• 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.

Stellaris Dev Diary #22 - Alliances and Federations

Greetings fellow gamers!

The topic for today is “Alliances and Federations”. Now, we have modelled alliances quite differently in most of our games. In Crusader Kings II, for example, alliances are bilateral, and allies are (since the last patch) automatically dragged into wars with no option of opting out and breaking the alliance. In Europa Universalis IV, alliances are also bilateral, but you can decline a “Call to Arms” at the cost of Prestige. In Stellaris, alliances are multilateral (they can have any number of members, not just two), and are thus more like NATO and less like the complex web of mutual agreements that existed at the outbreak of the Great War. This means that members of an alliance need a greater say in matters that concern the entire alliance, notable declarations of war (and some things are simply not allowed if you are an alliance member, such as guarantees of independence.)

If I am a member of an alliance in Stellaris and I want to declare a war, all the other members of the alliance need to approve. This ties back to what I talked about in the dev diary two weeks ago; if the goals I declare with the war are only beneficial to myself, my allies are of course less likely to approve. Therefore, I will likely have to dicker with the war goals in order to satisfy all of my allies (depending on their opinions and strategic concerns, naturally.) Of course, members can always just leave an alliance (while at peace) if it won’t permit them to achieve their goals.

stellaris_dev_diary_22_01_20160222_allience_opinion_of_war.jpg


If an alliance works well, however, the members can instead choose to deepen their cooperation and form a Federation. There are pros and cons to this choice. Alliances can be paralyzed by vetoes from the member states, but a Federation is governed by a single President who has the power to act with impunity. On the other hand, the presidency rotates between the member states, so for long periods members will have little control over their foreign policy. Federation members also share victory, which might be a problem for certain types of players…

Another interesting feature of Federations is that they have a special joint space navy in addition to the forces of the separate member empires. The Federation president gets to design these ship templates using all the best technologies of all the member empires. The president also gets to control these fleets, of course. As a rule of thumb, several fairly equally matched empires might want to form a Federation, especially in the face of aggressive, significantly larger neighbors, but it might not be the best idea for empires who are dominant in their own right. Of course, there is also an element of role-playing to the choice…

stellaris_dev_diary_22_02_20160222_federation.jpg


That’s all for now. Next week’s topic is Multiplayer!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 220
  • 60
  • 6
Reactions:
Looks like it is an interesting system!
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
Depends on if republic requires democracy because otherwise I'd say that both out current major federations in the world are not republics. Both the european council and the US senate does not do voting weighted to population and thus are at best semi democratic institutions (Unlike congress and the european parliament). Also a federation of non republic bodies does not make a republic, for an examole the united arab emirate is considered a monarchy despite having a elected president, because the parts of their federation are monarchs. Hence the EU is not a republic because several members are in fact monarchies (It is also not a monarchy though because there are still more republics than monarchies in it).
I don't think you know what a republic is then...

A republic isn't defined by having an amount of votes based on population. That was a *compromise* made by nations in order to get things passed. A republic is a system in which people don't vote for issues directly, they vote for people to make that choice for them. That means you can be a republic and have 3 representatives total, or 1,000,000 representatives. You can have one for every 10 people, or one for every state.

A federation had nothing to do with a republic, a federation is simply a group of autonomous states that give up a little bit of their autonomy for a more unified goal, so it's a layered level. Some federations have a lot of state autonomy, some gave up a lot more.

The United States is both a federation (each state is semi automous, with the biggest argument to how autonomous they are), and a republic (we don't vote on federal laws, we elect people to vote on them).

Weighted votes came around LONG after republics did. The whole reason we are a republic instead of a democracy is to avoid the tyranny of the masses, which is what happens when you do it based purely on population size.

Republics limit this by NOT having weighted votes, hence the senate has 2 per state, where the house or Reps has Pop size. But still, not everyone votes, just the representatives elected. Hence, a republic.
 
  • 13
  • 4
Reactions:
I'm going to backstabbing these stupid aliens so bad! Traitorous mushrooms in space!
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Is there a limit to the siza of an alliance? Or could all species join one alliance or a federation even to usher an age of peace a win jointly?
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Warmongers beware! No more using allies as a shield against unchecked aggression! Either you're all in agreement about a war or you're out in the cold on your own.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
Look, alliances have pretty much always been a frustrating game of blindfolded "he who smelt it, dealt it" in previous games. constant alliance breaking on both the players side and the AI when the alliance was even the slightest inconvenience made the system dysfunctional in practice, making an alliance are more strong and serious commitment is a good thing imo.
Does that mean you have to weigh the pros and cons of it before committing? YES AS IT DAMN WELL SHOULD BE!
A military alliance is not some sort of kindergarten BFF friendship bracelet that you give to 29/30 of the other children, it's a serious binding commitment of military support.
So if you want to declare your own wars without needing others approval, then there is a very easy solution for you...
DON'T COMMIT TO A MILITARY ALLIANCE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

if you want other nations to be your bitch, and help you in all your wars, while you still have complete control over war declarations...
then have vassals not allies.......

This is spot on, and I fully agree with this design choice as well. I also think some of the nay-sayers don't understand this is not EU4, but a game where all the players starts out equally. Going alone in wars is perfectly doable. Imagine this alliance system in a thypical 4X, and you'll find it is pure genious.

