Federation level ethics is essential

[TrotBot]

I think one of my most disappointing experiences is trying to setup a Fanatic Egalitarian federation only to keep having to vote down xenophobe slavers and hurt my federation cohesion every time. AI needs to stop suggesting people whose ethics clash so radically with the ethics of the federation. There are times when the player may overlook that, like the materialist/spiritualist axis or even pacifist/militarist, but the egalitarian/authoritarian and xenophile/xenophobe poles NEED a cold war dynamic that is STRONG to polarize galactic wars around interesting themes. there are times when those last poles can be like that, and I do want to liberate all the droids too, so I think federation level ethics needs to allow for setting things like AI policies, xeno rights, universal living standard laws (slaver federations or utopian federations, not mixes) and so on.

Maybe they can have forced policy shift as an alternative? Like you sign a treaty with the United Federation of Planets you're expected to ascend to its ethics!

 

[RoverStorm]

but the egalitarian/authoritarian and xenophile/xenophobe poles NEED a cold war dynamic that is STRONG to polarize galactic wars around interesting themes.

This both does and doesn't exist. Trust me, if your federation ally has a "Democratic Crusader" personality, you will instead be constantly barraged by requests to declare war on every slaver and monarch that could be remotely classified as a "weaker target".

And I think you misunderstand the divide between Xenophile and Xenophobe. Xenophobes hate all xenos, simple. Xenophiles do not hate xenophobes: they love xenophobes as much as any other empire. They hate things that SOME xenophobes do; namely genocide and xenophagery. But just because an empire is xenophobic doesn't mean that their personality is particularly xenophobic in nature. Peaceful Traders could be xenophobic, but that doesn't mean they'll act isolationist or genocidal.

Usually, I have found that an AI's personality is more indicative of how it will behave than their ethics may suggest.

 

[Sinister2202]

Yeah it's annoying. Limited number of envoys, low cohesion gain. They all get you bogged down especially when fed members start spamming law changes that you don't agree with. As if swapping envoy roles isn't micro enough...

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

I feel the issue is more with AIs putting less effort into cohesion now than before. They hardly assign envoys to the federation anymore making opposing ethics much more punishing.

 

[Peter34]

I think one of my most disappointing experiences is trying to setup a Fanatic Egalitarian federation only to keep having to vote down xenophobe slavers and hurt my federation cohesion every time. AI needs to stop suggesting people whose ethics clash so radically with the ethics of the federation. There are times when the player may overlook that, like the materialist/spiritualist axis, but the egalitarian/authoritarian and xenophile/xenophobe poles NEED a cold war dynamic that is STRONG to polarize galactic wars around interesting themes. there are times when that last pole can be like that, and I do want to liberate all the droids too, so I think federation level ethics needs to allow for setting things like AI policies, xeno rights, universal living standard laws (slaver federations or utopian federations, not mixes) and so on.

Maybe they can have forced policy shift as an alternative? Like you sign a treaty with the United Federation of Planets you're expected to ascend to its ethics!

Pacifist vs not Pacifist is also rather important. Sometimes I formally have Pacifist Ethos as the empire I'm playing, but even when I don't I'm usually mostly quite chill about things, playing as if I were a pacifist, and so I frequently have to vote down War Dec proposals, which ultimately hurts the Federation I'm in.

 

[TrotBot]

Pacifist vs not Pacifist is also rather important. Sometimes I formally have Pacifist Ethos as the empire I'm playing, but even when I don't I'm usually mostly quite chill about things, playing as if I were a pacifist, and so I frequently have to vote down War Dec proposals, which ultimately hurts the Federation I'm in.

Yeah, it's important but not as important to me as the other axes. But yeah, depending on the RP any ethic can be make or break for you, or any combination of ethics. The federation should have ethics to go along with that.

 

[Pancakelord]

Maybe they can have forced policy shift as an alternative? Like you sign a treaty with the United Federation of Planets you're expected to ascend to its ethics!

Make it the net governing ethics pull of all members, scaled by dip-weight to prevent "ties".

• So if you have militarism and I have pacifism,
• but my DW is 500 and yours is 100,
• there is a greater pull to pacifism, pacifism becomes a "Dominant federal ethic".
• if multiple pacifist and militarists exist, take the sum of DW for each ethic.
• You'll end up with 2-4 "Dominant Federal ethics".

The magnitude is then dictated by centralisation level (+50%,+100%, +200%, 300%, +500% at max centralisation)

So if you had Xenophobia, Militarism and Spiritualism as the dominant ethics (as the majority of dip weight of empires leads to those 3), with max centralisation, you end up with a huge pull to those ethos for all members.

• For something like a defensive pact, "DipWeight" could be subbed for FleetPower (a factor of DipWeight)
• For a trade union sub in EconWeight (a factor of DipWeight)
• For a Tech Union sub in TechWeight (a factor of DipWeight)
• For a Hygemony: leaders ethos always is Federal governing ethos.
• Even if you have a galactic union this would apply.
  • Though there could be an option to swap between Pure DipWeight and #non-gestalt/stapled Pops - a more "democratic measure" - and a factor of DipWeight

Gestalts would be excluded from the governing ethos test. And for hygemony leaders, they'd just get bonus envoys per #subordinates or something, idk.

This way you'd be able to push your ethics in a federation by both playing to the strengths of that fed (so a MC probably wont do well in a defensive fed, but will do well in a trade one) and by being selective of who you let in.

 

[TrotBot]

And I think you misunderstand the divide between Xenophile and Xenophobe. Xenophobes hate all xenos, simple. Xenophiles do not hate xenophobes: they love xenophobes as much as any other empire. They hate things that SOME xenophobes do; namely genocide and xenophagery. But just because an empire is xenophobic doesn't mean that their personality is particularly xenophobic in nature. Peaceful Traders could be xenophobic, but that doesn't mean they'll act isolationist or genocidal.

look, I get that Stellaris needs to make the distinction between Xenophile and Xenophobe more clear so people stop playing as if they don't hate each other, but they should hate each other. if I'm a xenophile, I never want to federate with a Xenophobe, and if my dumb AI allies overrule me and bring them in anyways, prepare for "turn off free migration" votes every 30 seconds.

people need to be pushing for greater ethical divides so ethics MEAN SOMETHING and need to stop pretending Xenophile and Xenophobe aren't as radically opposed as Egalitarian and Authoritarian.

 

[HFY]

look, I get that Stellaris needs to make the distinction between Xenophile and Xenophobe more clear so people stop playing as if they don't hate each other, but they should hate each other. if I'm a xenophile, I never want to federate with a Xenophobe, and if my dumb AI allies overrule me and bring them in anyways, prepare for "turn off free migration" votes every 30 seconds.

people need to be pushing for greater ethical divides so ethics MEAN SOMETHING and need to stop pretending Xenophile and Xenophobe aren't as radically opposed as Egalitarian and Authoritarian.

A non-genocidal / non-slaver isolationist could be a fine addition to my Xenophile Federation.

Then I force a Federation-wide migration pact (with some Charismatic species on my planets) and turn them Xenophile, too.

I have done exactly this in past games.

 

[TrotBot]

A non-genocidal / non-slaver isolationist could be a fine addition to my Xenophile Federation.

ok but I literally have no way of knowing if they're just xenophobe isolationists, or if my migrants are gonna be enslaved when they get there unfortunately

Then I force a Federation-wide migration pact (with some Charismatic species on my planets) and turn them Xenophile, too.

I have done exactly this in past games.

i've done this too but usually they're not just suggesting xenophobes but authoritarian xenophobes. So yes, maybe an egalitarian federation could "fix" egalitarian xenophobes through migration, but there does need to be some MINIMAL compatibility between ethics and it's annoying that the AI spams invites to literal enemy ethics and impacts cohesion as a result.

and usually, i just do liberation wars on xenophobes too, so you can see why I wouldn't generally want to invite them first, it's faster and more fun to liberate them BEFORE they join

would be nice if there was an ethic shift as a result of joining which makes the liberation war not always necessary, but shifting through migration is like 50-100 years and breaks my roleplay immersion.

 

[Incompetent]

Pacifist vs not Pacifist is also rather important. Sometimes I formally have Pacifist Ethos as the empire I'm playing, but even when I don't I'm usually mostly quite chill about things, playing as if I were a pacifist, and so I frequently have to vote down War Dec proposals, which ultimately hurts the Federation I'm in.

IIRC war policy is a factor in when the AI decides to join a federation, for exactly this reason. Given that federations go to war together, war policy (Unrestricted, Liberation Wars or Defensive Only) really should be a matter of federation law, rather than left to individual members.

That also brings up another reason to have an official federation ideology: liberation wars. Everyone except Gestalts, genocidals and Fanatic Pacifists can declare these, and they're a powerful tool for expanding your federation if you already have some ideological coherence among the existing members. If you don't though, then the ideology imposed depends on who declares the war, and then why should your allies even help you if you're imposing the 'wrong' ideology?

I don't think federations should always have an official ideology; with Galactic Union especially, the whole point of that federation type is that it can serve as an ad hoc alliance. However, it should be possible to declare an ideology via federation law at some stage. Federation members can then decide whether or not to align their ethics with the official ideology.

 

[theBigTurnip385]

which is why I like my mega-church hegenomy origin I start inside a federation where both the members are spiritualist + xenophile + maybe another ethic.

We all match pretty well on ethics and both of the members are if they didn't start fanatical spiritualist are going to end up fanatical spiritualist.

 

[ASGeek2012]

The AI has a problem in general with constantly introducing laws that get shot down by the other federation members over and over again. When your proposal gets voted down two or three times in a row, that should be a signal to that nation to stop asking in the first place. The cooldown time between when a failed proposal can be reintroduced is way too short.

Case and point in my current playthrough. We had a law in the federation that's been around for some time that allows members to form separate treaties. This worked well for me as it let me have several lucrative commercial pacts with members outside the federation. Then out of the blue, one member proposes changing this to prevent outside treaties. It was voted down. They proposed this again and again and AGAIN, right to the very day that the cooldown expired. They proposed it EIGHT times and it was voted down every time. They then took their marbles and went home (i.e. left the federation).

I've also had this happen when one member wanted to declare war and I disagreed with it. "No" should mean "stop asking". They propose it again and again, and then act like a spoiled child denied a treat when they don't get what they want.

This behavior is ridiculous and needs to be changed,

 

[HFY]

The AI has a problem in general with constantly introducing laws that get shot down by the other federation members over and over again. When your proposal gets voted down two or three times in a row, that should be a signal to that nation to stop asking in the first place. The cooldown time between when a failed proposal can be reintroduced is way too short.

The AI should note internally what the expected support for every proposal would be (just like the GC shows for proposals), and when a proposal fails it should not be allowed to re-propose that same thing until the expected support changes -- e.g. when a federation member embraces a faction which increases the chance for a proposal passing, then it's fine to try again. But not before.