• 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:
By looking at the Alliance screenshoot, it looks like you can click "Confirm" even though one of the allies does not approve of the war. Wonder what is "Suggest Demand" button. Can allies offer their own demands?

So how does ones term as president end? at leader death and replacement? because that would give monarchies/dictatorships an inherent edge in a federation, and democracies/oligarchies a severe penalty.

Check the screenshoot. The President changes at a certain date.
Also, th President here does not represent a physical person but the nation.

Trusting the AI to wage war effectively in a Paradox game seems tantamount to suicide. I dunno if I'm going to be forming any federations . . .

But you don't do this. Every member state controls their own armies, the Federation President just controls the joint fleet.
 
Republic: Elected officials a republic makes. Even stupid FPTP election. Besides, you've got the HOR to even it out a little bit. Do note that the European Parliament, shrill and impotent as it still is, is the legislasive body comparable to the senate and house of representatives of the US. Don't forget the Russian Federation either! Most federations have an upper house that aims to elevate the power of the smaller states, because the idea of a federation is (generally) more decentralization than a unitary state.

To wit: A republic can be a unitary state, a constitutional monarchy or a federation or an entirely different thing or a mix of those things.

Agree with your point about federations, and I only said that most federations are democracies. As in this game, a federation of absolute monarchies, military dictators and space popes is still a federation, but not a republic.

Don't get me started on the democratic value of the EU. The EU is a de-facto federation... or confederation without a military, more or less. They're just scared of saying it, because most Europeans loathe the concept. Is it a republic? I'd say barely not.

Edit: Addition: I'll concede the point that many modern definitions of a republic excludes any sort of monarch, even in extremely democratic states.
Come on, the russian federation is about as much federation as the democratic republic of germany was democratic. Russia is despite it's name a nation state not a federal state.

As for the EU, well, like the HRE before it, it can't seem to make up it's mind if it's a federal state or a federation of (nation) states. And the republic/other constitutional system really only becomes an issue if it is a federal state and not a federation of states.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Also, th President here does not represent a physical person but the nation.

I assume that the president is simply the leader of the nation that currently possesses the presidency...

But you don't do this. Every member state controls their own armies, the Federation President just controls the joint fleet.

correct, but as a non-leading member of the federation you have no control over your own foreign policy (e.g war declarations) the sitting (AI) president does...
 
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.
Except monarchies are per definition not republics yet all existing constitutional monarchies are representative democracies, rather than direct ones. So apperantly there is other criteria for beign a republic than how collective rule is carried out.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Come on, the russian federation is about as much federation as the democratic republic of germany was democratic. Russia is despite it's name a nation state not a federal state.

As for the EU, well, like the HRE before it, it can't seem to make up it's mind if it's a federal state or a federation of (nation) states. And the republic/other constitutional system really only becomes an issue if it is a federal state and not a federation of states.

What is your basis for calling the Russian Federation "not a federation"? Just because the ruling party is... objectionable to many, does not mean that it did not win the popular vote, and its federal units (especially the republics) have quite wide self-governance (the fact that not all of them are quite competent for the task is, again, irrelevant).

Republic and Federation does not mean good, it does not mean nice, it does not mean devoid of terrible or corrupt people ruling it. They simply mean 1: Officials are elected by popular vote, and 2: More autonomy to individual components than a unitary state (how much? No consensus)
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Except monarchies are per definition not republics yet all existing constitutional monarchies are representative democracies, rather than direct ones. So apperantly there is other criteria for beign a republic than how collective rule is carried out.

Excluding even constitutional monarchies is a relatively recent addition. Better term then would be republics = elected officials, no monarch, representative/indirect democracy = same, but includes constitutional monarchies.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
What is your basis for calling the Russian Federation "not a federation". Just because the ruling party is... objectionable to many, does not mean that it did not win the popular vote, and its federal units (especially the republics) have quite wide self-governance (the fact that not all of them are quite competent for the task is, again, irrelevant).

Republic and Federation does not mean good, it does not mean nice, it does not mean devoid of terrible or corrupt people ruling it. They simply mean 1: Officials are elected by popular vote, and 2: More autonomy to individual components than a unitary state (how much? No consensus)
Eh no I am calling russia not a federation becuse a federation is between states, while russia is a centralised state, they could ofcourse claim to be a federal state (that is a former federation that centralised into a centralised state, like the US) but then again they never were a federation, they were an empire, centralised by the military power of the tsars, then a "union" and then decided that despite fulfilling every criteria for a nationstate that they are a federation.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
But you don't do this. Every member state controls their own armies, the Federation President just controls the joint fleet.
That's not mutually exclusive with the AI using the joint fleet to perform great feats of derpitude. I'm already imagining scenarios similar to how an alliance with France (when you are playing as a minor state in EUIV) when you need the AI to do something in order to prevent my annihilation/more effectively advance the war for us all if they would just do this one thing. :confused:

Anyway, I've poked fun enough, my hopes are high with Wiz and his crew at the helm of the AI coding. :)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
What is your basis for calling the Russian Federation "not a federation". Just because the ruling party is... objectionable to many, does not mean that it did not win the popular vote, and its federal units (especially the republics) have quite wide self-governance (the fact that not all of them are quite competent for the task is, again, irrelevant).

Republic and Federation does not mean good, it does not mean nice, it does not mean devoid of terrible or corrupt people ruling it. They simply mean 1: Officials are elected by popular vote, and 2: More autonomy to individual components than a unitary state (how much? No consensus)

I think (imo) what we were implying is that the Russian "democracy" is a farce, winning an election does not actually count if you did so through election rigging and voter intimidation/harassment. then you are no longer a republic, but a dictatorship trying to look democratic by holding a token, meaningless election for appearances sake
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Eh no I am calling russia not a federation becuse a federation is between states, while russia is a centralised state, they could ofcourse claim to be a federal state (that is a former federation that centralised into a centralised state, like the US) but then again they never were a federation, they were an empire, centralised by the military power of the tsars, then a "union" and then decided that despite fulfilling every criteria for a nationstate that they are a federation.

Russian states have autonomy in many areas that are in many way comparable to other federations like Germany, Argentina and Australia. The Federal Subjects have their own governor, their own legislation covering many topics, their own parliaments. The "Republics" of Russia have even wider autonomy and quite often are not majority ethnically Russian. Many of these federal subjects are completely different than the East European or western Siberian areas where most of the population lives. It is not as centralized as you may think, it just appears that way outwardly. Think of how the US would appear if it did not produce as many movies or people didn't care so much about it's internal workings: It would appear a lot more centralized than it actually is, and so does the Russian Federation.

There's a reason most large nations are federations: It's just an easier way to unify extremely large countries: Let the smaller subunits take care of some of the non-military, non-foreign relations governance. Which brings me to Sectors in this game...
 
  • 8
Reactions:
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.
Please fix this. This is probably the worst change to CK2 ever. More detailed reasoning in my signature :)
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Hmmm. Interesting. Very interesting. The alliance idea sounds relativly fresh and new ...
 
All the interesting questions that you guys come up with after each DD indicates to me that this is a great design. I think its going to be one of the most interesting games in our time.
 
Russian states have autonomy in many areas that are in many way comparable to other federations like Germany, Argentina and Australia. The Federal Subjects have their own governor, their own legislation covering many topics, their own parliaments. The "Republics" of Russia have even wider autonomy and quite often are not majority ethnically Russian. Many of these federal subjects are completely different than the East European or western Siberian areas where most of the population lives. It is not as centralized as you may think, it just appears that way outwardly. Think of how the US would appear if it did not produce as many movies or people didn't care so much about it's internal workings: It would appear a lot more centralized than it actually is, and so does the Russian Federation.

There's a reason most large nations are federations: It's just an easier way to unify extremely large countries: Let the smaller subunits take care of some of the non-military, non-foreign relations governance. Which brings me to Sectors in this game...
Germany is not a federation either. Again nation state. If the vast majority of the natio, people of the state is from a single ethnicity and the state is named for that people, it's a fairly good bet you're talking about a nation state.
There's nothing wrong with being a nation state, most states in europe are. I in fact only discovered the concept of a federal state after I heard people from the US refer to the US as a nationstate a few times to many (the US is way to ethnically diverse to be a nationstate) and started searching the internet for a better term.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
I think (imo) what we were implying is that the Russian "democracy" is a farce, winning an election does not actually count if you did so through election rigging and voter intimidation/harassment. then you are no longer a republic, but a dictatorship trying to look democratic by holding a token, meaningless election for appearances sake

Dysfunctional democracy? Yes, in some ways, but they don't need to resolve to one ruling party or outright lying about election results - it's much easier to use propaganda and misdirection to stay in power just as AKP regained power in Turkey after the scattered election result.

Have you heard of a thing called "gerrymandering" in the US regarding elections? Now that is one way First Past the Post voting completely fucks up any semblance of democracy.

Is this the work of a functional democracy?

500px-How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg.png



Illinois_District_4_2004.png
 
  • 24
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Are xenophile aliens more likely to make and accept alliance offers? And xenophobes will detest alliances?
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Germany is not a federation either. Again nation state. If the vast majority of the natio, people of the state is from a single ethnicity and the state is named for that people, itäös a fairly good bet you're talking about a nation state.

You have some heavily entrenched ideas of what a Federation is. A federation does not have to be a collection of small countries that eventually unified (though "Germany" is precisely that), it is rather how much independence is afforded to the primary subdivision. Spain is not a federation, though it has many ethnicities, but many people in it want it to be, because a federation would afford its independence movement states more power.

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federation - the green countries here are federations.

863px-Map_of_unitary_and_federal_states.svg.png
 
  • 13
  • 2
Reactions: