Give Democracies an extra Politician job

[Northstar1989]

Democracies are currently by far the worst government type in Stellaris. Oligarchy, Dictatorship, Megacorp, Imperial- all have ENORMOUS advantages over them.

This is of course both un-fun and bad for gameplay balance, not to mention unreasonable/unrealistic, and needs to be fixed. Which got me thinking: what advantages that Democracies have in real life would make sense to represent in-game?

The answer was obvious, and struck me quickly. Participatory government.

Although some people may not like this fact (when it leads to groups being represented they dislike or look down on), Democracies allow a wider range of people into high-ranking positions of government, and tend to have more people in political careers than more "efficient" forms of government such as Dictatorship.

Indeed one issue that seems to be weakening many modern Democracies is that they don't take this far enough anymore: the increasingly poor ratios of legislative representatives to population in many Democracies nowadays (still much higher ratios than in autocratic governments or Oligarchies) make Politicians easier to corrupt/buy and less responsive to local political needs...

While in most games, this would be a disadvantage, and some might think it so in real life too (prejudice, or arguments about "efficiency"), Stellaris already treats extra Politician jobs as a valuable advantage. Like in real life, having more Politicians leads to bringing more ideas ("Unity") to the table, and more local needs being represented and sometimes met ("Amenities").

So, give Democracies an automatic +1 Politician jobs to every planet, in addition to (or perhaps in exchange for slightly nerfed strength) their existing buffs. This even makes sense on newly-founded colonies, as rural/backwater Politicians are very much a thing in Democracy: so no need to code it into government buildings or anything like that.

The goal would be to considerably strengthen Democracy as a government choice in-game overall. Right now, the only/main reason to play them is for roleplay, or because you're stuck with what the game (unrealistically) treats as this vastly-inferior government form when you go Fanatic Egalitarian.

 

[HFY]

You're right that Democracy needs better mechanics.

However,I kinda hate the idea of putting another Ruler job on the most Egalitarian government type. That feels like the opposite of Egalitarian flavor.


Some thoughts on alternate mechanics:

- Give them Agendas.

- Remove Mandates and give them Agendas.

- "Action, not distraction": Democratic pops in a happy Faction require fewer Amenities.

- "By the People, For the People": Democratic pops have lower Sprawl when happy.

- etc.

 

[mammonmachine]

I liked the idea a lot, though I do see HFY's point that it could seem a little odd. There's a case to be made that a democracy might have a larger ruling class, as you say, but it might not be immediately intuitive to the player. I wonder if there is a case to be made for varying ruler types by authority, beyond the current civic swap-outs?

 

[Pancakelord]

having more Politicians leads to bringing more ideas

Though seriously, IMO democracies ought to be able to get some unique buff from each faction. like if the militarist faction's leader is elected, then X happens (bonus combat damage, reduced war exhaustion and so on) and if they do Y they get a supercharged variant of the buff - varying with the ethos of the leader's political party - picking a leader to rule with no attached party could give wildcard buffs.

In some ways this is like the agenda and mandates rolled in to one.
But, IMO, running it as a situation would give it more flexibility, and scalability, than either agendas or mandates (so the player can pick what they want to get from the militarist pool of buffs - to use the earlier example - to get a Tier 1 buff right away. then they can complete one of a few tasks (win a war, either outright or white peace and so on) to get a Tier 2 and tier 3 variant of it -- only lasting for as long as that leader is in office (term limits would be a way to balance this out too...though you could have a "stretch limits" situation, if you win a war as a militarist-party leader in their final term, they get one more, and a special ruler perk -- lots that could be done).

 

[Millbot]

The other issue with this idea besides another ruler being the antithesis to the idea of egalitarianism, is that's another pop you need to fill the job and sometimes it's just not a good fit. Ruler jobs mostly provide unity and a scant amount of amenities, unless you run a build that makes them do more than that or they are a merchant then I think it's mostly trade and amenities. Regardless, another ruler job on some worlds is job that the player might not want to fill, when for example you want more minerals out of your mining world or more strategic resources out of your refinery world and those worlds aren't setup to really buff a ruler to be better. Heck, had some games where I've closed out ruler jobs because it was more efficient to have some other job handle amenities and the world wasn't setup to boost unity production.

Mandates just need to go. The game is too braindead when it hands them out. "Hey, you got a ruler that is big on farming and I did a check and you do have some districts that can be turned into agricultural districts. Going to ignore that you only have two worlds for more farming districts. One of which is a mining world with a debuff to food production and the other is your remnant homeworld that is primed to become an ecumenopolis." What offends me with mandates is that they often end up being traps that dictate that the player should make suboptimal choices for a bit of extra unity. If it had really good payout, I'd be less annoyed, but that would bring it's own set of issues. Just give democracies agendas.

Agendas work because democracies are going to have frequent changes in empire rulers. So the agenda is going to change frequently to match. I'd even prime it so that there is a chance that a re-elected ruler that was out of power, might reroll their agenda to reflect how what the people have wanted has changed. Wouldn't do that if they were in power and got re-elected though, since that would be frustrating if someone burned unity to stack the deck for that re-election because they wanted the benefits of the agenda.

One mechanic change I'd use is that when a new ruler is elected. The empire is given a one time use modifier to hire a new leader from the same leaders types as the new ruler, but that leader has a drastically reduced recruitment cost. That would take some of the sting out having a leader get elected, since you could replace them cheaply.

I do like the idea of maybe pops from the ruling party getting modifiers. Be that happiness, reduce sprawl or reduce upkeep in some form. Granted, I could see people souring on this if it leads to frequent shifts in resource production and consumption. So as much as I like the idea, it might not be good in practice. At least for the upkeep stuff. The happiness and sprawl reduction might still be solid options. The shifts in pop happiness shouldn't result in major need to adjust production for upkeep purposes and while it might sting if you're sprawl takes a hit because you go from the faction with the most supporting pops to the one with the least supporting pops, It's likely to not be detrimental.

Heck, could even just set it up so that election pool throws in options that aren't even currently hired leaders. Where their levels and age will very and have the level cap for democratic leaders at 10. So a democracy could say get lucky and get a level 10 leader during any of the election they have, including the one at the 10 year mark, while not having the election disrupt things because they don't have to hire a new leader or see research take a hit because they have to replace a scientist with a level 1.

 

[tanny]

Give democracy agendas for good, a real buff, not some kind of quest system.

 

[XCodes]

Give democracy agendas for good, a real buff, not some kind of quest system.

A quest system that demands I build 4 research stations, and then 4 more research stations, and then 4 *more* research stations... Seriously, how much influence do these nerds think I have to keep expanding and build f'n research stations?

 

[The5lacker]

A quest system that demands I build 4 research stations, and then 4 more research stations, and then 4 *more* research stations... Seriously, how much influence do these nerds think I have to keep expanding and build f'n research stations?

The Mandate's system of "Demanding infinite growth" is, if nothing else, an honest depiction of liberal democracies.

It's still *real obnoxious* though.

 

[brabadab]

Though seriously, IMO democracies ought to be able to get some unique buff from each faction. like if the militarist faction's leader is elected, then X happens (bonus combat damage, reduced war exhaustion and so on) and if they do Y they get a supercharged variant of the buff - varying with the ethos of the leader's political party - picking a leader to rule with no attached party could give wildcard buffs.

I like this idea. Gives your leaders more personality and strengths.

I like the idea of mandates in general, but they aren't in tune with the game. Getting mandates to build research stations when the entire map is colonized isn't possible without deconstructing starbases and rebuilding them to rebuild the same research stations. Farming districts aren't very desirable in the first place either.

But I think it would be more interesting if the mandates had to do with your empire's situation. Like if a mandate was to go to war with a local threat, liberate x empire from slavery, set up espionage on a neighbor empire that you don't trust, or if there are large deficits to remediate those. This might not make democracy more powerful, but certainly more interesting.

 

[Northstar1989]

I liked the idea a lot, though I do see HFY's point that it could seem a little odd

I actually blocked/ignored him ages ago, since all he ever does is come and dump on, and sometimes troll, literally any post I make on the Paradox forums. Could you summarize what he said, since I can't see it?

 

[Northstar1989]

Though seriously, IMO democracies ought to be able to get some unique buff from each faction. like if the militarist faction's leader is elected, then X happens (bonus combat damage, reduced war exhaustion and so on) and if they do Y they get a supercharged variant of the buff - varying with the ethos of the leader's political party - picking a leader to rule with no attached party could give wildcard buffs.

In some ways this is like the agenda and mandates rolled in to one.
But, IMO, running it as a situation would give it more flexibility, and scalability, than either agendas or mandates (so the player can pick what they want to get from the militarist pool of buffs - to use the earlier example - to get a Tier 1 buff right away. then they can complete one of a few tasks (win a war, either outright or white peace and so on) to get a Tier 2 and tier 3 variant of it -- only lasting for as long as that leader is in office (term limits would be a way to balance this out too...though you could have a "stretch limits" situation, if you win a war as a militarist-party leader in their final term, they get one more, and a special ruler perk -- lots that could be done).

I mean, that's a nice alternative idea, but it sounds a lot more difficult to code and learn to play.

Just doing +1 Politician job is simple, easy to understand for players, and easy to implement.

Also, why so you scoff at the idea that having more Politicians leads to more ideas?

It absolutely does, that should be self-evident. Even if many of these ideas might be horrible, because of Politicians being under-qualified hacks or such (this is part of why I disliked the devs turning "Administrators" into "Politicians"), there are always a FEW qualified politicians. Some literally hold PhD's. And, there is some selective effect where the best ideas tend to be recognized as such, so long as they are just as profitable for the political class...

 

[Northstar1989]

The other issue with this idea besides another ruler being the antithesis to the idea of egalitarianism,

You have this absolutely backwards.

Egalitarianism is about widespread political participation and more equitable distribution of political power.

That means, ANYONE can make it to the top: unlike Authoritarian societies which tend to be a lot more stratified (there is a GOOD REASON that "Authoritarian" ethics gives access to "Stratified Economy" with its very uneven distribution of Political Power in-game).

Egalitarian societies often tend to make it possible for anyone to reach the top partly by making more room at the top (this diluting the relative Political Power of each person at the top), unlike Authoritarian societies may, which lean into Elitism and "carefully selecting" who can make it to the top (which is clearly why Authoritarians like Selected Lineages policies and Egalitarians hate it in-game: the policy represents Elitism and probably giving unfair access to genetic enhancement technology to the elites and their children that wouldn't be affordable for the entire population to have...)

So aside from the absolutely obvious fact that Representative Democracies tend to have a whole new group of Politicians with their legislatures, which autocratic systems might not have at all (or when they do, they tend to be rubber-stamp jokes), there is a degree of anyone being able to get elected in an Egalitarian Democracy: which definitely also supports having more Politician jobs.

The healthiest Democracies also tend to have the best ratios of legislators to citizens. Unlike, say, certain countries with over 750,000 citizens per legislator in the national government: which are slowly turning into what the game calls a Plutocratic Oligarchy (the default Oligarchy government type when you lack any Ethics or Civics that overwrite it) instead...

 

[Millbot]

Stellaris allots more upkeep to rulers on the default setups though, which is why it's an antithesis to the ethic. Rather than be more equitable, it's further constraining the resources for the many, jus to bump the count up for the few by one. Also ruler pops have more political weight than specialists and workers, so it actually means those nonruler pops are less of a factor in colony stability.

Though really, my biggest issue with that extra politician outside of what the ethics stands for is that it's not going to help the player that much. If we consider new players that might not do a ton of research, it ends up being a trap because there are better jobs for there limited pops to work and rulers have high upkeep as the default setting, which means they are going to feel the consumer good crunch as they get more colonies that are able to have politicians.

Before you say, "well make ruler upkeep less," that too isn't a great option because of what politicians produce. There are better options for both unity and amentias that actually have lower upkeep. Even if you lowered the consumer good upkeep, you still have the issue of pops being limited and that most of your politicians are going to be located on worlds that aren't built to make them efficient for resource production. In fact, the extra politician is a worse direction than the current one. Mandates are at least super easy to ignore and sometimes you get the unity payout without even trying. Another politician on each colony is going to be detrimental if you ignore it because you're spending more consumer goods for less return on investment than empires that have one less ruler per colony. This also makes it a chore for those that realize that extra politician isn't worth it. Honestly, all an extra politician might be good for is RP and I have my doubts there because remember one pop unit is some undisclosed number of individuals.

Before someone says "but the RP Millbot!" First that has often been a defense of mandates and second government types are major enough mechanics in the game that there should be an attempt to make them competitive and not leave one lackluster because of RP reasons.