• 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:
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:
In history, alliances were broken all the time and only lasted as long as they served both parties, but it's been done in all the other PDS games, so I don't mind a change. Stricter alliances feel refreshing, actually. If you believe that your membership no longer serves a purpose, you can always leave. And if you can't leave because the drawbacks (e.g. opening yourself to attack) outweigh the benefits... well, the more important choices you have to make, the better.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
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..

Nice to meet someone that agrees with me, and responds in a civil and constructive way, 'tis a rare thing on these forums (or so it seems at times)

And if you can't leave because the drawbacks (e.g. opening yourself to attack) outweigh the benefits... well, that's life for you.

And, incidentally, you've also learned the valuable lesson of: What it feels like to be a part of NATO, when you're not the USA...
 
  • 6
Reactions:
While we're still on the topic of alliances, will the new forced alliances allow the player to block ai wars? It can be annoying in EU4 when one of your ai allies declares war and calls you in to it at a bad time. So now if the AI are able to block the player from going to war whenever they want surely that should work both ways right? The player should be able to say 'no, bad ai, no wars yet', right?
 
When I'm reading this, I feel PDS has managed to capture the spirit of modern organisations like NATO and the EU even better than expected.

"And Dorothy, you wanted the spirit of modern multinational organisations, but little did you know, you've had the true spirit of NATO within you all along!"
- The Wonderful Wiz of Paradox
 
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the Functionality of the Alliance-Mechanic, too ...
To dissolve an Alliance in a Time of Peace is acceptable, but NOT, like in other Games, to have the Ability to begin a War without Consultation of the Alliance-Members or, to make It even Worse, to break It at the Beginning of a War ...

But, We may need more different Types of War-Goals (More than "Territory"), to satisfy all the Alliance-Members, to begin a War ...
Otherwise, We have the Danger of Border-Gore ...

By the Way - The new Empire-Emblems are nice.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
For release, it will most likely be rotation only.

Personally, the one thing I think would be cool is the ability to delay the rotation/elections during a war, likely at a relations hit or unrest, and you can only do so if you have low unrest and high relations with members.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
This is mostly so I can roleplay as Darth Sidious
do-it.jpg
 
Perhaps a system allowing members to vote for the President? This would allow an effective and popular leader (player ;)) to remain in control for longer.

I strongly agree with this sentiment - it will be extremely boring/frustrating to join a federation only to have the AI players run it most of the time. Especially in large federations, you may end up running things rarely. If there is no way to influence the president's actions, this could be very boring (building ships designed by AI, to give to AI, to fight wars against other AI).

However, I absolutely love the concept and only disagree with the fixed rotating leadership.

I would suggest the following possibilities:
- Allow elections or a leadership challenge so that the player has a way to stay in control/regain control
- Allow the player to control some of the federation ships that they build (i.e. if you build federation ships, 50% go to the presidential fleet, 50% remain in the players fleet).
- Allow an option for the player to opt out of the rotating leadership mechanic until some type of election system can be introduced in later expansions.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
The two major flaws I see with Federations, is that ALL members are being treated equally regardless of size, and that there appears to be no incentive for the President to do helpful things for the federation membership.

OK Flaw 1: Imagine you have a 3 member federation. While they started off the same size, one member grows much bigger than the other two. Later through uplifting etc. the membership of the federation grows to include 2 independent planets. That huge member is going to be in charge far less often (making them less likely to try and include new members) and serve the same amount of time as the tiny nation.

Fix: There should be Major and Lesser members of Federations. The presidency should rotate through the Major members only.

Flaw 2: As the President, there appears to be no incentive for me to help the other members of the Federation out. For example, if I go to war I drag everyone else in, but don't seem to need to give anything to them in return. When they are President they can do the same to help themselves of course...

Fix: Not sure on this one. There needs to be SOMETHING.... some kind of incentive to the leader of the Federation. Maybe something akin to the HRE system from EU?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
A bit off topic, perhaps. But you've made Flugsvamp portraits. Will there be geese?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
A bit off topic, perhaps. But you've made Flugsvamp portraits. Will there be geese?

CblRNDgUsAAKlJw.png:large

They've made fucking Vampire-esque Fungoids... i've given up on trying to guess what is or isn't in that wonderful portrait roster....
 
  • 4
Reactions:
CblRNDgUsAAKlJw.png:large

They've made fucking Vampire-esque Fungoids... i've given up on trying to guess what is or isn't in that wonderful portrait roster....

So your aswer is basically "I geese so"?
 
  • 3
Reactions: