Faction Unity Gain based on Pop Amount instead of Political Power

[Kiwibaum]

Currently Faction Unity Gain seems to be based on Approval and the summed Political Power of the Pops of that faction.

This is somewhat unintuitive and can cause confusion for example when looking at Shared Burden and why it's doubling of Egalitarian Faction Unity gain doesn't do that much. Keeping the above in mind the reason lies in comparing the Shared Burden Living Standard with for example Decent Conditions. The big difference here is that with Decent Conditions Specialists get +100% Political Power, basically making them count as two Pops for Faction Unity Gain and Leaders getting +700% Political Power counting as 7 Pops. Shared Burden instead doesn't add any Political Power. Tho due to the doubling of Base Unity Gain of Egalitarian Factions, each Pop basically counts as two.

A player shouldn't have to know such details, to figure out why Shared Burden doesn't grant you the expected benefit, which is listed as a positive in the civic description.
Additionally this adds another factor that would require balance in Living Standards, which is just frankly unnessary.

So my suggestion would be to the following: Instead of Political Power use Faction Support * (Pops/Politically Active Pops). This would make it irrelevant which Living Standard a Pop would have in determining how much Unity Gain they can add to Factions in general, but still keep it relevant for the specific Faction they are supporting.

 

[mial42]

I'd argue SB should make a bit more political unity than it costs in CG, because:

a) if you're using it then it might be your only current option, unlike Academic Privilege and Utopian Abundance which always have other options.

b) from an RP perspective, SB is about an entire society deciding to do something politically unified. It's not a default outgrowth of previous institutions, like Stratified Economy growing out of an aristocracy which itself grew out of tribal warlords. Shared Burdens is a deliberately constructed society -- everyone in it should be more politically aware than average.

c) you paid a Civic for it, so it should be (a little) better than its competition.

It doesn't have to be overwhelming -- it's supposed to be an entry-level mechanic, which you eventually upgrade into UA when you can -- but it should be as strong as the Civic point you paid to get locked into it.

Maybe a little, but you do get +100% faction unity from Progressive faction with Shared Burdens, which I think that represents that aspect of a politically mobilized society quite well.

 

[HFY]

Maybe a little, but you do get +100% faction unity from Progressive faction with Shared Burdens, which I think that represents that aspect of a politically mobilized society quite well.

I'd be fine with that extra bonus disappearing and the basic mechanic being fixed instead.

Honestly it doesn't feel like a bonus when I've got 90% faction membership in either Spiritual (psionic) or Materialist (synths).

 

[Abdulijubjub]

I'd argue SB should make a bit more political unity than it costs in CG, because:

I agree, it should.

But I'd say, with +50%, it already would. 0.375 would be the going rate for +50%, based on the default worker/specialist baselines, and you pay 0.4 (which is why I picked +50% as the proposed rate). But you get doubled egalitarian faction unity. So you'll always get above the going rate, and how much more you get above the baseline depends on how large of a % of your population you can squeeze into your egalitarian faction.

For reference, Parliamentary Systems adds +40% faction unity, and it's pretty stronk (though a big thing is that it spawns factions early). SB giving you +100% faction unity for egalitarian faction only seems fairly reasonable, by contrast.

If you can get to, say, 80% support (support only egalitarian, get high weights from other sources like the living standard), with +50%, you'd be getting the equivalent of 1.5*.2+2*1.5*.8=2.7 (+170% political power), or 35% more than a default specialist, who pays .5 for upkeep. And when you upgrade to UA, with the same ratio of egalitarians, you'd get 3*.2+2*3*.8=5.4 (+440% political power), or better than a ruler under Social Welfare, and better than a specialist under Academic Privilege, for everyone in the population.

Academic Privilege might still beat it in total, but only if 8% of the population are rulers and the remaining 92% are all specialists. For a mid game economy, that's not possible. And for a late game economy, unless you're merchant spamming, that's not feasible. 4 Politicians and Science Director on a ring world of 140 researchers will not get you there, nor will 5 Politicians on an ecumenopolis filled with metallurgists.

With +200%, UA with the Shared Burdens civic would be the best faction unity in the game, in most scenarios. If you want a more secure lead, you can bump it to +250%, or even +300%. Where to stop is just a question of fiddling the knobs, not some fundamental change.

 

[HFY]

I agree, it should.

But I'd say, with +50%, it already would.

Do you mean (default +50) = 150% political power total, or do you mean (current +50) = 60+50 = 110% total -- because the former might be reasonable, but the latter feels a bit low to me.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Do you mean (default +50) = 150% political power total, or do you mean (current +50) = 60+50 = 110% total -- because the former might be reasonable, but the latter feels a bit low to me.

Shared Burdens currently gives everyone 100% political power (the default). I mean 150% total; 110% would be low. Where's the 60% coming from?
(I feel like I missed something here, apologies if this was just a mistake).

 

[civ_v_freak]

So again: if the issue isn't just SB/UA's political power, which is easily fixed... why does the faction unity/political power interaction mechanic need to go? What is so bad about it that you would rather see it die than fix the specific issue that you seem to have with it?

Because the political power isn't a problem in itself, in my opinion, only because of the tie to faction unity which is entirely arbitrary. As the OP framed it, making the foundation upon which faction unity is generated stem from population size (of faction pops) rather than being inflated via political power also seems more balanced. Pops are already part of the equation, but the size of a faction becomes irrelevant when its impact on faction unity is warped by political power. Right now you have certain living standards providing more impact alone on faction unity than e.g. Parliamentary System combined with UA or SB does, so grabbing a civic like that is like a drop in a bucket in comparison, limiting meaningful niches and choices.

The solution to realizing this, in my opinion, is to sever that tie and level the playing field... from where you can then more easily balance e.g. the living standards on their other merits without having to consider a hodge podge of political power values of each living standard. It makes designing and maintaining this system in the future (internal politics rework when?) a lot easier, this being the real loser of overly complex mechanics.

It doesn't have to be overwhelming -- it's supposed to be an entry-level mechanic, which you eventually upgrade into UA when you can -- but it should be as strong as the Civic point you paid to get locked into it.

Exactly. The opportunity cost for running SB is so much higher, and because of this it currently makes a lot of sense to remove the civic too alongside ditching the living standard later on. But, with the change I've been describing this would also provide incentive to keep the civic around, reaping the rewards from added Progressive faction unity gain as it then would actually be somewhat significant compared to the current state of the faction unity meta. This in turn would make boosting governing ethics attraction, a normally insignificant mechanic, provide some synergy in maximizing the benefit of egalitarian societies. A much simpler to understand, simpler in practical effect, less gamey and arbitrary of a system.

 

[Abdulijubjub]

Because the political power isn't a problem in itself, in my opinion, only because of the tie to faction unity which is entirely arbitrary.

Every mechanic is arbitrary.

As the OP framed it, making the foundation upon which faction unity is generated stem from population size (of faction pops) rather than being inflated via political power also seems more balanced.

How? I'm begging you, repeatedly, tell me why you feel this way. You keep saying, this, but you just... assert it. And then cite SB/UA as evidence. But SB/UA is easily addressed through other means. Why is more balanced to base faction unity on pure pop counts?

Pops are already part of the equation, but the size of a faction becomes irrelevant when its impact on faction unity is warped by political power.

... Yes. Are you basically saying "why does this thing that's meant to represent internal politics care about political power?" The point of faction approval is to align your (the player's) incentives with roleplay. Your egalitarian faction will be happy if you have egalitarian policies and do egalitarian things, and when you offend your citizen's egalitarian sensibilities by e.g. allowing population controls, you are punished with missing unity. The fact that the only people you care about are the people whose opinions matter (the one with political power) is a triumph of storytelling through game mechanics, not an issue (in my opinion).

Right now you have certain living standards providing more impact alone on faction unity than e.g. Parliamentary System combined with UA or SB does, so grabbing a civic like that is like a drop in a bucket in comparison, limiting meaningful niches and choices.

Again, you keep coming back to UA/SB. As was proposed, literally as the first response in this thread: it's so much simpler to just increase the political power of SB/UA. Give UA +300% political power, and UA with the Shared Burdens Civic will be the best political power in the game, all the time.

It's worth noting that this change, where you make factions only depend on pops, would affect every living standard except UA/SB. Whatever numbers you decide on for UA/SB, you could adjust their political power in the current system to have exactly the same behavior. Literally exactly the same, since UA/SB already are at this state, where faction unity depends purely on pop count. This change would only affect the living standards that aren't already equal in political power per pop. It would have no effect on SB/UA gameplay.

The solution to realizing this, in my opinion, is to sever that tie and level the playing field... from where you can then more easily balance e.g. the living standards on their other merits without having to consider a hodge podge of political power values of each living standard. It makes designing and maintaining this system in the future (internal politics rework when?) a lot easier, this being the real loser of overly complex mechanics.

Ok, so the issue is that it's too complex for what it gives? But you explicitly said that wasn't the issue before.

Exactly. The opportunity cost for running SB is so much higher, and because of this it currently makes a lot of sense to remove the civic too alongside ditching the living standard later on. But, with the change I've been describing this would also provide incentive to keep the civic around, reaping the rewards from added Progressive faction unity gain as it then would actually be somewhat significant compared to the current state of the faction unity meta. This in turn would make boosting governing ethics attraction, a normally insignificant mechanic, provide some synergy in maximizing the benefit of egalitarian societies.

Again, the SB thing: boosting the political power of all pops under SB/UA would fix this. It would give you a fairly normal amount of faction unity for the CG you pay before accounting for the civic, and the double egalitarian unity would be a bonus on par, or better than, Parliamentary Systems (which stacks with, multiplicatively, if you want to do both). It would make SB a more flavorful version of Parliamentary Systems, that you can upgrade later in the game to be even stronger.

And governing ethics attraction already is a significant mechanic, in all societies. The more pops are in your happiest factions instead of random fringe factions, the happier all your pops are (giving you more stable planets) and the more faction unity you make, even if that amount of faction unity is low. If the problem is that it's not strong enough in SB because SB faction unity is too weak: buff SB.

A much simpler to understand, simpler in practical effect, less gamey and arbitrary of a system.

<repeat paragraph about how political power is exactly the right mechanic to build your system representing internal politics around, how it makes sense in-universe, and how it makes your incentives align with roleplay>

It would certainly be simpler. Removing things makes the game simpler. But if you remove everything, you have no game left. It's not just a question of whether it's simpler, it's a question of whether it's better. Whether the complexity a system adds is not worth the value it gives.

And every system is arbitrary, from the specifics of the faction system to the colors of the icons.

What you're proposing is 1 pop-1 vote, regardless of the political structure of your society (Auth, Materialist, Xenophobe where no one but the main species are citizens, etc.) would make more sense. It's already 1 pop-1 vote for UA and SB. So sell us on why it should also be that way for Stratified Economy and Academic Privilege (which is what you're proposing, by untying the two mechanics).

 

[HFY]

Shared Burdens currently gives everyone 100% political power (the default). I mean 150% total; 110% would be low. Where's the 60% coming from?
(I feel like I missed something here, apologies if this was just a mistake).

View attachment 961428

Neat, last time I looked (which might have been 3.5 or so) it seemed to be 60% / 60% / 60%.

If it's 100% / 100% / 100% now then that's an improvement.

Anyway, I agree with you that 150% political power would be appropriate.

 

[Stupid_Dragon]

Regardless of whether it's a good formula or bad formula it certainly requires a bit more clarity, and the connection of faction unity with living standards should be explicitly highlighted in living standard UI (Trade Value should as well while at it).

I for one missed this mechanic entirely until I was pointed out.