NB! That some fail to see your points is also why I'm so glad Paradox never do open betas. Too many ordinary players show a total lack of basic understanding of the reasoning behind the game design and certain game mechanisms, and have no imagination to forsee its impacts on gameplay. One usual misunderstanding is confusing more meaningfull and harder choices with restricting and undermining the gameplay..
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Unanimous agreement to declare war? No autonomy whatsoever? A simple rotation in federation presidents and no way to influence it?

This on top of EU4's rivalry system are huge steps back in the innovation I have come to expect from Paradox. I hope this gets changed by release otherwise if I do end up buying Stellaris, I suppose alliances just won't be worth it.
 
  • 10
  • 6
Reactions:
Yes it is. Just read te constition (it's only 8 pages) and read each state's separate constition.

The fact that in one state you can smoke dope and in the others you can't, that in one state you can buy alcohol on Sunday and in another you can't, is proof that the states have far more autonomy than a unitary state. The federal government has *very specific* powers, and the state's *have all of the other powers*. In a unitary state, the government has almost all of the power, and allows autonomy.
...
Another important thing is that our governors do not work for the federal government, and they do not answer to the president. It takes some serious stuff to override the state, and the federal government can only do it when the state conflicts with the constition directly. The constition can only be changed by the ratification of it in 38 states.

Agreed, the USA is definitely a federal state - people tend to forget - based on the world power of the USA itself - how decentralized internally it is.

A country even more explicitly federal and decentralized is Canada - laws & regulations vary widely from province and province, and substantial internal trade barriers between provinces mean that Canada has freer trade externally in many products than internally. Changing the constitution or federal governance structure is next to impossible, since there are high requirements for a majority, or even all, of the provinces to agree. The extreme decentralization of Canada is IMO a key factor in keeping Quebec in the federation (which has even more independent powers than other provinces).
 
  • 9
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Actually I pointed out that nationstate didn't work for the US. Hence that I chose to use the word federal state.

.

You should definitely consider taking basic political science courses before keeping on this subject, you're mixing concepts in every single one of your posts, and everything you say don't hold by the simple fact that you seem to be unaware of the consensual definitions of specific terms according to the political scientists.

The main core of your argument is just false, there is no opposition between nation state and federal state. A Nation State is "a form of political organization in which a group of people who share the same history, traditions, or language live in a particular area under one government". This government can be centralised or federal, it can have a long history of slow building, it doesn't matter. Germany is a federal nation state, while switzerland is a federal state, but not a nation state, and France is a centralised nation state. You are drawing boundaries where there is none. "Nation State" refers to the nature of a government, "Federal" or "centralized" refers to how this government is organised. There is no link at all between the two

And please, use better sources to back your claims than documentaries, they are rarely of any scientific value. Use peer-reviewed articles if you want to make a credible point. You can do a research on google scholar for that.
 
  • 10
  • 1
Reactions:
This looks cool.

When in a federation, if one member state grows sufficiently powerful is it possible to seize permanent contol and "inherit" the other states (kind of like how PUs work in EUIV, but a bit less passive)?
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Can Federations be abandoned by its constituent members? Will AI races do that of their own volition?
 
  • 9
Reactions:
Greetings fellow gamers!

The topic for today is “Alliances and Federations”. Now, we have modelled alliances quite differently in most of our games. In Crusader Kings II, for example, alliances are bilateral, and allies are (since the last patch) automatically dragged into wars with no option of opting out and breaking the alliance. In Europa Universalis IV, alliances are also bilateral, but you can decline a “Call to Arms” at the cost of Prestige. In Stellaris, alliances are multilateral (they can have any number of members, not just two), and are thus more like NATO and less like the complex web of mutual agreements that existed at the outbreak of the Great War. This means that members of an alliance need a greater say in matters that concern the entire alliance, notable declarations of war (and some things are simply not allowed if you are an alliance member, such as guarantees of independence.)

If I am a member of an alliance in Stellaris and I want to declare a war, all the other members of the alliance need to approve. This ties back to what I talked about in the dev diary two weeks ago; if the goals I declare with the war are only beneficial to myself, my allies are of course less likely to approve. Therefore, I will likely have to dicker with the war goals in order to satisfy all of my allies (depending on their opinions and strategic concerns, naturally.) Of course, members can always just leave an alliance (while at peace) if it won’t permit them to achieve their goals.

View attachment 160100

If an alliance works well, however, the members can instead choose to deepen their cooperation and form a Federation. There are pros and cons to this choice. Alliances can be paralyzed by vetoes from the member states, but a Federation is governed by a single President who has the power to act with impunity. On the other hand, the presidency rotates between the member states, so for long periods members will have little control over their foreign policy. Federation members also share victory, which might be a problem for certain types of players…

Another interesting feature of Federations is that they have a special joint space navy in addition to the forces of the separate member empires. The Federation president gets to design these ship templates using all the best technologies of all the member empires. The president also gets to control these fleets, of course. As a rule of thumb, several fairly equally matched empires might want to form a Federation, especially in the face of aggressive, significantly larger neighbors, but it might not be the best idea for empires who are dominant in their own right. Of course, there is also an element of role-playing to the choice…

View attachment 160101

That’s all for now. Next week’s topic is Multiplayer!

Nice, but can federations integrate further to a federal state, after all of the two major federations we have seen in human history, one did, and the other is struggeling with the issue if it should or not.

Also there should be some kind of alliance of convenience mechanic, where two neutral parites or even enemies set aside their diffrences to worktogether aginst a common foe, (Like the imperium and the eldar often do in warhammer 40k, or the federation and the klingons did in star trek).
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions: