Democracy is... not good to say the least

[Kryndude]

Mandates are not worth investing resources just for its own rewards so unless it's something I was already planning to do they usually go unfulfilled while other authorities get some powerful modifiers through their leader goals. Also this doesn't matter that much later in the game but early on if one of my scientists gets elected I have to hire a level 1 leader again for lesser bonus. It's almost like democracy is a price you have to pay for going egalitarian and is egalitarian worth it? I don't know for sure cuz I never bothered continue playing it into the late game. Thoughts?

 

[Mitchz95]

Yeah, I hate losing my top scientists to elections every ten years. Would be nice if the game generated mostly new candidates each time, with one or two already-existing leaders at most.

 

[Gyrvendal]

The election can have advantages in some cases. For instance, I can get my admirals elected, which allows them to level up nicely in peacetime.
Democracy has decent synergy with egalitarian, while imperial synergises with authoritarian, but neither one has great bonuses, their main bonus is pleasing their respective factions.

The only one with actual bonuses is oligarchic, but this one does not have any ethos synergy, so I think its fine.

Whether egalitarian itself is worth it is another matter... Probably will be once the main bugs have been squashed.

 

[The Boz]

At least with Democracy, the ruler rejoins the workforce... Oligarchy often bugs out and rulers retire after they're elected out of office.

 

[Jiav]

Egalitarian in 2.2 is bad anyway due to the meta.

You cannot resettle pops by default.
You cannot choose pop/robot model by default.

If you want to enable both you will take - 30% faction hit for BASIC GAME FEATURES.

Imo these options should not affect factions as they are almost mandatory for good empire management. Auth doesn't have such problems.

 

[Derp]

i'm fine with restrictions... but ethics with restrictions need to be better (mathematically) than those without. as it stands most of them are either a wash or even weaker than their non-restricted counterparts.

 

[RyuujinZERO]

Egalitarian in 2.2 is bad anyway due to the meta.

You cannot resettle pops by default.
You cannot choose pop/robot model by default.

If you want to enable both you will take - 30% faction hit for BASIC GAME FEATURES.

Imo these options should not affect factions as they are almost mandatory for good empire management. Auth doesn't have such problems.

While I get that mass relocation of citizens on demand is incongruous with egalitarian ideals, they could frame it in a different way, making it so egalitarians CAN resettle but it costs more, or costs some other resources like unity or influence to achieve the same ends. For example you stump up the cash in the guise of subsidized housing/incentives/guaranteed jobs to get people to move and then X many *randomly picked* pops relocate immediately.

I guarantee in the real world if you told people 'Hey, if you move to this colony, we'll give you a house, a job and a cash incentive!' you'd get a pretty long line of volunteers.

 

[Jiav]

While I get that mass relocation of citizens on demand is incongruous with egalitarian ideals, they could frame it in a different way, making it so egalitarians CAN resettle but it costs more, or costs some other resources like unity or influence to achieve the same ends. For example you stump up the cash in the guise of subsidized housing/incentives/guaranteed jobs to get people to move and then X many *randomly picked* pops relocate immediately.

I guarantee in the real world if you told people 'Hey, if you move to this colony, we'll give you a house, a job and a cash incentive!' you'd get a pretty long line of volunteers.

well costing more adds up quickly if you think about the hundreds of pops you will resettle over the entirety of the game, especially when you add an influence or unity cost to it. And slaves even get resettled for half the energy price. Just get rid of the malus.

 

[Frozen Yakman]

The problem with Democracies is the candidates are pulled from your leader pool. In the early game that's 1+ sector governors, 5+ scientists, 0+ admirals, 0+ generals. It's almost always going to be a scientist simply because scientists are over-represented in the leader pool for most of the early game. And even after you've gotten through the major exploratory rush and running fewer science ships, you've still probably got a bunch of scientists compared to the other leader positions. It's too easy to forget to hire a sector governor since sectors still work when ungoverned. Science shuts completely down without one.

What the game needs is a reason for the leader pool to be bigger so it doesn't disproportionately affect science. Advisers, legislative assemblies, planetary governments, star base captains, large ship captains could all be fleshed out as sources of leaders (not necessarily ones you have to pay for) that would help mitigate this.

 

[Typee]

The problem with Democracies is the candidates are pulled from your leader pool. In the early game that's 1+ sector governors, 5+ scientists, 0+ admirals, 0+ generals. It's almost always going to be a scientist simply because scientists are over-represented in the leader pool for most of the early game. And even after you've gotten through the major exploratory rush and running fewer science ships, you've still probably got a bunch of scientists compared to the other leader positions. It's too easy to forget to hire a sector governor since sectors still work when ungoverned. Science shuts completely down without one.

What the game needs is a reason for the leader pool to be bigger so it doesn't disproportionately affect science. Advisers, legislative assemblies, planetary governments, star base captains, large ship captains could all be fleshed out as sources of leaders (not necessarily ones you have to pay for) that would help mitigate this.

And spies, don't forget spies.

 

[Zenopath]

Mandates are not worth investing resources just for its own rewards so unless it's something I was already planning to do they usually go unfulfilled while other authorities get some powerful modifiers through their leader goals. Also this doesn't matter that much later in the game but early on if one of my scientists gets elected I have to hire a level 1 leader again for lesser bonus. It's almost like democracy is a price you have to pay for going egalitarian and is egalitarian worth it? I don't know for sure cuz I never bothered continue playing it into the late game. Thoughts?

I think authoritarian is better honestly. You do get the nice +10% to specialist output if you go fanatic egalitarian, but the utopian abundance is not worth it at all, while stratified economy from authoritarian is a great way to save on consumer resources.

The influence gain bonus from authoritarian works from beginning of game, doesnt require you to actually have a faction, and more people work as workers than do as specialists. True, in late game the specialist bonus is worth a lot more, but early game, its worth less. I would say that unless you are aiming for a specific civic that requires it, dont bother.

 

[Kilmantor]

Egalitarian in 2.2 is bad anyway due to the meta.

You cannot resettle pops by default.
You cannot choose pop/robot model by default.

If you want to enable both you will take - 30% faction hit for BASIC GAME FEATURES.

Imo these options should not affect factions as they are almost mandatory for good empire management. Auth doesn't have such problems.

Being unable to resettle and being unable to force pops to work certain jobs is just immersive. The more authoritarian you are, the more control you have.

The problem I think is, that lots of people here want to optimize their Empire economically, but also want to play a "good" empire (liberal, egalitarian, democracy) and in stellaris, playing "good" is just not the best way to have the best economy.
If you want the pops with the +15%mineral-Bonus only to work in the mines, stay in their mines and resettle unemployed pops to new mining-planets - play an oligarchy or even more authoritarian.

 

[Derp]

and in stellaris, playing "good" is just not the best way to have the best economy.

yes, that's the problem that people have with it, and with the game in general. there's only one viable choice and it's being the biggest asshole in space.

 

[AlanC9]

Egalitarian in 2.2 is bad anyway due to the meta.

You cannot resettle pops by default.
You cannot choose pop/robot model by default.

If you want to enable both you will take - 30% faction hit for BASIC GAME FEATURES.

Imo these options should not affect factions as they are almost mandatory for good empire management. Auth doesn't have such problems.

That stuff's annoying in 2.2 anyway. Egalitarian is for when you don't want to deal with the individual pops. Honestly, I doubt I'm gonna play anything else in 2.2.

Wouldn't work in MP, but an awful lot of possible strategies can't work in MP, so what's one more?

 

[Talanic]

Being unable to resettle and being unable to force pops to work certain jobs is just immersive...playing "good" is just not the best way to have the best economy.

Isn't that just the way of things? Being the good guy means expending more to help those in need. Bad guys always profit more in the short term.

Long term checks out. Later on, as you snowball, empires who like you start asking for protectorate status. Soon enough you can integrate them without any conflict.

 

[Althizor]

Democracy could have a small happiness bonus for workers and maybe specialists? Or anyone with citizenship status?

The idea being that feeling more in control of their government makes them a bit happier.

Because yes, as it stands, I see no reason to want democracy except if it is required by something else I want.

 

[Zenopath]

Its not so much that democracy has no particular value, its just that the payoff, a chance of making the mandate, seems to have gotten nerfed a bit. I think maybe it could be re-balanced a bit. Also, utopian living standards had become very expensive for the small bonus that it provides. I think, given the way the mechanics are structured now, it should instead give bonus stability rather than happiness, which would have a much greater impact given its price tag.

 

[Nin6]

Mandates are not worth investing resources just for its own rewards so unless it's something I was already planning to do they usually go unfulfilled while other authorities get some powerful modifiers through their leader goals. Also this doesn't matter that much later in the game but early on if one of my scientists gets elected I have to hire a level 1 leader again for lesser bonus. It's almost like democracy is a price you have to pay for going egalitarian and is egalitarian worth it? I don't know for sure cuz I never bothered continue playing it into the late game. Thoughts?

You could always use shadow council, if re election bothers you that much.

 

[Jiav]

You could always use shadow council, if re election bothers you that much.

having to pick a civic to make your government choice semi viable is always a good sign

 

[Streganna]

What if your citizens ran for election and not your scientists/generals? Just an idea.