So after reading all these threads the most important thing Stellaris can do is avoid ...

[Jorgen_CAB]

Mhhm I have forgotten to write meaningful research yes.
Most of the projects of the DARPA and IARPA fail, because they are real research, connecting ape brains together f.E which recently worked out quite well (https://www.newscientist.com/articl...up-to-make-mind-melded-computer/#.VZ8Cdfkgw8O), the problem with real research is, it is wayyy to risky for most corporations hence the only ones participating in it are "bet your company" companies. So it is usually state-backed ( although some new small biotechs actually do research; Neuralstem comes to mind, and mix it with development ). Research has too much opportunity costs for private firms and you get a higher RROI from development( risk adjusted return on investment ). Marketing and development ( mostly the central bank actually ) are driving the private sector. Research drives drives the economy, and the economa drives research. What do you need for a good economy first and foremost Stability, Order & Trust. So a state without strength on the inside and outside will tremble as the budgets will decrease. The military drives the economy, by exactly this.

Research is reliant on the state, and practical experience ( theories without application or method to verify are not really research but rather philosophy/useless ), although this is from a socio-technical PoV as this is part of my everyday job, hence I am prolly very biased.

And considering research during the last 30 years: DARPA and CIA are very big names, and IARPA will soon become one. So I would say whilst trying to strengthen the states power the military also drives research.

Ok... so to you the State is NOT the people but the military... I don't know what you get all those ideas from. The state is an extension of the people in a Democracy while the military is a supportive or service to the people not vice verse.

State funded research is as much a civilian endeavor as it is anything else. If that research can be applied to civilian or military use is irrelevant... and most research are done to further our knowledge to enhance our life not to make our weapons deadlier. Sure... some research are pure military but far from all research is.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

And a strong military is important to secure those. They feed into each other.



Uh balance of power still puts the military central. The reason those states aren't annexed is because they're protected by another big state, either directly or indirectly.

States want security not entertainment.

Sure.. security is one of the fundamental priorities of the people. As long as there are military threats there will need to be resources put into military development. There is no denying that... what I was trying to convey was that if all countries in the world were democracies and all countries had ample food, education and internal security there would be no need to for military as we see it today. There are no way US would invade Canada just because their military are greater in such a scenario... the military is only needed to face threats that don't share your core values.

 

[lwarmonger]

Ok... so to you the State is NOT the people but the military... I don't know what you get all those ideas from. The state is an extension of the people in a Democracy while the military is a supportive or service to the people not vice verse.

State funded research is as much a civilian endeavor as it is anything else. If that research can be applied to civilian or military use is irrelevant... and most research are done to further our knowledge to enhance our life not to make our weapons deadlier. Sure... some research are pure military but far from all research is.

What he is saying is that government tends to create the foundation upon which civilian research is built, because that foundation is not profitable to corporations. For example, satellites were created for military purposes. However, the infrastructure and technology that was created for military purposes made possible a variety of civilian spin off technologies that are possible. The computer and the internet are other things that would not exist without government funding for military purposes getting them off the ground... but have had tremendous impact on how we live our lives through further iterative development on the civilian side.

Sure.. security is one of the fundamental priorities of the people. As long as there are military threats there will need to be resources put into military development. There is no denying that... what I was trying to convey was that if all countries in the world were democracies and all countries had ample food, education and internal security there would be no need to for military as we see it today. There are no way US would invade Canada just because their military are greater in such a scenario... the military is only needed to face threats that don't share your core values.

And wars are not just fought for food, education and internal security. Russia isn't fighting in the Eastern Ukraine for any of those things. Neither is China acting aggressive towards Japan for those things. The US did not invade Iraq for those things. And Sweden is not strengthening its military relationships with the Baltic States and Poland for those things. The belief that if you are happy and well fed at home that wars become obsolete is wishful thinking at its worst. Geopolitical imperatives combined with a healthy dose of fear provide more than enough reason to go to war. Militaries are there so that your nation state is able to be in the game and not get dictated to by someone who is. To safeguard your nation and it's interests. Democracies and Republics can and have absolutely gone to war with enthusiasm, and will do so again in the future.

 

[Precursor]

Sure.. security is one of the fundamental priorities of the people. As long as there are military threats there will need to be resources put into military development. There is no denying that... what I was trying to convey was that if all countries in the world were democracies and all countries had ample food, education and internal security there would be no need to for military as we see it today. There are no way US would invade Canada just because their military are greater in such a scenario... the military is only needed to face threats that don't share your core values.

I've read papers on DPT, hell I've even argued for it in the past. That being said I do not find it completely compelling. US invasion of Canada? Yeah you're right. Pakistan-India? I don't agree there's zero chance for war there even if they're both democracies.

 

[Otto of england]

Sure.. security is one of the fundamental priorities of the people. As long as there are military threats there will need to be resources put into military development. There is no denying that... what I was trying to convey was that if all countries in the world were democracies and all countries had ample food, education and internal security there would be no need to for military as we see it today. There are no way US would invade Canada just because their military are greater in such a scenario... the military is only needed to face threats that don't share your core values.

US not invading Canada is not examples of democracies being benevolent and peaceful towards each other but an example of trade being more economically beneficial then war. IIRC 80% of Canada's trade goes to the USA and there is no trade tariffs between the two countries. This combined with the Canada and the USA being very close culturally and have very closely tied population would make a war an extremely hard sell these days.

 

[Pentel123]

Infamy/bad boy mechanic that makes it harder to secure trade agreement, allaince, etc. Increase unrest particularly for conquered races and puts you at risk of a coalition attacking you are the best ways to constrain it.

Regardless you will not have a large empire without a strong military, however it my be possible to still be influencial, like having high prestige and industry even with low military can let you be a great power in vicky 2

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

Any sitting president that tried to declare war on Canada would pretty much kill his political party. We'de move to a 1-party system and have to make a new party.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

Infamy/bad boy mechanic that makes it harder to secure trade agreement, allaince, etc. Increase unrest particularly for conquered races and puts you at risk of a coalition attacking you are the best ways to constrain it.

Regardless you will not have a large empire without a strong military, however it my be possible to still be influencial, like having high prestige and industry even with low military can let you be a great power in vicky 2

These are all mechanics that punish aggressive players just cause. Why not mechanics for non-militaristic empires to fight back? Otherwise you get in to the EU4 situation where EVERY SINGLE CHOICE must be weighed in on how strong it makes you army.

 

[Finnway]

I'm fine with war not being the only thing that matters just so long as they don't penalize you to the point that going to war is a waste of resources. In Civilization the AI hates you any time you go to war, even if you declare war on someone they hate!

 

[Pentel123]

These are all mechanics that punish aggressive players just cause. Why not mechanics for non-militaristic empires to fight back? Otherwise you get in to the EU4 situation where EVERY SINGLE CHOICE must be weighed in on how strong it makes you army.

That is whole point of this dicussion, if you don't want military to be the end all be all you have to punish it. If there is a bad boy then nations will ally against it, player or computer led. Border someone with high bad boy could give you a boost to manpower and construction speed.

Also remember the lead designer is the ck2 guy not the eu 4 one

 

[King Ari]

I like this but the way I see it is such; I'm a massive space empire who has conquered many civilizations and control hundreds of star systems, I have the biggest ships and i'm certainly something to be feared. Then I can encounter a federation such as the ones previously mentioned by the devs and they aren't the war monger I've become, possibly focused on science or economy. My initial attempt might be successful in catching them off guard but because of better specialization in research they unlock some unique tech or science that can only be implemented properly in their federation fleet because they have access to a wider variety of module combinations that might trump a larger fleet because of better mobilty/defences/armaments/etc. (EMP or something comes to mind)

Along side this there could possibly be a penalty for a massive empire to not steamroll everything such as having to develop more social tech to deal with a larger more diverse population or risk massive revolts and factions breaking their government. Whereas the smaller civs apart of this federation are able to focus on the unknown experimental type of sciences that gives them the ability to fight off the larger foe.

 

[TruckFeet]

The thing with big militaries is that they're expensive. If you don't already have a solid economy, you're not going to be able to afford to go on a warmongering rampage. If you've got the economic might to keep a war going without running out of money, you'll do much better than someone with a superficially stronger military and a weaker economy. As long as you don't get immediately steamrolled, the main thing that matters is who can bounce back from a loss. Pyrrhus crushed the Roman army, but they were able to get more soldiers and keep fighting, so in the end the victory wasn't worth the losses.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

There are many state funded research projects that has nothing to do with military and most military funded research is indirectly applicable in civilian life as well.

If a state would not have to purposefully support military research that research could instead be fully dedicated to civilian research which would benefit the overall population more in the long run. How much of the "military" research would actually be funded if they would not also produce some side benefit to civilian life?
Allot of funding to military research are promising civilian application and are granted with that as a strong argument, especially very expensive funding.

I also doubt the US would invade Canada even if they didn't trade as much, even though that is a moot point. I really don't see US invading South Korea, Japan or any other country that are not directly the same culture as the main culture in US. That is also the same reason as why they would not invade Canada. There are no incentive to invade a peaceful country that respect basic human rights if you run a Democratic state, even if you don't agree on allot of things... which incidentally is the same for internal politics so why not in international politics.

The number of countries that are either close or friendly military allies with each other grow for every decade and do so very quickly, that is for a good reason. Mutual trade and peaceful coexistence of people simply is preferable as long as some basic understandings are shared.

Things could of course be more complicated with alien and human interaction, but I do think the same basic principles would apply with another self aware and intelligent being, no matter their physiology.

One of the main reason that western countries do not invade anyone are simply the regard for human life, not just their own but that of their potential enemies as well. Although I can foresee an increase in limited warfare as drones and robots take over the front-line roles as it means less human lives have to be put on the line.

 

[Guthuk Gaming]

That is whole point of this dicussion, if you don't want military to be the end all be all you have to punish it. If there is a bad boy then nations will ally against it, player or computer led. Border someone with high bad boy could give you a boost to manpower and construction speed.

Also remember the lead designer is the ck2 guy not the eu 4 one

No, this discussion is to make it so non-military choices matter. If all you do is punish people for conquering then you still run in to a situation where every single decision and choice must be made to make your army stronger. Sure, the surviving players might get angry and dogpile the guy that killed you, but you're still dead in the mean time.

 

[Hans_Schnitzel]

How about a mechanic then when your empire is rich, people are happy and whatnot and there's literally no reason to go to war, except a war of aggression to simply gain even more land for the sake of being bigger, how about that makes dissent sky rocket then?

It would be realistic, wouldn't it? Imagine any western nation would just do a war of conquest, no population would stand for that, except you have a good reason. Reasons like: Stop an aggressive power from taking over smaller nations, or take back land that was previously taken by someone else. Revanchism in VicII.

On the other hand there should be traits for certain Civs that makes the population LIKE war. Warmonger species who enjoy war and for who it is natural to take other ressources by force. Of course they should take a hit on diplo relations when being aggressive.

 

[Pentel123]

No, this discussion is to make it so non-military choices matter. If all you do is punish people for conquering then you still run in to a situation where every single decision and choice must be made to make your army stronger. Sure, the surviving players might get angry and dogpile the guy that killed you, but you're still dead in the mean time.

If you chose to see it that way, the other answer is that since the military option can end bloody when every other race dog piles you, go a different route, take I've economical or politically, I think moo2 and dw both have races with non military goals that you can play as

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

I like this but the way I see it is such; I'm a massive space empire who has conquered many civilizations and control hundreds of star systems, I have the biggest ships and i'm certainly something to be feared. Then I can encounter a federation such as the ones previously mentioned by the devs and they aren't the war monger I've become, possibly focused on science or economy. My initial attempt might be successful in catching them off guard but because of better specialization in research they unlock some unique tech or science that can only be implemented properly in their federation fleet because they have access to a wider variety of module combinations that might trump a larger fleet because of better mobilty/defences/armaments/etc. (EMP or something comes to mind)

Along side this there could possibly be a penalty for a massive empire to not steamroll everything such as having to develop more social tech to deal with a larger more diverse population or risk massive revolts and factions breaking their government. Whereas the smaller civs apart of this federation are able to focus on the unknown experimental type of sciences that gives them the ability to fight off the larger foe.

Yes... this is a good reason for how it should work.

A federation of smaller republics working together would in my opinion be allot stronger than a huge empire due to having a much more efficient governmental structure. It might take longer to sway it to go in a certain direction but when it does it can do so with a much more powerful determination and efficiency.

 

[Precursor]

There are many state funded research projects that has nothing to do with military and most military funded research is indirectly applicable in civilian life as well.

If a state would not have to purposefully support military research that research could instead be fully dedicated to civilian research which would benefit the overall population more in the long run. How much of the "military" research would actually be funded if they would not also produce some side benefit to civilian life?
Allot of funding to military research are promising civilian application and are granted with that as a strong argument, especially very expensive funding.

I also doubt the US would invade Canada even if they didn't trade as much, even though that is a moot point. I really don't see US invading South Korea, Japan or any other country that are not directly the same culture as the main culture in US. That is also the same reason as why they would not invade Canada. There are no incentive to invade a peaceful country that respect basic human rights if you run a Democratic state, even if you don't agree on allot of things... which incidentally is the same for internal politics so why not in international politics.

The number of countries that are either close or friendly military allies with each other grow for every decade and do so very quickly, that is for a good reason. Mutual trade and peaceful coexistence of people simply is preferable as long as some basic understandings are shared.

Things could of course be more complicated with alien and human interaction, but I do think the same basic principles would apply with another self aware and intelligent being, no matter their physiology.

One of the main reason that western countries do not invade anyone are simply the regard for human life, not just their own but that of their potential enemies as well. Although I can foresee an increase in limited warfare as drones and robots take over the front-line roles as it means less human lives have to be put on the line.

The US already has military forces stationed in SK and Japan. How about a state that isn't a borderline vassal state of the US? (and the US and Canada have integrated defense so I'd argue that makes invading them quite a bit trickier)

Can you see the US invading Iran? Arab states v. Iran? How about everyone's favorite Pakistan v. India? What about Russia v. China, China v. Japan? What about when ISIS gets elected into government in a state bordering Israel? You don't think there's a chance they go to war? Or how about Hamas gets elected to parliament in a Palestinian state by promising to get grandpappies house back?

You don't think any of those could result in war in a pair of democratic states? Nationalists get elected into government in those not just Labour and Republicans.

 

[Pentel123]

True, what hold back war between many nations is economy, but in the case of others like the cccp it is the threat of military extermination in the form of MAD.

And even then is still happens between smaller nations. Heck look up the African world war from the 90s iirc

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

The US already has military forces stationed in SK and Japan. How about a state that isn't a borderline vassal state of the US? (and the US and Canada have integrated defense so I'd argue that makes invading them quite a bit trickier)

Can you see the US invading Iran? Arab states v. Iran? How about everyone's favorite Pakistan v. India? What about Russia v. China, China v. Japan? What about when ISIS gets elected into government in a state bordering Israel? You don't think there's a chance they go to war? Or how about Hamas gets elected to parliament in a Palestinian state by promising to get grandpappies house back?

You don't think any of those could result in war in a pair of democratic states? Nationalists get elected into government in those not just Labour and Republicans.

Eh... what... Japan and South Korea are vassal states... that is almost a conspiratorial statement.

Japan and South Korea are allies with the US... that is completely different than what you said. The US pay for basing rights of both countries and they offer each other something the other want and needs. It is a mutual benefit agreement among friends.

Most of the other countries that you cited are relatively unstable democracies or not democracies at all except maybe India that are roughly stable if still a rather poor one. The US would never attack another state with a stable democracy who strive to improve their social standing, this is just pure facts. Almost all Arab states are dictatorships as is Iran, so they all are liable for aggression at some point from western states in some form. Be it physical war or simply a social or information war.

If a nationalist party was elected into the state I would not worry about any immediate wars... no... but if they seize power and manipulate elections to stay there I certainly would. A majority of people would never support a radical party for very long so I would not worry too much about that. And if a party forced themself to stay in power through rigged election there are no longer a democracy. Is this possible, sure... likely to happen... no.

 

[Precursor]

Eh... what... Japan and South Korea are vassal states... that is almost a conspiratorial statement.

Japan and South Korea are allies with the US... that is completely different than what you said. The US pay for basing rights of both countries and they offer each other something the other want and needs. It is a mutual benefit agreement among friends.

Most of the other countries that you cited are relatively unstable democracies or not democracies at all except maybe India that are roughly stable if still a rather poor one. The US would never attack another state with a stable democracy who strive to improve their social standing, this is just pure facts. Almost all Arab states are dictatorships as is Iran, so they all are liable for aggression at some point from western states in some form. Be it physical war or simply a social or information war.

If a nationalist party was elected into the state I would not worry about any immediate wars... no... but if they seize power and manipulate elections to stay there I certainly would. A majority of people would never support a radical party for very long so I would not worry too much about that. And if a party forced themself to stay in power through rigged election there are no longer a democracy. Is this possible, sure... likely to happen... no.

Not so much conspiratorial, more just being an asshat about hegemonic relations.

I earlier stated I was conceding to your condition that they become a democracy first.

Also I'd very much argue Iran being a dictatorship. At worst their an illiberal democracy.

You actually think democracy will make people suddenly give up old ethnic, religious, and cultural animosities? Persians and Arabs have been fighting over the gulf, down to its name, for centuries.

Why would Kashmir disappear as an issue if Pakistan has another couple elections?

The US would absolutely go to war with a democracy. Spanish-American War?

DPT is not fact. Seriously what are you reading that you think it's settled fact?

 

[TruckFeet]

The US already has military forces stationed in SK and Japan. How about a state that isn't a borderline vassal state of the US? (and the US and Canada have integrated defense so I'd argue that makes invading them quite a bit trickier)

Can you see the US invading Iran? Arab states v. Iran? How about everyone's favorite Pakistan v. India? What about Russia v. China, China v. Japan? What about when ISIS gets elected into government in a state bordering Israel? You don't think there's a chance they go to war? Or how about Hamas gets elected to parliament in a Palestinian state by promising to get grandpappies house back?

You don't think any of those could result in war in a pair of democratic states? Nationalists get elected into government in those not just Labour and Republicans.

The biggest threat to US hegemony these days is China, and there's no way the US would ever get involved in open war with China short of China getting involved in open war with the US or an ally. Trade is far more profitable for both parties, and both sides have nukes.

 

[Jorgen_CAB]

Not so much conspiratorial, more just being an asshat about hegemonic relations.

I earlier stated I was conceding to your condition that they become a democracy first.

Also I'd very much argue Iran being a dictatorship. At worst their an illiberal democracy.

You actually think democracy will make people suddenly give up old ethnic, religious, and cultural animosities? Persians and Arabs have been fighting over the gulf, down to its name, for centuries.

Why would Kashmir disappear as an issue if Pakistan has another couple elections?

The US would absolutely go to war with a democracy. Spanish-American War?

DPT is not fact. Seriously what are you reading that you think it's settled fact?

Sure... there is always a chance for two democracies to go to war but it would most likely be a rather limited war at best. Most likely it will not happen and issues will be dealt with by diplomacy and pressures from other democratic countries for the parties to solve their issues peacefully.

As new generations are born and social injustice is reduced so will cultural issues vanish as well with it. As long as people feel secure and happy they will eventually set aside old grudges and start cooperate instead. This will be true everywhere... the key to having a stable Democracy is not forcing it down he throat but to encourage their citizen to change into it by increasing their education and economy at the same time thus increase the living standards.

China is not yet a democracy... but in my opinion China is closer to becoming one than Russia at the moment... if China is going down the same road it has the last decades it will most likely turn in to a relatively stable democracy sooner rather than later... that is my guess. I actually don't think China will be such a threat to world stability in the future even though they are pretty aggressive in their policies for the time being. But that is my personal opinion.