Federation presidential election while at war.

[PG908]

I'm still just surprised the federations don't form a council or something. It just puts a bunch of empires under the reign of a rotating executive with no repercussions for what that executive decides.

Yeah, I would have expected a little more complexity. Additionally, having members on the other side of the galaxy is a bit absurd.
Even members several empires away is stretching it, especially since they joined more-or-less instantly. And the other federation members didn't seem to get a say in it.

 

[Dauntasa]

You cannot leave an alliance or a federation while at war.

Maybe if there's such a thing as an emergency powers edict the downside should be that it allows your federation members to leave during the war?

 

[OtsegoGhost]

Perhaps in a future update they will incorporate several kinds of Federation... or even just two kinds. One with a rotating executive and one with a kind of security council. Put a splash of federalism in our federation.

 

[CocoCincinnati]

I don't know what to think about this. The OP makes an excellent point but on the flip side of that, isn't there supposed to a huge tradeoff with federations? You get a whole new fleet with all the best techs from all federation members and you have complete control while president. The penalty is that when you aren't president, one of the other leaders has complete control and may take you in a direction you aren't interested in going. If you don't want to risk fighting wars that only benefit your allies, and run the risk of delaying your own expansion perhaps by decades, then just stay as allies, don't form a federation.

However this begs the question of how being allies with federation members woks. Take for example, in the Blorg stream, one of their allies asked to form the federation, I'm curious what would have happened if the Blorg said no. Would the federation have formed anyway, just without the Blorg? And if so, would the Blorg still have been allies with all of those empires? I guess the question is can a player empire be allies with an AI empire that is in a federation that the player does not want to join? Because I can see that causing some problems if you either have to join the federation or lose your allies. And if you can remain allies with empires in a federation but not join yourself, how does war work, can you call them in, can they call you in? The more I think about this the more questions I have.

 

[Eldorian]

One point I didn't see raised. Don't Federations share victory conditions? So a victory for a Federation member is a victory for the Federation?

 

[Jarac Rassen]

I'm still just surprised the federations don't form a council or something. It just puts a bunch of empires under the reign of a rotating executive with no repercussions for what that executive decides.

Exactly. I'm actually pretty wary about joining in Federations. Essentially, one empire will serve as dictator for about a decade. Not sure I like giving up control over my diplomacy completely, with NO say in the matter; especially if I'm forced to fight in a war for the presidential empire's benefit only. If you are a small nation, though, joining into a federation makes sense. Strength in numbers. But still, at least in an alliance you have a say foreign policy. Under a Federation, it's a rotating dictatorship.

Probably will get more options to flesh out Federations and how they can be run in future expansions.

 

[sauron_33]

I like the idea of the election being on hold during the war, but having an unrest modifier based on how long this goes on. Though any SciFi discussion will eventually turn to Star Wars or Star Trek, in this case I think the SW comparison is pretty good. You get elected Federation President and yes, you can use war to manipulate your way into maintaining power forever or long enough to change government or whatever. But, the unrest/dissent hits will start to get very severe. Eventually, you could see a massive civil war break out not only in your federation but perhaps in your own empire as well based on how long the war has gone on, and even more so if there is no end in sight.

Yet, a savvy politician with the right wargoals, right tricks up their sleeves, and a little luck could still stay in power much past the expiration of their term ala Palpatine.

 

[KonradKurze202]

Exactly. I'm actually pretty wary about joining in Federations. Essentially, one empire will serve as dictator for about a decade. Not sure I like giving up control over my diplomacy completely, especially if I'm forced to fight in a war for the presidential empire's benefit only. If you are a small nation, though, joining into a federation makes sense. Strength in numbers. But still, at least in an alliance you have a say foreign policy. Under a Federation, it's a rotating dictatorship.

Probably will get more options to flesh out Federations and how they can be run in future expansions.

Well nothing forces you to fight in any federation war. Just because the President declares war doesn't mean anyone else will help.
The reason the Zramas were so selfish in the stream is because:
1) No-one besides the Blorg were really in a position to benefit from a war with the Just League (Penquins were too far away, little Quell were too unstable and new, the Blorg's vassals are too far away, the southern empire might have benefited from taking a planet, but they were kinda far away and new).
2) The Blorg are much, much larger than every other member. The Zramas probably still feel threatened (not enough to effect diplomacy, but enough to effect their actions) and want to secure themselves as equals. Before that war the Blorg could have easily taken on the entire rest of their own federation in a war, and won.

I will agree that there is room ( a lot) for federations to grow in future expansions, but I don't think it is critical, or that federations are unbalanced or useless in the game as is.

 

[PG908]

The issue with those of you saying the president gets to do whatever they want is that the president doesn't: we saw in the stream that the blorg are stuck with what the last leader wanted. That's the big issue a lot of us are having; the Blorg basically lost their turn as supreme leader.

On an unrelated note, if the blorg refused federating, would the other nations have formed their own federation and left the blorg hanging, or would they have remained an alliance?

 

[KonradKurze202]

I like the idea of the election being on hold during the war, but having an unrest modifier based on how long this goes on. Though any SciFi discussion will eventually turn to Star Wars or Star Trek, in this case I think the SW comparison is pretty good. You get elected Federation President and yes, you can use war to manipulate your way into maintaining power forever or long enough to change government or whatever. But, the unrest/dissent hits will start to get very severe. Eventually, you could see a massive civil war break out not only in your federation but perhaps in your own empire as well based on how long the war has gone on, and even more so if there is no end in sight.

Yet, a savvy politician with the right wargoals, right tricks up their sleeves, and a little luck could still stay in power much past the expiration of their term ala Palpatine.

That stuff would need a federation to be far more centralized than they currently are. There are no wars between federation members at present, and nothing along the lines of a rebel uprising against the federation itself (rebels are against specific empires). In the future, as federation mechanics expand, I could see a system like this working, but not right now.

 

[Eldorian]

I like the idea of checks and balances type approach, where the equivalent of Congress (the member states) have to vote to declare war. Simple majority is enough, but it would at least prevent the federal leader from declaring unpopular wars.

 

[KonradKurze202]

The issue with those of you saying the president gets to do whatever they want is that the president doesn't: we saw in the stream that the blorg are stuck with what the last leader wanted. That's the big issue a lot of us are having; the Blorg basically lost their turn as supreme leader.

On an unrelated note, if the blorg refused federating, would the other nations have formed their own federation and left the blorg hanging, or would they have remained an alliance?

Oh no! There is a cost to being in a federation! It isn't just a 100% advantage and a no-brainer choice!

There need to be downsides for Federations. Stuff like this is one of them. The purpose of a federation rather than an alliance is to promote defense over offense. In an alliance you can propose a war at any time, in a federation you trade this ability for a stabler alliance that provides better diplomatic bonuses and loses the influence upkeep.

 

[Jarac Rassen]

Oh no! There is a cost to being in a federation! It isn't just a 100% advantage and a no-brainer choice!

There need to be downsides for Federations. Stuff like this is one of them. The purpose of a federation rather than an alliance is to promote defense over offense. In an alliance you can propose a war at any time, in a federation you trade this ability for a stabler alliance that provides better diplomatic bonuses and loses the influence upkeep.

The downside should be that you just get mired in politics and have to juggle what each state wants! Kind of like the Republic's senate from Star Wars. It's hard to get a lot done and you have to build consensus to get things done (making people caution about just getting members, as it makes it harder to build consensus).The current mechanic should have been one option for forming how Federations work.

 

[PG908]

Oh no! There is a cost to being in a federation! It isn't just a 100% advantage and a no-brainer choice!

There need to be downsides for Federations. Stuff like this is one of them. The purpose of a federation rather than an alliance is to promote defense over offense. In an alliance you can propose a war at any time, in a federation you trade this ability for a stabler alliance that provides better diplomatic bonuses and loses the influence upkeep.

The downside is supposed to be that they are only in control diplomatically 1/5th of the time (among other things). That's all well and good (or at least balanced, I personally want federation laws* that decide the advantages and disadvantages) However, they basically lost their turn due to the actions of the previous president. They don't get to conquer something they want, and the war is basically all the diplomacy they get to do: I doubt any AI will join a federation while it's at war.

Upsides are basically the federation fleet, and the ability to control all of the members' diplomacy for your turn. They're instead stuck with the previous leader's decisions. And it's not like there's a lot of spare resources to sink into the federation fleet.

*Federation laws could be things like having the leader elected, being led by a council (where there is a council leader, but majority rule among the council applies to diplomatic decisions, and votes may or may not be weighted), having different tiers of members, etc.

 

[ahhheygao]

I understand the point about having some trade-off for federation so that it's not a straight-up upgrade over alliance... but this barebones federation was still a surprise to me, considering how even CK2 recently received council mechanics (which was flawed and too restrictive, but at the very least it gave internal members a say in matters).

 

[Lys91]

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?

It is not, I know a few country constitutions that states clearly that election can only be held during peace time (for obvious reason).

EDIT: ok I get the confusion. When western countries over the last decades are attacking smaller nation, they are generally not in a state of war from a constitutional point of view.

 

[suplanter]

I think it would be great if there was a way to turn a federation into an empire during your tenure as president. With all other members becoming vassals. Similar to what happened to the galactic republic when it was transformed into the galactic empire in star wars. of course the ai could take control and try to form their own empire. creating the rise of the rebellion and what not. seems legit to me.

 

[Turin the Mad]

The greatest concern from a selfish empire/star nation point of view is the simplest: I don't want to share my cutting edge tech with my lessers, be they allies, vassals or uplifted mini-onions.

It'd be another potential wrinkle to add if one (as seen repeatedly on Star Trek and other shows) that the sovereign star nations comprising a Federation withhold their "state secret" grade technologies from the rest of the Federation.

Ultimately, it seems likely that joining/establishing a Federation as a player will heavily depend upon how that particular game is playing out.

 

[Anjou Poiters]

Really I think Federations should just be an upgraded alliance, they are for the most part. But they miss one biggest things about alliances and that is members get to vote on wars. I would love to see Federations act like that with the added buffs you get from it. Easy example is like what you see in Star Wars where every race forms a council that votes on all federation issues including wars. If they don't want to add something like a council then, I believe they should then have the presidency not change during war. As a way to avoid the endless war exploit simply make federations impossible to declare another offensive war while already in one. An easy example of why you wouldn't be allowed to launch another offensive war could be that the member races will not support the needless tyrannical militarism of their people.

 

[.NoWay.]

A possible solution for the selfish war goal issue would be the possibility to veto. If you are miles away from a war (like blorg vassals and pinguins) you do not get a veto. But the Blorg, the liberated people and the new friends in the south are all bordered to the Just League with which a war is picked. So I feel they should at least get a chance to object to the war. Especially since going to war has drastic effects on the different empires (you can lose lots of minerals which are not invested in your economy). So if you lcan ose around 20-30k minerals while you are forced into a war where you have borders (meaning you can and most likely will be attacked or raided), there should be a way to at least 'force' some reward. Now the president is all mighty. Being a president should be a balancing option. Either you make everybody happy about your selfish war by giving them stuff (being it migration rights, conquered planets or some minerals), or you do not go to war at all.

On a sidenote: Did the Zrama even built up a federation fleet at all before declaring war?