A few questions about Federations

[Miidguard]

After watching the most recent blorg stream, I gained a few questions in regards to how Federations work. For starters why does the leadership of the federation just rotate every 10 years or so, wouldn't having elections for the position make more sense. It would create a need to make the other member of the federation happy so you can continually be elected and no have to wait for your goals, or see all your work ruined by another member.
Secondly is there a way to declare yourself leader for 'life', If i had control over 80 systems and the next closest member has 10, why should the position change if no other member can challenge my race in terms of strength. It wouldn't make sense to just hand over the leadership to a lesser member of the federation.
Lastly is there anyway for you to diplomatically vassalize or annex members of your federation.

I may has just missed the dev diary or stream where all the elements of federations were explained in detail and if that is the case just point me in the right direction, otherwise anyone's insight would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Zorromorph]

why does the leadership of the federation just rotate every 10 years or so, wouldn't having elections for the position make more sense. It would create a need to make the other member of the federation happy so you can continually be elected and no have to wait for your goals, or see all your work ruined by another member.

Obviously it's a design choice, but I don't think having elections to keep one empire in power necessarily makes more sense. It would bring with it a whole new set of questions. For example, why would other empires want to join a federation, and in so doing effectively permanently hand over their sovereignty in foreign policy, if the player could manipulate the system to keep themselves in charge? I also think the whole federation thing makes a lot more sense not for situations where one empire has 80 systems and the others just a few, but where there are multiple empires fairly close to the same size. An alliance, if that, seems more sensible for such occurences.

 

[Miidguard]

I agree with you on that you are forming a powerful faction out of several smaller ones so you can stand a chance against larger factions, I was just hoping for some intrigue based game play in forming and maintaining federations just to make each game a little bit different. Some elements may be added to federations in later DLC which can always change how the game plays, like the adding of trade leagues in EU4.

 

[KingHoot]

I think you are missing the point of what a Federation is supposed to be. It is a peaceful arrangement, not one where you should be able to bully the other members because you own more systems or have more ships. As far as I know you cannot vassalise or annex members of your Federation, they haven't agreed to be a vassal so they cannot be annexed and once in a Federation vassalisation is unnecessary because you already have the protection of the other member empires.

Peaceful co-existence, shared leadership, mutual protection and joint military action against enemy empires is the idea behind federations.

Although (and I would love them to do this and more in some kind of DLC) I'm not against the implementation of some storyline event that places your ruler as basically "Palpatine" and has you betray the members of your federated republic and bring them to heel under a single galactic Empire. Although obviously this should lead to mass unhappiness of pops in enemy space and possibly the uprising of a "rebel alliance".

 

[Koopatin]

I just wanted to start a own thread but i hijack this one, if i may.

I have questions about the federation fleet

1) who will pay the upkeep for the federation fleet?

2) can the federation fleet use member gates? (in case of whormhole stations)

*edit

non fleet related

3) is a single empire approach (no alliance or federation) realistic? It seems to me, that federations will be a big part of every game and it seems to be hard to be a counterweight alone. (no criticism)

 

[Miidguard]

can the federation fleet use member gates? (in case of whormhole stations)

I'm pretty sure in the most recent blorg stream they did say that you can use friendly wormhole stations as long as your ships have the right drive, I may be wrong I just seem to recall that being said.

And i don't mind, i would also like an answer to that first question.

 

[ahhheygao]

1) who will pay the upkeep for the federation fleet?

We don't know yet.

2) can the federation fleet use member gates? (in case of whormhole stations)

Not completely sure, but I think we can borrow allies' worm holes if both sides use worm hole tech. All ships must have worm hole drive installed in order to use worm holes, though.

3) is a single empire approach (no alliance or federation) realistic? It seems to me, that federations will be a big part of every game and it seems to be hard to be a counterweight alone. (no criticism)

Of course! Most of the Blorgs' federation buddies are not much more than glorified vassal states with insignificant military power. As a single empire, you can either maintain a bunch of pet vassals or gobble everything up... you can cover as much territories as an entire federation, though you'd likely have to do it through conquest every single time instead of free diplomatic befriending... and you'll rack up a lot of enemy alliances.

 

[Baldeagle91]

Tbh I think the current manner a federations leader is chosen seems a bit weird. As much as it is suppose to be a friendly and peaceful arrangement, it would make more sense to run on a election principle.

One vote per member state in it's most basic form. However federations imo should be much more complex. For example no-one is going to really want to be under the control of a single planet nation in terms of foreign policy, however an incredibly popular single planet nation may still gather support. Also having a negative response to not having control of a federation for X amount of years in relation to size. For example if a single nation has 50%+ of a federations territory or pop, I could imagine them being annoyed, if for the last 100 years or so, they haven't been able to control their own foreign policy. Such issues could for example cause issues such a secession from the federation or resistance to federation wide taxes (aka lower income towards them).

I would also love to see laws within federations. You could change the number of votes each faction gets, say for example based relatively to your pop size or territory, which could boost your larger nations view of the federation, while diminish your smaller nations opinion (or vice versa). Aggressive power grabs and inter federation civil wars etc are all more complex but most likely DLC features, that I would like to see. Maybe even enabling changing a federation into a single state or empire?

Just imagine doing a hostile takeover to change a federation into an empire Emperor Palpatine style? So far the impression given to me in the Blorg Video's seems to be very little internal strife between federation members due to diplomatic buffs given for being members and the fact border friction disappears.

 

[AgentBuckshotMo]

My guess is that Federations will be improved in a DLC. Some other thread yesterday suggested Confederation vs Federation differences, and I think that would be good. Rename the current Federations as Confederations and introduce a set of reforms to pass that transform it into a full federation, sort of like the HRE in EU4. However, these reforms shouldn't end up with players and AI becoming vassals of the Space Kaiser. They should just add the ability to enforce federation-wide laws that override the member empires'.

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

A good place to start might be with Realm Laws from CK2. The inevitable arguments between the king (who wants high centralisation) and the dukes (who want low centralisation) are much of the fun of that game.

 

[ahhheygao]

Aye, I'm still surprised that some form of CK2 Council mechanics wasn't introduced, considering how prevalent the Council trope is in sci-fi shows with intergalactic community. CK2 players may have despised Council's meddling and gridlocking within your own title realm, but that sort of dynamic makes sense for a multi-species federation.

 

[Yenzen]

I think most players who want to use federations to gain more direct power are missing the point.

If there are ways to become federation president other than rotation or random selection, the player would be better at it, and the growth of federations would make blobbing too easy. Same for integrating into a unified empire - the player would accomplish this quite easily and notice how enormous that one federation in the Blorg stream already is...

Federations, for the AI, is a counter against player and other aggressive AI factions blobbing. A player should only be interested in federations, if they're under pressure to do so or because they want to be a part of something greater and don't mind handing power over to the AI most of the time.

If you want hard power, use allies and vassals. Federating means giving up control to a greater cause that you'll only sometimes wield.

 

[Andrzej2]

We should be able to choose what system we want when we form federation. Reforming this should also be possible later but more difficult. I think that we should have two main settings.

Cadency lenght - for lifetime of the leader, for 10 years,

System of election - rotational, voting where each federation member has one vote, voting where each federation members has many votes based on population.

I thought that federations would be displayed on the galactic map as one state - becouse they have unified leadership and one foreign policy after all. We at least need another map type that shows federations.

 

[Baldeagle91]

I think most players who want to use federations to gain more direct power are missing the point.

If there are ways to become federation president other than rotation or random selection, the player would be better at it, and the growth of federations would make blobbing too easy. Same for integrating into a unified empire - the player would accomplish this quite easily and notice how enormous that one federation in the Blorg stream already is...

Federations, for the AI, is a counter against player and other aggressive AI factions blobbing. A player should only be interested in federations, if they're under pressure to do so or because they want to be a part of something greater and don't mind handing power over to the AI most of the time.

If you want hard power, use allies and vassals. Federating means giving up control to a greater cause that you'll only sometimes wield.

But in real life examples federations don't work that way. Generally speaking the more powerful members demand higher representation. And I don't personally think a 'federation takeover' should be a simple, easy or common occurrence. It's more allowing players to fulfil their star wars esque sci-fi fantasies into practice if they put enough effort into it. If it goes wrong you'd potentially have the rest of the federation fighting you, or even a federation civil war.

Atm Federations seem too hippy, friendship is magic (*magic is heresy*), holding hands, resisting a stronger foe ideal. Many federations such as the USSR which was made up of different nations most certainly had a more powerful member. Also what's wrong with forming federations to pick on smaller nations with less chance of drawing other factions into it?

You then have other federations such as the USA, where they certainly do not *rotate* leadership, especially keeping in mind the countries early days where many states used to be their own independent countries.

Creation of federations should be an extremely serious and long reaching decision. It should seriously affect a nations future prospects. If you want to retain control either by leaving the federation or by gaining control it should be extremely risky. Do we actually have any idea what the consequences of leaving a federation are?

 

[Yenzen]

But in real life examples federations don't work that way. Generally speaking the more powerful members demand higher representation. And I don't personally think a 'federation takeover' should be a simple, easy or common occurrence. It's more allowing players to fulfil their star wars esque sci-fi fantasies into practice if they put enough effort into it. If it goes wrong you'd potentially have the rest of the federation fighting you, or even a federation civil war.

Atm Federations seem too hippy, friendship is magic (*magic is heresy*), holding hands, resisting a stronger foe ideal. Many federations such as the USSR which was made up of different nations most certainly had a more powerful member. Also what's wrong with forming federations to pick on smaller nations with less chance of drawing other factions into it?

You then have other federations such as the USA, where they certainly do not *rotate* leadership, especially keeping in mind the countries early days where many states used to be their own independent countries.

Creation of federations should be an extremely serious and long reaching decision. It should seriously affect a nations future prospects. If you want to retain control either by leaving the federation or by gaining control it should be extremely risky. Do we actually have any idea what the consequences of leaving a federation are?

This isn't real life, it's Stellaris. The USSR also had vassals more than it had actual federation members.

The US would be a singular faction in Stellaris terms. A federation in Stellaris is more of a loose confederation in an actual sense. It's not like US states have their own armies.

Gameplay concerns trump all realism. If you've got more than 50% of the fleet of your entire alliance bloc, don't form a federation! An alliance would ensure that your interests are met and you'll still be protected in case of a war. What Wiz did wasn't smart, it was in order to showcase a game feature. I don't think he would have done it, had it been a regular game.

 

[Vasious]

If you want to be the big and keep power forever, which is the end result of the question of why can there be elections, the player will manipulated to stay in control in perpetuam, then just vassalise everyone.

All the minions you want with none of the voting

 

[Baldeagle91]

This isn't real life, it's Stellaris. The USSR also had vassals more than it had actual federation members.

The US would be a singular faction in Stellaris terms. A federation in Stellaris is more of a loose confederation in an actual sense. It's not like US states have their own armies.

Gameplay concerns trump all realism. If you've got more than 50% of the fleet of your entire alliance bloc, don't form a federation! An alliance would ensure that your interests are met and you'll still be protected in case of a war. What Wiz did wasn't smart, it was in order to showcase a game feature. I don't think he would have done it, had it been a regular game.

In all honesty there is no real benefit to joining a federation over an alliance as far as I can tell. Sure you have a federation fleet, but most of the time you won't be controlling it anyway. So in effect it's a fleet you partially pay upkeep for *I presume*. The only other bonus is a loss of border friction.

FYI some US states do actually have military forces completely under state control. Back in the US's early days, yes many did have their own armies.

And as it's been stated before. The way it works currently only works if each faction is of an equal size. Even concerning AI factions, we've already seen federations with much larger parent members. For smaller factions it should realistically be a more democratic version of vassalisation. Even then rotation makes no real logical or deep gameplay experience.

And in terms of Gameplay vs Realism, I personally think players would have much more fun with more choices in how a federation is run and potential back door deals, power grabs, civil wars, secession conflicts etc than simply *We take turns every 10 years to rule*. Heaven forbid you get Federations with 10+ members!

 

[Yenzen]

In all honesty there is no real benefit to joining a federation over an alliance as far as I can tell. Sure you have a federation fleet, but most of the time you won't be controlling it anyway. So in effect it's a fleet you partially pay upkeep for *I presume*. The only other bonus is a loss of border friction.

FYI some US states do actually have military forces completely under state control. Back in the US's early days, yes many did have their own armies.

And as it's been stated before. The way it works currently only works if each faction is of an equal size. Even concerning AI factions, we've already seen federations with much larger parent members. For smaller factions it should realistically be a more democratic version of vassalisation. Even then rotation makes no real logical or deep gameplay experience.

And in terms of Gameplay vs Realism, I personally think players would have much more fun with more choices in how a federation is run and potential back door deals, power grabs, civil wars, secession conflicts etc than simply *We take turns every 10 years to rule*. Heaven forbid you get Federations with 10+ members!

They can be expanded upon, sure, but the thing is that all the backdoor stuff? Players will kick the AI's ass at it unless the AI cheats, and people will complain if the AI cheats. I think it will get more advanced as the game is developed, but as it stands it's a heavy commitment and not an optimal way to expand aggressively.

There are advantages. When you're in control you don't have to appease everyone, and when the federation is at war, the united fleet will be significantly stronger. Maybe you're not in control of it, but your faction has a far greater chance of winning with it. It's a very strong defensive move.

 

[Baldeagle91]

They can be expanded upon, sure, but the thing is that all the backdoor stuff? Players will kick the AI's ass at it unless the AI cheats, and people will complain if the AI cheats. I think it will get more advanced as the game is developed, but as it stands it's a heavy commitment and not an optimal way to expand aggressively.

There are advantages. When you're in control you don't have to appease everyone, and when the federation is at war, the united fleet will be significantly stronger. Maybe you're not in control of it, but your faction has a far greater chance of winning with it. It's a very strong defensive move.

We don't see players complaining about "kicking the AI's ass" via backdoor stuff aka CK II or paradox's other games. It should also make players think twice before entering into a federation noticeably bigger than themselves, without other support. And if you make it extremely hard for the player to achieve there wouldn't be any problem at all.

 

[Koopatin]

I am all for a federation mechanic where we build our federation out of little parts. Like building a charta. So we could have all kinds of federations (and somethings that are not really federations at all)

Building a federation could be like building your empire at the start of the game plus edicts and policies.

So we could decide if we want to form an empire where the other members are nothing more than vassals (for whatever that might be good and for whatever reason they might want to join), or a federation where everyone still has to vote for everything, maybe with majority votes, or weighted votes. Or even a system where the members can wage war against each other but will unite if an external threat arrives (space shogun)

I could think of a lot more examples. But in short... different kinds of federations would be cool.