-
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.
Why shouldn't they? If it's not them doing bad thing then next time it can be against them. Aggressors want to be the only one who allowed to break rules.
Last edited:
- 6
- 2
Militarists and Xenophobes (and robots) do care less than other empires (only -1 instead of -3), while pacifists, xenophiles, Empath hives, and Rogue Servitors care more.
- 3
- 3
Authoritarians/Xenophobes/Militarists blame other "bad guys" with the same ethics for being evil... From the perspective of human history I would say that it is working as intended.
- 5
- 3
I do feel there should be an adjustment for mutual rivals though.
Like, if the AI empire sees you flattening one of their rivals, they probably won't raise much of a stink, unless of course, they're Ega/Paci/Philes.
And I know, the mentality of "that could be us next!". Well, I mean, the Threat modifier already exists and should cover that tbh.
Like, if the AI empire sees you flattening one of their rivals, they probably won't raise much of a stink, unless of course, they're Ega/Paci/Philes.
And I know, the mentality of "that could be us next!". Well, I mean, the Threat modifier already exists and should cover that tbh.
How? Was Germany upset at Japan for waging aggressive wars of conquest? Nope
- 1
- 1
There are a number of oddities with diplomatic modifiers (including things like getting the +200 Defender of the Galaxy modifier from the Crisis Aspirant that you're trying to stop), and the terror bombing modifier has some of the oddest of them:
- Allies in war will lose opinion with each other for bombing the same enemy. This can pretty easily add up to a combined -400 to -500 net decrease in the modifiers.
- You lose opinion even if the pops you're killing are hive-minded devouring swarm types, which seems counterintuitive.
- The penalties in general seem too large: you can easily get a -200 modifier, or worse, and it takes a while to come back down. (I think it's +1 per year, but might be misremembering.) For comparison, you only get -25 for literally eating your own pops as long as you eat them at a sustainable rate.
- No terror bombing modifiers applied when you're at war with the country getting bombed.
- No modifiers when the pops getting killed are gestalt. So if you bomb a Rogue Servitor (you monster!) you'd lose opinion for killing bio-trophies, but not machine pops. But you would lose opinion if you killed Individualist Machine pops.
- If you wanted to be fancy (and lore-accurate), Spiritualist empires shouldn't care at all about robots or machines getting bombed.
- Probably a good idea to cap the malus at something like -50 or -100.
- You might also make Selective bombing less likely to kill pops, to make it easier for empires to wage war humanely, and without getting everyone mad at them.
- 1
But China has generally wanted things done in a stable way, it's support of Russia's invasion of the Ukraine non-withstanding (but this apparent counter example is actually evidence of how complicated it can be). Many authoritarian regimes can prefer stability over a lot of things. In fact, they often place a premium on stability because that's how they maintain their power over the oppressed masses. How much that impacts their view on attacks outside of their countries involving third parties varies a lot.
This is honestly a complicated topic, and a lot of factors could go into it. It can depend on who is doing it, to whom, why, and how it affects the the authoritarian's nation, whether it's likely to cause ripple effects (such as encouraging more attacks that might destabilize trade or long-term plans in a region), or even if it might just make things unpredictable. And some moght just not like it because it offends some sense of decorum -- you're oppressing people in an unsightly way!
Seems like this resulted in the devs just shrugging and putting less of a penalty.
- 1
Because terror bombing is much cheaper and safer than sending waves of troops and equipment to the slaughter.
Well, I think that in the game it would make sense that expansionist empire #1 on the left side of the galaxy for instance isn't going to condemn empire #2 on the other side for doing the same thing. Because that would restrict themselves too.
Better to carve up the place Molotov Ribbentrop style.
- 2
You assume they aren't hypocrites, which isn't necessarily the case. They might even think or tell themselves it's not the same. Plenty of historic examples of dictators like this, for instance. Tends to attract narcissists and egomaniacs who have a distorted view of reality.
But, to be clear, I'm not saying the AI is smart or being guided by anything here. I'm just saying in real life it's complicated and so the devs probably just didn't have any thinking done and just left it at a smaller penalty. Ideally it would be more complicated in the game.
Dictators in real life will not care about terror bombing in principle. Their government might issue whatever statement but they're hardly going to sever relations or go to war with someone over it, which is what the AI in the game will react like if you do too much of it.
- 1
... Theres literally a specific country in the middle east that is accused of doing Terror bombings right now including by China & russia - which is in war where it's accused of doing terror bombings by countries that support the aforementioned countries alledged terror bombing campaign.
Irl, it comes down to the legitimization of violence of governments: you are allowed to do that because of your racial or cultural superiority, being chosen by god or some historical happenstance.
Others can not, because they are not *Insert your legitimization myth*
Hypocritical, just like the real world.
- 5
- 1
OK. But israel is aligned with the West. So that is why China or Russia "Issue statements" to that effect. Though to my knowledge none of them have cared so much as to sanction them.
They were kind of allied, though, and had no claims of their own on the other's expansion targets.
The alliance was more of a mutual understanding than true coordination. As for the latter question, well, yes. Which is why if that is the case in the game, it should be represented that way...
Germany and Japan both had an interest in an agreement. They had a mutual rival, the Soviet Union and eventually UK and USA as well.
germany was awful obviously, but they did protest the brutality of one of their eastern european puppet states, which was too much even for the germans to stomach lol
The status quo in Stellaris isn't centered, it's heavily skewed towards xenophilia and a fundamental misunderstanding of a truly alien mind, so every nation in the galaxy uses human morality as the baseline.
Of course, we were discussing it in another thread but someone thought discussing stellaris goes to far in the stellaris forum, so we're going to get stuck with xenophile being the default.
forum.paradoxplaza.com
Of course, we were discussing it in another thread but someone thought discussing stellaris goes to far in the stellaris forum, so we're going to get stuck with xenophile being the default.
It's too easy to create a tolerant interstellar empire
Want to create a tolerant empire where all species are equal and work together for a bright future? To achieve this ideal, almost utopian state you need to: 1. Not be genocidal 2. Set the highest laws for everyone as default 3. ... The easiest...
- 2
- 1