you avoid. Why would we add a mechanic that's whole purpose is to be avoided? You dont want your planets to rebel, you dont want them developing autonomy or whatever form this would be taking, you dont want your leaders betraying you, None of those things are something i want to interact with. I've yet to read about any positives regarding "internal politics" Again, it seems like a civil war simulator full of nothing but bad situations you need to avoid in order to maintain a fun experience. At least the way I've seen it described, or at least the way I've interpreted it.

 

[Toby-wan_Strife]

I mean, we do have revolts already, basically civil wars right there.

And even then they just feel empty. You have to be a major noob (or a Paradox AI) to actually have to deal with revolts. I just wish revolts were more RNG focused, like you had to deal with unhappy slave pops walking out of their jobs in mass strikes and tanking your stability which has a chance of causing a revolt that’s very hard to put down. Or maybe you could have a war of succession if you don’t have a designated heir if you’re either imperial or dictatorial. It often took years for a monarch to find a designated heir, same with dictators. A major power vacuum between your competing factions and disenfranchised egalitarian pops is something you really don’t want, especially if your ruler decides to die and leave behind a big mess.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Hardly. The general gist is "make having a large empire hard", business as usual.

We can call it whatever but the reality is its going to be a frustrating mechanic geared towards breaking up large empires. If were not going to be honest in saying that's the goal then i dont know what else to say. I really haven't read anything that suggests this isn't the case, or at least the expectation.

That's what a strawman is.

You're deciding what other people want and arguing against that instead of what people are actually saying.

In fact, half of this thread is one group of people saying "So you want tedious civil war mechanics?" and then the other saying "No, that's not what I want."

I suppose we could go even deeper into the space feudalism direction and have everything be completely decentralized with planets having completely different rules, customs, laws, etc. but again how would that be fun to deal with?

Referring to any internal politics additions as "space feudalism" also isn't a fair criticism.

Real world modern nations have administrative divisions, after all, since central governments can't manage their millions of people without layers of additional government in between.

It's also fair that large empires would have different problems than small ones. In fact, making large and small empires play differently from one another is an extremely common request. After all, why would you want large and small empires to play the same?

My problem with this idea is that all it seems to be is something you avoid. Why would we add a mechanic that's whole purpose is to be avoided? You dont want your planets to rebel, you dont want them developing autonomy or whatever form this would be taking, you dont want your leaders betraying you, None of those things are something i want to interact with. I've yet to read about any positives regarding "internal politics" Again, it seems like a civil war simulator full of nothing but bad situations you need to avoid in order to maintain a fun experience. At least the way I've seen it described, or at least the way I've interpreted it.

To clarify, you're aware that there already are revolt and civil war mechanics in Stellaris, right?

...and that purpose of these mechanics is to avoid them?

Negative mechanics are fine, as consequences are a fair thing to have. Sure, there's a such a thing as too much, but I don't see anyone arguing that civil war mechanics should be thrown in the player's face at every opportunity.

The current version where you only encounter these mechanics if you really mess up is fair and I'm not sure anyone here is arguing that any large empire should be one or two choices away from civil war at any given time. Again, that's an assumption you're making and it's a little silly to show up to a thread and blast an argument that nobody's making.

 

[dawedqafdAD]

That's what a strawman is.

You're deciding what other people want and arguing against that instead of what people are actually saying.

not what i did but whatever. Ironically that's what your condescending paragraph here is doing but again, whatever.

To clarify, you're aware that there already are revolt and civil war mechanics in Stellaris, right?

...and that purpose of these mechanics is to avoid them?

yes. and... yes.. its not a fun mechanic and everyone actively avoids it. a great example of why adding more of these would be a mistake. Not to mention the fact that it also hurts the AI to have mechanics like this in the game.

It's also fair that large empires would have different problems than small ones. In fact, making large and small empires play differently from one another is an extremely common request. After all, why would you want large and small empires to play the same?

play differently, huh, what an interesting way to describe the games current state that favors small empires extremely disproportionately and continues to move in that direction almost every update.

 

[Normannus]

not what i did but whatever. Ironically that's what your condescending paragraph here is doing but again, whatever.

You did, in fact, produce the Platonic ideal of a strawman.

yes. and... yes.. its not a fun mechanic and everyone actively avoids it. a great example of why adding more of these would be a mistake. Not to mention the fact that it also hurts the AI to have mechanics like this in the game.

“Everyone avoids resource shortages, therefore resource shortages as a mechanic is a mistake”
“Everyone avoids losing wars, therefore losing wars as a mechanic is a mistake”
First, the point of negative mechanics is specifically so that you try to avoid them, and to inflict reasonable penalties of some kind when you fail to do so. Better civil war mechanics, or mechanics modeling a total revolution (I.e where you could have a revolt aiming to make your dictatorship into a democracy, or the reverse) would specifically be for guiding what strategies you adopt.

play differently, huh, what an interesting way to describe the games current state that favors small empires extremely disproportionately and continues to move in that direction almost every update.

