The opinions expressed are my own, except if they appear brilliant in which case they are probably stolen from others or due to poorly paid Chinese laborers and even worse paid translators.
I Goals of the System
II Thematically
III Mechanically
IV Alternative ethos
V Governments and arbitrary bonuses
VI Alternate Mechanics
VII Crazy ideas; fixing colony spam, war and the economy
VIII Leaders
I Goals of the System
Ethoses exist in Stellaris to achieve 4 gameplay options
- make differentiation between different races similar to how most 4x let you choose premade or custom races with different abilities
- offer different ways of playing the game
- provide grounds for internal politics
- provide grounds for external politics
Unfortunately these contradict each other. Having them differentiate race and offer different gameplay means they must be static; internal and external politics works best with things that are mutable. Internal and external politics also have very different needs; internal tends to be more focused on trade offs while external tends to be more ideological.
So lets take a look at how the Ethos hold up; we will judge them thematically (aka how much they are coherent concepts) and functionally (how much they achieve gameplay results).
- make differentiation between different races similar to how most 4x let you choose premade or custom races with different abilities
- offer different ways of playing the game
- provide grounds for internal politics
- provide grounds for external politics
Unfortunately these contradict each other. Having them differentiate race and offer different gameplay means they must be static; internal and external politics works best with things that are mutable. Internal and external politics also have very different needs; internal tends to be more focused on trade offs while external tends to be more ideological.
So lets take a look at how the Ethos hold up; we will judge them thematically (aka how much they are coherent concepts) and functionally (how much they achieve gameplay results).
II Thematically
Collectivist versus Individualist
Thumbs up. The only issue is that collectivist combines authoritarianism (with its distaste for democracy), communalism (with its ethics divergence), totalitarianism (with its slavery and purging) and a dislike for eugenics. That seems overly specific.
The default government are also sensible; absolute dictatorship, plutocratic democracy/corporate state and indirect democracy are real things that occupy distinct categories.
Xenophobe versus Xenophile
Do you love or hate aliens? While coherent, thematically weak; you can get xenophiles working together but not xenophobes
Militarist versus Pacifist
Coherent but has issues with forming grounds for politics; it isn't clear why militarists would band together due to their common militarism. Unfortunately the governments are... questionable.
Military autocracy isn't distinct; it is 'dictator who is head of the military and focuses on military matters'; that isn't different from regular dictators. Oligarchy and democracy are junta and Starship Troopers respectively.
Pacifist governments... have issues. It is monarchy- but Good, Bureaucratic Despotism- but Good and democracy- but Good.
Materialist versus Spiritualist
Totally incoherent. Materialists value science and efficiency. However so does everyone else in the game; this is not remotely a protected class or unique. In fact given efficiency is 'maximizing output while minimizing input' it automatically applies to everyone.
Spiritualist is philosophical idealism, theocracy, psychic powers and a hatred of robots and eugenics. Those don't really go together. Take Catholicism or Sunni Islam. You might get them agree to theocracy or opposition to eugenics, but magic powers, idealism or hating robots is not remotely on their to do list.
The governments aren't much better. Materialist autocracy is 'focus on efficiency' and 'makes decisions using computers' (presumably other governments are using slide ruler), technocracy and direct democracy/virtual democracy (which is neat, but not related to materialism). Spiritualist is religious dictatorship, religious oligarchy and religious democracy. This might actually be meaningful if we had any idea what religion was involved.
Thumbs up. The only issue is that collectivist combines authoritarianism (with its distaste for democracy), communalism (with its ethics divergence), totalitarianism (with its slavery and purging) and a dislike for eugenics. That seems overly specific.
The default government are also sensible; absolute dictatorship, plutocratic democracy/corporate state and indirect democracy are real things that occupy distinct categories.
Xenophobe versus Xenophile
Do you love or hate aliens? While coherent, thematically weak; you can get xenophiles working together but not xenophobes
Militarist versus Pacifist
Coherent but has issues with forming grounds for politics; it isn't clear why militarists would band together due to their common militarism. Unfortunately the governments are... questionable.
Military autocracy isn't distinct; it is 'dictator who is head of the military and focuses on military matters'; that isn't different from regular dictators. Oligarchy and democracy are junta and Starship Troopers respectively.
