Stellaris Dev Diary #158 - Federation rework

[Fermi's_Solution]

why not also a simple succession law like "election"? Is maybe going to be "diplomatic weight?" I'm curious.

Also, I think that challanges should be not only for psionics! some kind of space ordalia could be interesting even without super powers.

For the first, this might be because it's a federation of empires, rather than a singular empire. At that level of government, elections simply don't matter anymore. It's all about how much of X you can bring to bear, where X is any of: military might, economic power, political skulduggery, and so on.

For your second, I'll just quote directly:

There are currently two different challenge types:
Psionic Battle lets psionic pops battle it out over which empire should be president.
Arena Combat lets the rulers of competing empires battle it out. Certain traits for the ruler (both species and ruler-specific) will influence how large chance the ruler has at winning. The Chosen will of course be very hard to beat.

There are (at the time that was posted) two kinds of challenge: psionic battle, and arena combat.

 

[SnakeInATopHat]

how 'bout some performance

 

[Amorenkaire]

Kind of disappointed my Democratic Crusaders can't make a hegemony. There's a lot of possibility for an empire that believes in equality within itself, but doesn't extend the same to 'inferior' states around it. Or states that aren't capable, or trusted, or guiding themselves and require the guiding hand of an enlightened empire, for example.

 

[Promethian]

Two things I want out of this.

1: Hegemony is obviously the conqueror's federation. Restricting it to authoritarian feels bad. At least let xenophobe use it as well.

2: I hope there is some way to push or coerce an empire in a federation closer to my ethics. Especially if I am a Hegemony head.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

1: Hegemony is obviously the conqueror's federation. Restricting it to authoritarian feels bad. At least let xenophobe use it as well.

Xenophobes just straight-up vassalize, if they don't conquer and/or purge, I imagine.

 

[DrNukeLear]

Can we have succession based on total trade value. May make sense for the trade league
Also is it possible for the Horde will be reimplemented as a hegemony?

 

[Delthor]

So martial alliance and trade league both get unique and powerful boosts while research cooperative saves its members some influence on a deal that doesn't even benefit the most advanced empire all that much... It doesn't offer any benefit if you're a fanatic xenophile with the diplomacy tradition. That's rather disappointing. I feel like a federation created in the name of research should be more than just a glorified set of research agreements, especially with the disadvantage of not being able to reach as high of feet contribution.It

It seems like any of the other types would offer you much more value if you're xenophile or ahead in research, even if your goal is technological dominance.

 

[Monturiol]

This dev diary - and apparently this expansion as a whole - seems to fit the very definition of Lipstick On A Pig.

You can have 5 Federation types? FEDERATIONS DO NOT WORK, SO WHY WOULD ANYONE CARE.

In my current game I joined a Federation, because, well, Federations haven't worked since... ever and I wanted to see if they worked in 2.4.
They don't.
I've spent the last 200 years without undocking my fleet from my citadel because everyone it's impossible to get (or at least impossible to predict) when war-dec resolutions will pass.

And the bonuses? "Starting ship experience +100, starting army experience +100, ship build speed +25%?"
Why didn't you just write "Nothing important" and save yourself some characters, for all the difference that would make to anyone's strategic situation.

"Federation policy on whether subjects can join"? In what possible galaxy are the devs living in that they think anyone would care about the answer to that question? A Stellaris galaxy usually has an average of maybe ONE subject nation outside FE thralls in the entire playthrough (without intentional player intervention) and they're always one planet minors who would never contribute anything to the Federal budget or fleet if they did join, so... again, who cares?

AND SPEAKING OF THE FEDERATION FLEET. Hey Paradox, cogitate on this - when the majority of AI-controlled Federation fleets spend their time going "Duuuuuuuuuh, let's bombard this one planet for 50 years or sit quietly in our dock while a Crisis rages and put all the onus on the player to stop our own planets being cleansed", you'll forgive me for not being exactly enthusiastic about the prospects for the DAZZLING and DYNAMIC "+1% to ship speed" perks I might get from butting my head against the diplo screen for 30 years trying to get the AI to form a Military League.

Let me tell you in two short bullet points why this is going to be totally lame:

• The AI is currently so dumb that forming a Federation is always a bad move, shackling you to a bunch of braindead liabilities who couldn't organise drinks in a brewery, let alone a coherent defence to an external threat, AND AT THE COST OF INFLUENCE, the most important resource int he game
• There aren't enough nations (a maximum of what, 36?) in the biggest possible Stellaris map to make even half of these Federal laws / policies / bonuses remotely important

But that's just modern Stellaris in a nutshell, isn't it? Throw a bunch of buttons at the UI to give the illusion of strategic depth, then dust your hands and say "Job done". AI doesn't work enough to make it worth anyone's while? Game grinds to a halt in 2400 so no-one will be able to see the fruits of their labor? "Lol don't care, the screenshots look nice".

Because that's the target demographic now, isn't it? That's been the target demographic for a long time, the only people who'd put up with this: people who like to take screenshots of RP meme empires. The people who never play a game to 2400 so don't realise how unfunctional it gets; the people who never try to delve below the most facile level of gameplay so they don't realise how shallow it is and how 90% of the "choices" don't ever affect anything important.

Sigh.
Y'know, let me channel my inner Lao Yeng and just cut to the chase: there is no chance I will buy this.

There is a slight chance I will buy this if I watch many many Youtube videos which unequivocably demonstrate that Federations DLC comes with a massive improvement to fleet AI, and a concomitant reduction in the way in which (present-day 2.4 federatons) are a ball and chain around any player empire except that of the stupidest n00b.

But that's never happened in this game, and I know that's not going to happen, and all you reading this know that's not going to happen.

So, what more is there to say.

 

[Riozuke]

Sounds promising, i cant wait!!

 

[Foefaller]

No Great United Church (spiritualists) federation?

Adding religions for spiritualists is something they've talked about several times; considering the Galactic Union and the base mechanics are going to be added to vanilla, there is a nonzero chance that a Spiritualist Federation could show up in the future.

 

[NilsFabian]

Finally, a way to make federations more interesting! Though I'm a bit disappointed there doesn't seem to be a way to make your federation a single super-state like the UFP from Star Trek (unless it's a detail for later). It would give a big incentive to play diplomatically and add a new, interesting way to subdue your neighbors.

I don’t think they will go this far in this dlc but maybe later. on the other hand. Do you want to micromanage 100 ne planets after forming the super state.
this kind of deep integrated federation is szar trek

 

[Etrutian]

No Great United Church (spiritualists) federation?

I actually really like this. It would start out as a conglomerate of spirit-minded empires working together, and over time they could develop a unified faith with actual spiritual flavor.

 

[Techcraft]

Can Militarists form a Hegemony? I would love to be able have a "security belt" of "definitely equal" satellite states like the Warsaw Pact.

 

[Promethian]

Can Militarists form a Hegemony? I would love to be able have a "security belt" of "definitely equal" satellite states like the Warsaw Pact.

Appears to be authoritarian only based on the dev diary. I think militarist and phobe should be able to do Hegemony as well. Since it appears its supposed to be an advanced form of vassals.

 

[krwr13]

Why do federation types need to be dependent on civics? Are you saying that for example pacifist empire can't join research or trade alliances or militarist/xenophobe empires can't impose their dominance via Hegemony? These limitations are frustrating.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

Why do federation types need to be dependent on civics? Are you saying that for example pacifist empire can't join research or trade alliances or militarist/xenophobe empires can't impose their dominance via Hegemony? These limitations are frustrating.

To be at least a little fair, it's technically impossible for your empire to be only pacifist.

Additionally:

"Certain federation types have requirements on what type of empire can suggest to form them, but there are no limitations on who can join a federation (except for killer empires & inward perfection)."

So, as per the description, pacifists can in fact join research or trade alliances. They just can't be the ones who created them.

 

[krwr13]

Yes but it's the same thing, you don't want to wait for a random npc to create a federation to join it, you want to do it yourself.

 

[krwr13]

In real life external politics don't depend on the country values not a bit, the most democratic and the most totalitarian nations do pretty same things. I don't see any reason to have these artificial limitations in the game.

 

[Promethian]

Yes but it's the same thing, you don't want to wait for a random npc to create a federation to join it, you want to do it yourself.

A pacifist megacorp or pacifist with merchant guilds can create a trade league. A materialist pacifist can create a science federation. An authoritarian pacifist can make a hegemony (unless the dev diary left out there is a mutual exclusive here). The only thing pacifist is blocked from is the military federation for obvious reasons.

I agree militarist and xenophobe should also unlock hegemony but again, they do not block authoritarian. So not mutually exclusive like you seem to be implying.

 

[krwr13]

Yeah i can read. Just come up with any pacifist who are not materialist and don't have merchant guilds and you will have a pacifist who can't create research and trade federations.
I am implying, actually directly stating that civic dependency is unnecessary.