Despotic Empire - Perks pretty bad?
- Thread starter -Marauder-
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I know it's a typo... but "pops". "Popes" would be a dope name in spiritualist empire though
Imagine all the schisms that would cause.
Billions of popes all vying for power. - 7
I think the despotic empire as a gov choice will do just fine. The only disadvantage being you'll need slavery, but with a collectivist ethos this shouldn't be much of an issue.
Again, I feel like you might discount the amazing potential of Scientists as leaders. Where despotic hegemonies get a direct bonus to research and survey speed, that remains static for the whole game. While it will definitely provide a great boost in the early to mid game, I feel like it will be a different type of benefit vs the benefit of having a scientific leader. For example, lets say that the leaders traits carry over from their science position as lead researcher in physics. When they transition to the leader role, they might bring specific bonuses that would help research in physics. Or general research boosts. Or specific boosts. The point is, I can interchange them every 50 years or every death of a leader. That interchangeability will allow for me to pick a leader, who boosts my science research (hopefully among other things), to suit my current research or empire needs. So while the investment will need to be long term, I would imagine that having a very specialized scientist leader, combined with excellent researchers in each of the branches, will lead to a great boost where and when you need it.
Although I'm inclined to agree that there ought to be a collectivist oligarchy, the problem with your proposal is that individualist autocracies and collectivist democracies are close to being oxymorons.
Autocracy is the masses having to submit to the will of one person. Combining the former with an ethos for individualism is conceptually very difficult; I don't see how any self-respecting individualist would be satisfied with the idea of a ruler having absolute power regardless of how benevolently it is used. The closest historical example I can think of is maybe Napoleon's empire, although IIRC many of Napoleon's earlier liberal reforms were removed as he consolidated power. As a side note, after a quick google search enlightened monarchy sounds like a great match for your Andermani Empire. The emperors were known for their skill, did not expand against the the will of the people they annexed and allowed conquered people significant autonomy. This aligns great with pacifism and bonuses to both empire-wide and planetary edicts. I'd be very interested to hear if you have any other fictional or historical examples of an individualistic empire.
Democracy is essentially the idea that everybody should have a say in how the state is run. I'll admit that intuitively it seems easier to imagine democracy and collectivism together, but in practice I'm not so sure. The question quickly becomes at what point does individuals' acquiescence to leading figures in the society mean that, despite genuine elections, it is essentially not a democracy anymore, but instead a rather popular oligarchy or autocracy? A pink regime like Sweden, as you put it, strikes me as having more affinity with the IG governments peaceful bureaucracy or a moral democracy. In the Scandinavian countries there's so much agreement on what society should look like, and so many social rights are classified as human rights, that politics is essentially a technocratic debate on the best way to achieve the common goals. Another option for a collectivist democracy is a preference for a strongman, as in Russia where the people continue to elect a leader despite or perhaps because of the leader's autocratic tendencies.
In my mind, the real issue with Stellaris' governments is that it doesn't properly model how the power structure autocracy/oligarchy/monarchy should not (perfectly) correlate with whether the state is republican or monarchical. We all intuitively get that e.g. the United Kingdom is probably a form of indirect democracy in game terms, even if in Stellaris the leader of an indirect is called a president. However, it is not nearly as intuitive that both the Kingdom of Thailand and the Republic of the Union of Myanmar (at least up until recently) are military juntas. Despite North-Korea occasionally being described as a communist monarchy, it sounds weird if North-Korea in-game would be called a despotic empire and Kim would be an emperor. It simply clashes too much with the regime's propaganda. There's further no reason why a dictator could not be as "enlightened" as a monarch.
TL;DR: In the future, it'd be great for flavour if there were separate choices for government types and whether the titles of the state are monarchical or republican, so that we can have e.g. a constitutional monarchy or a benevolent president-for-life.
- 3
- 3
This is why my individualism autocracy basically consists of people scrambling over each other to be top of the pile. Anybody can be The Optimarch (ruler), so long as they're smart enough, charismatic enough or just lucky enough. Since most people think of themselves as above average, they see this as net good for them.
- 1
I like SD from the Rp point of view, but from the minmaxing one it's unreliable (luck-based) and as we have seen from the Blorg Stream, you will get around 2-3 extra choices by the mid game. Also you forget an important fact, that if your lead 5-star scientist gets elected he will no longer be available for research.
I think that if advanced government forms are all about doubling the original bonuses it will make SD less appealing to minmaxers. Military governments will get a strong economy boost due to cheaper upgrades/maintenance, an indirect democracy with talented species will provide 4-star leaders, a moral democracy paired with a fanatic religious ethos and a communal trait will give you extra production and drastically decrease the amount and strength of various factions.
While I see your point here, agas n, I have to reiterate the idea that all of our research tech will be luck based, and even by mid game, SD will still have a +1 on every other government. So yes the benefit decreases later, it still maintains a benefit in that regard.
I think the most important fact here is that your 5 star scientist becomes a leader, and while they aren't impacting the research directly, I feel like by that time in the mid game, you can bring one of your explorer scientists in to fill that void, and whatever scientific bonus your new leader has, compounds with the rest of your research team. This to me is a massive positive, not a negative.
Finally, I find a slight hole in your logic that next level governments will double all bonuses from your original government, as we don't really have too much info on those second tier governments do we? However, if it is the case that the SD bonus becomes a plus 2 to alternative research options, it will be one of the weaker advanced governments. Unless the bonus for your director leaders doubles as well...then that's a new ball game.
Ultimately, we're all clearly speculating on a few things...but I love the opposing views on this matter, as it forces me to take an opposite view to the current ideas I currently hold with regards to my ideas towards the gAme. So thank you for continuing to engage me in this discussion
- 2
I have an overwhelming urge to play a DE now just so I can build a battle station and name it "Thaddis Sabbah." =D
I may be wrong, but dont leaders get a different set of traits when they become rulers? So a scientist ruler may get traits not connected with his scientist background.
It's not a hole, 2 extra chances to get a tech you want vs solid stable bonus that will always be active is a one-sided bargain when you go for minmaxing in an ironman game. SD and it's advanced form IT won't be underpowered, but I doubt they will be used in popular minmaxed builds, because trying to win a roulette isn't as reliable as a flat bonus, especially if said bonus can't be covered by any tech.
EDIT: Even in multiplayer, if you get unlucky and extra techs you get arent the one you wanted, then you are screwed by a wasted bonus, while a flat bonus will always be able to prop you up.
Last edited:
- 1
If they get completely different traits as they become a leader, then it will suck balls. But I can't imagine they will as it will totally defeat the purpose of making them leaders. My hope is that they will basically get an extra trait when compared to other leaders, two of the "normal" leader traits and one research based one (or vice versa).
And my hole in your logic was on the doubling of gadvanced government bonuses, nothing else. Maybe I didn't make that clear enough in my initial argument. But I agree with you that the +1 tech per roll loses ground in the mid game, as other empires can research those. My main argument for the benefit of the extra tech is that it allows more flexibility in your ability to counter an enemy or something along those lines. If the next level of SD is nothing more than a doubling of what you had, it won't be strong at all.
All that being said, I have faith in PDS to create a balanced game in as many or all facets, so I would imagine min maxing will be a thing, but perhaps there will be ways around it. I doubt it will make min maxing go away all together,cut I have to believe that all government forms will be competitive if played correctly.
Most of them, yes. All of them, doubtful. After all, every PD game has selectable modifiers, that are suboptimal for powergaming, but interesting from RP perspective, and it's better stay this way, because when developer tries to make every option equally viable it can lead to a powercreep, that will break balance instead of fixing it.
I'm curious as how they balanced different types of governments or whatever they had in EUIV, as my understanding is that it was fairly balanced? Granted it's different with the asymmetrical start, but I would imagine they've found a formula to extrapolate out to Stellaris. I have to believe lol
Yeah, I hadn't thought of that aspect beforehand: if the advanced Directorate government form is just double the initial bonus that is much less powerful than initially apparent, due to diminishing returns. I've made another comment in a different topic about this, but basically it goes that the first +1 Research Alternatives(from gov. form) is a pretty significant +33% chance of getting rare techs. The second +1 Research Alternatives(from the tech Self-Aware Logic, which seems to appear relatively early) is just a 25% increase in that chance. By the time you'll get the chance to take the Advanced Gov. Forms tech, the +1 Research Alternatives you'll get from upgrading is a measly 20% increase, some(relatively) 40% less than the initial benefit of the government form. It becomes more interesting if you for some reason didn't take Self-Aware Logic, such as you didn't get lucky and drew it or you had more important techs to research when you did, but either way the diminishing return is strong here.
Last edited:
I fear your numbers are even less than what you project as the weight of them vary...not to mention there is no replacement once you get th tech once and it's not garunteed to come back to you if you pass on it.
If it is in fact a double up it would really hinder this Aweome early govnt
I'm not sure what you mean by this, might be because I'm sleepy and English is not my native language, but if you can explain it better that'd be great.
Well, if you are talking about Self-Aware Logic I'm pretty sure I saw it drawn from the tech deck at least twice in the Blorg Stream. They must've taken it at some point, but I can't recall whether that was in the second draw or in a third draw I didn't notice. It doesn't seem to be a particularly rare tech.
For Galactic Administration(adv. gov. forms), I also don't see why it would be a particularly rare tech, once you progress enough. It is probably weighted to appear more and more frequently come mid-game.
If wiz had actually used fortresses in his war with the wormhole aliens, those wormhole aliens would never have gotten anywhere against him. The fortresses he designed have a strength of 4K, and the wormhole range is so small they can't get through the frontier planets without building more wormhole stations in their space. As we saw when they only attacked the frontier planets in the first war, but used the wormhole stations they built in Blorg space to attack Blorg core worlds in the second war.
They'd also be great for blocking Hyperlane routes. A player with oversized stations will be in a very strong position militarily.
Reduced building cost will save an enormous amount of resources. That, combined with better slaves means you need to build fewer mines, fewer power stations, and fewer farms to get the same output, freeing up more tiles to build research labs. Slaves already give a higher output than regular pops. Seems like a pretty good government to me.
They'd also be great for blocking Hyperlane routes. A player with oversized stations will be in a very strong position militarily.
Reduced building cost will save an enormous amount of resources. That, combined with better slaves means you need to build fewer mines, fewer power stations, and fewer farms to get the same output, freeing up more tiles to build research labs. Slaves already give a higher output than regular pops. Seems like a pretty good government to me.
Wonder if the fortress weapons have the range to kill the ships at the edge building wormhole stations
Here's my theory on the ideal Hugbox defense:
For use in either major systems or a chokepoint system: You have a Hugbox [FTL-interdictor station] in the center, and at minimum distance, 3-4 defensive fortresses arranged symmetrically around it; the idea is, that Hugbox has the FTL interdiction that, sayeth Wiz, forces an incoming opponent to appear next to the Hugbox. Your defensive fortresses then open fire, possibly backed up by a defensive fleet, or at least entangling them long enough for a defensive fleet to arrive.
The exact feasibility of this depends on weapons range on the fortresses and mineral upkeep, but having these over high-priority targets, especially any dual-planet systems you possess [thus having dual starports], would seem a good option.
It's possible this has been thought of and countered, but I'm eager to see either way.
And I just realized this is tangential. Relevant to the original post, a Monarchy that isn't an Enlightened Monarchy is probably a caste or serfdom system, or it's not really a Monarchy [more an Oligarchy with a figurehead]. As such, I don't see a problem with it focusing on slaves [and I very much doubt the penalty to work from slave unhappiness is going to fully counteract the bonus to production of minerals and food from, you know, being a slave].
The exact feasibility of this depends on weapons range on the fortresses and mineral upkeep, but having these over high-priority targets, especially any dual-planet systems you possess [thus having dual starports], would seem a good option.
It's possible this has been thought of and countered, but I'm eager to see either way.
And I just realized this is tangential. Relevant to the original post, a Monarchy that isn't an Enlightened Monarchy is probably a caste or serfdom system, or it's not really a Monarchy [more an Oligarchy with a figurehead]. As such, I don't see a problem with it focusing on slaves [and I very much doubt the penalty to work from slave unhappiness is going to fully counteract the bonus to production of minerals and food from, you know, being a slave].