I don’t know what world you’re living in if you think the game extremely disproportionately favors small empires.

Finally, while better internal politics would involve situations that you want to avoid- like civil wars- it would also include rewards for proper management. And it would furthermore be putting these same mechanics on your opponents, and would hopefully allow you to try and defeat your enemies by exacerbating and exploiting their weakened internal state. It would even open up a new range of ways to use espionage. If you don’t think people would enjoy using espionage to cause their much stronger enemy to end up in a civil war, which they could then use to try and take a chunk of their territory, I don’t think you know the playerbase. As long as the AI can handle normal internal politics, but still be susceptible to outside threats, and the player has a significant way to counter all but the strongest attempts like this, it would be well received.

 

[PK_AZ]

That's what a strawman is.

You're deciding what other people want and arguing against that instead of what people are actually saying.

In fact, half of this thread is one group of people saying "So you want tedious civil war mechanics?" and then the other saying "No, that's not what I want."

Ok, so what do you want?

 

[HFY]

Ok, so what do you want?

Internal Politics

 

[PK_AZ]

Internal Politics

That's just the way to say you have no idea what you want, but you want it to have 'internal politics' label slapped on it.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

Ok, so what do you want?

Not much, honestly.

In fact, half of what I’m about to write is more so about internal governance in general rather than politics specifically.

Factions having a presence on the game world would be nice, such as how EU4 once had a system where estates had partial control over provinces and conferred modifiers based on the government’s relationship with its estates.

It’d be neat if there was more to sector capitals, such as if trade went to sector capitals first and then to the empire capital.

Maybe bring back sector-owned construction ships and colonization, assuming they can make that work. Having AI-controlled sector fleets would be cool too, assuming it didn’t turn into a performance nightmare.

It might be interesting if sectors took a cut of the resources they produced, especially the further they are from the empires capital, to represent a large empire becoming more inefficient the further you get from the core. Though, it might be too late in Stellaris’ development to introduce distance-based production.

In general, making distance matter would be ideal, but again, distance-based modifiers might be too big too introduce into an 8-year old game.

Conversely, it’d be interesting if some hard caps became sector caps, such as the empire limit on Dyson swarms and arc furnaces. If there was a way to make it non-cheesable with sector creation/destruction, I think sector caps rather than empire caps would be the way to go on a lot of things.

You could probably tie habitat construction into sectors, such as the number of habitats being soft capped per sector based on the sector capital’s capital building size and you can go over that cap at the cost of increased empire size for the extras. I’m not sure that’d even count as internal politics though, except in the very loose sense that anything related to empire size could count.

So really, internal politics for me isn’t civil war mechanics: it’s making factions more than just a submenu and making sectors something other than a skeleton mechanic.

 

[L-Histidine]

“Everyone avoids resource shortages, therefore resource shortages as a mechanic is a mistake”
“Everyone avoids losing wars, therefore losing wars as a mechanic is a mistake”

I want to highlight this point.

'If I fail at internal politics it would be very bad for my empire and that is unfun' is, noticeably, not an argument anyone uses against the existence of external politics (i.e. war and diplomacy) or economy. Partly because the game would obviously be pretty nonsensical and empty without them, but also, I get the vibe (everywhere, not just here) that it's taken for granted that the player does not ever fail at warfare or economy, unless they're playing with extra-hard galaxy settings/civics/origins (whether in absolute terms or relative to their own skill level), or messed up by the numbers. (Implications of this fact left as exercise to reader)

Ok, so what do you want?

Me, I'm not saying "turn the entire game into Victoria 3", but I'm also not not saying it, y'know?

For real though, without discussing specific mechanic proposals I think what I want most is two things that were mentioned earlier in this thread: make factions actually matter for anything; and make pops care about being annexed (among other things).

Spoiler

I was gonna write more things here, like "the progress and outcomes of wars should impact internal politics, beyond a temporary faction opinion bonus/penalty for the binary state of being in an aggressive war" and "elections should not just be me looking at the same screen for 5 seconds", but I did say I didn't want to get in the weeds

 

[Thiend]

I want to highlight this point.

'If I fail at internal politics it would be very bad for my empire and that is unfun' is, noticeably, not an argument anyone uses against the existence of external politics (i.e. war and diplomacy) or economy. Partly because the game would obviously be pretty nonsensical and empty without them, but also, I get the vibe (everywhere, not just here) that it's taken for granted that the player does not ever fail at warfare or economy, unless they're playing with extra-hard galaxy settings/civics/origins (whether in absolute terms or relative to their own skill level), or messed up by the numbers. (Implications of this fact left as exercise to reader)


Me, I'm not saying "turn the entire game into Victoria 3", but I'm also not not saying it, y'know?

