I think political factions need a rework

[BemusedCobra]

In my opinion the factions are too simplistic and the government has too much control over them especially democratic nations. It would be nice if factions with large amounts of support had a chance of just changing your ethics or something. So a large religious group growing in your empire could change you to a religious ethic or a long military conflict or the presence of hostile neighbors could lead to the adoption of militaristic or xenophobic ethics without the need for embracing the ethic. It would make your empire seem more alive and dynamic and make you care about the size and influence of your factions. It would also make the decisions that lead to greater ethics adoption in line with your current ethics more valuable.

 

[Mímisbrunnr]

They can't just spontaneously change your ethics because they're your governing ethics - i.e. the principles put forth in your government's constitution or equivalent. Those aren't so easily changed, hence why you need to spend influence to achieve it.

 

[maitue]

I don't know about the governing ethics changing, I like their way how their happiness effects the stability of your planets based on the ethics of your pops. I do think there should be more interaction with the groups to keep them happy and to get resources from them, especially playing democratic. Getting bonuses from your pops factions being supportive of your administration could be fun.

 

[MathyM]

I agree that ethics shift shouldn't be something outside the player's control. However, I agree that it could, and probably should, be made easier than it is right now.

I also fully agree that the factions system seems abandoned. Few ethics have more than one corresponding faction as well. There's room for a lot of internal politics mechanics, but the changes just never seem to come, and the feature just feels... very gamey right now. I also think that "Governing Ethics Attraction" is a buff that ends up getting in your way, especially if your governing ethics are particularly hard to please, faction-wise.

 

[BemusedCobra]

They can't just spontaneously change your ethics because they're your governing ethics - i.e. the principles put forth in your government's constitution or equivalent. Those aren't so easily changed, hence why you need to spend influence to achieve it.

So maybe less of just a flat shift but some kind of mounting internal crisis that comes about from having a large, unrecognized faction or opposing ethic. It can have worker strikes lowering production, riots damaging or even destroying buildings/killing pops, maybe even terrorism or something destroying stations leading to open rebellion and fracturing of the empire if left unattended. The current system feels too static to me and I'd like to see some dynamism, like my people have opinions and values and aren't just pieces on a board.

 

[DurianKing]

It definitely seems like an internal politics rework is the focus of the next major DLC, whenever that comes out (early next year?)

 

[Meebleborp]

The biggest issue with these type of mechanics is how quickly they shift from being interesting and dynamic to frustrating and uncontrollable.

This is a big strike against Democratic governments in Stellaris as it is. I know my leaders give solid empire-wide bonuses, and I know which of those bonuses I would like to have. But as Democratic not only will my bonuses be weaker and harder to obtain (mandates vs agendas), they will also be harder to control. This fits RP-wise, but it can be extremely frustrating in practice. Even if I influence the election, every 10 years I have to worry about losing a random scientist or governor I was relying on. At some point, I stop even trying. It makes sense that I would have very little control over this, but it's just. not. fun.

Factions are very similar. Outside of my starting ethics, I only have a small amount of control over which ones form. Again, this makes sense. The problem is that the mechanics for additional factions forming are not well explained, and many of the factors involved do not influence factions in exactly the ways you would expect. Did you know that having the Strong trait makes your pops more likely to be Militarist and thus increase the chances of having a Militarist faction form? That any pops with the Repugnant trait on a planet make other pops there more likely to turn into Xenophobes? That certain diplomatic treaties with Materialist or Spiritualist empires make it more likely for your pops to shift to those ethics as well? For most of the almost 1000 hours I've played this game, I had no idea.

Say you're like I was and want to play as gentle giants that embrace their inner zen - you choose Pacifist Spiritualists who are Strong and Natural Sociologists. Maybe you even choose a Democratic government. Early on, you meet some Materialists that want to be friends, so you oblige. Before too long you have very angry Militarist and Materialist factions, and you have no idea why. Somehow the leader of one of these factions becomes president and now that faction is boosted even further. It's a disaster. Well, okay maybe not a complete disaster, but it's at least very annoying.

Who among us would figure out that this wasn't actually completely random, but affected significantly by their own choices? The only reason I eventually dug into it was because there seemed to be a very high frequency of Spiritualist factions forming in my Materialist empires, and I couldn't understand why.

But whether or not you figure out what's going on behind the scenes, it's going to change your playstyle. Over time you're probably going to trend toward the options that - while not always fitting for RP reasons - offer much more enjoyable gameplay patterns.

Hate having your best scientist turn into your worst leader? Stop picking Democratic.

Annoyed by factions? Play gestalt, or aim for synth ascension so you can largely ignore them.

That's the thing. Even when mechanics like ethics attraction actually work, the ideal gameplay loop just becomes 'find a way to make most of my pops the same ethics so I can minimize the faction tab and never think about it again'.

 

[maitue]

The biggest issue with these type of mechanics is how quickly they shift from being interesting and dynamic to frustrating and uncontrollable.

This is a big strike against Democratic governments in Stellaris as it is. I know my leaders give solid empire-wide bonuses, and I know which of those bonuses I would like to have. But as Democratic not only will my bonuses be weaker and harder to obtain (mandates vs agendas), they will also be harder to control. This fits RP-wise, but it can be extremely frustrating in practice. Even if I influence the election, every 10 years I have to worry about losing a random scientist or governor I was relying on. At some point, I stop even trying. It makes sense that I would have very little control over this, but it's just. not. fun.

Factions are very similar. Outside of my starting ethics, I only have a small amount of control over which ones form. Again, this makes sense. The problem is that the mechanics for additional factions forming are not well explained, and many of the factors involved do not influence factions in exactly the ways you would expect. Did you know that having the Strong trait makes your pops more likely to be Militarist and thus increase the chances of having a Militarist faction form? That any pops with the Repugnant trait on a planet make other pops there more likely to turn into Xenophobes? That certain diplomatic treaties with Materialist or Spiritualist empires make it more likely for your pops to shift to those ethics as well? For most of the almost 1000 hours I've played this game, I had no idea.

Say you're like I was and want to play as gentle giants that embrace their inner zen - you choose Pacifist Spiritualists who are Strong and Natural Sociologists. Maybe you even choose a Democratic government. Early on, you meet some Materialists that want to be friends, so you oblige. Before too long you have very angry Militarist and Materialist factions, and you have no idea why. Somehow the leader of one of these factions becomes president and now that faction is boosted even further. It's a disaster. Well, okay maybe not a complete disaster, but it's at least very annoying.

Who among us would figure out that this wasn't actually completely random, but affected significantly by their own choices? The only reason I eventually dug into it was because there seemed to be a very high frequency of Spiritualist factions forming in my Materialist empires, and I couldn't understand why.

But whether or not you figure out what's going on behind the scenes, it's going to change your playstyle. Over time you're probably going to trend toward the options that - while not always fitting for RP reasons - offer much more enjoyable gameplay patterns.

Hate having your best scientist turn into your worst leader? Stop picking Democratic.

Annoyed by factions? Play gestalt, or aim for synth ascension so you can largely ignore them.

That's the thing. Even when mechanics like ethics attraction actually work, the ideal gameplay loop just becomes 'find a way to make most of my pops the same ethics so I can minimize the faction tab and never think about it again'.

I usually play egalitarian materialists, under a democratic government. I find factions help with increasing the amount of happiness and stability of my colonies if I can keep them under my government ethics, and the use of several ethics, buildings and starbase modules make sense in RP and in game mechanics for my playstyle. I don't know what type of play style someone will try to play that will end up with factions really messing with them much.

 

[Derp]

how about unique bonuses for democratic leaders based on their faction ethic

 

[kviiri]

In addition to the complaints outlined above, is it still the case that after synth ascension (almost) all pops miraculously achieve political consensus and join the Materialist faction?

 

[blahmaster6k]

Honest question - what's actually the point of ethics shifting? I don't really know any practical use cases for it outside of memes like disabling civics you're not supposed to be able to remove, such as Inward Perfection. Most of the time you build your empire around its starting ethics and civics, and there's no desire or reason to consider changing them. For example, Technocracy is the best civic in the game and it's tied to Fanatic Materialist. Shifting away from that would lose you the best civic if your empire is built around a tech rush.

 

[kviiri]

Honest question - what's actually the point of ethics shifting? I don't really know any practical use cases for it outside of memes like disabling civics you're not supposed to be able to remove, such as Inward Perfection. Most of the time you build your empire around its starting ethics and civics, and there's no desire or reason to consider changing them. For example, Technocracy is the best civic in the game and it's tied to Fanatic Materialist. Shifting away from that would lose you the best civic if your empire is built around a tech rush.

I'd reckon roleplay is a driving factor for many. I think it would be much more interesting if the ethics shift felt more like a concrete feature, not just a "press button to change your empire", especially since the actual workings of this feature are often a bit counter-intuitive.

I might expand unto your question by asking, what is the point of governing ethics? Currently they feel like they're in a limbo where they're kinda prescriptive but not quite, and also kinda descriptive but not entirely that either.

 

[BemusedCobra]

Honest question - what's actually the point of ethics shifting? I don't really know any practical use cases for it outside of memes like disabling civics you're not supposed to be able to remove, such as Inward Perfection. Most of the time you build your empire around its starting ethics and civics, and there's no desire or reason to consider changing them. For example, Technocracy is the best civic in the game and it's tied to Fanatic Materialist. Shifting away from that would lose you the best civic if your empire is built around a tech rush.

Yes I agree. Generally there is little reason or desire to change the civic because we custom build empires to do specific things. That's the issue. The factions may as well not exist in the game, that's how little they matter. Choose a few and get some extra influence for keeping them happy. I'm advocating for expanding or replacing the current system with something more interesting. If for no other reason than to make this system relevant.

 

[Meebleborp]

In addition to the complaints outlined above, is it still the case that after synth ascension (almost) all pops miraculously achieve political consensus and join the Materialist faction?

Yes, this is still the case. You usually end up with something like 80-90%+ in the Materialist faction, but not all.

 

[kviiri]

Yes, this is still the case. You usually end up with something like 80-90%+ in the Materialist faction, but not all.

Sad that this still hasn't been fixed. As flimsy the faction mechanics are, they're the closest thing Stella has to internal politics and having that feature practically just lock itself to a stable boring configuration because of an ascension path just feels wrong.

 

[MathyM]

Honest question - what's actually the point of ethics shifting? I don't really know any practical use cases for it outside of memes like disabling civics you're not supposed to be able to remove, such as Inward Perfection. Most of the time you build your empire around its starting ethics and civics, and there's no desire or reason to consider changing them. For example, Technocracy is the best civic in the game and it's tied to Fanatic Materialist. Shifting away from that would lose you the best civic if your empire is built around a tech rush.

RP purposes, getting ethics (and/or civics) that were nice for your early game, but no longer needed, or getting access to things your current setup bars you from (such as slavery, or the ability to declare wars).

 

[methegrate]

In my opinion the factions are too simplistic and the government has too much control over them especially democratic nations. It would be nice if factions with large amounts of support had a chance of just changing your ethics or something. So a large religious group growing in your empire could change you to a religious ethic or a long military conflict or the presence of hostile neighbors could lead to the adoption of militaristic or xenophobic ethics without the need for embracing the ethic. It would make your empire seem more alive and dynamic and make you care about the size and influence of your factions. It would also make the decisions that lead to greater ethics adoption in line with your current ethics more valuable.

I agree completely that factions are an incomplete, simplistic mechanic. Personally I wouldn't have them trigger changes though. Instead, I think I would give factions very real ways of interacting with the rest of your empire. They should be much more than just influence pumps.

Factions that dislike you, then, should make it actively harder to govern your empire. This should be true to the point where, if a faction grows too powerful, it might be worth changing your empire's ethics to accommodate it. That would be a serious step of course. But if you're an egalitarian empire with a militarist faction that now commands 65% of the pop support, maybe the only way to avoid internal collapse and/or civil war is to change with the times.

That doesn't happen right now, of course, because pop ethics and factions are both entirely ignorable. You can just pretend those mechanics don't exist and never notice a thing.

 

[TrotBot]

But if you're an egalitarian empire with a militarist faction that now commands 65% of the pop support, maybe the only way to avoid internal collapse and/or civil war is to change with the times.

or to suppress them. i suppress xenophobes and authoritarians if they get too big, but it definitely feels like a roleplay action that hurts me gameplay wise, as it costs a lot of influence. having a point where fighting a faction is necessary if you don't want to adopt their ethics, would be cool.

 

[Blackadder23]

Sad that this still hasn't been fixed. As flimsy the faction mechanics are, they're the closest thing Stella has to internal politics and having that feature practically just lock itself to a stable boring configuration because of an ascension path just feels wrong.

I don't believe this is a bug. The idea presumably is that synth ascended beings adopt an almost-universal materialistic philosophy (not necessarily arguing for the accuracy of this, just stating that it's a deliberate choice on the part of the devs and not something I would expect them to "fix").

 

[TrotBot]

I don't believe this is a bug. The idea presumably is that synth ascended beings adopt an almost-universal materialistic philosophy (not necessarily arguing for the accuracy of this, just stating that it's a deliberate choice on the part of the devs and not something I would expect them to "fix").

i think that a bonus makes sense. dropping spiritualism makes sense in the game's materialism/spiritualism axis as it stands. maybe not to that extent, but to some extent. maybe however the materialism/spiritualism axis being tied so directly to AI rights isn't the best breaking point. i think an ethics wheel that can model the geth would free up spiritualism to be accepting of robots so long as it's not spiritualist AND xenophobic