Federation Rework: Tenets

[Alblaka]

2.0 is (finally *drool*) around the corner, which means we can set our sights on what could come next. And, following Stellaris developement cycle, chances are good the next DLC/patch will focus on either Diplomacy, Exploration or a specific fluff topic. Therefore, I'll revamp and revisit my suggestion for Federations (which are on the official to-do list):


Federation Tenets:
To make federations more than just a multi-directional Defensive Pact with a weird fleet mechanism attached, and support all the various sci-fi tropy federation styles (from Star Trek to Ur-Quan Masters), plus allowing players to build their own version of whatever they like, I suggest to redesign federations and their functions whole:

Any empire can be in only a single federation at any given time, but being in a federation has effectively zero effects by itself. However, each federation contains 1-5 'tenets', which are abstractions of ideology, military, economy or politics, and together define what exactly this specific federation actually does.

The first tenet for each federation (aka, the one chosen upon foundation) is a special 'Core Tenet', which governs what the base premise of the federation is (i.e. an egalitarian election-based political entity, a economical agreement, or a military pact). A federation can obviously only have one of those core tenets, but any number of 'normal' tenets:

Alongside providing actual benefits (such as diplomatic agreements, or plain ressource boosts, or special mechanics), each tenet adds a specific 'goal' to a federation, which can then be used to determine whether the federation 'is working' or is 'falling apart' (after all, a federation is a diplomatic arrangement between multiple, potentially vastly different, races and empires).

This 'cohesion' is measured in a value I'll label 'Federal Integrity'. This value ranges from 0 to 100, and directly scales the benefits gained from the various tenets (i.e. if a tenet gives a '+10% of X' bonus, it does so at 100 integrity only; at i.e. 50 integrity, the bonus is halfved to +5% X and so on). Vice versa, Federal Integrity is gained and lost on a ticking (i.e. monthly) basis, depending on whether the federation's tenets are 'obeyed', aka; the tenet's goals met.

I.e. if you have a tenet focussed around mutual military defense, it might give you a bonus to starbases or military, but requires the members of the federation to actually defend each other, granting integrity on each won defensive war, with each loss (or declined call to arms) costing integrity.

If a federation is doing well and has a high (i.e. maxed out) Federal Integrity, it members can try to add a new tenet (as to who gets to decide on which is added, this would depend on the core tenet of the federation). This way, federations start out simple, but can grow in complexity (and strength, since each tenet adds a benefit) over time, but as well become more demanding from their members to comply with those tenets, potentially leading to instability and the decline of a federation: When a federations integrity hits 0, a 'crisis' occurs, and the federation may break apart (dissolve), have members forcibly ejected (due to their populace's demand?), be forced to abandon some of it's tenet or might even split into two federations to engage in 'civil war'.

An ultimate goal of a federation could be to achieve 'Unification', by establishing the full set of 5 tenets, and then staying at 95+ integrity for several decades (note that the process of gaining Federal Integrity for a new tenet should take 20+ years each, assuming the federation is 'flourishing', longer if it's troubled), which results in the federation and all of it's members being replaced by a singular empire with a special (and powerful!) 'Unified Federation' civic. (And, obviously, controlled by the player if he was part of the federation during it's unification.)


I could go into details in regards to specific tenets now, but I'll append that as seperate posts in this thread (as threadmarks) instead of cluttering up the core concept of this suggestion.

Please feel free to C&C, or come up with tenets of your own!

 

[Milten]

What are your thoughts on president elections?

 

[Alblaka]

Some examples for Core Tenets (which you select/use upon creation of your Federation):

Cooperative Federation
(Aka: Star Trek - Starfleet)
The most 'simple' type of federation is a diplomatic entity of multiple empires declaring that they want to, somehow, work together to further their respective interests (may or may not include mutual understanding). This core tenet requires the Diplomacy tradition tree, and can be utilized to found a Federation in the current manner; by asking another empire to form a federation.
At any given time, there is one elected 'President' of the federation, which rotates on a time slot based system (aka, like currently implemented). The president of the federation can invite new members who, if they accept, will be put to a vote by all members of the federation (non-federated empires can additionally directly request a federations president to start a vote). Likewise, the president can start a vote to remove an empire from the federation. Lastly, if FI is higher than 95, the president can start a vote to add a new tenet to the federation (which costs a majority of the accumulated FI).
The core tenet merely gives diplomatic benefits, in that all members of the federation get a relation bonus towards each other, and an additional cost (i.e. influence or a federation-wide relation penality) to declaring war on another member of the federation (yes, you CAN DoW a fellow federation member, just don't expect to remain in the federation for long).
The core tenet's goal requires all federation members to be at peace and not rivalled with one another and generates FI based upon the number and size of those empires. Any federated empire rivalled to, or at war with, another federated empire causes a loss of FI over time (and a lump sum loss upon a DoW).
This type of federation is obviously preferenced by Spiritual Seekers, Federation Builders, or any other empire that engages in benevolent diplomacy.

Enthralled Dominion
(Aka: Star Trek - Cardassian Dominion)
To show what else can pass as a 'federation' in mechanic terms, I present the dominion: Instead of being a political arrangement between several empires of similar power, the dominion is a federation lead by a singular 'local superpower' and a number of significantly weaker 'thralls', who submit to the authority of the overlord in preference to being conquered or vassalized. To found this type of federation, a powerful empire needs to have access to the Domination tradition tree, and ask a nearby, weaker, empire to join in the foundation of the dominion. Alternatively you can as well form a dominion from/with a vassal you already control.
Opposed to the elective presidency of the Cooperative Federation, the control of the dminion firmly resides in the overlord's hands/claws/tentacles. He can 'ask' (rather, 'demand under threat of war') other empires to submit to the dominion, or convert already controlled vassals, freely, to dominion members, and freely remove thralls (why would you do that, though...). And, of course, once the FI is high enough, instantly add a new tenet of his/her/its choice (albeit of course the thralls may or may not like the choice)
Generally, being a dominion's thrall is preferably in all aspects to being a vassal (who are forced to join wars and can be annexed). However, you are still not entirely free of obligations: If the overlord is attacked, all thralls are called to arms (and, optionally, can decline). Vice versa if a thrall is attacked by a non-thrall, the overlord is called in for defense. If the overlord joins the defensive war, he automatically takes control as war leader and can optionally call in the other thralls. Note that thralls are 'obligated' to defend their overlord, and the overlord is obligated to defend a thrall under attack by an outsider, but thralls may freely decline the overlord's call to intervene in another thrall's defense. In case a thrall is attacked by another thrall (again, not disallowed), the overlord may demand the attacker to cease his war immedeatly, which will force the attacker to either pick an instant white peace, or be considered in breach of his obligations (in neither case the overlord will actually go to war against a thrall in defense of another).
Refusing an 'obligatory call to arms' (or a call to peace, respectively) will result in a significant relation penality with the member of the dominion and, in case of a thrall, can lead to punitive measures: A thrall disobeying a call to arms will be branded as 'traitor' for (i.e.) 30 years, during which time the overlord can freely decline that thralls call to arms without penality. Furthermore, all thralls can freely attack a traitor thrall without the overlord (able to) intervening. Lastly, the overlord gets a special 'Punitive' war goal, which allows him (and any thralls joining the war) to conquer any systems directly adjacent to their respective own (aka, you can shrink the traitor by his outer ring of systems).
The tenet goal of a dominion is to maintain a strong overlordship, by having more military might than all thralls combined. Being weaker than that causes relationship penalities (aka, thralls intended to break away), FI loss and potential a war over the overlordship. FI is gained whenever the overlord defends a thrall from an outsider, and each time a punitive war is fought. Whereas thralls dishonoring obligations causes losses of FI. Overlords declaring 'unjustified' (aka, non-punitive) wars on thralls causes significant FI penalities, too.
Hegemonist powerhouses and slaver empires will prefer to create their own Dominions if they can find nearby weaker empires they can bully into thralldom, and all empires will generally prefer being a dominion's thrall over being vassalized or conquered, and therefore may join the dominion if they are militarily outmatched, regardless of ethic disposition (albeit i.e. egalitarian or militarist empries may be more reluctant).

Defensive Coalition
(Aka: EUIV - HRE vs BBB)
Sometimes, a federation is not born from diplomatic sweet talk or conquering ambitions, but in defense against the latter: When simple Defensive Pacts aren't sufficient, empires can try to form a Defensive Coalition with other empires that feel threatened by the same, likely more powerful, neighbour. A coalition always requires a target to be founded, and tends to remain specifically targeted at 1 to 3 'coalition foes'.
All members of the coalition have equal rights, and there is no presidency to speak of. Any member can invite another member to the coalition, under the condition that said member must be either threatened by, a rival of, or neighbour to a coalition foe. Members cannot, however, be removed from the coalition, unless they decide to leave themselves. Any member can suggest to add a new tenet to a colation, which is then put to a vote.
Coalition foes are determined by the same criteria as recruiting new empires: Any empire that is not in the coalition, but is threatening/rivalled to/against at least half the members of the coalition, counts as a 'potential' coalition foe. The three empires that apply these criteria to the most coalition members are designated as the coalition's foes. (I.e. if there is empires A B C in the coalition, and there's four threats D E F G, but only C fears E, whereas D, F and G are feared by all members of the coalition, D, F and G will be the coalition foes.)
Functionally, if any of the coalition foes goes to war with any member of the coalition (this includes a member being drawn into a defensive war via defensive pact), all other coalition members are added to the war on the defensive side as well. The coalition does not protect from empires that aren't coalition foes (even if the attacker is a 'potential coalition foe' but 'lost' to more threatening empires) and does not apply to wars declared by members of the coalition (albeit of course coalition members can declare regular joint wars).
Federal Integrity is gained for each member of the coalition that rival the coalition's foes, and additionally in lump sums whenever the coalition successfully defends against a coalition foe. FI is lost whenever coalition members declare war on each other, or are defeated by a coalition foe.
This federation type is very situational and not specifically linked to ethics or personalities, but will emerge from a number of empires feeling threatened by a common foe. That doesn't meant the coalition can't add more tenets and become something much greater over time.

Military Pact
(Aka: Molotov-Ribbontrov Pact (Germany+Russia vs Poland in WWII))
When you just want to conquer everyone nearby, but stumble upon a worthy neighbour who is too strong to lead profitable wars against, you might just decide he would make a great ally to protect you from those 'liberators' and 'interventionists'. A Military Pact can be created by any empire that unlocked the Supremacy tradition tree, and is a offensively-minded federation.
All empires in a Military Pact have equal rights. New empires can only be added with mutual agreement (vote) and only if the empire in question is of similar military strength to the current members. Empires are automatically removed from a Military Pact if they are vastly weaker than the pact's average military strength (or leave voluntarily) and new tenets are added by vote.
As feature of a military pact, all members slowly gain 'favor' by being in the pact. With enough favor, an pact member can call another pact member into an obligatory offensive war. Refusing that call to arms will severely impede relations and cost the refusing empire favor (with all other members). Answering the call to arms, and performing actively in the war (aka, war contribution) will lead to the empire gaining additional favor towards the war leader, allowing the ally to call them into an offensive war later, too.
Additionally, members of the pact can call other pact members into any defensive war when being attacked, and whilst the pact members are not obligated to join the defensive war, doing so, again, provides them favor.
Likewise to favor, FI in the pact is gained from successful offensive wars (even if declared and fought alone by a single pact member) and by members that honor obligatory calls to arms. FI is lost in lump sums if favor is spent without the call to arms being honored, but as well FI trickles away over time, implying that a Military Pact can only be maintained through constant expansion and aggression (or through other tenets added later).
This federation type is likely to be used by Hegemonists or Militarists that see themselves facing too powerful defensive pacts to overcome, or who have equally powerful neighbours that they would rather ally, than fight, with.

 

[Alblaka]

What are your thoughts on president elections?

I strongly think that should be added as part of another tenet that focusses on political integrity, but not be part of any 'core' federation. Think of it as an optional add-on to an already existing federation.

Not everyone will want to have a Space HRE.

 

[Milten]

Ah, I see, different forms for different cases.
To be honest Dominion sounds sketchy. Why choose it over current vassals/tributaries, which are easier to integrate and have less freedom?

 

[Alblaka]

Ah, I see, different forms for different cases.
To be honest Dominion sounds sketchy. Why choose it over current vassals/tributaries, which are easier to integrate and have less freedom?

Because you can only have this many vassals before they will rebel the second you go into a war. With what we know of 2.0, it'S strongly implies that you gain less military strength by expanding, wars are more costly and come with more risk. Basically, if you try to have a lot of vassals, go into a war, and lose your fleet winning it, you will be prone to DoW by said vassals.

A dominion is still a 'bad' federation to be in for all the thrall states, but it's significantly better than being a vassal and the AI would accordingly be less rebellious about it.
Additionally it's, like planet killer weapons, a RP/immersion tool. Just making vassals and integrating them is likely more efficient, but where's the fun in playing efficient if you can have a glorious dominion instead?

Past that, keep in mind a dominion lets you use this new fancy federation mechanic, whilst staying in full control of the federation. No elections, you get to pick who gets in, and which tenets are to be used (as long as you remain the militarily dominant overlord).

 

[Milten]

Because you can only have this many vassals before they will rebel the second you go into a war. With what we know of 2.0, it'S strongly implies that you gain less military strength by expanding, wars are more costly and come with more risk. Basically, if you try to have a lot of vassals, go into a war, and lose your fleet winning it, you will be prone to DoW by said vassals.

A dominion is still a 'bad' federation to be in for all the thrall states, but it's significantly better than being a vassal and the AI would accordingly be less rebellious about it.
Additionally it's, like planet killer weapons, a RP/immersion tool. Just making vassals and integrating them is likely more efficient, but where's the fun in playing efficient if you can have a glorious dominion instead?

Past that, keep in mind a dominion lets you use this new fancy federation mechanic, whilst staying in full control of the federation. No elections, you get to pick who gets in, and which tenets are to be used (as long as you remain the militarily dominant overlord).

But the same applies to Dominion, since you are required to have bigger army than thralls. At least vassals rise your naval capacity, so maintaining superiority is easier with them, and don't forget that you can annex them at will, while federation takes much more steps.

I understand the notion of 'evil' federation, but with current vassal/tributary system it's inferior in every way. So I'd think it should be either more rewarding (like influence generation from thralls) or straight up automatically formed after certain amount of accumulated vassals.

 

[Johnny917]

As always, a lot of good ideas, but I have to say, your original idea was more fleshed out and made for more interesting gameplay experience.

While I appreciate the idea, that you can have different forms of federations, your original idea allowed for only one, but far deeper approach which is far cooler from both a gameplay and a role-play standpoint. But that is just my fifty cents.

 

[Cry_Havok]

So, how does unification work if you are playing multiplayer cooperatively? While I love the idea of federations having more depth, does eating the independence of your friends (and potentially making a coop victory impossible) seem like a good goal? Also, the sudden number of sectors the new united empire would have would be obscene.

 

[Alblaka]

So, how does unification work if you are playing multiplayer cooperatively? While I love the idea of federations having more depth, does eating the independence of your friends (and potentially making a coop victory impossible) seem like a good goal? Also, the sudden number of sectors the new united empire would have would be obscene.

Yeah, it's a bit whacky in the details, but making detailed/numerical suggestions is wasted effort because the devs want concepts and ideas, not assembly manuals. That's why I simply describes it as I did, without coming up with a mechanic that can handle the problems you outlined.
Keep in mind that Wiz explicitely said he wanted to have more complex Federation mechanics 'which, towards late-game, could end like the HRE by turning the federation into a single empire' (non-literal quote, from a dev-stream around 1.1-1.2).

Unless they add coop control of a single empire, I suppose you cannot go for the full unification whilst playing coop (keep in mind it could be an optional mechanic). And if you have to pause for a few minutes to reorganize your empire suddenly growing xfold, which happens likely once per playthrough, that shouldn't be a big deal.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Because you can only have this many vassals before they will rebel the second you go into a war. With what we know of 2.0, it'S strongly implies that you gain less military strength by expanding, wars are more costly and come with more risk. Basically, if you try to have a lot of vassals, go into a war, and lose your fleet winning it, you will be prone to DoW by said vassals.

A dominion is still a 'bad' federation to be in for all the thrall states, but it's significantly better than being a vassal and the AI would accordingly be less rebellious about it.
Additionally it's, like planet killer weapons, a RP/immersion tool. Just making vassals and integrating them is likely more efficient, but where's the fun in playing efficient if you can have a glorious dominion instead?

Past that, keep in mind a dominion lets you use this new fancy federation mechanic, whilst staying in full control of the federation. No elections, you get to pick who gets in, and which tenets are to be used (as long as you remain the militarily dominant overlord).

The "Dominion" idea to me brings to mind the Soviet Union - one core state with many additional states nominally considered allied independents, but really more subjects. The main concern I have is that this largely makes the "feudal society" civic useless.

An additional thought: empires should have the option of "promoting" vassal states to member status in the federation, for boosts to the federation and not having either to incorporate or manage vassals, particularly larger ones.

 

[Alblaka]

An additional thought: empires should have the option of "promoting" vassal states to member status in the federation, for boosts to the federation and not having either to incorporate or manage vassals, particularly larger ones.

or convert already controlled vassals, freely, to dominion members,

The "Dominion" idea to me brings to mind the Soviet Union - one core state with many additional states nominally considered allied independents, but really more subjects. The main concern I have is that this largely makes the "feudal society" civic useless.

To be fair, I'm not a friend of the Feudal Society civic, and I think replacing it's whacky interactions with a more elaborate system like this suggestion would improve the game

 

[DukeLeto42]

Alternatively you can as well form a dominion from/with a vassal you already control.

Missed that! I also picture Cooperative Federations doing this as well, though (especially those most like the Star Trek Federation)....

To be fair, I'm not a friend of the Feudal Society civic, and I think replacing it's whacky interactions with a more elaborate system like this suggestion would improve the game

It's a civic that has really cool flavor, but plays rather lackluster. Frankly, it needs to either be a major game-changing civic (on the scale of inward perfection), or its role should be replaced by a feature like this. Making it a form of "federation" would to me make the most sense.

I look forward to a federation rework... it would get me to finally play with federations as a major goal, instead of an incidental diplomatic arrangement when convenient.

 

[DukeLeto42]

An additional thought: empires leaving federations should significantly reduce integrity, since your federation has both lost the ability to hold its members and seems less desirable (I'd suggest a parallel in Britain leaving the EU here). Depending on the federation's tenets / policies, leaving could also give the federation a "forced return" CB on a timer, allowing for independence wars to break out, but also states to break free without conflict if the federation can't afford to respond (such as when fighting a major war).


Another idea: federation ideology war.

Basically, most changes for federations can happen through diplomatic or influence means - pushing for shifts in tenets, encouraging fellow federation members to conform to tenets to drive up integrity, etc. But, you're always stuck with that core tenet, because that forms the basis of your federation's governance. However, if the federation's political situation changes sufficiently, wars can be declared to force the federation into a new form.

Some basic ideas for it:

• Trigger requirements: low integrity is a must (perhaps <25?), otherwise the federation is more or less functioning as intended, and this core tenet can't be challenged.
• War goal: when declaring, an empire must declare what change in core tenet they wish to see - this could be setting themselves on the throne of a dominion, breaking the power of a dominion, or even putting someone else in charge of a dominion (someone you like better).
• All other empires must now choose a side, and can freely decide to declare their own wars for their own preferred tenet (this is why declaring a war for a new dominion leader on behalf of someone else isn't a bad idea - they are almost guaranteed to join you, provided they think there's a chance of winning).
• When it comes to "winning" such a war, I would imagine it is done on a empire-by-empire basis, forcing each empire to submit to your side. The more they don't mind your wargoal, the lower the threshold to switch sides. As the war goes on, empires would shift sides ("surrender" to one side or another) as much because they have been defeated as because they don't want to suffer more form one side occupying and rampaging in their region (and they might shift back soon enough). It would therefore resemble many real civil wars in history.

 

[Alblaka]

An additional thought: empires leaving federations should significantly reduce integrity, since your federation has both lost the ability to hold its members and seems less desirable (I'd suggest a parallel in Britain leaving the EU here). Depending on the federation's tenets / policies, leaving could also give the federation a "forced return" CB on a timer, allowing for independence wars to break out, but also states to break free without conflict if the federation can't afford to respond (such as when fighting a major war).[/quote.]

Definitely, losing members would harm the integrity of any federation.

Albeit I don't think a 'forced return' CB would be plausible, or good gameplay. You cannot really force someone into cooperating (and it would require to make the AI able to act 'grudgingly' when in a federation unwilling), except for the Dominion one (which already has the option of forcefully recruiting/vassalizing empires and disallows free leave).

Another idea: federation ideology war.

Basically, most changes for federations can happen through diplomatic or influence means - pushing for shifts in tenets, encouraging fellow federation members to conform to tenets to drive up integrity, etc. But, you're always stuck with that core tenet, because that forms the basis of your federation's governance. However, if the federation's political situation changes sufficiently, wars can be declared to force the federation into a new form.

Some basic ideas for it:

• Trigger requirements: low integrity is a must (perhaps <25?), otherwise the federation is more or less functioning as intended, and this core tenet can't be challenged.
• War goal: when declaring, an empire must declare what change in core tenet they wish to see - this could be setting themselves on the throne of a dominion, breaking the power of a dominion, or even putting someone else in charge of a dominion (someone you like better).
• All other empires must now choose a side, and can freely decide to declare their own wars for their own preferred tenet (this is why declaring a war for a new dominion leader on behalf of someone else isn't a bad idea - they are almost guaranteed to join you, provided they think there's a chance of winning).
• When it comes to "winning" such a war, I would imagine it is done on a empire-by-empire basis, forcing each empire to submit to your side. The more they don't mind your wargoal, the lower the threshold to switch sides. As the war goes on, empires would shift sides ("surrender" to one side or another) as much because they have been defeated as because they don't want to suffer more form one side occupying and rampaging in their region (and they might shift back soon enough). It would therefore resemble many real civil wars in history.

I don't think this one is a good idea, as described, because, outside of Dominions, any empire can leave the Federation at any time. This means, if you actually change the tenetsl chances are anyone you fought against to push for those changes will hate the federation enough to leave afterwards, anyways. At that point it might be more reasonable to just create a new federation with new tenets and recruit members away from the previous federation.

Albeit having some inner-federation ideological wars over tenets and their enforcement seems like something that should be possible in some form, having a Religious League War in space does sound entertaining.

 

[BrokenSky]

To be fair, I'm not a friend of the Feudal Society civic, and I think replacing it's whacky interactions with a more elaborate system like this suggestion would improve the game

IMO if they added something like this, Feudal society would be worth changing to a start-of-game game-changer civic, similar to Inward perfection which would allow you to form these sorts of federations from the beginning, plus some other bonuses like having the AIs be more loyal and getting inherent yearly integrity from the civic, or otherwise being considered stronger than you really are for the purposes of calculating whether the integrity goal is met.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

IMO if they added something like this, Feudal society would be worth changing to a start-of-game game-changer civic, similar to Inward perfection which would allow you to form these sorts of federations from the beginning, plus some other bonuses like having the AIs be more loyal and getting inherent yearly integrity from the civic, or otherwise being considered stronger than you really are for the purposes of calculating whether the integrity goal is met.

One other thing that could make Dominions appealing for their thralls is the use of member specialization. These could be unlocked by a revised Feudal Society civic, receive some bonus from it or be general to the federation type. My thinking here is that Dominions in genre often involve each member race/polity fulfilling a specialized role. Usually they are coerced into it by the Dominion leader, as this is the only federation type that allows such strong-arming. The Star Trek Founders have (aside from their own genetically modified forces) subdued and forced several thralls into specialized roles within their Dominion: the Karemma (merchants), the T-Rogoran (agriculture), the Yaderan (research?), and eventually the Cardassians (military).

An example where specialization was more mutual and less forced might be the internal structure of the Imperium of Man. This Dominion was founded with the Treaty of Mars between the Emperor and the Adeptus Mechanicus. It eventually expanded to include the Ecclesiarchy, which could be viewed as a breakaway empire of Fanatic Spiritualists. Both the Adeptus Mechanicus and the Ecclesiarchy are subordinate to the Adeptus Administratum and its ruling body, the High Lords of Terra, but they maintain their own independent planets, militaries and administrations. Within this Dominion, they are respectively the research and unity specialists.

All of this fits with the general "Holy Roman Empire" vibe of some Dominions, containing specialist free cities, bishoprics, noble houses etc.

Mechanically, Dominions could allow the leader to impose a specialization on member thralls. This could increase Integrity gain rate (specialization encourages interdependence) and either increase or decrease opinion depending on whether the thrall preferred that role (there would have to be some kind of indicator). It also encourages trade, and thus opinion improvements, between thralls. There is also the risk of lopsided development making larger Dominions unwieldy and eventually leading to collapse, but hey, that's space feudalism!

Specialization would grant a significant bonus to a particular resource depending on role. The number in parenthesis is the bonus to the specialist. The one in brackets is the penalty to all other domains. These numbers I based on existing traits and civics in the hope that they are balanced. Creating a designated Military specialist attack dog is of course risky, but can be worth it if they border a powerful enemy of the Dominion. I am still not sure about the Unity one, since unlike other resources there's currently no way to trade it:

• Unity (+20%) [-4%]
  
• Food (+15%) [-3%]
  
• Minerals (+15%) [-3%]
  
• Energy (+15%) [-3%]
  
• Research (+10%) [-2%]
  
• Military: ship and army cost (-15%) [+3%]

EXAMPLE: The "Aurora Unity" Dominion consists of four members, lead by the Kaartomon Hierarchy over the Ikran League, the Multan Clans and the Urticar Combine. The Hierarchy has dedicated the Ikran League as specialist energists, the Multan Clans as specialist militarists, and left the Urticar Combine unspecialized. The Ikran League receives a +15% Energy production bonus and standard penalties to all other areas, while the Multan Clans receive a -15% ship and army cost and penalties. The Urticar receive no bonus or penalty, as they are not specialized.

The Ikran are more than happy to continue acting as the Unity's economic backbone, and gain +30 opinion with the Hierarchy. The Multan, by contrast, as not at all happy at being reduced to the status of attack dogs. Their opinion of the Hierarchy lowers by -30.

Either way, the Aurora Unity gains +2 Integrity per month.

 

[Aëron Dúrr]

Unless they add coop control of a single empire, I suppose you cannot go for the full unification whilst playing coop (keep in mind it could be an optional mechanic).

What about a collective government made out of all members? Like a Federation Council where all players can only suggest policy or edict changes or other political actions and then the rest of the Players vote on it to accept or reject it. Could also be done on singleplayer.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

What about a collective government made out of all members? Like a Federation Council where all players can only suggest policy or edict changes or other political actions and then the rest of the Players vote on it to accept or reject it. Could also be done on singleplayer.

Sounds really good.

In addition to councils for common macro-decisions, they could each be sector governors. These sectors would begin with their own previously held territories, later modified by vote as well. Resources get paid into the common empire pool with rates set as usual. That solves the issue of who controls production.

I would assume fleets would be jointly controlled and upkeep payed from the common pool, but control could be delegated to a sector governor/player.

 

[Jin_Cardassian]

Actually, on the subject of sector fleets, @Almond_Brown made an interesting suggestion in a recent espionage thread that could also work for players looking to escape a unified federation:

Govenor's who get sent to Shit hole Sectors start grumbling. Suddenly the Sector income takes a huge hit but no word from them as to why. You need/should find out what is up. (The Gov. is building a secret Battle Fleet btw) intended for a rebellion where he installs himself as "The Man!" instead of you.