I am so fed up with the Galactic community voting. It's seriously ruining my ability to engage with the game.

  • We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
i honestly think the best solution to problems with GC would just be to implement a tickbox for it like for xeno compatibility or caravaneers, let the people who like it play with it and the ones who dont to play without it without having to rummage for mods

Unlike with many other mechanics, the GC is something you can actively avoid if you wish: the game asks you if you want to join the GC and, once you're in it, you may leave at any time.

I'd rather see PDX put some work into refining the GC instead of adding another checkbox at gamestart.
 
  • 10
Reactions:
I mean, the GC is problematic (AI empires voting to denounce themselves for example), but if it's damaging your game that badly, just leave.

I always have leaving in the back of my mind, because the GC, like most supranational organizations, kind of sucks. It's actually pretty true to life
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I didn't know that, are you saying not joining makes you free of galactic concile effects?

And what if you leave? would that remove effects too?
That seems to be how it works, yeah. I had one game where I didn't join right away, finally joined fairly late in the game and some policy or other than I now had to abide by crashed my economy. So I left again and all was well.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
That seems to be how it works, yeah. I had one game where I didn't join right away, finally joined fairly late in the game and some policy or other than I now had to abide by crashed my economy. So I left again and all was well.
That's pathetic, I though galactic community affects entry galaxy not just community members.

Does G8 affect only those 8 or entry world?
It affects entry world directly or indirectly.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
That's pathetic, I though galactic community affects entry galaxy not just community members.

Does G8 affect only those 8 or entry world?
It affects entry world directly or indirectly.
How does that not make sense? If you don't join the group, you aren't going to follow it's resolutions. There's an argument for hitting trade value or the Galactic Market, but if you're not engaged it's not applying to you. ME has the True Geth, who are sitting behind the Perseus Veil doing their own thing for centuries. The Chiss certainly never gave two cares about the Galactic Senate they never joined, or its resolutions. The Borg don't really care about Alpha Quadrant policies, treaties, etc.

What would make more sense if there was a flat bonus to trade value/energy production for Galactic Community members, or a flat bonus to production, small, but meaningful - say, 5% or 10% across the board. Leaving means losing that bonus, but no longer being affected by the community's resolutions, unless you end up going to war because of it. If your economy isn't reliant on the greater network of galactic community, it's not going to be affected by not being a part of it.
 
Last edited:
  • 13
  • 1Like
Reactions:
So, I finally decided to do another ironman, and it's been going amazingly well. And when I say well I don't mean I'm winning or steamrolling or anything like that. I mean I'm having fun with a challenge that feels fair and understandable. When I lose wars, it's my fault for picking bad targets. When I suffer negative consequences from random events, it's my fault for risking it or not planning around it or whatever.

But the galactic community isn't fun or fair. It's nonsensical and random. I understand that if it was TOO rigid it would be boring, I get that. But I don't get all these peace loving xenophiles voting to not ban slave trading. I don't understand having an uphill battle investing all my influence and resources into buying and using favours only for the votes to change because I'm doing too well. And it feels so unfair and demoralising that after I've done everything, there is literally one day left, and I've just managed to swing it in favour of banning... then someone or something arbitrarily flips. That doesn't feel fair, there isn't any way you can plan around that. It's completely killed my enthusiasm to carry on this playthrough.

I think I'm pretty easygoing when it comes to these things. I don't whine over nothing. And I get this is whining but I am so demoralised and frustrated that I'm doing something I'd never usually do, and that's whine on Paradox Forums.
I don't use slave in game, but buying and freeing them is a handy way of gaining pops with good habitability and greater diversity. I often play as a Megacorp and one needs something to spend all the mountains of credits on.

Your frustrations with the GC are understood, but as I have gained experience with it, I use support/abstain to manipulate what's considered. There are diplomatic considerations to voting, voting down an allies measure can break a federation or at least cause them to leave, which may make their territority an expansion option in a War in Heaven.

The GC is NOT random, in fact the AI uses tricks which are best copied, that's why so many sanction resolutions appear, preventing important resolutions like bans on slave market from actually occuring. That's politics ...
 
What I think stands at the heart of the problem of the GC is this:

Stellaris is a game about balance (not in the OP-nerf sense) between mutually exclusive ideas: tall v. wide, belligerent v. pacifistic, etc. The ethics of the game resemble this fact, its always a balancing act, a choice. The GC doesnt resemble this fact of the game. You are a belligerent warmonger that has the senate in his pocket after only 50 years of tech rush? While it may be more fun for the play the first few times they do it, it gets old fast to the point where the GC is basically worthless once youve "won".

Paradox has tried fixing this by giving those player new things to do I.e Custodian and Emperor, but the problem remains: A player that isnt focusing on diplomacy, and being objectively belligerent, shouldnt be able to easily gain control of the GC without trying. There is no point in trying to play with the mechanics of the GC (beyond RP) because its almost 100% easier to just techrush to the point where you can build a fleet and your diplo weight is already enough to start enforcing many things.

I agree with the removal of influence, its a precious resource that is always a gamble in the GC and is why I never propose resolutions beyond a few key ones for my dominance.

But, I think what would be best is to tie in the intel system to the senate. This may seem odd at first but I think it would help with the idea of balance in the game mechanics. Here are a few suggestions of mine that will make the GC seem more compelling to Diplo players and really balance the field.

1. You cannot see the votes of the other nations until the vote ends and it tallied unless you have diplo intel (make this relatively low)
2. If you are on the GC and/or have positive or more relations, you can spend an amount of Influence (like 25) + a modifier of difference of diplo weight to get them to permanently side with you in the Senate.
3. There is 4 stages to the senate, which act as psudo-roll calls. Someone without diplo intel will only get to see the relative number of empires on each side for the first three stages. If you have diplo intel then you are able to see the empires you have diplo intel on and the way they lean, aswell as the chance they will switch their vote and the reasons why. The 4th stage will be a vote tally and will be able to seen by everyone, with the ending of the 3rd stage constituting everyone being "locked in" and the 4th stage representing the result of the vote, allowing any empire to sort out any breaches in the law before the 4th stage ends and the law goes into effect.
4. Takes no influence to propose a resolution, but takes influence to withdraw a resolution
5. Cannot see diplo weight of other nations without diplo intel, but they will still be ordered in the screen so you can get a relative idea of your diplo weight to the rest (almost like a seating system in the senate by importance and prominence .

I feel this places more of an emphasis on playing a diplo game for diplo players. There is ofc many tweaks to this and balance that needs to possible be added as I have not crunched the numbers myself, but I feel that a distinction between the two styles of play is needed, and its annoying the constant switching that AI does.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
The Galactic Community accurately reflects the frustration of international organizations and the strong incentives nations have to ignore them . However, I'm not sure if that's the intended message the developers were going on.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
About favors - it should grant You part of voting power of the empire You bought it from, but should remove the same amount from said empire.
But also. Its frustrating when an empire proposed a resolution, and then proposed to repel the same one xD
 
  • 3
Reactions:
The GC is NOT random, in fact the AI uses tricks which are best copied, that's why so many sanction resolutions appear, preventing important resolutions like bans on slave market from actually occuring. That's politics ...
I wish this was true, I really do, but it doesn't square with my experience at all.

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that the AI is unable to change their vote while a resolution is in queue once they support it, which can be seen when most AI turn around and vote down a proposal once it hits the floor.

The AI behavior in the GC is based on weights and all implications of these weights are hard to tell by just looking at them.
 
Darn it's almost like actual politics (where I live), where party stances often change on a whim of moment-to-moment political gains/loses.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
What I think stands at the heart of the problem of the GC is this:

Stellaris is a game about balance (not in the OP-nerf sense) between mutually exclusive ideas: tall v. wide, belligerent v. pacifistic, etc. The ethics of the game resemble this fact, its always a balancing act, a choice. The GC doesnt resemble this fact of the game. You are a belligerent warmonger that has the senate in his pocket after only 50 years of tech rush? While it may be more fun for the play the first few times they do it, it gets old fast to the point where the GC is basically worthless once youve "won".

Paradox has tried fixing this by giving those player new things to do I.e Custodian and Emperor, but the problem remains: A player that isnt focusing on diplomacy, and being objectively belligerent, shouldnt be able to easily gain control of the GC without trying. There is no point in trying to play with the mechanics of the GC (beyond RP) because its almost 100% easier to just techrush to the point where you can build a fleet and your diplo weight is already enough to start enforcing many things.

I agree with the removal of influence, its a precious resource that is always a gamble in the GC and is why I never propose resolutions beyond a few key ones for my dominance.

But, I think what would be best is to tie in the intel system to the senate. This may seem odd at first but I think it would help with the idea of balance in the game mechanics. Here are a few suggestions of mine that will make the GC seem more compelling to Diplo players and really balance the field.

1. You cannot see the votes of the other nations until the vote ends and it tallied unless you have diplo intel (make this relatively low)
2. If you are on the GC and/or have positive or more relations, you can spend an amount of Influence (like 25) + a modifier of difference of diplo weight to get them to permanently side with you in the Senate.
3. There is 4 stages to the senate, which act as psudo-roll calls. Someone without diplo intel will only get to see the relative number of empires on each side for the first three stages. If you have diplo intel then you are able to see the empires you have diplo intel on and the way they lean, aswell as the chance they will switch their vote and the reasons why. The 4th stage will be a vote tally and will be able to seen by everyone, with the ending of the 3rd stage constituting everyone being "locked in" and the 4th stage representing the result of the vote, allowing any empire to sort out any breaches in the law before the 4th stage ends and the law goes into effect.
4. Takes no influence to propose a resolution, but takes influence to withdraw a resolution
5. Cannot see diplo weight of other nations without diplo intel, but they will still be ordered in the screen so you can get a relative idea of your diplo weight to the rest (almost like a seating system in the senate by importance and prominence .

I feel this places more of an emphasis on playing a diplo game for diplo players. There is ofc many tweaks to this and balance that needs to possible be added as I have not crunched the numbers myself, but I feel that a distinction between the two styles of play is needed, and its annoying the constant switching that AI does.

Good idea.... But consider being on the receiving end of 2. Some other empire pays 200 influence and forces you to vote him for custodian. Don't think most people would consider that fun :p
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Good idea.... But consider being on the receiving end of 2. Some other empire pays 200 influence and forces you to vote him for custodian. Don't think most people would consider that fun :p
if an empire has put the time and resources into acquiring sufficient favors and saved up the influence to do so and you haven't noticed and tried to prevent it it's your own fault. if a fellow player ever did that i'd tip my hat to them and begin planning to either ally with them or undermine/destroy them, if the ai ever reaches the point where it is capable of such complex maneuvering i will be very much impressed, although i highly doubt it'll ever happen.

besides even with the maximum influence storable you couldn't activate enough favors to overrule the entire galaxy without already being the top dog by a wide margin at which point you have already won.

This isn't like the espionage thing where people were worried they'd be constantly under attack by destructive operations, if this sort of thing is ever implemented there will only ever be one or two empires in a galaxy with sufficient pull to attempt this sort of thing and it will likely be be quite obvious what they are doing. if you don't manage to stop them simply treat them as an early crisis and begin to prepare for war. it'd certainly spice up the midgame.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
How does that not make sense? If you don't join the group, you aren't going to follow it's resolutions. There's an argument for hitting trade value or the Galactic Market, but if you're not engaged it's not applying to you. ME has the True Geth, who are sitting behind the Perseus Veil doing their own thing for centuries. The Chiss certainly never gave two cares about the Galactic Senate they never joined, or its resolutions. The Borg don't really care about Alpha Quadrant policies, treaties, etc.
So what benefits do these hostile empires get then in exchange? (in game I mean)

Doesn't this make them vulnerable?
What is the value of galactic community and how does it affect gameplay if it favors only those AI's that are too passive anyway and now this feature that only helps them to be even more pasive.

Isn't galactic community supposed to bring dynamics and tensions into galaxy? (instead of benefiting passive players)
 
So what benefits do these hostile empires get then in exchange? (in game I mean)

Doesn't this make them vulnerable?
What is the value of galactic community and how does it affect gameplay if it favors only those AI's that are too passive anyway and now this feature that only helps them to be even more pasive.

Isn't galactic community supposed to bring dynamics and tensions into galaxy? (instead of benefiting passive players)

I'm not sure how the Galactic Community benefits passive players who obstain if it only benefits members.

They don't have to deal with resolutions and the Galactic Community. Depending on the empire and what resolutions are being passed, it could be rather bad to be particular empire in the Galactic Community. Most of the examples I mentioned are isolationists or overtly hostile. I never joined the Galactic Community with my Inward Perfection empire, because it made little sense from an rp perspective. But that's part of the RNG - if an empire's build would make them isolationists, they should do that. As for the hostile empires, well, they're not really passive, are they? :)

The RNG is what it comes down to. You can get a punch of passive, friendly empires nearby and not have to worry about wars, or you can get a bunch of militant empires who want to conquer you. There are resolutions that can screw over or hinder other empires, but they require the AI to persue those agendas. Spiritualists who pursue spiritualist resolutions will screw over Synth Ascended and MEs pretty hard, but that requires enough Spiritualists with enough clout to actually push that through against enough Materialists and ME's who don't want it.

Ultimately, the diverse possibilities are what makes Stellaris great. It encompasses the vast majority of sci-fi tropes and civilizations in its options. The Galactic Community could use some refinements -especially how empires act within it - but if passivity a problem as you see it, the real solution are more sliders down the line to determine how aggressive AI empires are and what types of aggression they engage in. Some people like a bunch of conflict and tension, some people want to build space sand castles.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
There are resolutions that can screw over or hinder other empires, but they require the AI to persue those agendas. Spiritualists who pursue spiritualist resolutions will screw over Synth Ascended and MEs pretty hard, but that requires enough Spiritualists with enough clout to actually push that through against enough Materialists and ME's who don't want it.
Of course, and that's exactly why I think it should affect everybody, because those who strongly oppose certain resolution because it would seriously harm them, should either get enough favors to oppose it or if that fails (or there it's hard for them to get favors) these should change opinion of proposing empire in first place and optionally of those who support it, which mean it should result in tensions and wars if oposition fails.
but if passivity a problem as you see it, the real solution are more sliders down the line to determine how aggressive AI empires are and what types of aggression they engage in.
Yes, but it's AI opinion that makes aggressiveness not being taken into account, those AI's who are surrounded by friends are lost already in the beginning if unable to join strong federation.
Some people like a bunch of conflict and tension, some people want to build space sand castles.
To tell you the truth, I belong to those who like to perfectly develop planets and waste most of it's time doing economy stuff rather than wars, improving federation and bringing more members, but I can't imagine playing completely peacefully such as surrounding myself by friends only.
There must be something to at least try to stop your economic ambitions, galactic community I think should be peaceful challenge and serious one as well.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Of course, and that's exactly why I think it should affect everybody, because those who strongly oppose certain resolution because it would seriously harm them, should either get enough favors to oppose it or if that fails (or there it's hard for them to get favors) these should change opinion of proposing empire in first place and optionally of those who support it, which mean it should result in tensions and wars if oposition fails.

It does affect everyone who's a member of the community. I'm not sure what mechanism would justify forcing a society to join the GC except for war. I've been in games where AI empires quit the Galactic Community because of resolutions I've passed. If someone doesn't want to play along with the rules any longer, and decides the costs of membership outweigh the benefits, the only way to force the issue is with force. My suggestions about adding a flat bonus to GC membership is to add more weight to the carrot side of the equation.

Yes, but it's AI opinion that makes aggressiveness not being taken into account, those AI's who are surrounded by friends are lost already in the beginning if unable to join strong federation.

That also depends, doesn't it? There are If you happen to get boxed in and only control a few systems, that's going to make life hard for you for the whole game. Sometimes you roll a 1 on the RNG. The thing is, being aggressive doesn't matter if your economy and tech can't support a meaningful fleet. If you're boxed into a corner and your neighbors exceed your abilities, military options may not be viable no matter how aggressive you are. At that point, what are you expecting them to do? Start a war they know they'll lose? The only thing you can do is be diplomatic, push tech and Orbitals, and try to make the most out of the space you have.

To tell you the truth, I belong to those who like to perfectly develop planets and waste most of it's time doing economy stuff rather than wars, improving federation and bringing more members, but I can't imagine playing completely peacefully such as surrounding myself by friends only.
There must be something to at least try to stop your economic ambitions, galactic community I think should be peaceful challenge and serious one as well.
Sure, that can make sense. It comes down to the resolutions they can pass. The thing is, the only resolutions are likely to unilaterally screw over another empire, but not yourself, are the Spiritualist resolutions and higher-tier Greater Good resolutions. But at that point, if you're really bringing the diplomatic pain, why wouldn't they just leave the GC? You'd need the Preemptive War CB to be both available and have strong empires automatically declare war when it becomes available to stop this. That can work to a degree, but that also assumes said empire isn't part of a Federation or has Defensive Pacts that are strong enough to make the prospect of going after your empire problematic. You might not be a 1000 lbs. gorilla, but if your closest neighbors are, and like you well enough to stop others from bullying you, that changes things a great deal.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The thing is, being aggressive doesn't matter if your economy and tech can't support a meaningful fleet.
This is only some 30% accurate and not related to my point, because the AI can be the strongest in galaxy and have good amount of space, and it still won't be able to declare war if he is boxed with friends, because he is a victim of "AI opinion".

Even if that AI is not very strong, sooner of later one of his neighbors might lose fleets in war against some other AI, and this is perfect chance for him to attack, but it wont do it, again because "opinion" won't let him.

If you're boxed into a corner and your neighbors exceed your abilities, military options may not be viable no matter how aggressive you are.
This is again false, such AI (or you) should invite attackers to gain advantage, there really isn't any other option other than war when you're (or the AI is) boxed, because time will eat you a live, such player is a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed.
In this case opinion is again problem, because you won't be able to get attackers even if offering them resources or portion of victory.

At that point, what are you expecting them to do? Start a war they know they'll lose?
I see you see no way out of such problematic situations, but there is always a way out, it just takes a bit of imagination, I gave just one example, but there are many more.
Peaceful coexistence is definitely not the answer because without expansion there is no victory.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
This is only some 30% accurate and not related to my point, because the AI can be the strongest in galaxy and have good amount of space, and it still won't be able to declare war if he is boxed with friends, because he is a victim of "AI opinion".


Even if that AI is not very strong, sooner of later one of his neighbors might lose fleets in war against some other AI, and this is perfect chance for him to attack, but it wont do it, again because "opinion" won't let him.

The claims system can make that difficult. But that does seem like a hole in the AI. You can spend enough influence to claim a single system on the other end of friendly ally space, take it, and then use it to launch claims at reduced cost.

If you're referring to the ruthlessness of the AI, that's a potential hole in another direction. The AI never wants to trade systems, but it assigns a very low value to systems given to it. It's rather slanted, and if you're a smaller empire than a friendly neighbor, it should be possible to trade for some system you can at least develop with Orbitals and/or Ring Worlds.

This is again false, such AI (or you) should invite attackers to gain advantage, there really isn't any other option other than war when you're (or the AI is) boxed, because time will eat you a live, such player is a sitting duck waiting to be destroyed.
In this case opinion is again problem, because you won't be able to get attackers even if offering them resources or portion of victory.

That's not really an accurate description of the situation we're discussing. It's technically correct on a long enough time line, but there's a big difference between being hemmed into two or three systems at the start of the game and eventually hitting an expansion wall half or two thirds way through. At a certain point in the end-game, with the pop growth mallus, conquest doesn't even provide much benefit unless you can use the pops from the empire you're conquering.

Time will eat you alive if you're boxed in, but that's how the RNG rolls and why diplomacy matters. If you're the smaller nation you try to make friends and have enough of a fleet to make someone think twice about invading instead of being allies. Joining an aggressive Federation can help, but that's still a question of diplomacy. That presents its own challenges, trying to stay afloat and relevant despite not being a super power. Given how the AI tends to work, even with this disadvantage you can probably play catch up at some point. But realistically that's how the cookie crumbles, especially if you have a larger number of starting empires than is recommended for your galaxy type.

The Galactic Custodian offers a potential solution - if you can wheedle and deal your way into Custodianship, you potentially have access to a large fleet that's independent of your own military infrastructure to possibly throw at expansion targets.

Like you pointed out, inviting attackers doesn't really work if they know what they're doing. They either can stomp your defenses or they can risk losing due to Harmony and other defensive home territory advantages. If you're boxed in they can simply develop and expand until they beat your economy. You're contained, they're not.

I see you see no way out of such problematic situations, but there is always a way out, it just takes a bit of imagination, I gave just one example, but there are many more.
Peaceful coexistence is definitely not the answer because without expansion there is no victory.

That's a pretty limited perspective. Stellaris is a galactic civilization simulation. Join a large and successful Federation, or help found one. Become a galactic leader - the Custodian, or even the Emperor, if you can get the votes. Having a small, thriving empire standing tall among bigger, stronger empires, that survives and repels the mid-game and end-game crisis, that is a victory unless you're just looking at the arcade score that pops up at the victory date or how much of the map has your flag.
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: