Democracy is... not good to say the least

[AlanC9]

Well, you shouldn't lose a leader every decade. Much of the time your current leader will be re-elected, and if she isn't you should be swapping one leader for another.

In theory, anyway. Lhiannon's right, at least about the stock UNE; your first ruler just vanishes after losing an election. Looks like Dolores Muwanga doesn't have a pre_ruler_class anymore, so she goes nowhere if voted out of office. I don't know if this is a general problem or not.

 

[wingren013]

If mandates gave influence rather than unity I think it would be better. I feel like so many things give unity these days.

 

[Sinister2202]

RANT

It's democracy. Why aren't random politicians running for office? Why does it have to be only my scientists and governors? What about all those those Pops in top of the strata chain with high political power? What about them?

And why does unity reward so shit capped at 1,000 that's a joke. Why can't unity reward cap be scaled with the size of unity DEMAND that your empire requires in late game?? Maybe a 33% of max unity cost of tradition or ambition would be nice!

This authority type needs to be revamped. If I see one more new authority type without any rework on a mess like democracy, I am going to be super pissed and just might catch buyer's remorse, because I will be buying the DLC anyways as the game desperately needs more things with changes that are bound to happen.

Also the mandates make no sense. "Build more orbital research stations" what- I don't even... Where the hell am I going to find more research deposits when I'm trying my best not to expand, as I am playing tall? "Build more mining stations" "build more mining districts" What? I have over 600+ monthly income of minerals. What more do you want?

Aren't mandates supposed to be comparable to campaign promises or something? Or something your nation needs and could see improvements on? Why can't they just be reactive rather than random? You can't even see what mandate they are going to give you during the election process. I could be wrong though. And obviously the most popular faction leader wins most of the time in late game, getting re-elected over and over again. I have better things to do with influence. Also, no term limit on unlimited re-election doesn't bother me! But reminds me that I should've stayed authoritarian! *cough cough*

 

[Kapitalisti]

Oligarchy often bugs out and rulers retire after they're elected out of office.

"Retire"... Uhm yes of course, they retire to a nice little farm planet where they can live with all the other retired people.

 

[Jiav]

RANT

It's democracy. Why aren't random politicians running for office? Why does it have to be only my scientists and governors? What about all those those Pops in top of the strata chain with high political power? What about them?

And why does unity reward so shit capped at 1,000 that's a joke. Why can't unity reward cap be scaled with the size of unity DEMAND that your empire requires in late game?? Maybe a 33% of max unity cost of tradition or ambition would be nice!

This authority type needs to be revamped. If I see one more new authority type without any rework on a mess like democracy, I am going to be super pissed and just might catch buyer's remorse, because I will be buying the DLC anyways as the game desperately needs more things with changes that are bound to happen.

Also the mandates make no sense. "Build more orbital research stations" what- I don't even... Where the hell am I going to find more research deposits when I'm trying my best not to expand, as I am playing tall? "Build more mining stations" "build more mining districts" What? I have over 600+ monthly income of minerals. What more do you want?

Aren't mandates supposed to be comparable to campaign promises or something? Or something your nation needs and could see improvements on? Why can't they just be reactive rather than random? You can't even see what mandate they are going to give you during the election process. I could be wrong though. And obviously the most popular faction leader wins most of the time in late game, getting re-elected over and over again. I have better things to do with influence. Also, no term limit on unlimited re-election doesn't bother me! But reminds me that I should've stayed authoritarian! *cough cough*

Imo mandates should be rewritten into something like:

instead of building more mining/reseach stations into "produce 20000 minerals over 10 years" or whatever. These station mandates have been terrible since they got implemented.

 

[Sinister2202]

Imo mandates should be rewritten into something like:

instead of building more mining/reseach stations into "produce 20000 minerals over 10 years" or whatever. These station mandates have been terrible since they got implemented.

Sounds good. I forgot about the part where goals of the mandates themselves are really bad. It's very dull because most I am getting are straight from Stellaris 1.0 (the mining and research ones) except for the district ones and some others.

I wish mandates also adapted to your ethos and would correlate with the faction beliefs if the president is a faction leader. If militarist majority, "rival so and on empire and get influence reward", right off top of my head. Or what if mandates had multiple objectives with multiple rewards in a single term? Would that be so bad? "Rival so and so, claim their systems, declare war (biggest reward and final)" - also from the top of my head. That's something I would pursue.

 

[Kilmantor]

I wouldn't say its that immersive, there are plenty of examples in the real world where democracies target specific groups of people to make up a shortfall in their economy, for example the UK has a special immigration route available only fornmedical professionals.

Resettling as a democracy in Stellaris would just the goverment sponsoring a campaign for specific people from one planet to resettle in another. It should cost more than the authoritian version obviously.

"Miners of Earth! Our new colony on Sirius III needs you! Applicants get free travel, a guaranteed job and a brand new home. All covered by the Ministry of the Migration."

True. But if PDX implements this right, democracies should still be unable to resettle pops directly but they get an exclusive descision than gives a big bonus on immigration-pull on that planet. Something like that already existed in older versions, not sure why they cut that out.

 

[Arutar]

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.

In my opinion these tools are almost mandatory now only due to the current wonky pop growth models, which I still hope they change.

I have never felt the need to resettle or engage in population controls as an egalitarian before 2.2.

 

[EvilTom]

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.

Didn't someone say something like "democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others forms"?

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

This is what is needed. Also Faction leaders shouldn't necessarily be your leaders (scientists, governors). Maybe your own leaders should be given ethics that you can see and they can influence what happens in government and the factions?

Even if not applicable for bios, its ridiculous that we cannot control non-sentient robot pops.

Robots should be moved anywhere on a whim, but at a cost. Perhaps loading them into transport ships would be a more fun way of doing it rather than just instant?

My initial leader always vanishes after being voted out of office.

This is also my experience.

True. But if PDX implements this right, democracies should still be unable to resettle pops directly but they get an exclusive descision than gives a big bonus on immigration-pull on that planet. Something like that already existed in older versions, not sure why they cut that out.

Doesn't expending consumer goods increase immigration? I believe the decision is called distribute luxuries. I do, however, think that most of the decisions need to be monthly expenditure rather than single use, as that will reduce the micromanaging of them (or you should be able to fund it for X years and be notified when it expires).
I agree with your sentiment that egalitarians shouldn't be able to forcefully scoop up populations, but should be able to heavily influence where they go. Maybe population transports or transport routes just like the trade network might help... or at least help visualise where migration is happening and going.

 

[Typee]

I do, however, think that most of the decisions need to be monthly expenditure rather than single use

Nah, it used to be like that, and it really isn't all that great. First off it requires even more micro because you have to constantly check on your expenditures to balance your economy, but more importantly it's hard to estimate how much you should be spending on decisions maintenance every month. Single-shot expenses make that much simpler : just spend when you have a large stockpile and you're good.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

If mandates gave influence rather than unity I think it would be better. I feel like so many things give unity these days.

Agreed, I estimated approximately 1 years influence, capping at 100 would be ideal - for free influence that's a fair bit, combining with parliamentary system that would be enough to bring parity with the more stable influence gain from Authoritarian.

 

[EvilTom]

Nah, it used to be like that, and it really isn't all that great. First off it requires even more micro because you have to constantly check on your expenditures to balance your economy, but more importantly it's hard to estimate how much you should be spending on decisions maintenance every month. Single-shot expenses make that much simpler : just spend when you have a large stockpile and you're good.

Your point make sense. Maybe a compromise and we should have the choice to prepay for X years, or do a monthly subscription, similar to trade agreements with foreign powers.

 

[MAHak]

An resettle policy option that allows you to only resettle pops from non-natural to natural biome would be nice.

Another democratic trap is if the leader of a hugely popular faction is useless AF. Having to spend 100+ influence just to make sure that some other candidate has a fair chance against that resilient + other useless trait ('Warlike' or 'Home in the sky' early game or explorer later on), is really annoying.

Also some variation in the mandate rewards would be nice.

 

[EvilTom]

Should there be consequences to not fulfilling a mandate and then they can increase the reward for fulfilling one?

I only ask as I can imagine if a radical leader gets into power which doesn't align with your personal ethics or gameplay you should have to accept it and work around it as egalitarian (it's the will of the people)... or embrace it!

 

[Paul93]

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

Absolutely agree. In general, I think that Stellaris governmental mechanics should be completely reworked with more interesting and dynamic choices... where is the legislature in democracies? Where are the backroom plots between noble families in monarchies? I know this is not CK2, but a more fleshed out political apparatus is something necessary. And now, given that we finally have an economy and a sociely to deal with, it time for this change.

 

[Aed]

True. But if PDX implements this right, democracies should still be unable to resettle pops directly but they get an exclusive descision than gives a big bonus on immigration-pull on that planet. Something like that already existed in older versions, not sure why they cut that out.

You could do that for sure, although I'd argue for a strata specific decision though, otherwise we could end up with our specialists ditching their jobs to go be a miner somewhere else, which would be both frustrating to deal with and not make much sense logically either.

Personally I think just having resettlement in democracies cost more energy, and some influence would be a lot simpler. Perhaps with some conditional restrictions, like you cannot move a pop to a planet if there is no job of at least the equivalent strata for them to fill.

 

[AlanC9]

In my opinion these tools are almost mandatory now only due to the current wonky pop growth models, which I still hope they change.

I have never felt the need to resettle or engage in population controls as an egalitarian before 2.2.

Why do you feel the need now? I'm in the same place I always was -- I never wanted to deal with that stuff before, I still don't, and I don't have to. What changed for you?

 

[Jiav]

Why do you feel the need now? I'm in the same place I always was -- I never wanted to deal with that stuff before, I still don't, and I don't have to. What changed for you?

it isn't as before, before you could actually pick whatever robot you want to build and your own species wouldn't suddenly stop growing until all of your other species have reached the same population number, not to mention your other species would actually just grow on planets which they were present

its literally NOT the same as before

 

[LeanneKaos]

I wouldn't say its that immersive, there are plenty of examples in the real world where democracies target specific groups of people to make up a shortfall in their economy, for example the UK has a special immigration route available only fornmedical professionals.

Resettling as a democracy in Stellaris would just the goverment sponsoring a campaign for specific people from one planet to resettle in another. It should cost more than the authoritian version obviously.

"Miners of Earth! Our new colony on Sirius III needs you! Applicants get free travel, a guaranteed job and a brand new home. All covered by the Ministry of the Migration."

Sounds close to the "Distribute Luxury Goods" decision - which gives +25% Immigration Pull. Just a bit of stretch to imagine the 'luxury goods' being distributed are free travel and free/subsidized housing. (And Jobs are probably why you want people moving there anyway.) Maybe just give that a boost for Democracies?

Granted, it doesn't pull from a specific planet; but then, most of the reasons why you'd want to pull from a specific planet are giving immigration push anyway.

 

[Aed]

Sounds close to the "Distribute Luxury Goods" decision - which gives +25% Immigration Pull. Just a bit of stretch to imagine the 'luxury goods' being distributed are free travel and free/subsidized housing. (And Jobs are probably why you want people moving there anyway.) Maybe just give that a boost for Democracies?

Granted, it doesn't pull from a specific planet; but then, most of the reasons why you'd want to pull from a specific planet are giving immigration push anyway.

I'll just quote my previous post as it addressed the same question.

You could do that for sure, although I'd argue for a strata specific decision though, otherwise we could end up with our specialists ditching their jobs to go be a miner somewhere else, which would be both frustrating to deal with and not make much sense logically either.

Personally I think just having resettlement in democracies cost more energy, and some influence would be a lot simpler. Perhaps with some conditional restrictions, like you cannot move a pop to a planet if there is no job of at least the equivalent strata for them to fill.