For real though, without discussing specific mechanic proposals I think what I want most is two things that were mentioned earlier in this thread: make factions actually matter for anything; and make pops care about being annexed (among other things).

Spoiler

I was gonna write more things here, like "the progress and outcomes of wars should impact internal politics, beyond a temporary faction opinion bonus/penalty for the binary state of being in an aggressive war" and "elections should not just be me looking at the same screen for 5 seconds", but I did say I didn't want to get in the weeds

I think the real problem here is there are two "camps," broadly, of people saying they want "internal politics."

People who want to awkwardly staple Crusader Kings into Stellaris, and before anyone claims that's a strawman go read the posts in this thread, it's not. It's me assigning a name to their ideas because that's where they can be directly found. That's what sectors taking some of the income and having their own fleets etc is, it's a CK vassal. People who say stuff like (summarized from direct quotation) "people who don't want IP are stupid casuals" (up to three people agreeing with that post, and two disagreed with mine pointing that out), and who I frankly think are sock-puppet disagreeing with anti-IP posts based on how many of the people disagreeing with mine have <5 posts and decade-old accounts (several have literally 0).

And people like you, who I could actually agree with the specific ideas you're talking about, but you're not talking about an internal politics DLC, your ideas fall into feature reworks. Pops caring that they were conquered or abducted is a feature rework, they can already be conquered or abducted and there's already an associated debuff, it's just also too weak. Factions mattering more/being more customizable is a feature rework, factions already theoretically matter (the happiness isn't nothing, it's just pretty boring). Elections having more to them than "rig it yes/no" is a feature rework. Wars in general need a huge feature rework if the devs can make such a rework... really work, the current system is obnoxious in several ways but it's one of those "worst system ever except for all the alternatives" things. There are not enough new and compatible ideas for an internal politics focused DLC, there's about enough for the free patch coming alongside a DLC of feature reworks and a few small additions. I would suggest internal development, a similar idea that has way more compatible with the game itself, such as ways to build up the space you have rather than obtain more.

 

[HFY]

Pops caring that they were conquered or abducted is a feature rework

That's actually a 1.x feature which exists in the game today -- pops do have modifiers about being recently conquered or recently enslaved.

Those modifiers are largely ignored, because they don't do much, but they exist in the game and have since I started back in 1.2 or so.

 

[Thiend]

That's actually a 1.x feature which exists in the game today -- pops do have modifiers about being recently conquered or recently enslaved.

Those modifiers are largely ignored, because they don't do much, but they exist in the game and have since I started back in 1.2 or so.

That's... the other half of that sentence.

It's a feature repair more than a feature rework TBH, recently conquered is still in the game but completely de-boned. I'm not sure if it ever applies to abducted pops, but even on actually conquered ones it's pretty ignorable. It's absolutely goofy on realism that it lasts a decade, considering the closest real-world examples we have still cared rather a lot some half a century later when the USSR broke up. Berlin wall and all that.

 

[HFY]

That's... the other half of that sentence.

It's a feature repair more than a feature rework TBH, recently conquered is still in the game but completely de-boned. I'm not sure if it ever applies to abducted pops, but even on actually conquered ones it's pretty ignorable. It's absolutely goofy on realism that it lasts a decade, considering the closest real-world examples we have still cared rather a lot some half a century later when the USSR broke up. Berlin wall and all that.

I'm assuming it was 2.2 which neutered the modifiers and made post-conquest stability into trivia where before it could be challenging.

My point is just that these features were in the game from the start (AFAICT), but they've been re-worked to not work, and restoring them should be considered a restoration of content rather than importing mechanics from CK.

And I definitely agree that the short duration is absurd. The debuffs should be there to get an initial faction started around whatever caused the debuffs, which should push their agenda for as long as they care about it -- and making them care about something else would generally mean engaging in internal politics.

 

[Thiend]

I'm assuming it was 2.2 which neutered the modifiers and made post-conquest stability into trivia where before it could be challenging.

My point is just that these features were in the game from the start (AFAICT), but they've been re-worked to not work, and restoring them should be considered a restoration of content rather than importing mechanics from CK.

Oh, yeah, that's the entire thrust of my post - those are the things the post I was quoting said they wanted, and 0 of them are internal politics DLC features. They're all (good!) feature reworks/repairs.

And I definitely agree that the short duration is absurd. The debuffs should be there to get an initial faction started around whatever caused the debuffs, which should push their agenda for as long as they care about it -- and making them care about something else would generally mean engaging in internal politics.

I'm not sure any political faction getting concessions can make up for having been conquered. I can't think of a real-world example where the conquered have been truly pacified except by ceasing to exist.

I guess I'd also be okay with it, but that's what I mean about not being enough for an entire DLC. That's still just a feature rework/repair, even if it's one based on internal politics the game is already designed to have.