Federation presidential election while at war.

[Raziel2100]

During the last Stellaris stream i noticed that a Federation has a 10 year election cycle regardless if it is in war or not and no race exept the president can declare war.
During the stream the AI had only 3 year left before the next election and declared war causing the war to continue when the term of the next race (the Blorg) was almost done.
And because the former president war goal was only beneficial for his race (he demanded 3 planets for his own race) the war is practicly worthless for the Blorg because they do not get anything from it and because their term is almost over will not be able to declare a war of their own nor do anything else a president can do for the next 40-50 years.
So mine question is: would it not be better if during a war an election gets put on hold untill after the war is over like Palpatine did in Star wars (emergency powers)?

 

[Abayonett]

It would be reflective of leaders retaining emergency powers. I like it.

 

[Ijiero]

I am in total agreement. This makes sense, unless unrest causes the masses to demand elections even if at war...

 

[lemmox]

I like it in theory, but it needs some hard limits on it. The reason being, if I'm playing single player in a federation, and the AI president gets us into a massive war that benefits me not at all, which then bogs down in a stalemate with one side or both being unwilling to bury the hatchet, I do not want to be stuck in limbo for decades on end waiting for the war to wrap up so I can take my turn in power.

 

[naisel]

Couldn't it be exploited by never ending a minor war, like a small rebellion, though?

 

[RGN-JohnSnow]

I think elections should happen unless you issue a large high cost edict

 

[barny]

If you put elections on hold, players would just stay at war indefinitely as soon as they become leaders.

 

[allan79]

Was the Blorg presidency not 5 years? Meaning they have it back in 20 years?

 

[Raziel2100]

If you put elections on hold, players would just stay at war indefinitely as soon as they become leaders.

It can be countered by having unrest increase or have an opinion modifier reduction the longer u are at war when your term is suposed to be up somthing like 'Call for Peace' in EU4

 

[milamber81]

Perhaps they may have it back in 20 years. But nobody guarantees, that the other mushrooms do the exact thing twice, blocking the Blorg effectively 40 or more years from doing anything. There should be some way to make sure that doesn't happen. In order to guard against abusing the system, you could still implement a system, where the president can only fight one war at time.. So that it wouldn't make much sense, to prolong the war, if it is won. Also there are in EU IV mechanics to prevent to long wars, that lead to rebellion and doom for your empire, if you try to ignore them. They could implement the same thing here...

 

[barny]

It can be countered by having unrest increase or have an opinion modifier reduction the longer u are at war when your term is suposed to be up somthing like 'Call for Peace' in EU4

And now we start to add all kinds of mechanics...

And what is, if the war drags on? Should a federation be punished for long wars by additional modifiers? Wouldn't players exploit that against federations?

You see the problem here? With every addition you might solve one problem only to create one or two new ones.

 

[lemmox]

And now we start to add all kinds of mechanics...

And what is, if the war drags on? Should a federation be punished for long wars by additional modifiers? Wouldn't players exploit that against federations?

You see the problem here? With every addition you might solve one problem only to create one or two new ones.

And that's the story of how Raziel2100 learned about scope creep.

 

[Kliwarrior]

So mine question is: would it not be better if during a war an election gets put on hold untill after the war is over

Why? The example you bring , tecnically is a "coup d'etat".
This , and other inter-federation mechanism, could be added to the game, but in a more complex and coherent design.

BTW, were the election in US "postponed" when that federation was at war?

 

[ahhheygao]

If you put elections on hold, players would just stay at war indefinitely as soon as they become leaders.

I feel like there should be more interaction and consensus-building within a federation, so perhaps emergency power requires an immediate vote every year to extend it... and the members' unwillingness to approve will escalate drastically each time, depending on how much each stand to gain from the War Goals?

 

[barny]

I feel like there should be more interaction and consensus-building within a federation, so perhaps emergency power requires an immediate vote every year to extend it... and the members' unwillingness to approve will escalate exponentially each time?

There are a lot of possibilities to extend the federation mechanics and this might be a point they will work on in the future. But I don't think adding some options that look simple at first, will be the solution here.

 

[208]

During the last Stellaris stream i noticed that a Federation has a 10 year election cycle regardless if it is in war or not and no race exept the president can declare war.
During the stream the AI had only 3 year left before the next election and declared war causing the war to continue when the term of the next race (the Blorg) was almost done.
And because the former president war goal was only beneficial for his race (he demanded 3 planets for his own race) the war is practicly worthless for the Blorg because they do not get anything from it and because their term is almost over will not be able to declare a war of their own nor do anything else a president can do for the next 40-50 years.
So mine question is: would it not be better if during a war an election gets put on hold untill after the war is over like Palpatine did in Star wars (emergency powers)?

Because leaving an unpopular ongoing war for the next leader to deal with never happens IRL...

 

[OtsegoGhost]

Why can't member states just vote to add or change war goals?
To clarify, I was under the impression from things said previously and in the dev diaries that Federation Members would have at least some say in what goes on.

 

[Robhol]

Why can't member states just vote to add or change war goals?
To clarify, I was under the impression from things said previously and in the dev diaries that Federation Members would have at least some say in what goes on.

That's what alliances are for. If you want everyone to have a say, don't vote to become a Federation.

 

[Eggbert]

Couldn't the Blorg also just white peace out of the war? I don't know if the AI will do that to the player (maybe they should if the war goals are completely one sided for the player), but if you don't finish your wars within your own presidency it seems like a risk you take.

 

[ahhheygao]

Couldn't the Blorg also just white peace out of the war? I don't know if the AI will do that to the player (maybe they should if the war goals are completely one sided for the player), but if you don't finish your wars within your own presidency it seems like a risk you take.

You can't (and shouldn't be allowed to) white peace out of federation war. Heck, I don't recall you can even white peace out of alliance wars, either.