Stellaris Dev Diary #22 - Alliances and Federations

[Szenszely]

The rotation mechanic is clearly for balancing purposes. Imagine if you never able to be in charge, because an AI or another player gets elected all the time.

And it allows me to plan ahead. For example, I know I will be the next President, so I can prepare for a war with a stronger enemy, because I will able to control the Federation Fleet.

 

[jju_57]

Everything so far up until this DD has been good stuff. But I have a very bad feeling about how alliances and federations are going to work.

Not to mention what if we are in an alliance with say 5 AI empires and they all want war with someone but we say no. What are the consequences? Will the AI even attempt to do this? Can the AI kick you out of the alliance?

 

[Ravnicus]

In a future expansion, I would love to see a federation that uses a system akin to the papacy in CK2 with the mixture of the mechanics from the new expansion. However, the "college of cardinals" would be federal legislative body of some sort (federal council). The way it would ideally work, the councilors would be able to vote for a successor to the presidency among themselves. They can then invest money to advance a candidate, use threats, bribes, or call in favors to advance their standing. The number of representation in this council could be determined based upon the federation agreement: i.e. guaranteed x amount of councilors or be proportionally distributed. Based on this, the individual councilors in the federation can create factions and vie for influence for federation level positions. i.e. if my faction won the presidency, I may have promised Member A a post as the Strategos (like a CK2 martial). However, I decided (after the votes were in), that I wanted to give that power to a fellow councilor (from my star empire) after all to further my own expansionist agenda. Doing so would cost me the equivalent of prestige, and also cause Member A to potentially form an opposition that automatically declines any decision that the council votes on, and can potentially form a faction to impeach me from the post of president. Other posts could be similar to the CK2 council. Another thought, if a war declaration were to occur, there can be a grace period of a month where it goes into (private) deliberation. During this time, member states could use intrigue to convince others to decline the war or approve it.

Anyways! I thought the federation system was cool and got me thinking. Keep up the great work!

 

[Kollatius]

Just one question popped up in my head right now: If you declare war on the federation, do you have to fight the Joint Fleet AND the fleets of the individual empires?

 

[Yenzen]

Just one question popped up in my head right now: If you declare war on the federation, do you have to fight the Joint Fleet AND the fleets of the individual empires?

Yeah.

Huge federations are going to be the chief enemy of expansionist, but unitary, factions, I suspect. As a player, I can't imagine joining a federation in SP, nor allying more than one other faction if I have to ask them "pretty please" about everything. This means that I, and others who feel the same will, will need to think up ways to become strong in other ways.

- Subdue and enslave every alien faction you come across. Uplift and modify modify every species to join your front lines as cannon fodder against the hive mind or to produce goods.
- More peacefully, uplift every creature and demand their service as citizens, or infiltrate their leaders and convince them it was their idea. Modify creatures and make them willing protectorates when they become intelligent enough. Form the unitary benevolent empire where all must serve, but all will also be served if needed. Crush your enemies, but let the survivors serve in your ranks afterwards as normal citizens.
- Advance technologically by every means necessary. If wiping out ancient empires is needed, do it. If dangerous events can kill billions or unlock important technology or artifacts, take that risk.

 

[TheDarkMaster]

I really want to know if there is the possibility of client states under the federation but not in the presidential rotation. Say if I'm going around and uplifting lots of species as nearly independent states, would they join my federation as full members automatically?

 

[Crazycryodude]

The part that puts me off about federations is the rotating presidency. I was hoping it would work more along the lines of the Papacy or HRE from some of Paradox's historical games. People have made the valid point that this could lead to a powerful empire monopolizing the federation, however. I think there could be some sort of compromise, something like all the members electing a president for terms that last a few years or whatever. Who the AI votes for is influenced by relations, military strength, whatever other factors make sense, like in previous games, but with a malus for consecutive terms served. This way, you do force the president to hand off now and then, but it's possible to greatly extend how long you can be president by playing politics within the federation. I just don't like the idea of being forced to hand off control to the AI for long periods of time in single player - especially if they get to do things like unilaterally declare war. The player in an SP game shouldn't be so subject to the AI doing stupid shit (and you all know that no matter how well coded the AI is it will still occasionally do stupid shit - such is the nature of the beast) for extended periods of time like you would get in a round-robin style presidency passing system.

 

[Tuscan]

This will work really well for a Star Trek mod. The Romulans, Klingons and Cardassians would be single empires, while the Federation would be.. well a Federation, where each member state contributes in some way. The Federation could look vastly different after more races have been incorporated.

 

[Sinister2202]

I think I am going to stick with a single greatest empire in the galaxy. Maybe I'll try federation on my 3rd game. Very cool feature though, brings new things to diplomacy. Space 4x games I've played have way too similar diplomacy, but paradox delivers this game from that. very very nice.

 

[Lee Saxon]

This isn't the place to make this request. Or to even discuss it, really. CK II forums exist and there's plenty of discussion of this issue over there you can join in.

Nah, because he's not the one who brought it up. Any issue raised in the first post of a thread are fair game for that thread - even moreso when it's a dev-started thread.

 

[Fenrirwolf]

i get that - taht's why you still have to ask permission to go fight it on your won. it's more meant for the edge cases where your allies might not want to participate in the war(i.e. target only has one planet) but wouldnt mind you conquering it.

somewhere, someone will be pissed of about that conquest, and your alliance will help prevent possible consequences. so no, a seperate war even in these edge cases is exactly what the alliance systems seems to be designed against. though this probably doesnt mean that you will never be able to declare war on such small nations while in an alliance, bribes might also persuade your allies in these cases, or in your proposed scenario, they might just say yes to the war since they have nothing to loose and wont send any ships or troops. Similiar to using favors in eu4 to call in allies.
at least i hope thats in, or at least will be added in dlc ^^

 

[Fenrirwolf]

I have one question to the devs though: does declaring war on a primitive/pre-ftl nation also count as a war for your alliance?

 

[Calantyr]

This is beautiful. Wonderful addition.

 

[Koopatin]

Are there lesser versions of an alliance you can have with other races like a defensive pact and or an offensive pact were you ask a race to help you dismantle a common enemy?
Can we lure races out of one alliance into another alliance?
Can we bribe or seduce single nations in a foreign alliance to always veto a war against us?
And would a federation be possible (via mod) that allows war between its own member states? (but would stop all wars and unite in case of an of external thread? (like the old shogunate in EU3, I think it was divine wind?))

 

[chopak]

Can we somehow influence other factions in our alliance relations with third party so we can invite said third party to the alliance?

 

[Don_Rumata]

I don't want to sound too negative because I'm fairly new to the forums and most of I have made so far have been slightly critical (I guess I personally just enjoy critiquing things and trying to think of ways to improve them). However, I love the overall concept of this game (a space opera grand strategy) and have faith that Paradox will fulfill its massive potential in time.

That said, the last few dev diaries (diplomacy, planet cap and now alliances) seem to have shown the game going in a direction different from one I'd prefer - towards restricting player choice somewhat and away from realism. Perhaps this is necessary because the devs have a limited amount of time and it helps to improve the performance of the AI (presumably fewer decisions for players means they need to program fewer appropriate reactions for the AI).

With respect to alliances, to me it seems unrealistic for a state (whether a country or an interplanetary empire) to simply not be allowed to pursue wars by itself while remaining part of a broader alliance. Look at NATO and the Iraq war for a real life example. Also, the way such a mechanic is implemented (every member of an alliance needs to agree for a war to take place) doesn't seem particularly fun. Personally, I could see myself getting frustrated by not being able to expand or launch strategic wars to advance my empire while remaining part of alliance, particularly if my wars are continually vetoed by one annoying little alliance-member with a grudge against me. I think a better system would if the majority of empires in alliance agree to launch a war together then they are all obliged to join, but if empires can't get fellow alliance members to back their wars they can still declare wars independently (perhaps with a hit to relations with the other alliance members).

The federation mechanic, as implemented, seems potentially even more frustrating. It seems like the player, if part of a federation, would spend the majority of playtime not being allowed to freely declare war and possibly conduct relations independently of the federation (not sure how much control federations have over diplomacy or war, but it seems like empires won't be able to declare war independently). A better system, in my opinion, would be for the federation's president to be able to veto wars by member empires rather than declaring war being prevented outright. Possibly the federation could then eventually enact laws centralizing control and preventing member empires from declaring wars independently, or change the method of voting for the presidency (maybe laws within federations could be part of an expansion).

 

[moglus]

The rotation mechanic is clearly for balancing purposes. Imagine if you never able to be in charge, because an AI or another player gets elected all the time.
And it allows me to plan ahead. For example, I know I will be the next President, so I can prepare for a war with a stronger enemy, because I will able to control the Federation Fleet.

That is true but since the presidency term lasts at least 25 years each (passed on the screenshot) then in a federation with 5 members , at the end of your term, you would have to wait literally a century till it's your turn again. That's the only worry i have, that the period of powerlessness it too long for any player to ever consider being in a federation (at least not willingly)

With respect to alliances, to me it seems unrealistic for a state (whether a country or a planet) to simply not be allowed to pursue wars by itself while remaining part of a broader alliance. Look at NATO and the Iraq war for a real life example.

How is the NATO and the Iraq wars an example of that? I am 100% certain that if not for NATO and the US, my country would have never ever been at war in neither Iraq nor Afghanistan (or the military intervention in Libya)
Actually i'm pretty sure that if not for NATO (and the US's insistence that we stay in NATO) then my country would likely be demilitarized by now.
The only problem with comparing the mechanic to irl NATO is that when the US declares a war, they don't need other NATO members to agree, but we do kinda have to join regardless.

Also, the way such a mechanic is implemented (every member of an alliance needs to agree for a war to take place) doesn't seem particularly fun. Personally, I could see myself getting frustrated by not being able to expand or launch strategic wars to advance my empire while remaining part of alliance,

If you want unlimited expansionism then, quite simply, don't join an alliance...

particularly if my wars are continually vetoed by one annoying little alliance-member with a grudge against me.

No one says you have to stay in the alliance in that case, it's unlikely to happen, but if it does you are still free to leave.

I think a better system would if the majority of empires in alliance agree to launch a war together then they are all obliged to join,

But every problem you have pointed out above can be turned around in that case.
1) Wouldn't you get frustrated if you couldn't colonize/explore/survey the area you were planing to, because you are now in a war even tho you voted against it?
2) What if the swing vote that had forced you to war was one annoying little alliance-member with a grudge against you?

The reason that the "majority vote" system would be even more infuriating for the player is that at least if you all have to agree, you as the player can still veto a war that would be an extreme nuisance to you. you still ultimately are not called into war after war after war by the AI, at least with the current system you still have veto power against the AI if they suddenly want to declare a war they can't win (most likely as a result of their notorious monthly personality-altering strokes)

but if empires can't get fellow alliance members to back their wars they can still declare wars individually (perhaps with a hit to relations with the other alliance members).

That opens up to a whole new mess of balancing issues, there are others in the galaxy, and maybe this latest warmongering conquest is where they draw the line?
you were allowed to conquer someone freely in this system, but if the neighboring AI nations want to cut you down to size they can't avoid your allies being dragged into the war, so you can hide behind an AI meatshield to defend you against a "coalition" that only exists because you didn't want to acknowledge your allies vote in the first place,
and yet they still have to defend you when your warmongering turns out to have consequences.
That would be an even more broken and frustrating system, when you had to deal with an AI who did the same

The best thing about the system that paradox has created is that it has very clear and "easy to understand" rules and limitations. it's much simpler and user friendly than EU4 or CK2 alliances because it doesn't have a million " * but only if this " situation specific conditions that can fuck you over.

 

[Tiaexz]

I could see myself getting frustrated by not being able to expand or launch strategic wars to advance my empire while remaining part of alliance, particularly if my wars are continually vetoed by one annoying little alliance-member with a grudge against me.

That is why you would leave, or kick them out of the Alliance. The same time, the Human Player will probably be the 'annoying alliance-member' which refuses the AIs request for war, because with the AI, you just need the war to sound exciting, but for a human player? Nope, they will stamp their heels in and go "nonono".

I think a better system would if the majority of empires in alliance agree to launch a war together then they are all obliged to join, but if empires can't get fellow alliance members to back their wars they can still declare wars independently (perhaps with a hit to relations with the other alliance members).

However, I agree you could be able to do wars independently without your Alliance members.

 

[brifbates]

Nah, because he's not the one who brought it up. Any issue raised in the first post of a thread are fair game for that thread - even moreso when it's a dev-started thread.

Context actually matters. In this case, the dev mentioned it as an example of the variety of currently existing systems in their games before pointing out that the Stellaris system will be entirely different. This is not bringing an issue up in a forum where further discussion of that issue would be relevant to the topic at hand.

If you want unlimited expansionism then, quite simply, don't join an alliance...

Your post made a lot of good points but, very simply, this is the basic answer for those who don't want to deal with fellow alliance members having any sort of veto power.

 

[Assalander]

Your post made a lot of good points but, very simply, this is the basic answer for those who don't want to deal with fellow alliance members having any sort of veto power.

That's true but it's still funny how a lot of people here seem to only consider extreme situations, i.e. either in an alliance with 5 or more other nations or on your own. If you're expansionist you can also ally with just one or two other expansionnist empires, or the enemy of whoever you're planning to invade next. Much easier to avoid vetos and share the spoils with only one or two other nations. Of course if you ally with a half-dozen ones you're not gonna be able to do anything, except defend yourself, which will generally be the point of such large alliances, at least until they form a proper federation. I see no problem here. My only true concerns are about the absolute powers of federation presidents.