• 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 #29 - Pop Factions & Elections

Greetings fellow Spacers!

Today’s dev diary is about Pop Factions and Elections, which might sound like two wildly different topics, but they actually have some common ground. Let’s start with the Pop Factions. Now, as you know, each individual unit of population (a.k.a. “Pop”), has its own race, ethos and possibly even genetic differences compared to its species of origin. People who live far from the capital world of an empire - especially those who live in Administrative Sectors - tend to diverge in their Ethics over time. When you combine this with alien immigration and the conquest of alien worlds, you will soon have to deal with a potentially explosive mix of cultural diversity. As your empire grows, it will get harder and harder to keep everyone happy and your core group of loyalists might eventually find itself a minority. Discontent can manifest in two ways; the happiness of an individual Pop, and the growth of “Factions”, a type of political movement.

stellaris_dev_diary_29_02_20160411_factions.jpg


Unhappy Pops will tend to join or start the most appropriate Faction, depending on the reasons for their discontent. The most basic (and probably most dangerous) type of Faction is the Separatists, who desire independence. There are actually three Separatist variations; some want freedom for a single planet, some want their Sector to secede, and some are integrated aliens who seek the restoration of their lost empire. Another important Faction is the Democracy Faction, whose member Pops might prefer a change of Government Form, or just the right to vote (for example in the case of alien Pops who are denied the vote through a Policy.) There are other Factions as well, but one thing they all have in common is that you can actually deal with them before things get violent. This is an important use for Influence (and sometimes Energy Credits.) For example, you could bribe the Faction leader to prevent a revolt for a time, or you could grant a Separatist Faction limited independence as a vassal state. There are different potential actions depending on which type of Faction it is.

This brings us to Elections and how they tie into the overall scheme. All of the Democratic Government Forms in the game have Elections, though the terms might vary. One difference between the various forms of democracy is which leader characters are the most valid and supported candidates for the chief executive office. In a Military Republic, for example, your Admirals and Generals tend to win the elections. However, all of the Faction leaders are also valid candidates; even the ones who seek independence for their species. If a Faction leader wins an election, that does not mean that their demands are immediately met, however. Instead, what happens is that the Faction becomes passive and will not revolt, which is great for you. Unfortunately, it also increases the attraction of the Faction, which means that it is likely to get far more member Pops…

stellaris_dev_diary_29_01_20160411_election.jpg


Does the player have any direct control over Election outcomes? Yes, you can spend Influence in order to campaign for the candidate of your choice, but it’s not a sure thing, and the cost can be prohibitive if the candidate enjoys little popular support.

The main point of the Faction system is that big empires should become unstable and challenging to keep together. You should see a lot of dynamism in the galaxy, with many big empires descending into civil wars and breaking up. Of course, a lot of this depends on your choice of Ethics and general play style (using slavery and purges, etc), which trades internal stability for increased external pressure…

That’s all for now folks! Stay tuned for next week...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 180
  • 83
  • 3
Reactions:
Why is everybody so fixated on genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression? I mean it's cool that it is in the game, which makes it feel realistic given all the atrocities from human history, but hell it sounds like half the people here are gonna spend their free time with virtual genocide come 9th of may, which I find.. weird?

You've obviously never been to the CK2 forums...
 
  • 14
Reactions:
Listen to the heretic, give medical aid to the mutant, wash the unclean.

I don't know why people keep confusing the Imperium for a sympathetic character.
I was right there with you until you wanted me to wash the unclean. I'm happy to toss them some soap and a bucket of water, but they need to take care of that hygiene problem themselves.
 
  • 11
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Why is everybody so fixated on genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression? I mean it's cool that it is in the game, which makes it feel realistic given all the atrocities from human history, but hell it sounds like half the people here are gonna spend their free time with virtual genocide come 9th of may, which I find.. weird?

What better date for the return of Space Nazis? Two years early, but date is apropriate. They are there, on the dark side of the Moon.

I am more interested to see if ethics will beat race as game develops with emergence of multi-racial empires based on ideology rather than genetics.
 
  • 12
  • 2
Reactions:
I'm a bit concerned about influencing an election result by spending currency (influence) not being a sure thing. Paying for something that's still just RNG seems like it might be less frustrating to just not pay and roll the dice. EUIV has an election mechanic as well, but you're always getting the candidate you want.

Knowing your odds of success might make the RNG less annoying, but it still probably wouldn't be ideal. I think you should remove the RNG and maybe increase the cost or give some other penalty to mitigate the change.

CK2 Merchant Republic election system would work here. There is random element, but you can guarantee election by spending enough money.
Each candidate would have base probability (depending on factors like skill, species, etc...), which would increase depending on how much influence you'd shove into him. When someone already has 95% chance of winning, give him extra 10 influence to make it guaranteed. If he has 5% chance, spend 100 influence just to give him 50/50 chance.
 
  • 12
  • 3
Reactions:
If a sector is seeking independence how will it react if I rearrange sectors?

One of examples would be removing all planets from rebellious sector A and making new sector B that is mostly planets from now nonexistent sector A.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Yeah, it worries me too. I love Paradox games, but some of their fanbase are a little worrying.
It's not about loving genocide or something (aside from already mentioned WH40K fans). It's about utility. We have a mechanic - POP drifting from your initial ethos, sectors drifting even more because "we like making life harder for players". We are presented with a sad fact that we actually cannot really combat POP drifting even with appropriate Gov. form, ethos and traits - it going to happen anyway. And tools for dealing with the problem? Bribing a leader, agree to their demands, slavery, military intervention and genocide. And those aren't solutions at all.

No way to negotiate with Faction, no way to persuade them that staying in one Empire is for their best (that because all those big counties like Russia (NOT USSR), Germany, USA and China collapsed already IRL, right?), no way to give them limited rights or even simply allow them to spend more resources for their sector instead of taxes - nothing.
So people who are confronted with this problem are going with safest and simplest route - military suppression and purges of Pops who drifted too far.
 
  • 12
  • 7
Reactions:
I think there should be factions demanding autocracy or oligarchy.
For example, "military-industrial complex" faction would want to institute Plutocratic Oligarchy. Fanatic Militarist faction dissatisfied with too weak (in their view) national military would want to institute Military Dictatorship, and if it grew strong enough, launched a coup d'etat. Spiritualists would want one of three theocracies, Materialists one of technocracies, Collectivists would want to replace "decadent" democracy with "strong" regime, etc.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
  • 12
Reactions:
It's because mechanic itself isn't there to provide "logic" or "to make sense" but to absolutely and ultimately hinder players attempts at Blobling no matter what, especially if you are Individualistic and Democratic. They are supposed to play with alliances and federations, not going large.

Actually, this mechanic does make sense. When you consider RL, there's been plenty of independence movements that have settled for autonomy rather than try to push for secession. In this case, the faction would earn a lot of its demands, as it would be able to tailor its new autonomous region with the policies that match its ethos, as well as such autonomy being a possible springboard for secession down the road. Yeah, they still pay taxes and have a limited foreign policy, but that's why it's a compromise.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Yeah checks and balances are a thing but this seems to imply that democratic recourse cant force faction desires at all. If the independence movement garners enough support it should be able to get what it wants in a democratic system. Look at the Philippines and India.

I think it makes sense that it shouldn't be "as soon as the president wants it" but there seems to be no recourse at all.
... It can... You look at it and say, "man, this faction is huge, and they want independence. I'd say they would all vote for independence, let's give it to them" and then you click on the button that gives them independence.

That's what Brittain did with India. They clicked that button.

You can vote for independence all day long, but that doesn't mean you will legally get it without the permission of the governing body.

(Added to note: the president alone does not have the authority of the governing body).
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Why is everybody so fixated on genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression? I mean it's cool that it is in the game, which makes it feel realistic given all the atrocities from human history, but hell it sounds like half the people here are gonna spend their free time with virtual genocide come 9th of may, which I find.. weird?

Sounds like someone needs to be.....purged!

Stellaris will become the new GTA when it comes to blaming violence on video games.

Nah, PDS is too niche.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
This seems like a lovely hybrid of CK2 and EU4. I'm really looking forward to seeing this in action in a large empire! My only real concern is how much of a hamstring this is going to be on foreign affairs. I'd rather not spend the vast majority of my time trying to keep my empire together internally (a la CK2).

Well fighting against both external and internal pressure is the most fun part in Grand Strategy games, and that's what EU4 completely fails at making interesting IMO.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Will there be an Autocracy Faction? My Heirrchical pops are unhappy because they lack a strong leadership, and because they do not agree with the idea of allowing the stupid and the foolish (read: people who disagree with them) to have a say in government. They wish to implement an autocracy based on their ethoi. (e.g. Pacifists want a constitutional monarchy).
 
  • 11
Reactions:
Yes, this struck me as rather strange. The faction leader's main goal is independence. It's exceedingly odd that on ascending to power, that goal recedes further into the future. I mean, it might work that way sometimes, but I don't think it should be the normal course of events. I'd prefer that if the faction leader won, they would negotiate a peaceful separation (and potentially spawn a restoration faction that wants to bring the newly-independent group back).



I don't see why it wouldn't lead to instability.Desired policies diverge. Factions form in sectors and eventually go into rebellion. It seems like a very natural mechanism for driving division.
Consider: Governor Avo was elected space prime minister by the independence faction from sector 1, if Avo, upon election grants sector 1 independence, who is going to vote for Avo next time? Avo's main support block is now in another entity.
Having a successionist run for high executive office is a little weird in concept in the first place really.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
But ...you can?
There is no "assasinate leader" button here, but perhaps its available only to non-democratic empires.
"Purging" the way its portrayed in the game, is not classic political repression. Regimes generally do not purge entire populations, but only active subversives. And suspected subversives. And potential subversives.
The way purge works right now in game, is you exterminate billions of pops to get rid of small organised groups, when merely killing off their leadership in series of "car accidents" would work better while not pissing of rest of your population as much. Think "purging" half of USA population vs killing off half of Congress to get rid of Democrat or Republican "Factions".
 
  • 9
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean.
 
  • 9
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions: