• 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:
Awesome!
Cant wait to hear next week's and how multiplayer will work, especially with things like ship design possibly taking quite a bit of time
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Will there be a way to give your nation more influence in the Federation? Will we be able to customize the Federation?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Wow this system is incredible! Such a nice evolution of the fairly static diplomatic alliances we see in other games. Man I can't wait to form the United Federation of Planets :D
 
Honestly, I'm a bit mystified by all of this. This alliance system, as does the new CK2 one, seems to me forced and unintuitive. So in order to declare a war, all your allies must agree... Is it possible to have different alliances at once, so that at least we could call in a war empire x and republic y, but not z hive?

And federation seems an excellent and organic way to upgrade a multilateral alliance to form a more centralized political form, but there should be ways to change how the presidency is selected and the votation rules. I don't think many player will enjoy playing as the head of a federation only 10 years per 100 years, and thus lose completely their agency over what they are doing during the rest of the time.
 
  • 14
  • 6
Reactions:
Can a federation (as a whole) be in an Alliance ?

Say for some reason State A, B and C are Allied and state A and B decide to form a federation. Can state C still remain buddy with the AB federation without being part of it ?

Can Alliances, and Federations have unaliteral diplomacy choices ? Like Embargos, Guarrantees of independence etc. Since apparently member states cannot.
 
  • 5
  • 4
Reactions:
Hmmm, interesting!

If you are more powerful than others in your Federation, are you able to take some form of control?
Oh please not this again, if you want to use might to dominate then just leave and conquer the others. I am tired of might being the only way to centralise in these games, I want a mechanic for peacefully centralising the federation into a real state.

For release, it will most likely be rotation only.
I don't mind, thta sounds like we could see a full on federation DLC down the line.

This sounds awesome providing the AI won't do suicidal things as a federation leader. Also will the federation leader swap during wartime and if so do they become war leader or does the nation who declared as federation leader stay as the war leader?
I too am afraid the AI will be too aggressive though them losing is not what I am afraid of. I am more afraid of them using me as a shield while they go ona conquest spree. Kind of like how your vassals always do in ck2 (they can deplete their forces however much they want in wars of agression because they know no one will come for them sicne it means fighting you).
There should be a way to dissapprove of what the president does, for an example when the Federation was fighting the klingons in the fur years war the vulcans were threatening to leave because they were pacifists.

"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."

Then it's not like NATO. The US invades all sorts of countries without having to have support from every NATO member. For example, many European countries opposed the Iraq War. It seems wrong to me that such a limiting and unrealistic restriction should be in place.

Also I think that not even giving us the option to break our word and not help our ally - at a huge diplomatic cost, of course - is a bad thing. I didn't realise that CKII has now had such a silly rule introduced. It seems like a backwards step.
Yeah I also felt that forced honesty felt a little odd. Also if feels liek common courtesy for the game to aks you even if it's really not much fof a choice rather than suddenly realise "Oh I am at war, when did that happen", which happens to me all the time in ck2 right now.

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?
Isn't that the UN. Also I think the federation (from star trek) meant to be exactly that but then they ended up going to war with the klingons and stuff didn't turn out that way.

I disagree. The concept of alliances is different in Stellaris and it makes more sense to have this choice. Nothing forces you to ally, and alliances are supposed to be something more important. If I understand things correctly, you can always vote against the war, and your ally won't even start it. Before war declaration you can also leave the alliance. Also, remember that there are no separate allies.
Perhaps but the original agressor should have an option to declare anyway, without his allies if they don't support him. The US does it all the time.

Can Federations be abandoned by its constituent members? Will AI races do that of their own volition?
If their beliefs clash enough with the actions of the federation they are in then I assume so. A pacifist member of a federation that is fighting a war of agression for an example.

Can a Federation turn into a Dictatorship? After his electoral victory, Space Charles the Vth abolished the parliament claiming that he spoke fungoid to women, amphibian to his crew, binary to his computer and Faroese to his pet.
First of Faroese? The faroe isles are in this federation?
Secondly again I prefer mechainics for peacefully centrlaising a federation, something the members do together, or even naturally happens over time, to it being soemthing that one member forc eupon the others. It was always by biggest gripe with the HRE mechanics in EU4 too.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Can a Federation dissolve? What happens with the Federation ships and templates if so?

Was about to ask this.

What if your species is the only one with the Mega-Hyper Rocket VI used in 10 ships? What happens to those 10 ships when you leave the federation?
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
How do federations show up on the map? Do individual empires show up and then there's a separate layer for federations? Or is the federation considered one multi-constituent star nation?
 
I love this system. Even though I understand the historical reasons for how alliances work in CKII and EUIV, it sometimes pissed me off how egoistical you could be without any big consequences. What you showed today makes a lot more sense in a current and/or science fiction setting, and I'm sure it will improve how and what wars are fought a lot!
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
How do federations show up on the map? Do individual empires show up and then there's a separate layer for federations? Or is the federation considered one multi-constituent star nation?
Probably a "Federation" mapmode.
 
As member of an alliance, will it be possible to declare separate war, without involving the other alliance members as in EU4 or HoI? Or do I always have to convince the others, not only when I want them with me?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Just because the US does it all the time doesn't mean its the right way. If you don't want to work with your allies why did you ally them in the first place? If you want to go after other nations of your own choosing and without giving war spoils to others, maybe just go it alone and don't join an alliance. Seems to me you just want to exploit an alliance as a defense for yourself.
 
  • 9
  • 6
Reactions:
Election based federations and some sort of further unification via dictatorship or imperial plebiscite (a la Napoleon III) are something unavoidable if you want people to like federations. Like CKII republics, people should have the option to control war and diplomatic options.

Also, will they have common legislation voted by members?
 
Last edited:
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
There seems to be untapped potential with how federations could evolve over time (one nation taking control, them becoming integrated into one single nation, factionalism...), but I guess that will be for a later DLC.
Overall interesting stuff although I don't think many human players will be thrilled to hand over their foreign policy to the AI even on a rotating basis.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
For release, it will most likely be rotation only.

Are there settings available to change the setup of Federations? Can we change the term length of a president? Is the rotation like a round robin where everyone gets a turn before it reverts back to the original faction again or can members elect the next president like in the HRE? Will the president have attributes that effect the alliances like general officers in HOI4?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How are federation navy ships built? Does the federation have its own shipyards, or are they constructed in member state facilities? If the latter, then:
- are the shipyards simply forced to build the ships, or is the owner state compensated for its services?
- are the shipyards chosen by the president, or selected randomly?
- if the member state is compensated, can shipyards compete to be awarded construction contracts? (that would be awesome :D)
- are federation ships prioritised, or do they have to wait until current and queued construction is completed?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
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…
So it's basicaly formable HRE... in SPACE!

Awesome. But will there be option to opt-out from some of the Federation's rules and/or threaten the Federation with referendum on leaving it if demands are not met?
 
  • 5
Reactions: