can't pick egalitarian and spiritualism anymore because of elementary flaws

[Empire of Terra Nova]

fanatic egalitarian + militarist or spiritualist was my favourite combo, but there are some aspects/bugs/annoyances preventing me from picking it currently

(fanatic) egalitarian:
- democracies are very underpowered
- the agendas are non-sensical (build space stations when no expansion possible, build mines when none needed, make +x per month but the monthly trades are always spoiling it...)
- candidate support feels outright bugged since 3.0 (spending 300-500 influence repeatedly didn't lead to the election of supported candidate despite him being the leader in the polls with 50%+ estimated votes)

- oligarchy doesn't feel egalitarian at all (and even not authoritarian as it's just some massively corrupt failed state-like fake show)

spiritualist:
- inconsistent dogma (hatred of sapient robots)


so currently i end up picking fanatic militarist + materialist or xenophile. but it still doesn't feel right as role play-wise my goal is to spread equality across the galaxy, maybe even my religious beliefs. but how am i supposed to do that if i'm being locked out of egalitarianism and spiritualism?

effectively fanatic militarist + materialist are the only civics i can choose as xenophile is leading to some serious problems keeping track of my pops, and in case of immigrated serviles, it's causing constant unemployment because for some reason i'm blocked from gene-modding/uplifting them so that they can become specialists and rulers


so can we pls get some buffs to democracies, pls?

the spiritualism/materialism problem can be easily fixed by renaming spiritualism to traditionalism and materialism to progressivism (and maybe adding/adjusting some boni, not necessary, though)

and pls let us gene-mod the servile trait away. if it's going to be too op for syncretic evolution starts then make it so that you won't be able to do that with syncretic origin, but if the pops migrate or get conquered/liberated then they shouldn't be treated less capable of gene-modding than
pre-sapients

 

[A2ch0n]

If you play single player, it think you can ignore this weaknesses. I agree that democracies are weaker compared to autocracies but i never felt that difference if i play alone. As well the problem with spiritualists that exist since the dawn of time i think. RP wise (i asume you prefer that) you should stay with your ideals and play it anyways. You most likely will play your favorite empire more well rounded and more than that, it feels "right".

It's the same for me. I play with espionage and subterfuge tradition but i know well that it's really weak and underpowered.

Ifyou really feel it's unplayable for you, i would suggest to look for some mods to compensate that. It's still better than to be forced in a playstyle you don't like i think.

 

[Dr. B]

The Spiritualism anti-robot theme is annoying and inexplicable, yes, but you can very well play Spiritualist without robots.
Just builda nice empire suited for organic life with reduced consumer goods comsumption, hydroponic farms, happiness boosts etc.
With temples, +unity and a decent tech rush, you can be fully Trancendent ascended by 2240, and enjoy psionic play.

 

[Thirlan]

Ignoring all roleplay. In Multiplayer, Egalitarian is actually very strong because of the boost to specialists. In many tournaments it is a go to for non-gestalts.

 

[Archael90]

Oligarchy may seems not egalitarian enough for You, i can understand it, yet i feel it a good compromise between authoritarian and democracy. But yeah, mamdates should be tweaked, at least a little so that illogical ones do not appear.
You can play spiritualist empire without spiritualist ethic, tho without temples.
I did that once - pacifist, egalitarian, xenophile. An empire that believes that every sapient creature is a vessel for devine spark, and thus all sapient creatures should be treated equally untill their spark is free when body stopped working.
Tho i hate ruler (all leaders) shifting and replacing so i need to use authoritarian government. Pacifists has hard time in wars...
All ethics need some tweaks, but spiritualists hatered for robots is worst thing devs could think of.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

thanks for all the answers! i'm glad to see that i'm not the only one seeing it this way

as someone who rather plays single player my emphasis is more on roleplaying and immersion, and it really is somewhat annoying when you especially can't pick egalitarian, which is indeed a very strong ethic, because the democracy mechanics are messing things up (i actually forgot to mention that there should be some sort of solution so that employed leaders are blocked from the presidency, maybe a separate candidate pool or so)

the espionage mechanics i mostly left out so far but i think i'm going to fully focus on them in my next campaign just to try how it's like. there is also an achievement for that so it will work quite well (it might be even worth combining it with that scheming achievement where you have to depose the galactic emperor...)

same for pacifist, especially in case of non-fanatic pacifists i can think of severel interesting settings, like on liberation war focused benevolent overlord or federation leader/member. not sure though how well i'll he doing without the boist to firerate from militarist, distinguished admiralty and no retreat. this set up made the torpedo corvette spam very viable for me, which otherwise won't be that much of a use

 

[kviiri]

It bothers me to a great deal how Stellaris has had the same, lousy excuse of a mechanic for democracies since day 1, with only minimal improvements. To me, this is one of those ways where Stellaris embodies the "quantity-over-quality" approach Paradox at its worst takes towards its games, piling on new mechanics and content without fixing the old things. The best I hope for at this point is that the Custodian system will eventually fix it and that the same mistakes don't get repeated in future Paradox titles.

 

[Ryika]

It bothers me to a great deal how Stellaris has had the same, lousy excuse of a mechanic for democracies since day 1, with only minimal improvements. To me, this is one of those ways where Stellaris embodies the "quantity-over-quality" approach Paradox at its worst takes towards its games, piling on new mechanics and content without fixing the old things. The best I hope for at this point is that the Custodian system will eventually fix it and that the same mistakes don't get repeated in future Paradox titles.

It's not even a new thing though. As I understand it, CK2 and EU4 ran into the issue of mechanical bloat long before Stellaris did. Don't know enough about these titles to say for certain, but sometimes it seems that after a certain point, Paradox just decides to just throw in additional stuff to see what works and what doesn't so they can then take the best bits and pieces to create the sequel in which they all come together into a much more cohesive system.

When it comes to Stellaris specifically, the last few major dlcs essentially didn't even attempt to tie the new systems into the old ones (with the exception of espionage maybe), and are essentially just adding icing onto icing. Though, a lot of that may just be a result of fact that they're still putting a lot of effort into fixing the new economic system.

 

[DeanTheDull]

This would be more compelling if you'd indicated you understood the strengths of the ethics you were critiquing, and not just picking at pet peaves. Yes, Mandate Unity is less useful than Agendas... but one of the best Agendas is 10% science, and Fanatic Egalitarian gets a 10% buff to all specialists, including but not just scientists, all the time. Yes, losing a 50+% roll for rigging an election is annoying... but (a), that's a % and not polling, and (b) why are you spending influence rather than acknowledging that you're getting 50% faction influence generation? 90% with Parliamentary System? Why aren't you addressing that Egalitarian gives you some of the best living standards in the game, for both happiness and unemployment management (both reducing auto-migration time and giving unity and science?)?

Similar thing with Spiritualist. Yes, yes, the anti-AI faction doesn't want robots. Why are you not utilizing your ability to spread it across the galaxy with overwhelming ethics attraction? Why are you not using your Egalitarian-empowered influence to pass the Galactic Community chain that bans all robots- destroying everyone else's ability for an AI economy? Why are you not using your ability to easily draw Psionics for an early-ascension rush, and using Psionic scientists and Admirals to dominate the galaxy early from a position of strength well before Bio-Ascension can come online?

There are pluses and there are minuses, but it'd be a lot more convincing if it were clear you knew which were which.

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

(i actually forgot to mention that there should be some sort of solution so that employed leaders are blocked from the presidency, maybe a separate candidate pool or so)

Technocracy allows you to only select scientist
Citizen Service limits it I think to admirals (Not 100% on this one but there was a civic that limits leader choices to military roles)

I would really prefer if democracy only allows faction leaders to be elected. It would make sense, but then factions would need to be reworked (if your leader dies before you get factions for example).

 

[Lykus Cerebros]

This would be more compelling if you'd indicated you understood the strengths of the ethics you were critiquing, and not just picking at pet peaves. Yes, Mandate Unity is less useful than Agendas... but one of the best Agendas is 10% science, and Fanatic Egalitarian gets a 10% buff to all specialists, including but not just scientists, all the time. Yes, losing a 50+% roll for rigging an election is annoying... but (a), that's a % and not polling, and (b) why are you spending influence rather than acknowledging that you're getting 50% faction influence generation? 90% with Parliamentary System? Why aren't you addressing that Egalitarian gives you some of the best living standards in the game, for both happiness and unemployment management (both reducing auto-migration time and giving unity and science?)?

Similar thing with Spiritualist. Yes, yes, the anti-AI faction doesn't want robots. Why are you not utilizing your ability to spread it across the galaxy with overwhelming ethics attraction? Why are you not using your Egalitarian-empowered influence to pass the Galactic Community chain that bans all robots- destroying everyone else's ability for an AI economy? Why are you not using your ability to easily draw Psionics for an early-ascension rush, and using Psionic scientists and Admirals to dominate the galaxy early from a position of strength well before Bio-Ascension can come online?

There are pluses and there are minuses, but it'd be a lot more convincing if it were clear you knew which were which.

Democracies and oligarchies also get access to meritocracy.

 

[Archael90]

Rulers should be chosen from separated leader pool, not from existing leaders. Im often choosing envoy, despite of their traits and agendas, just because i dont need to replace them manualy.

 

[kviiri]

Rulers should be chosen from separated leader pool, not from existing leaders. Im often choosing envoy, despite of their traits and agendas, just because i dont need to replace them manualy.

If Stellaris was where I'd like it to be, leaders becoming the country's ruler through a democratic election would be an important and exciting thing and it definitely should happen. In the old politics system it was much more pronouncedly an intended feature as you could select a government type that specifically allowed only some rulers to participate.

Sadly, currently your top admiral or leading scientist becoming the ruler is just a random annoyance that removes them from good use.

 

[Louella]

gene-mod the servile trait away

you can do that with the evolutionary mastery ascension perk.

 

[Jman5]

Democracy:

I actually think democracy is quite good in the first 50-100 years. The problem is that the reward cap too low.

Agenda:

I agree that the agenda system needs a lot of work. Building 3 mining stations or have X income per month is dumb. There is also no scaling of these requirements. Another issue is how confusing it is. Some agendas instantly reward you, others leave you hanging until after the election to tell you if you got it or not. Does your president benefit from it or not? Probably?

Candidate support:

It doesn't seem broken to me. If you want complete control over elections, democracy is probably not for you. I mean that's kind of it's thing. You can nudge the results in one way or another, but ultimately it's out of your hands. When you look at the percent, it's not telling you the vote share, it's telling you the chance of winning the election. 50% means just that: 50% of the time he wins, 50% of the time he loses.

I can see how the wording is confusing, but if you hover over it, that's what it says.

Oligarchy:

I suppose it's just how you look at it. You have elections, but the political class is heavily gatekeeped. Broader society may be egalitarian even if there is a good ole boys club in politics. Egalitarianism is not an all or nothing thing. You have shades of gray. I think oligarchy is a good representation of an imperfect world. Where you can have a society that values equality, but may not live up to it completely in practice.

On a more practical gameplay side, it's a good way to differentiate egalitarianism and fanatic egalitarianism.

 

[Scyobi_Empire]

This reminds me of the Reddit Post: Pros and Cons to Slavery

 

[The Bored Chairman]

Egalitarians need more fleshing out, for sure (but not NEARLY as much as Spiritualists lol).

There is still too much emphasis on specialization, which Egalitarian directly defies in terms of game mechanics. Specializing planets and pops is relatively pointless, since pops will just move about as they desire (it's like herding cats, no offense to the feline Xenos).

Playing Egalitarian ironically pigeonholes you into just modding pops with general buffs because they'll end up with whatever jobs are available. You can't restrict your Weak Xeno immigrants from working Miner jobs.

I'm going to bring this up every time Egalitarian changes are mentioned, Gene Clinics should allow for auto-pop modding, so that Egalitarians can experience the full benefit of Genetic Ascension by having pops mod themselves to best suit whatever job they're working, and also remaining in keeping with their ethics (pops choose to be modded, rather than having it imposed on them).

It would make the automated process of Egalitarianism more streamlined and efficient.

As for agendas, they should scale into the late game. Early on, the Unity bonus is nice, but it becomes inconsequential late game. You're basically running a government without the flat bonuses that other governments get just by having a leader.

To clarify: All leaders have traits that buff the empire, but Democracies are the only government that gives 0 buffs while a leader is in power.