Pacifist governments... have issues. It is monarchy- but Good, Bureaucratic Despotism- but Good and democracy- but Good.
Materialist versus Spiritualist
Totally incoherent. Materialists value science and efficiency. However so does everyone else in the game; this is not remotely a protected class or unique. In fact given efficiency is 'maximizing output while minimizing input' it automatically applies to everyone.
Spiritualist is philosophical idealism, theocracy, psychic powers and a hatred of robots and eugenics. Those don't really go together. Take Catholicism or Sunni Islam. You might get them agree to theocracy or opposition to eugenics, but magic powers, idealism or hating robots is not remotely on their to do list.
The governments aren't much better. Materialist autocracy is 'focus on efficiency' and 'makes decisions using computers' (presumably other governments are using slide ruler), technocracy and direct democracy/virtual democracy (which is neat, but not related to materialism). Spiritualist is religious dictatorship, religious oligarchy and religious democracy. This might actually be meaningful if we had any idea what religion was involved.
III Mechanically
Collectivist versus Individualist
Collectivism gives you more micromanagement options, slavery (hence minerals) and ethic divergence while Individualist gives you more energy. It is a trade off, but I’m not sure how interesting it is. Also having more micro-options when the AI does things you need micro to correct probably distorts things.
Xenophobe versus Xenophile
Xenophobe lets you murder and enslave aliens (while making it difficult to live alongside them) and gain more influence from making enemies. Xenophile makes it easier to have friends and increases happiness from mixed worlds.
Militarist versus Pacifist
As long as stellaris is a war game, it isn't going to be possible to balance 'makes on better at fighting war' and 'makes one better at non-war things that can be used to support war effort. They appear to be working on distinguishing them based on what CBs they have access to, but until there are more options for interacting with other empires and different victory conditions one will be superior to the other.
Materialist versus Spiritualist
Materialist gives you more science while spiritualism gives you happiness, ethics divergence and slavery (while making it harder to use robots). Not really mechanically good. “More science” should never be an option on its own; it is really hard to balance because it is either too good or too weak since science unlocks options; if science only provided bonuses it would be a quantity versus quality trade off. Spiritualism meanwhile steps on collectivisms toes by offering ethics divergence and slavery. Happiness is a general production boost which is also problematic to balance.
Collectivism gives you more micromanagement options, slavery (hence minerals) and ethic divergence while Individualist gives you more energy. It is a trade off, but I’m not sure how interesting it is. Also having more micro-options when the AI does things you need micro to correct probably distorts things.
Xenophobe versus Xenophile
Xenophobe lets you murder and enslave aliens (while making it difficult to live alongside them) and gain more influence from making enemies. Xenophile makes it easier to have friends and increases happiness from mixed worlds.
Militarist versus Pacifist
As long as stellaris is a war game, it isn't going to be possible to balance 'makes on better at fighting war' and 'makes one better at non-war things that can be used to support war effort. They appear to be working on distinguishing them based on what CBs they have access to, but until there are more options for interacting with other empires and different victory conditions one will be superior to the other.
Materialist versus Spiritualist
Materialist gives you more science while spiritualism gives you happiness, ethics divergence and slavery (while making it harder to use robots). Not really mechanically good. “More science” should never be an option on its own; it is really hard to balance because it is either too good or too weak since science unlocks options; if science only provided bonuses it would be a quantity versus quality trade off. Spiritualism meanwhile steps on collectivisms toes by offering ethics divergence and slavery. Happiness is a general production boost which is also problematic to balance.
IV Alternative ethos
Xenophile versus Xenophobe and Materialist versus Spiritualist should be discarded. What should replace them?
Good versus Evil
The classic Space Opera trade off. Do you like helping others or do you think murder and genocide are go to methods?
Cosmopolitan versus Ethno-nationalist
In our world being against racism and having everyone live together are relatively non-controversial stances that are achievable. While there are clearly differences between people, nothing stops assimilation, intermarriage or other blending interactions.
This isn’t true in Stellaris. Alien races will always remain genetically distinct, some aliens will be better at certain tasks than others …
Food 15 (Agrarian)
Minerals 15 (Industrious) 10 (Very Strong) 30 (Proles)
Energy 15 (Thrifty) 15 (Earthbound)
Science 10 (Intelligent) 15 (Natural) 0/20/0 (Natural Intellectuals)
…and there isn’t any guarantee you or your children can speak their language or engage in their cultural activities. Not to mention with different rates of breeding you should have fears of being outnumbered (not helped by the fact there is limited resources so whoever reproduces first gets the slot) As such there are two roads to deal with this.
One is to eliminate the distinctions as much as possible. If different species have different requirements, provide them artificially with an eye on altering them eventually (genetically engineering everyone to have the same planet preference and terraforming all worlds to that type). Insist on the universality of intelligent life and focus on ideals and allegiance to the nation.
The other is to accept differences exist and attempt to minimize friction. Loyalty to ones species is regarded as normal so instead of assimilation the focus is on making sure things are harmonious. Aliens are preferentially settled on their own sectors or operate under the millet system or extra-territoriality. The downside is alien populations are harder to ideologically mobilize. The upside is there is less interference in other’s way of life so it is easier to get along with outside groups making conquest or ironically immigration easier to carry out.
Reverant versus Delinquent
Bio-conservative versus Transhumanist
These can probably be combined together, but it is worth elaborating them separately. Do you attempt to follow in the footsteps of precursor civilizations, paying head to the example of Fallen Empires and the experience of those who have come before? Or do you attempt to blaze your own path?
The latter can be summed up with ‘we can rebuild him. We have the technology’ and ‘there are a thousand ways to make the body work better and a billion to make it worse’. Do you embrace self-improvement to the point that your species fractures into multiple subspecies as individuals try genetic modification and cybernetics or do you do a slow, careful path maintaining a coherent society?
Highly specific Racism
Hatred towards alien races should depend on the alien race, not be a general trait. There should be a base level of xenophobia/ilia (which changes based on what past experience with aliens has resulted in and should be used to judge new aliens that you have never had contact with), but the majority of opinion towards aliens should grow over time and be specific to species. The more they help or hurt you, the more your citizens should have definite opinion on their nature. Get terror bombed enough times and pops will be fine with responding even more ruthlessly while at the same time if you have good relations with a species pops will want to intervene or accept refugees if their civilization gets attacked.
Good versus Evil
The classic Space Opera trade off. Do you like helping others or do you think murder and genocide are go to methods?
Cosmopolitan versus Ethno-nationalist
In our world being against racism and having everyone live together are relatively non-controversial stances that are achievable. While there are clearly differences between people, nothing stops assimilation, intermarriage or other blending interactions.
This isn’t true in Stellaris. Alien races will always remain genetically distinct, some aliens will be better at certain tasks than others …
Food 15 (Agrarian)
Minerals 15 (Industrious) 10 (Very Strong) 30 (Proles)
Energy 15 (Thrifty) 15 (Earthbound)
Science 10 (Intelligent) 15 (Natural) 0/20/0 (Natural Intellectuals)
…and there isn’t any guarantee you or your children can speak their language or engage in their cultural activities. Not to mention with different rates of breeding you should have fears of being outnumbered (not helped by the fact there is limited resources so whoever reproduces first gets the slot) As such there are two roads to deal with this.
One is to eliminate the distinctions as much as possible. If different species have different requirements, provide them artificially with an eye on altering them eventually (genetically engineering everyone to have the same planet preference and terraforming all worlds to that type). Insist on the universality of intelligent life and focus on ideals and allegiance to the nation.
The other is to accept differences exist and attempt to minimize friction. Loyalty to ones species is regarded as normal so instead of assimilation the focus is on making sure things are harmonious. Aliens are preferentially settled on their own sectors or operate under the millet system or extra-territoriality. The downside is alien populations are harder to ideologically mobilize. The upside is there is less interference in other’s way of life so it is easier to get along with outside groups making conquest or ironically immigration easier to carry out.
Reverant versus Delinquent
Bio-conservative versus Transhumanist
These can probably be combined together, but it is worth elaborating them separately. Do you attempt to follow in the footsteps of precursor civilizations, paying head to the example of Fallen Empires and the experience of those who have come before? Or do you attempt to blaze your own path?
The latter can be summed up with ‘we can rebuild him. We have the technology’ and ‘there are a thousand ways to make the body work better and a billion to make it worse’. Do you embrace self-improvement to the point that your species fractures into multiple subspecies as individuals try genetic modification and cybernetics or do you do a slow, careful path maintaining a coherent society?
Highly specific Racism
Hatred towards alien races should depend on the alien race, not be a general trait. There should be a base level of xenophobia/ilia (which changes based on what past experience with aliens has resulted in and should be used to judge new aliens that you have never had contact with), but the majority of opinion towards aliens should grow over time and be specific to species. The more they help or hurt you, the more your citizens should have definite opinion on their nature. Get terror bombed enough times and pops will be fine with responding even more ruthlessly while at the same time if you have good relations with a species pops will want to intervene or accept refugees if their civilization gets attacked.
V Governments and arbitrary bonuses
Arbitrary bonuses should not be tacked on to options but instead organically grow. What do I mean by that? Imagine instead of getting a bonus based on government type you picked your ethos and choose a bonus to go with it. For example, you choose militarist and get the options Honorbound Warriors, Hegemonic Imperialists and Survivalists. Honorbound warriors gives you bonuses to fighting justified wars, Hegemonic Imperialists makes you better at conquest and Survivalists makes you better at fighting defensive wars and defensive battles.
The result is you are incentivized to act a certain way when you select these traits and incentivized to act a certain way when dealing with AI’s and players who have those traits. For example, Honorbound warriors are encouraged to have a large military ready to take advantage of any opportunities to avenge slights and other players are incentivized not to do something that could give them the a CB.
The result is you are incentivized to act a certain way when you select these traits and incentivized to act a certain way when dealing with AI’s and players who have those traits. For example, Honorbound warriors are encouraged to have a large military ready to take advantage of any opportunities to avenge slights and other players are incentivized not to do something that could give them the a CB.
VI Alternate Mechanics
Sectors
Sectors suffer from a fundamental flaw. Either planetary management isn’t solvable (and sectors will never be good) or it is solvable (and we shouldn’t be engaging in it in the first place). Sectors should not be a tool for reducing micro. Instead sectors should have their own set of policies; this lets you have internal political groups each with their own power base attempting to universalize their position.
Religion and ideology
Pops should have these in addition to ethos; that way you have a trait of your nation that can be changed to reflect popular preference. For example
Greenflies- Want as much of the universe to have life as possible
Incubators- Want to solve entropy
Stasis- Want to extend life expectancy and make society safer to avoid accidents (think Fallen Empire)
Simulation- Think the universe is a simulation
Socialists- Workers of the galaxy unite!
Religion (ethno)- a religion confined to a particular species
Religion (evangelical)- a religion that attempts to convert other species but is tied to a specific one
Religion (universal)- religion that is not tied to any species
Wireheaders- want wireheading
Government
Get rid of the grid. Have
Dictatorship
Monarchy (should have clone dynasty or body set up to ‘feel’ current situation in empire)
Limited Democracy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Direct/Virtual Democracy
Instead of “nice monarchy” government should have ways of balancing various interest groups. You can have it be various cabinet positions and the outside groups they are representing. So you have HoG, internal security, social development, infrastructure, diplomacy, science and military and pick which leader goes into each post.
Sectors suffer from a fundamental flaw. Either planetary management isn’t solvable (and sectors will never be good) or it is solvable (and we shouldn’t be engaging in it in the first place). Sectors should not be a tool for reducing micro. Instead sectors should have their own set of policies; this lets you have internal political groups each with their own power base attempting to universalize their position.
Religion and ideology
Pops should have these in addition to ethos; that way you have a trait of your nation that can be changed to reflect popular preference. For example
Greenflies- Want as much of the universe to have life as possible
Incubators- Want to solve entropy
Stasis- Want to extend life expectancy and make society safer to avoid accidents (think Fallen Empire)
Simulation- Think the universe is a simulation
Socialists- Workers of the galaxy unite!
Religion (ethno)- a religion confined to a particular species
Religion (evangelical)- a religion that attempts to convert other species but is tied to a specific one
Religion (universal)- religion that is not tied to any species
Wireheaders- want wireheading
Government
Get rid of the grid. Have
Dictatorship
Monarchy (should have clone dynasty or body set up to ‘feel’ current situation in empire)
Limited Democracy
Oligarchy
Democracy
Direct/Virtual Democracy
Instead of “nice monarchy” government should have ways of balancing various interest groups. You can have it be various cabinet positions and the outside groups they are representing. So you have HoG, internal security, social development, infrastructure, diplomacy, science and military and pick which leader goes into each post.
VII Crazy ideas; fixing colony spam, war and the economy
Basically we toss out the economy and adopt Hearts of Iron 4’s. We will even keep 6 resources (now radioactives, rare earths, exotic matter, noble gases, precious metals and transuranic elements). Planets have 4 types of building- civilian factory, military factory, shipyard and lab. Civilian factories produce additional factories and consumer goods. Military factories produce the components ships use (which are physically added to the map) and ‘army gear’. Shipyards produce ship hulls (also added to the map). Labs produce research.
There are three bonuses that rule the system
-For each copy of the same factory type on the planet, a factory gets a bonus to production
-For each copy of a different type of building on the planet, there is a bonus to convert to that building
-Labs get a bonus to research based on what factory is on the planet
Ta-da. Easily comprehensible tradeoffs.
War should be less lethal; ships should take component damage. This will result in 1) shipyards being the limiting factor in peace, military factories in war 2) the location of military factories mattering; being close to the border means you can get your ships back into action faster, but it also makes it easier for enemies to invade and take the stockpiled components for their own use 3) wars being less decisive until you can take out planet and 4) Intelligence tied to pop; having pops provide information on what they are making or what is stockpiled on their world is incredibly useful.
Conquering worlds should have 4 categories
-you control the starports and capital; the planet is cut off from its empire
-you control the infrastructure needed for resource production
-you control the cities and can start factories up
-you control the planet
Each additional level requires more ‘army gear’ and increases the attrition on ‘army gear’; the amount needed should also depend on the size of the planet, the population of the planet and the hostility of the population. Don’t have enough for the first level and you get unceremoniously kicked off the planet.
This should help set limits to conquest without artificial rules; you can take whatever you want, but occupying worlds means military factories not making components so decisive conquest doesn’t occur early on in the game but gradually builds up.
Since there are increasing returns to scale, colonies are less attractive, but I’d go further. Population growth should be on an empire wide level so strengthening a new world is directly in competition with building up an existing one.
Finally to kick start xenophobia, long term wars and drama, borders should be totally redone. Specifically, they don’t exist naturally. Once you get in contact with a new civilization that is adjacent to you, you should have 4 options
-share access to your species internet (they see what systems you have explored, the location of your homeworld and colonized worlds and resources)
-information about the border region (as above, but only for the territory between your homeworld and the contact location). Has the advantage that since you are choosing the data to provide you can lie;
-declare borders (see below)
-wait for them to go first
Presuming that both have shared map data, the two sides proceed to agree upon boundaries between them. They look at colonizable worlds and resources and either agree on a fair boundary (offering up different deals before either agreeing or negotiations breaking down) or they have disputed territory.
The result is instead of having to rush to get more colonizable land, you can settle colonies as population grows. If you need to get a solar system to inhabit and they refuse to recognize your claim, you can fight a war in order to enforce it.
What this helps create is early game wars (fights over mining stations and territory rights), middle game wars (fights over developing colonies and worlds in strategic positions producing military gear) and late game wars (wars of complete conquest).
There are three bonuses that rule the system
-For each copy of the same factory type on the planet, a factory gets a bonus to production
-For each copy of a different type of building on the planet, there is a bonus to convert to that building
-Labs get a bonus to research based on what factory is on the planet
Ta-da. Easily comprehensible tradeoffs.
War should be less lethal; ships should take component damage. This will result in 1) shipyards being the limiting factor in peace, military factories in war 2) the location of military factories mattering; being close to the border means you can get your ships back into action faster, but it also makes it easier for enemies to invade and take the stockpiled components for their own use 3) wars being less decisive until you can take out planet and 4) Intelligence tied to pop; having pops provide information on what they are making or what is stockpiled on their world is incredibly useful.
Conquering worlds should have 4 categories
-you control the starports and capital; the planet is cut off from its empire
-you control the infrastructure needed for resource production
-you control the cities and can start factories up
-you control the planet
Each additional level requires more ‘army gear’ and increases the attrition on ‘army gear’; the amount needed should also depend on the size of the planet, the population of the planet and the hostility of the population. Don’t have enough for the first level and you get unceremoniously kicked off the planet.
This should help set limits to conquest without artificial rules; you can take whatever you want, but occupying worlds means military factories not making components so decisive conquest doesn’t occur early on in the game but gradually builds up.
Since there are increasing returns to scale, colonies are less attractive, but I’d go further. Population growth should be on an empire wide level so strengthening a new world is directly in competition with building up an existing one.
Finally to kick start xenophobia, long term wars and drama, borders should be totally redone. Specifically, they don’t exist naturally. Once you get in contact with a new civilization that is adjacent to you, you should have 4 options
-share access to your species internet (they see what systems you have explored, the location of your homeworld and colonized worlds and resources)
-information about the border region (as above, but only for the territory between your homeworld and the contact location). Has the advantage that since you are choosing the data to provide you can lie;
-declare borders (see below)
-wait for them to go first
Presuming that both have shared map data, the two sides proceed to agree upon boundaries between them. They look at colonizable worlds and resources and either agree on a fair boundary (offering up different deals before either agreeing or negotiations breaking down) or they have disputed territory.
The result is instead of having to rush to get more colonizable land, you can settle colonies as population grows. If you need to get a solar system to inhabit and they refuse to recognize your claim, you can fight a war in order to enforce it.
What this helps create is early game wars (fights over mining stations and territory rights), middle game wars (fights over developing colonies and worlds in strategic positions producing military gear) and late game wars (wars of complete conquest).
VIII Leaders
First, let’s talk about psychic powers. Psychic powers are magic and they should be treated as such. This doesn’t mean we have to eliminate them (although I personally favor that), but rather they should be things that make specific individuals important.
This ties into leaders because they should work completely differently. Random elements should be minimized; you should have an infinite number of level 1 leaders you can slot into any position you want. What you should be concerned about is experiences they go through during the normal course of events (a general who leads during a long hard-fought occupation should get a trait reflecting that) and unique experiencing and items you can give them. They should belong to the following categories:
Unique artifacts
The universe has seen countless civilizations rise and fall. Some of the more impressive examples have left behind relics of considerable power; think the kind of deeds heroes is Endless Space are capable of. More prosaic versions still provide a useful assistance or an interesting paper weight.
Unique experiences
Heard of the Jugglers? A planet spanning hive mind, the hold copies of the memories of everyone who ever swam in their ocean. Or Blood Spire, a kilometer tall object that floats off the ground with no visible power source and an entrance with a door that can only be passed by solving a mathematical puzzle which have yet another door behind it. To get to its secrets one must be willing to transform their body in order to think faster or meet the deadly time limits of the facility. Or a neutron star which is simultaneously a vast computer with an entire civilization inside. All of these are from Alistar Reynolds, but there are other similar fantastic locations offering transformative experiences- and danger. Having your leaders go to them and changing or dying is a good way to give players a tool to shape them.
Training
A game that has psychics but you can’t have people sent to learn the arts of the notJedi or notSith is seriously lacking.
This ties into leaders because they should work completely differently. Random elements should be minimized; you should have an infinite number of level 1 leaders you can slot into any position you want. What you should be concerned about is experiences they go through during the normal course of events (a general who leads during a long hard-fought occupation should get a trait reflecting that) and unique experiencing and items you can give them. They should belong to the following categories:
Unique artifacts
The universe has seen countless civilizations rise and fall. Some of the more impressive examples have left behind relics of considerable power; think the kind of deeds heroes is Endless Space are capable of. More prosaic versions still provide a useful assistance or an interesting paper weight.
Unique experiences
Heard of the Jugglers? A planet spanning hive mind, the hold copies of the memories of everyone who ever swam in their ocean. Or Blood Spire, a kilometer tall object that floats off the ground with no visible power source and an entrance with a door that can only be passed by solving a mathematical puzzle which have yet another door behind it. To get to its secrets one must be willing to transform their body in order to think faster or meet the deadly time limits of the facility. Or a neutron star which is simultaneously a vast computer with an entire civilization inside. All of these are from Alistar Reynolds, but there are other similar fantastic locations offering transformative experiences- and danger. Having your leaders go to them and changing or dying is a good way to give players a tool to shape them.
Training
A game that has psychics but you can’t have people sent to learn the arts of the notJedi or notSith is seriously lacking.
Last edited:
- 4
- 2
- 1
