I've been going through a lot of thinking about the "Problem Ethos" (i.e. the ones causing constant discussion on the forums). I've previously posted an early draft to a different thread, but I think it might be time to hopefully start a discussion dedicated to it.
Now, first it might be a good idea to list the requirements for what I would consider a "successful" Ethos-axis. Which is what they hopefully all will be given time and reworks.
That was tangent (hence being in a spoiler), but I think it's relevant if you want to know what I want out of the reworked Collectivist-Indidividualist and Xenophobe-Xenophile axes.
Let's start with Collectivism-Individualism. Fluffwise it deals with whether the state serves the individual, or the individual serves the state, but IMO it should still get a central "Mechanical" question deciding the most important gameplay aspects. In my mind, a logical suggestion would be "How does your empire deal with pops of different ethos?"
I have quite the problems with the Xenophobe-Xenophile axis, at least while it is named as such. I see the names Xenophobe as emphasising an irrational hatred, and Xenophile an irrational love. Neither seems suitable to spend points on fluffwise, and the current question "Should the alien be allowed to live among us?" has mechanical problems with "Yes" struggling to provide any benefits other than "Aliens live among us", while "No" closes off gameplay elements rather than opening them up.
Previously I've suggested changing it to Hierarchy-Egalitarianism, but in order to both still deal with "Xeno relations" and ensure it as a "Successful" axis according to my own criteria, I'm instead suggesting changing it to Supremacism-Egalitarianism. The question is whether to cooperate with different species, or dominate them.
I thinking if I should write more, but I think it's already far too long. Hopefully the spoilers have made it more manageable and easy to understand each part.
I'll end by bringing up my 4th criteria, and give examples of races in other Sci-fi Media I think are well represented through the reworked Supremacist-Egalitarian axis:
Warhammer 40k Tau: Fanatic Collectivist and Egalitarian.
Sins of a Solar Empire Vasari: Militarist, Supremacist, Materialist
XCOM Ethereals: Fanatic Supremacist, Spiritualist
Now, first it might be a good idea to list the requirements for what I would consider a "successful" Ethos-axis. Which is what they hopefully all will be given time and reworks.
1) The options need impact your empire's society in some way, both mechanically and fluff-wise.
Mechanically this means significant changes to playstyle, fluff-wise it means modelling the way the society is structured, as goals and ambitions.
+5%/+10% minerals vs +5%/+10% energy isn't significant mechanically, Left-hand or Right-hand driving lanes isn't significant fluff-wise.
2) Needs to deal with different approaches to a significant aspect of gameplay.
This is 100% personal preference, but I prefer for the axis as a whole to have "ask" single question of how your society operates, and the two poles are different, mutually exclusive answers to that question. The mechanics of the Ethos then needs to reflect that answer.
Basically, if you have overall axis named Order vs Chaos, you can the specific "mechanics" be Civilization vs Barbarism, or Conformity vs Individualism. Civilization vs Individualism or Conformity vs Barbarism gets into weird territory where neither is mutually exclusive, and you can end up without a stance at all (not even neutrality, just straight up "n/a").
3) There need to be a difference between Fanatic and non-Fanatic (or "base") versions of the Ethos worth paying another point.
The idea is to avoid how I understand Collectivism to is currently viewed: base Collectivism is overpowered, Fanatic Collectivism underpowered.
This is also a point I will need to some feedback, as I've put some thought into making some of the Fanatic versions worth it (hopefully without leaving the base version worthless), but not all.
4) This is relatively minor, but the Ethos should help representing Sci-fi races or empires from other media.
Militarist-Pacifist is IMO the most "succcessful" Ethos-Axis when viewed with these criteria in mind:
Mechanically this means significant changes to playstyle, fluff-wise it means modelling the way the society is structured, as goals and ambitions.
+5%/+10% minerals vs +5%/+10% energy isn't significant mechanically, Left-hand or Right-hand driving lanes isn't significant fluff-wise.
2) Needs to deal with different approaches to a significant aspect of gameplay.
This is 100% personal preference, but I prefer for the axis as a whole to have "ask" single question of how your society operates, and the two poles are different, mutually exclusive answers to that question. The mechanics of the Ethos then needs to reflect that answer.
Basically, if you have overall axis named Order vs Chaos, you can the specific "mechanics" be Civilization vs Barbarism, or Conformity vs Individualism. Civilization vs Individualism or Conformity vs Barbarism gets into weird territory where neither is mutually exclusive, and you can end up without a stance at all (not even neutrality, just straight up "n/a").
3) There need to be a difference between Fanatic and non-Fanatic (or "base") versions of the Ethos worth paying another point.
The idea is to avoid how I understand Collectivism to is currently viewed: base Collectivism is overpowered, Fanatic Collectivism underpowered.
This is also a point I will need to some feedback, as I've put some thought into making some of the Fanatic versions worth it (hopefully without leaving the base version worthless), but not all.
4) This is relatively minor, but the Ethos should help representing Sci-fi races or empires from other media.
Militarist-Pacifist is IMO the most "succcessful" Ethos-Axis when viewed with these criteria in mind:
1) Great importance for the lore of your empire/species. Significant changes for Pacifist playstyle (hopefully improved with future DLC improving internal management), while Militarist is mechanically strong even if it doesn't open unique playstyles.
2) "How should conflicts be solved?/Is violence good?" "a) Through diplomacy, with bonuses to diplomacy/No, with bonuses to peace time. b) Through violence, with bonuses to war/Yes, with bonuses to war." I would say Militarist-Pacifist succeeds in this regard.
3) Good differences between the Fanatic and non-Fanatic versions.
4) Helpful in portraying the difference between the Star Trek federation and Sith Empire of Star Wars.
2) "How should conflicts be solved?/Is violence good?" "a) Through diplomacy, with bonuses to diplomacy/No, with bonuses to peace time. b) Through violence, with bonuses to war/Yes, with bonuses to war." I would say Militarist-Pacifist succeeds in this regard.
3) Good differences between the Fanatic and non-Fanatic versions.
4) Helpful in portraying the difference between the Star Trek federation and Sith Empire of Star Wars.
That was tangent (hence being in a spoiler), but I think it's relevant if you want to know what I want out of the reworked Collectivist-Indidividualist and Xenophobe-Xenophile axes.
Let's start with Collectivism-Individualism. Fluffwise it deals with whether the state serves the individual, or the individual serves the state, but IMO it should still get a central "Mechanical" question deciding the most important gameplay aspects. In my mind, a logical suggestion would be "How does your empire deal with pops of different ethos?"
The collectivist answer is that they should get in line with the state ideology, and therefore gives bonuses (maluses? It gives -x%) to Ethos Divergence.
Base Collectivism would get techs and buildings emphasizing "herd mentality", peer pressure and voluntary conformism. Would still be the one to allows slavery (of both Xeno and main species) as it's groups forced to serve the collective, but would probably have unhappiness from unregulated slavery.
Fanatic Collectivism has techs and buildings for commissars, repressions and forced conformity. Allows unrestricted purges and unrestricted slavery.
The individualist answer is that different ethos should be tolerated, even if they aren't accepted.
Individualism would reduce tensions between pops with different ethos. It would also open policy options that pisses off non-individualist pops to a lesser degree.
The main mechanical aspect of Collectivism-Individualism would therefore be internal stability with regards to Ethos Divergence. Collectivism brings stability by ensuring everyone agrees with the state. Individualism brings “stability” by ensuring non-individualists aren’t unhappy enough to be at the “rebellion” state.
Base Collectivism would get techs and buildings emphasizing "herd mentality", peer pressure and voluntary conformism. Would still be the one to allows slavery (of both Xeno and main species) as it's groups forced to serve the collective, but would probably have unhappiness from unregulated slavery.
Fanatic Collectivism has techs and buildings for commissars, repressions and forced conformity. Allows unrestricted purges and unrestricted slavery.
The individualist answer is that different ethos should be tolerated, even if they aren't accepted.
Individualism would reduce tensions between pops with different ethos. It would also open policy options that pisses off non-individualist pops to a lesser degree.
The main mechanical aspect of Collectivism-Individualism would therefore be internal stability with regards to Ethos Divergence. Collectivism brings stability by ensuring everyone agrees with the state. Individualism brings “stability” by ensuring non-individualists aren’t unhappy enough to be at the “rebellion” state.
I have quite the problems with the Xenophobe-Xenophile axis, at least while it is named as such. I see the names Xenophobe as emphasising an irrational hatred, and Xenophile an irrational love. Neither seems suitable to spend points on fluffwise, and the current question "Should the alien be allowed to live among us?" has mechanical problems with "Yes" struggling to provide any benefits other than "Aliens live among us", while "No" closes off gameplay elements rather than opening them up.
Previously I've suggested changing it to Hierarchy-Egalitarianism, but in order to both still deal with "Xeno relations" and ensure it as a "Successful" axis according to my own criteria, I'm instead suggesting changing it to Supremacism-Egalitarianism. The question is whether to cooperate with different species, or dominate them.
Egalitarianism supports the equality of species, and it works by opening up everything to all species in the empire. Mechanical benefits include reducing tensions between species. Fanatic Egalitarianism opens up the “No main species” policy, which somewhat mollifies even supremacist and xenophobic (if it's implemented as a trait or quirk" instead of Ethos) pops.
Supremacism works by enforcing your species dominance over others. In order for Supremacist empires to avoid the current problems with Xenophobic empires and Ethos Divergence (ED), non-main species (NMS) pops work differently with regards to ED than most other circumstances.
Non-Supremacist NMS pops gains the Supremacist ethos through positive ED, negative ED instead gives them the unique-to-pops “Obedience” Ethos. This Ethos is mutually exclusive to both Supremacism and Egalitarianism, and removes the unhappiness from policies favouring the main species.
Base Supremacism allows xeno-slavery and aggressive/forced gene-modding.
Fanatic Supremacism opens xeno purges and creating outright slave species with traits for being better slaves and genetically enforced Obedience ethos.
Supremacism works by enforcing your species dominance over others. In order for Supremacist empires to avoid the current problems with Xenophobic empires and Ethos Divergence (ED), non-main species (NMS) pops work differently with regards to ED than most other circumstances.
Non-Supremacist NMS pops gains the Supremacist ethos through positive ED, negative ED instead gives them the unique-to-pops “Obedience” Ethos. This Ethos is mutually exclusive to both Supremacism and Egalitarianism, and removes the unhappiness from policies favouring the main species.
Base Supremacism allows xeno-slavery and aggressive/forced gene-modding.
Fanatic Supremacism opens xeno purges and creating outright slave species with traits for being better slaves and genetically enforced Obedience ethos.
I thinking if I should write more, but I think it's already far too long. Hopefully the spoilers have made it more manageable and easy to understand each part.
I'll end by bringing up my 4th criteria, and give examples of races in other Sci-fi Media I think are well represented through the reworked Supremacist-Egalitarian axis:
Warhammer 40k Tau: Fanatic Collectivist and Egalitarian.
Sins of a Solar Empire Vasari: Militarist, Supremacist, Materialist
XCOM Ethereals: Fanatic Supremacist, Spiritualist
- 5
Upvote
0