• 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:
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…
You know what I would absolutely love to see? If a faction leader wins elections, but during his reign the empire would fall on hard times, lose wars, see budget deficit, etc., his faction loses most of popularity and pops leave it because they are disillusioned.
 
  • 26
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:
We need to know more about other rebel types. In democracies there should be fascist , communist, monarchy, etc... factions that support the installation of authoritarian governments. Also there should be in oligarchal governments factions that support the creation of a monarchy and in monarchy factions that support oligarchies

Also , it is possible to change to an authoritarian/democratic government peacefully? If so, what are the consequences?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Independence movement demanding releasing them into vassal is little confusing - vassal state that can't declare their own wars can hardly be called independent.
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.
 
  • 13
  • 2
Reactions:
First of all, "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",
this is worrying because it seems to imply that factions dont have the ability to impose independence through democracy at all.

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).

Secondly, "The main point of the Faction system is that big empires should become unstable and challenging to keep together". These mechanics dont seem to naturally imply that. This makes me worried that either the strife wont happen or it will be artificial.

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.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
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.

He didn't say anything about a rebellion mechanic. Maybe it's in there and it's perfect and organic. Maybe it's clunky. I dont know. When I dont know, I worry.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Dear Supreme Leader Gao of the Democratic People's Solar Republic of Terra: "We sense a great disturbance in this thread... Heretics going tsk-tsk and promoting Pacifist Xenophile agendas! Perhaps it's time We 'help them' move much closer to their 'beloved' Xeno scums in the border colonies so they can preach their tolerant progressive ways to all those cuddly Fanatical Purifier Space Owls that wanted to wipe out humanity and those amicable Hegemonic Imperialist Space Lizards that tried to enslave humans and destroy Our way of life! "
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
You know what I would absolutely love to see? If a faction leader wins elections, but during his reign the empire would fall on hard times, lose wars, see budget deficit, etc., his faction loses most of popularity and pops leave it because they are disillusioned.

Why would they leave the faction though? This is just the faction's leader, not the person for whom the faction exists or its sole representative, not to mention that most factions don't care about what goes on outside their sector so someone ruining the country would actually be seen as a good thing in the long run.
What I'd like to see is that, if a faction leader becomes the head of state, you will be unable to take planets out of his sector, won't be able to tax it and will have a minimum amount of resources that you need to pour into it, thus representing the faction leader abusing his power for his own faction at the cost of his enemy.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
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…

Purge the heretics! *BLAM*
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I would argue that it makes sense. The democratic government types are only available if you are individualistic from your ethics (or atleast not collectivist), so your pops expressing their free will to choose the candidate they want instad of your choice does feel right to me.
Thematically it makes sense, sure, but I'm inclined to prioritize mechanics here. Spending a (potentially) large amount of a precious resource that could've been (and perhaps should've been) spent on something else and not getting anything out of it seems just frustrating, and I wonder if a lot of people would just decide to not use it. I wouldn't mind seeing some other added penalty for the sake of realism, but RNG should be used cautiously.

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.
This sounds more agreeable, I could get behind this. My own suggestion would be to add a penalty that increases the influence cost every time you use it. The penalty would tick down when you let the candidate be picked randomly. This way you could reliably elect your desired candidate, especially early on, but doing so too often would be prohibitively expensive. Alternatively, you could maybe pay an additional fee of energy credits, but doing so could increase unhappiness or even cause a faction to rise against corruption or something.

We don't really know how important of a resource influence will be and what kinds of things you can do with it, so it's hard to say too much about this just yet.

Edit: Also, I sure didn't expect people to disagree so vehemently with my suggestion. I wouldn't mind hearing why that is.
 
  • 6
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).
Isn't it actually a most realistic mechanic in whole Stellaris? A politician rose to power promising something for his people (or group) and.... he do nothing about it till next elections.
 
  • 21
Reactions:
Lol, check the stickied thread containing all the Dev Diaries. There's a whole dev diary about Purge (to appease all the W40k and genocide fetishists).
What's wrong with liking genocide?
 
  • 15
  • 2
  • 1
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).

Haven't you watched politics in our times? I saw many parties with radical demands which when they got elected easily became part of the establishement. Once they have their share in power and wealth they usually forget about their ideals if they ever really had ones.
 
  • 13
  • 1
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).
 
  • 6
  • 2
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:
Two things about this worry me.

So consider for instance an independence faction which has already reached it's maximum size. They win an election and now they have a bonus to grow but no pops to grow in. Win-win. Situations like this appear to have the potential for gameyness and elections that dont really matter like in EU:Rome. It would be nice if factions would be able to start forcing changes if they win.

Well if the independence faction reach this point, your original empire is gone.
Your government ethic might already become theirs.
Previous DD mention your government ethic will be changed in some case, i think this might be it.

you are now just playing a completely different empire from your original one, and your original pop become new independence faction.
 
  • 5
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: