Hello folks, here I would like to put some ideas about an aspect of the game that IMO is totally lacking and that will, for sure, not be developed anytime soon. To be clear, the rework of the diplomacy and federations were long due and therefore this is not a complaint about the upcoming dlc. Recently I have seen the video of ASpec in which he calls for more internal politics through the addition of institutions and a better usage of the faction mechanics. I entirely subscribe what he says but I would also like to expand it to include the thing that I think lacks the most in the current version of the game: INTERNAL STRIFE.
The problem
Stellaris is a game in which players manage interstellar empires filled with billions of individuals of dozens of different species dispersed on tens of planets. It is both reasonable and thematically appropriate to have strong tensions between different cultures and political objectives of the inhabitants of such an empire.
Stellaris is also a game that currently has a quite uninteresting mid-to-late game experience. When you dominate a third of the Galaxy there is not so much to do apart from waiting the endgame crisis. If you have a more pacifistic-managerial playstile there is even less to do.
Adding sources internal strife would fix both of these things: it would add a new type of challenge both for large and otherwise invincible empires and for smaller pacifistic empires. Plus, it would give a sense of life to our empires and it would allow for new, epic stories in our playthroughs.
The proposal
Instead of adding new ad hoc metrics (a thing that personally I don’t like), internal strife can be modeled expanding the currently unused or underdeveloped mechanics already present in Stellaris.
After a few single- and multi-player games I have made the following observations:
- it is easy to increase and maintain planetary stability (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is easy to have 0 crime everywhere (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is easy to have a very happy and productive population (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is by far too easy to manage factions. Damn, I usually play democracies and it is shockingly easy to ignore that 30% or more of population with an ethic opposed to that of the government.
So, there are plenty of good starting points. For example:
- planets with large proportions of different ethics can elect local governments that opposes the central one. This would hit the productivity of the planet and open up the possibility of foreign interventions (in a CK2-esque way);
- in democracies and oligarchies, large disgruntled factions should have the power to interfere with the government. For example, democracies can have a legislature that can block certain player actions like in I:R. This also would help to better characterize different authority types;
- in a similar way, sectors with different dominant species/ethics under authoritarian empires should be prone to armed rebellions. Civil wars should be a concrete reality for large empires;
- a zero crime society should be the final aspiration of a very well oiled empire, not the absolute norm for non war-ravaged planets. Crime interaction can be modeled through frequent (every few years) random events where the player can choose different courses of action (like events in EU4 or CK2);
- class warfare (or at least class politics). The game includes a very flexible system in which each stratum of the society has its own influence, happiness and needs, but currently there is only one, linear and static interaction with it: the living standards. There is a great amount of untapped potential for interesting situations and choices in this mechanic. Vic2 can be a source of inspiration for this;
- mid game mass migrations and late game unemployment/overpopulation can be strengthened and become a full fledged part of the life threatening crises that players have to face. To the very least, a massive influx of foreigners should hit the planetary stability of the place where they arrive;
- massive wars, even won, should left some lasting scars. Mortality rate for pops should be far higher. Manning the fleet and the army should require a lot of soldier pops and when many thousands of fleet power or dozens of division are destroyed, some of those pops should die. Right now there is literally nothing that simulates war exhaustion or manpower loss;
- the many times proposed institutions should be modeled on the feudal lords of CK2, each of them with a given attitude toward the government and with specific policy request. Ideally, there should also be possible for a foreign empire to interact with our institutions to try weaken us (and obviously, the other way around). But this requires entirely new mechanics and so it strays from my point.
I am also aware of the fact that some people simply don’t like to have to fiddle with the socio-economic aspects of their empires and instead prefer to enjoy big and colorful battles. A good way to accommodate both gameplay could be adding an “internal difficulty” setting, much like the IA aggressiveness setting. The severity of the internal strife added will be tuned by the players and therefore the game will maintain its casual outlook.
The problem
Stellaris is a game in which players manage interstellar empires filled with billions of individuals of dozens of different species dispersed on tens of planets. It is both reasonable and thematically appropriate to have strong tensions between different cultures and political objectives of the inhabitants of such an empire.
Stellaris is also a game that currently has a quite uninteresting mid-to-late game experience. When you dominate a third of the Galaxy there is not so much to do apart from waiting the endgame crisis. If you have a more pacifistic-managerial playstile there is even less to do.
Adding sources internal strife would fix both of these things: it would add a new type of challenge both for large and otherwise invincible empires and for smaller pacifistic empires. Plus, it would give a sense of life to our empires and it would allow for new, epic stories in our playthroughs.
The proposal
Instead of adding new ad hoc metrics (a thing that personally I don’t like), internal strife can be modeled expanding the currently unused or underdeveloped mechanics already present in Stellaris.
After a few single- and multi-player games I have made the following observations:
- it is easy to increase and maintain planetary stability (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is easy to have 0 crime everywhere (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is easy to have a very happy and productive population (apart on newly conquered planets);
- it is by far too easy to manage factions. Damn, I usually play democracies and it is shockingly easy to ignore that 30% or more of population with an ethic opposed to that of the government.
So, there are plenty of good starting points. For example:
- planets with large proportions of different ethics can elect local governments that opposes the central one. This would hit the productivity of the planet and open up the possibility of foreign interventions (in a CK2-esque way);
- in democracies and oligarchies, large disgruntled factions should have the power to interfere with the government. For example, democracies can have a legislature that can block certain player actions like in I:R. This also would help to better characterize different authority types;
- in a similar way, sectors with different dominant species/ethics under authoritarian empires should be prone to armed rebellions. Civil wars should be a concrete reality for large empires;
- a zero crime society should be the final aspiration of a very well oiled empire, not the absolute norm for non war-ravaged planets. Crime interaction can be modeled through frequent (every few years) random events where the player can choose different courses of action (like events in EU4 or CK2);
- class warfare (or at least class politics). The game includes a very flexible system in which each stratum of the society has its own influence, happiness and needs, but currently there is only one, linear and static interaction with it: the living standards. There is a great amount of untapped potential for interesting situations and choices in this mechanic. Vic2 can be a source of inspiration for this;
- mid game mass migrations and late game unemployment/overpopulation can be strengthened and become a full fledged part of the life threatening crises that players have to face. To the very least, a massive influx of foreigners should hit the planetary stability of the place where they arrive;
- massive wars, even won, should left some lasting scars. Mortality rate for pops should be far higher. Manning the fleet and the army should require a lot of soldier pops and when many thousands of fleet power or dozens of division are destroyed, some of those pops should die. Right now there is literally nothing that simulates war exhaustion or manpower loss;
- the many times proposed institutions should be modeled on the feudal lords of CK2, each of them with a given attitude toward the government and with specific policy request. Ideally, there should also be possible for a foreign empire to interact with our institutions to try weaken us (and obviously, the other way around). But this requires entirely new mechanics and so it strays from my point.
I am also aware of the fact that some people simply don’t like to have to fiddle with the socio-economic aspects of their empires and instead prefer to enjoy big and colorful battles. A good way to accommodate both gameplay could be adding an “internal difficulty” setting, much like the IA aggressiveness setting. The severity of the internal strife added will be tuned by the players and therefore the game will maintain its casual outlook.
Upvote
0