Stellaris Dev Diary #158 - Federation rework

[pekkegnito]

This is exactly the reason why I think this new system would be ideal for reworking the whole relationship mechanics, including subject relations. There are so many ways a relation can be defined, so many nuances, but right now they all come in closed packages with a label, no customization.

Why would they be federations at all? Right now Awakened Empires force you into a special Subject, as does the Khan.

 

[Aetran]

I love how configurable the law system is -- but how will the AI decide which rules of succession they want, or in what intervals?

 

[PirateJack]

This is exactly the reason why I think this new system would be ideal for reworking the whole relationship mechanics, including subject relations. There are so many ways a relation can be defined, so many nuances, but right now they all come in closed packages with a label, no customization.

This would be cool. Instead of focusing solely on Federations as they are now and then expanding them, rework the entire diplomacy system from the ground up.

I wouldn't mind seeing a system similar in feel to Hearts of Iron 3's faction system but with more variability so that you can set up a federation as you please and then those empires that share (most of) your values will gradually fall into your sphere of influence until they eventually join up. The type of federation would have varying modifiers so that your Authoritarian/Materialists may form a federation focusing on research, where your research income acts as an incentive (depending on how good it is) for empires who might otherwise want to avoid you to join up. Or they could set up a hegemony, which has an effect of bringing your neighbours under your sway to the point where you can diplo-vassalise them or just outright declare war to do so, with the primary effect before their initiation of making it difficult for them to join other federations.

It could make for some interesting casus belli/subversive mechanics as well. Say you've got two trade leagues in the galaxy that mostly share ethics, policies, threats, etc. Normally the empires in there would be friends, but because they're rival trade leagues they're continually trying to snipe other members while also fending off the hegemonists, genocidals and hive minds. They could keep at this approach and get a decisive advantage over the other, or they could go to war on a 'Disbandment' war goal, which would lead to the loser's trade league being disbanded and the newly independent empires melding into other nations' spheres of influence.

I think something like this would help to make the mid-game more dynamic as non-genocidal empires would see their focus shift from relationships with individual nations and then forming a static federation that doesn't change for the rest of the game into a soft power fight between rival federations, with a few non-aligned empires mixed in to keep them on their toes. As it is we mostly retain the same focuses at the start, middle and end-game; make ships, conquer enemies. A system like this could add an extra dimension to the game, especially for non-warmongering empires.

 

[pekkegnito]

Also, think of this:

Diplomatic vassal/tributary through the offering of a "package deal". Offer a deal (become my vassal, I'll give you a protection guarantee, and a 20% research bonus, if you give me 25% of your energy income, ban slavery, and promote Materialist ethics) Success would turn the target into a vassal/tributary with those settings, and a 10-year cooldown before you could change them to something else. Failure would give you a CB, and a successful war would give you a vassal/tributary with those same settings, but no cooldown (or maybe a much-reduced cooldown) on changing them.

The "Federations galore" part of the DLC excites me much less that the possibility of revamping the whole relationship mechanics.

 

[Ikael]

Regarding the conspicuous lack of spiritualist federations, I have a theory about it.

There will be some type of spiritualist federation. There is a "psiconic battle" sucession, afterall. But religious federations or holy unions it will not be based on a commonality of "spiritualist ethics". When did different religions ever got along just by the fact of being religious? Spiritualist federations will be based around sharing the same religion. Meaning, there will be an extensive intra politics and faction rework, and religions will probably get massively overhauled and finally become actual religions that you can expand beyond your borders.

In short, they haven't showed religious federations yet, because they would need to reveal a lot of adjacent changes to core mechanics that they want to keep under wraps. At least this is what I hope!

 

[Realism42]

Regarding the conspicuous lack of spiritualist federations, I have a theory about it.

There will be some type of spiritualist federation. There is a "psiconic battle" sucession, afterall. But religious federations or holy unions it will not be based on a commonality of "spiritualist ethics". When did different religions ever got along just by the fact of being religious? Spiritualist federations will be based around sharing the same religion. Meaning, there will be an extensive intra politics and faction rework, and religions will probably get massively overhauled and finally become actual religions that you can expand beyond your borders.

In short, they haven't showed religious federations yet, because they would need to reveal a lot of adjacent changes to core mechanics that they want to keep under wraps. At least this is what I hope!

I hope you are right. However, I think you are expecting too much from one DLC. If even, Your proposed content might come in the next 3 DLCs.

 

[G S Palmer]

Also, how about an Auction succession type for Trade Leagues, where the members bid to try to become the next president, with the winning bid being distributed among the other members?

 

[RabbaDooDabba]

Still wondering about the 'Diplomatic Corps' civic, do not think I forgot about that .
I am quite excited for new federations and especially the Galactic Senate. I really hope there will be steps to reform a -say- Galactic Union into a Hegemony so we could pull a Palpatine.

What really made my ears perk is...

Envoy Action

At first I thought envoys would be specifically used between federation members but this could imply we could use envoys on empires we have no diplomatic ties to, yet ?

 

[Methone]

Still wondering about the 'Diplomatic Corps' civic, do not think I forgot about that .
I am quite excited for new federations and especially the Galactic Senate. I really hope there will be steps to reform a -say- Galactic Union into a Hegemony so we could pull a Palpatine.

What really made my ears perk is...

Envoy Action

At first I thought envoys would be specifically used between federation members but this could imply we could use envoys on empires we have no diplomatic ties to, yet ?

There was that picture a bit back, about the Galactic UN, and it had an Assign Envoy task. At the VERY least, Envoys are useful for Federations and the GUN. Likely more.

 

[Ikael]

Still wondering about the 'Diplomatic Corps' civic, do not think I forgot about that .
I am quite excited for new federations and especially the Galactic Senate. I really hope there will steps to reform a -say- Galactic Union into a Hegemony so we could pull a Palpatine.

What really made my ears perk is...

Envoy Action

At first I thought envoys would be specifically used between federation members but this could imply we could use envoys on empires we have no diplomatic ties to, yet ?

I really do think that we are getting a diplomacy overhaul and that envoys will be a big part of it. We will probably have a limited number of envoys, and we will need to think carefully about where shall we employ them. The decision between making new friends, making peace with our enemies or getting to transform old relationships into federations will be an interesting choice to make!

 

[FiddleSticks96]

The Diplomatic Corps civic probably gives more envoys or something along those lines.

 

[SeekingEtermity]

I really do think that we are getting a diplomacy overhaul and that envoys will be a big part of it. We will probably have a limited number of envoys, and we will need to think carefully about where shall we employ them. The decision between making new friends, making peace with our enemies or getting to transform old relationships into federations will be an interesting choice to make!

If it's anything like that (which would be quite cool gameplay-wise, although rather artificial-feeling since there's no real reason for a country's diplomatic corps to be so size-constrained), then I expect the "Diplomatic Corps" civic will simply increase the number of envoys you get. That would make building and maintaining alliances easier, at a cost of losing a civic slot that could have gone to directly improving your empire. Assuming it's reasonably balanced, that could actually interestingly impact gameplay.

 

[Agent K]

This update looks fantastic! A few of questions:

How would leaving/getting booted from a federation work?

Can two federations merge?

Can you be a member of more than one federation? I.E. both a research cooperative and a trade league

Would it be possible to restrict federation membership, such as to only countries of your species, or certain ethics?

Can a challenge be resolved by a war?

Can you convince a member of another federation to defect to yours?

What are some things that non-president federation members can do to influence the president, or affect cohesion/centralization?

 

[Duuk]

And, most importantly, can you have a custom federation ruler title? And will that title actually work when it comes time to elect a new one?

 

[Foefaller]

Fair enough, I might be getting ahead of things right now. But as I said this is definitely turning into a trend so you cannot just talk me out of me feeling distrustful.

And again I seem to have expressed it the wrong way. It's not that the new system is complicated. More like it's complicated or too complex for the AI to handle in any meaningful way, so the only way you'll get to interact with this system is by you, playing alone and using this new feature to, YET AGAIN, beat the AI into submission without opposition.

They can always borrow AI code from the Crusader Kings team; What I've seen in the dev diary almost a copy/paste of how Realm Laws work in CKII, and the AI for that game is reasonably competent in understanding that more centralization and authority is better for the guy in charge, even if they miss on the execution now and again. Heck, I'm expecting Hegemony to basically be "Crusader Kings IN SPACESpacespacespacespace!"

The weak point from what I can tell is the AI inviting a new member that tanks the Cohesion to the point they start losing ranks. Hopefully they make it so the AI can do the calculations of what the Cohesion would be and not invite new members that would lower it past a certain level, at least when a player isn't also a fed member.

 

[brbonfire]

I've been quarrying for information on this and haven't seen any yet: Is there any sign of changes to the Diplomacy tree (and maybe even Domination - imagine that, an upgraded Domination tree for Authoritarians and their Hegemonies!) to account for the new federation system?

 

[SeekingEtermity]

I've been quarrying for information on this and haven't seen any yet: Is there any sign of changes to the Diplomacy tree (and maybe even Domination - imagine that, an upgraded Domination tree for Authoritarians and their Hegemonies!) to account for the new federation system?

There will obviously be some changes to traditions. If nothing else, having the headline feature of the new expansion locked behind a tradition ("The Federation") that some empires (BD, for example) can't even get... Well, that would obviously be silly. However, nothing has been announced yet (AFAIK).

I'm hoping the expansion brings a traditions overhaul in general, actually. Right now, there's painfully little variation in the order I take traditions, and I always get enough Unity to finish them all with lots of time left over. That's quite sad! Even without some interaction between ethics and traditions - which I think should exist - just having some mutually-exclusive traditions or enough of them they you'll never get them all (and balanced so it's actually a decision which ones to skip) would make the system so much better...

 

[Zarpaulus]

Been away for a while, decided to read through the whole thread.

My biggest question, which still hasn't been answered to my satisfaction, is how the "Hegemon" Origin is going to work? Do you get a randomly generated subject or can you design them like with Syncretic Evolution and Rogue Servitors? Are they a species you Enlightened or a pre-FTL colony of your own species? The "Federation" in my Para-Imperium stories (which I played here) was established as a superstate of three separate star systems colonized by the same clade of species a millennium earlier, that would fit pretty well.

Federation built around the Vatican/the Pope.

Granted, you could just do this with a Hegemony anyway.

Vatican's a MegaChurch.

Why would they be federations at all? Right now Awakened Empires force you into a special Subject, as does the Khan.

The Khan's empire does have a random chance of turning into a Federation though.

A pretty slim one that requires it to have a lot of satrapies, granted.

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.

I think they'd probably work best as a Martial Alliance, think NATO or the Delian League.

 

[verybad]

Seems like having a Republic that lets a single nation gain benefits from letting it's sectors vote on stuff might be an interesting extra in this. Let each sector have Senators and or Representatives would be kind of cool with each faction struggling to get ahead, president being the player of course...

 

[Shadowstrike]

I love how configurable the law system is -- but how will the AI decide which rules of succession they want, or in what intervals?

Presumably based on their relative power. If you are much more powerful, then you probably want to choose the strongest succession and the longest term. If you are less powerful, then you'd want the reverse (i.e. by rotation and shorter terms). If you are close to the lead, then whatever leaves you more likely to lead, and maybe shorter terms so that you are more likely to get a chance to be Fed president.