• 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:
On topic of purging:
This is MY empire so how do these mere mortals DARE try and have a say in how I rule it?
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Well then, @FieldMedic, perhaps you'd just have to get better at preforming some political triage!!

political triage indeed! Purging and force migrate those that bug you're empire is the way to go! I'm already looking forward to getting rid og those that will not conform to my military ambitions!
 
  • 1
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.
That option obviously represents meeting them halfway and granting them internal autonomy. Vassals can choose to rebel too, so using it doesn't necessarily mean the end of the problem.
 
  • 4
  • 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).



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:
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:
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).

If you consider that "independence factions" only want to be governed by one of them / someone with the same ethos, it makes sense that they are satisfied now.

Having your faction govern the whole country is even better than governing yourself in a small, independent country.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Fascist savagery, exceptionalism, and xenophobia appear to be sharply on the rise in today's society, so while it's distressing, it's not really surprising that it would be reflected in sub-cultures like ours.

It's just the 40k fans out there dreaming of a recreated Great Crusade from the story fluff. I would be remiss to not at least try to roleplay the God-Emperor of Mankinds greatest works...
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I hope there are coming more options in the future to handle factions. Bribing the leaders, assassinate the leader and accepting their demands are nice but just three possibilites. I wouldn't mind options like propaganda or supporting loyalists. So: I would like to see more legal options to fight factions.

Also there should be in oligarchal governments factions that support the creation of a monarchy and in monarchy factions that support oligarchies

Since there is no option for monarchy, I think an oligarchal government could easily be counted as monarchistic the moment you have different families eligible for the throne. So it would be weird to play as oligarchal and someone would like to have a monarchy if he's already living in one.

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?

It is pretty disconcerting to read all this "genocide, mass murder, purging, and oppression" for month. I mean, It's not like that option isn't already in the game, so no reason to say it in every second thread or news.
 
  • 6
  • 4
Reactions:
Burn the heretic, kill the mutant, purge the unclean.
 
  • 9
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Is the influence cost for supporting a candidate always the same whether the election is every 5 years or every 40 years. Seems like the governments with elections that happen more frequently should have lower influence costs, otherwise the democracy players are not going to be able to support a candidate very often while the oligarchy type players might be able to support one every election.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Two things about this worry me.

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. Maybe there is some other mechanic in there but you aren't hinting at them. 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.

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.
Checks and balances.
Let's say a state in the United Stated wants independence, and someone from the Oklahoma Independence Faction gets elected to be President. No matter what the president does, that person still does not have the *power* to give Oklahoma independence. In fact, no one really has that power unless there was a constitutional amendment, which requires more than a single presidential election. It's hard as crap.

But the people in Oklahoma would be happy because an Oklahoman is President.
 
  • 17
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: