• 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 #162 - New Diplomatic Features

Hello everyone!

Today we thought we’d talk about some of the smaller changes coming to diplomacy with the free 2.6 update. Although the Galactic Community and the reworked federations are sure to have a large impact on galactic diplomacy, it's also important to talk about the smaller things!

Envoys
One of the more important things we’ve added are the Envoys. Envoys function very similar to Diplomats in EU4, and they are required for certain diplomatic actions such as:
  • Improve / Harm Relations – it is now possible to send an Envoy to improve or harm relations which can affect Opinion by up to (-400 / +400 ). More on Opinion and Relations later.
  • Assigned to Federation (to increase monthly Cohesion by +1)
  • Assigned to Galactic Community (to increase Diplomatic Weight)
upload_2019-11-28_10-28-45.png upload_2019-11-28_10-29-6.png upload_2019-11-28_10-29-20.png

Although Envoys are characters, they do not currently have any character-mechanics such as traits. We didn’t think it would be fun to have to micromanage and switch Envoys around to better fit certain jobs depending on their traits.

Diplomacy Interface Updates
We’ve finally gotten around to give a bunch of diplomacy-related interfaces a facelift! First up, let’s talk a little about the general diplomacy screen.

You are now able to more clearly see things such as Civics, Origins, Relative Power breakdowns, your ongoing diplomatic agreements, and also the new diplomatic stances!

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-2.png

This Hegemonic subordinate was kind enough to act as a model for the new diplo screen!

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-30.png

Declaring rivalry never looked so appealing.

upload_2019-11-28_10-30-57.png

The diplomatic offers are now a bit more clear on what is going on (not final text). A downside, however, is that it's now much harder to fool colleagues into becoming your vassal in our internal multiplayer sessions.

Diplomatic Stances
Sometimes we like concept that our colleagues have put into some of our other games, and the diplomatic stances from Imperator: Rome were a good example. Although not exactly the same, we like the general idea. We wanted empires to be able to set a diplomatic stance that dictates their behaviour towards other empires on a galactic stage.

upload_2019-11-28_10-31-19.png

Diplomatic Stances are Policies and can be changed once every 10 years. There are a bunch of different stances, and some may also be unique to certain empire types (e.g. Isolationist is called Mercantile for Megacorporations).

upload_2019-11-28_10-32-17.png upload_2019-11-28_10-32-7.png upload_2019-11-28_10-31-55.png upload_2019-11-28_10-31-37.png upload_2019-11-28_10-32-27.png

Stances are designed to be quite different, and to facilitate different playstyles. Perceptive readers might notice that the Belligerent stance seems very similar to Supremacist, and that is true, except that Supremacist stance is designed for all empires that want to be “a big player”. Supremacist empires will dislike other empires with the same stance, so it is almost like a soft rivalry of sorts.

Stances also have some effect on internal politics, as some of your factions may have certain preferences when it comes to your foreign policy.

Relations and Opinion
We wanted an easier way to measure how the diplomatic relations between two empires is doing, so we’ve added a new aggregate value called Relations. Relations exists in different levels ranging from Terrible <- Tense <- Neutral -> Positive -> Excellent, and they do have an effect on which type of diplomatic actions that are available.

We want diplomacy to be less fickle, and more mechanical. Players should now have more ability to influence what other empires’ opinions are of them. Overall diplomacy should feel less static and more prone to evolving over time.

Form Federation requires Excellent Relations, and pacts like Migrations, Research or Commercial require Positive Relations. Similarly, Rivalries require Terrible Relations. This is also the case in player-to-player diplomacy, so it’s important to maintain a good standing.

Some of these restrictions can be bypassed by having an Envoy to harm or improve relations.

upload_2019-11-28_10-32-53.png

Favors
Finally we want to talk about Favors. Although Favors were primarily added to give players agency within the Galactic Community, they can also be used to influence the AIs likelihood of accepting certain diplomatic agreements.

upload_2019-11-28_10-33-11.png

Favors is a new mechanic that allows you to increase your Diplomatic Weight for certain votes or proposals in the Galactic Community. An empire can owe another empire up to 10 Favors, and each Favor will increase Diplomatic Weight by “10%”.

For example – Empire B owes 10 Favors to Empire A. Empire A spends influence to call in all 10 Favors and adds 100% of the Diplomatic Weight that Empire B has. Empire A will add the Diplomatic Weight from Empire B, for a specific vote, without Empire B losing their Diplomatic Weight.

In effect, Favors allows an empire to manipulate vote results towards their point of view. It is not possible to Call in Favors when an empire is already voting the same way as you are. Multiple empires can call in favors from the same empire, and it's designed in this way to reduce the complexity of having to figure out which favors should have priority, or which favors should matter more.

upload_2019-11-28_10-33-30.png

Pretty please. You owe me.

In addition to the Galactic Community, Favors can also be called in to increase acceptance chance by +5 when offering certain diplomatic deals.

Favors can be gained through diplomatic trades, or or some cases randomly through events.

---

That is all for this week! Next week we’ll be back with some more details on the Juggernaut and the Mega Shipyard.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Maybe diplomatic stances should be locked to one change per ruler, I think it would be kind of nonsensical to switch from rapidly conquering to a peaceful diplomat every 10 years.
 
Form Federation requires Excellent Relations, and pacts like Migrations, Research or Commercial require Positive Relations. Similarly, Rivalries require Terrible Relations. This is also the case in player-to-player diplomacy, so it’s important to maintain a good standing.

OH GOD. Please no.

Do not use the relations as a necessity in MP. This is by far the worst feature in MP in Eu4 and I would hate to see in Stellaris!:(
 
OH GOD. Please no.

Do not use the relations as a necessity in MP. This is by far the worst feature in MP in Eu4 and I would hate to see in Stellaris!:(

I think it'd be great. Keep sending envoys to try to ruin relationships with a player neighbour; they keep sending positive envoys back so you can't rival. Hilarious!
 
I think it's a good idea to not boggle the envoys with too many individual traits, but shouldn't their species at least matter a tiny bit? Like, if I send a robotic envoy to a robotic empire it should be more efficient compared to sending a giant slug to a xenophobic terran empire.

If you're a peaceful multispecies empire you'd benefit from sending species appropriate envoys to at least xenophobic empires.

Suggestion: when interacting with another empire, check if there's any accepted pop in your empire with a related species-category, or even their specific race (like, refugees which migrated to you).
 
Looks good! However, the resolution "Military Readiness Act" seems kind of weird...as it would encourage players to have a smaller naval cap. Like, someone with 190/400 fleet power would be in breach, but someone with 50/100 not?

That's not so strange, is it? It's like NATO, which technically requires its members to spend 2% of their yearly budget on military and defense. A big country such as France or the UK will obviously have to spend more ("2 000/100 000") in the absolute compared to, say, tiny Luxembourg ("2/100").

It's to make sure that the middle and small sized members contribute at least a little bit instead of relying entirely on the biggest members for the common defense, as every little bit can change a battle.
 
Upon further reflection, I'd like to add to the sentiment that envoys should not be "just" a resource. It's sort of ok for now to not have them be fully fleshed-out leaders (though I'd very much like them to be - diplomats make for good politicians, and I'd certainly throw bad governors into the diplomatic corps), but their species at the very least should matter. If it absolutely doesn't matter who they are, why even select which one is sent where? That makes no sense at all. Either envoy characteristics matter, and it matters who is sent where (please, let it be so, this would be a giant step-up over EU4!) - and this would make sense in any kind of multispecies galaxy (and is frequently enough a thing in sci-fi)... Or it doesn't, in which case just make envoys an abstract resource already, don't let us do extra clicks for no extra benefit.
 
Last edited:
how moddable are those addition ? will we be able to use envoy to decrease the relationship towards someone else ? (with modding ofc :p ) or decrease theyr diplomatic power ?
 
The more I think about it, the more I think I'd be very willing to take the hit on micromanagement for Envoys to be fully fledged leaders. I actually think having Envoys with particular traits, that determine where you send them and why, would add a LOT of flavour. And also, it means there's some interesting career progression. I'd even consider using the same pool for Governors and Envoys. I like the idea of an Envoy to your Federation later becoming Governor of Earth, then later President.

I think there's a huge missed opportunity if they don't have traits, and aren't essentially fully-fledged Leaders.
 
The more I think about it, the more I think I'd be very willing to take the hit on micromanagement for Envoys to be fully fledged leaders. I actually think having Envoys with particular traits, that determine where you send them and why, would add a LOT of flavour. And also, it means there's some interesting career progression. I'd even consider using the same pool for Governors and Envoys. I like the idea of an Envoy to your Federation later becoming Governor of Earth, then later President.

I think there's a huge missed opportunity if they don't have traits, and aren't essentially fully-fledged Leaders.

i get what you mean ... but i can't ignore the fact that increasing leaders type, would increase the power of leaders traits and civics , over the fact that there would need a "sense" in the leveling up ...

i think it would be better in a logical sense, but it is ( maybe) worst in a game balance sense ...
 
I don’t think realism matters at all compared to good gameplay, but this is actually a much more realistic model than the game’s current zero-sum system. International trade makes both economies richer as each gets a chance to specialize in what it does well. The resources don’t cone out of nowhere. They come from increased efficiency and productivity based on trade gains.

As to the other, playing strict isolationist is supposed to be a challenge. In my opinion, that’s a feature, not a bug. The game should be balanced for interactive play (cooperative and competitive alike) with solitaire play an extra challenge. It should not be balanced for a niche play style at the expense of everyone else.


Ricardian economics are wrong, everything is a zero-sum game, specialization is bad:

https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-from-the-trade-economy-rework.1111452/page-4

https://americanaffairsjournal.org/2017/08/ricardos-vice-virtues-industrial-diversity/

Also you can make in the a Dyson sphere, a matter decompressor, and a agricultural ringworld for complete autarchy.
Habitats on unhabited planets that can support mining (mineral/energy) stations can supplement the rest.

Edit:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...e-economy-rework.1111452/page-4#post-24514237

The guy in the post specifically quoted you to disprove you.
 
Yes, it is! The apostrophe is being used on a singular noun, in this case "empire," and therefore should read as "empire's." If the Research Agreement was being made with at least 3 empires in total, than you would use the word "empires'," which implies that there are multiple empires you are making the deal with.
Both empires get the bonus. So, plural.
 
For all the ones asking for Hivemind traits - remember that arrested development is a trait. Imagine getting that on your first level up on the ruler.
It is also worth noting, that traits are per their very definition individualistic - it is what separates one individual from another. Gestalts don't have individual rulers - the "Ruler" is a representation of the group mind. You could argue that gestalts should get another bonus to replace the traits, but that would be (IMHO) better reflected in more powerful civics.
 
Can we please do something about Reserach Agreement mechanics? Players with some sort of democracy and the materialist ethic (who get an influence bonus for having three agreements set up) mostly have no use for it whatsoever but are pretty much forced to sign up...

Why? Well, at the moment, human players with the materialist ethic are usually WAY ahead of all other empires with regards to technology... so the human player gets pretty much NOTHING out of the deal but has to arrange one to keep the political faction happy.... It's especially annoying if you take something like materialist plus xenophobe. Why on earth would a xenophobic WANT to share technological progress and get sweet fudge all back??
 
For all the ones asking for Hivemind traits - remember that arrested development is a trait. Imagine getting that on your first level up on the ruler.
It is also worth noting, that traits are per their very definition individualistic - it is what separates one individual from another. Gestalts don't have individual rulers - the "Ruler" is a representation of the group mind. You could argue that gestalts should get another bonus to replace the traits, but that would be (IMHO) better reflected in more powerful civics.

i always thought of the civic of an hivemind as the traits of theyr leader, i mean, they don't have a "govern" in the meaning of the word , they should just call civic something else and remove the misconception .
 
's especially annoying if you take something like materialist plus xenophobe. Why on earth would a xenophobic WANT to share technological progress and get sweet fudge all back?

emh... the faction of materialist , its not xenophobe . so they want things differently from xenopobe, your govern its materialist and xenophobe and will have to "try and manage" the different faction inside theyr govern .

i would add that for a "materilist" thinking of xeno as a phobia its controversial ... they fear only actual treaths , why should they considerate all xenos as a treath based on emotional reactions ?
 
For all the ones asking for Hivemind traits - remember that arrested development is a trait. Imagine getting that on your first level up on the ruler.
It is also worth noting, that traits are per their very definition individualistic - it is what separates one individual from another. Gestalts don't have individual rulers - the "Ruler" is a representation of the group mind. You could argue that gestalts should get another bonus to replace the traits, but that would be (IMHO) better reflected in more powerful civics.

I have a mod that adds the fanatic ethos bonuses, and some ruler trait bonuses to civics. Not only does this heavily specialise your hivemind, but it also helps balance them somewhat from other normal empires.
 
I think it's a good idea to not boggle the envoys with too many individual traits, but shouldn't their species at least matter a tiny bit? Like, if I send a robotic envoy to a robotic empire it should be more efficient compared to sending a giant slug to a xenophobic terran empire.

If you're a peaceful multispecies empire you'd benefit from sending species appropriate envoys to at least xenophobic empires.

Suggestion: when interacting with another empire, check if there's any accepted pop in your empire with a related species-category, or even their specific race (like, refugees which migrated to you).

Exactly, it seems like a bit of a missed opportunity to give leaders more meaning and something to do with them. Why not give the ability to attach a leader as part of an envoy to give it special bonusses. For this to be even more interesting leaders could have a background based on a specific pop in your empire.
  • a bonus for sending a scientist as part of an envoy to a science directorate government
  • a species bonus of the attachted leader so having a multi species empire could also help to improve diplomatic relations
  • a leader with a noble pop job background as part of an envoy to an empire with hereditary rule
  • the leader of a specific faction in your empire who's ethics coincide or oppose the target empire or federation of the envoy
Of course this could be even better if your factions would respond to the choises you make on your envoys as well. Always favouring the same faction could lead to discontent in the other factions for example. The diplomacy, economy and internal politics in this game are too static. I fear if there aren't going to be some new links in the game mechanics between those three so all actions have concequenses on multiple levels it will remain static.
 
Why would you need to call in favors if they are voting your way already?
You misunderstood. Here's how it works in an example:
Suppose there are 3 empires in the Council: The UNE, the Kingdom of Yondarim and the Lokken Mechanists.
My mighty Blorg empire want's the Council size to be increased to 4 so that the Blorg get their reightful seat as well. I'm on good relations with the curretn 3 council members, so they will not veto and also vote in my favour and I have no Favours to trade for their votes.
Unfortunately the rest of the galaxy has a much different view of the Blorg and don't want me anywhere near the council and their combined DW is higher then the 4 of us could match.
So the Blorg amabssador on Earth calls the President: "Good morning sir, I'm afraid the Blorg empire has a temporary shortage of Energy Credits. Would you mind giving us 1000 Energy? We would owe you big time!" On the following day the UNE sends 1000 energy in exchange for 10 favours from the Blorg. The same happens on Yondarim and Lokkar.

On the day the senate meets the Blorg humbly abstain from the vote. The UNE ambassador meets the senators from Blorg: "Hey guys, we want to swing this in our favour. Would you mind supporting our cause? And the UNE spends their favours from the Blorg to add the Blorg DW to their own. The result is the same as if the Blorg would have voted "Aye" in the first place, but now they have gotten 1000 Credits for free.
But this is where it get's completely absurd, because the Lokken and Yondarim do exactly the same. Now with three times the Blorg DW in favour of the bill it gets passed and the Blorg have gotten 3000 Credits on top.

And for that my Blorg had to give away favours and abstain from voting. It makes no sense and it should be changed!
 
Maybe diplomatic stances should be locked to one change per ruler, I think it would be kind of nonsensical to switch from rapidly conquering to a peaceful diplomat every 10 years.

Could even be tied to mandates for democracies. Sometimes a leader could be elected to make the empire more isolationist/belligerent.