Idea for Federations

[H4shX]

Hey guys

After looking at the stream, with regards to Federations, would e a good idea i think, to have a way when you form Federations, for each Member to give Federation Goals?

Like perhaps a proposition with using influence to further a goal, like reach SOL. Or pool Research or something.

Can that be possible in a DLC? or is it possible?

 

[Susarian]

Federations do need help. Currently there needs to be more of a benefit over an Alliance. Just spit balling here, but some changes I would like to see are:

1. Don't give up any Alliance functionality in a Federation. Allow Federation members to propose war to be voted on. Give the President an extra vote or a veto.
2. Give benefits to non-president Federation members. All Federation members contribute to a shared fleet, right? How about economic/research treaties embedded in Federation membership. A player may have to endure 30, 40, 50 years of AI presidency currently. Make it worth the wait for that 10 yr blip playing with the alliance fleet.
3. Make Federations RARE. This kind of inter-species cooperation should represent a monumental effort, either militarily or diplomatically or both. I'm fine with it being a memorable event that I may not see in every game.

 

[OtsegoGhost]

Federations do need help. Currently there needs to be more of a benefit over an Alliance. Just spit balling here, but some changes I would like to see are:

1. Don't give up any Alliance functionality in a Federation. Allow Federation members to propose war to be voted on. Give the President an extra vote or a veto.
2. Give benefits to non-president Federation members. All Federation members contribute to a shared fleet, right? How about economic/research treaties embedded in Federation membership. A player may have to endure 30, 40, 50 years of AI presidency currently. Make it worth the wait for that 10 yr blip playing with the alliance fleet.
3. Make Federations RARE. This kind of inter-species cooperation should represent a monumental effort, either militarily or diplomatically or both. I'm fine with it being a memorable event that I may not see in every game.

I would really like for everygame NOT to devolve into 2 Federations ruling opposite sides of the galaxy in a slug fest.

 

[Magnificent Genius]

Automatic research share seems like a thing that would be good. Because as of now, I am not certain I would form a federation because the only benefit you get is the combined fleet and you lose all control over diplomacy for a minimum of thirty years.

 

[Molikroth]

It does seem Frienderations have some benefits over just a standard Alliance, for one the Federation fleet which we haven't seen yet will be an amalgamation of all of the member's tech. You don't get border friction with other members which as we saw in the Blorg stream suddenly made the Fungus-friends way more friendly, the president of the Federation (which rotates) can declare war without permission from other members. Not saying I wouldn't be happy to see more added to it, but at the same time you need to be able to balance the federation's power against singleton empires and smaller alliances, add too much benefits to it and there'd be no point NOT to be in such a Federation. I think the big thing about a Federation though is there to make sure that one militant power can't just wipe out all the more peaceful races. Warmongers probably do not want to start a Federation or join one because it will sharply limit their ability to make war.

All that said, I'm happy to reserve judgement until I actually get to play Stellaris, which I am uncomfortably waiting for. I swear I see the countdown to the 9th in my dreams.

 

[Bvz]

Can that be possible in a DLC? or is it possible?

Good lord man, the game isn't even out yet and you want them to be thinking about DLC?

How about a nice, shiny free update instead?

 

[Anjou Poiters]

I would at very least like to see the presidency for federations not to be changed during wars. So that what happened in the stream where Wiz entire term as president was nulled completely because of the war the president before him declared. Meaning we as players have a very real chance of not being able to do absouletely anything for are selves as president if the AI before us declared a war that will take a while to win. For example during WWW2 we saw in the U.S for example President Roosevelt hold nearly 3 terms in a row because of the war. I know back then there was no enforced 2 term limit but it was basically an unwritten rule.. But game play wise I would never join a Federation if the AI is able to screw me over by starting wars that I get nothing out of making my turn as President completely pointless.

 

[LastLeviathan]

Federations do need help. Currently there needs to be more of a benefit over an Alliance. Just spit balling here, but some changes I would like to see are:

1. Don't give up any Alliance functionality in a Federation. Allow Federation members to propose war to be voted on. Give the President an extra vote or a veto.
2. Give benefits to non-president Federation members. All Federation members contribute to a shared fleet, right? How about economic/research treaties embedded in Federation membership. A player may have to endure 30, 40, 50 years of AI presidency currently. Make it worth the wait for that 10 yr blip playing with the alliance fleet.
3. Make Federations RARE. This kind of inter-species cooperation should represent a monumental effort, either militarily or diplomatically or both. I'm fine with it being a memorable event that I may not see in every game.

I posted this in another threat, but it builds on what you were suggesting.

Leadership Options
Rotation: The leader rotates every X amount of years.
Limited Election: A small body of members vote much like the HRE, or UN vetoes.
Full Election: Everyone votes for the next leader.
Monocracy: One faction leads until they decide to transfer power to another.
Council: A council of two or more leaders who vote on actions such as declaring war. The leaders may be selected using any of the above methods.

Types of Federations
This would allow Federations to select every x years a type/focus that grants them bonuses for specialization and negative traits to compensate.

Standard (For those who want to remain unspecialized)

• No bonuses

Defensive League (A Federation focused on defense with no imperialist ambitions)

• +10% Bonus to damage in friendly space
• -10% damage outside friendly space
• -10% warscore cost to gain back a planet
• +10% warscore cost on enemy planets

Trade Union (Federation focused on trade)

• +10% bonus to minerals and energy or 10% of current leader's output added as bonus.
• Negative trait

Technocracy (Federation focused on technological development)

• +10% science boost or 10% of current leader's output added as bonus.
• Negative trait

 

[milamber81]

But game play wise I would never join a Federation if the AI is able to screw me over by starting wars that I get nothing out of making my turn as President completely pointless.

Yes, that's exatly the problem with the Federation-system we've seen today. Why should the player try either to build one or to join one, if there's a very big risk, that he will be unable to do anything after his joining for quite some time. Possibly several presidental-cycles. Or, in other words, several decades...
It may be, that the AI normally would try to give the player also some goodies when going to war, but at the moment it seems to be absolutely pointless to join a federation if the players empire is one of the strongest members of the federation. All you would achieve would be endless wars with little to no gain for the player, till all other members are nearly equally strong...

 

[tobias.mb]

Well from the beginning Federations weren't meant for the warmongeres...
It's supposed to be an alliance of equally strong (and probably more on the peaceful side) members.

Until we actually try them out I'd say it's wad.

 

[13Foxtrot]

from what I can see they just force people to go to war. I would like to see what else federations provide.

 

[KonradKurze202]

1. Don't give up any Alliance functionality in a Federation. Allow Federation members to propose war to be voted on. Give the President an extra vote or a veto.

Wars are not votes that result in the majority wins, Wars for alliances are either: Every single empire in the alliance agrees and the war starts, or any empire votes no and the war never happens.

2. Give benefits to non-president Federation members. All Federation members contribute to a shared fleet, right? How about economic/research treaties embedded in Federation membership.

This pretty much already exists. There is no border friction with fellow Federation members, so you are going to have higher relationships and thus it is easier to get Research Agreements, along with every other diplomatic trade, with everyone.

3. Make Federations RARE. This kind of inter-species cooperation should represent a monumental effort, either militarily or diplomatically or both. I'm fine with it being a memorable event that I may not see in every game.

Sounds good. I'd love for Federations to evolve over time (start off as bare-bones, pass some laws through votes to go down one of several paths: HRE style, Federation of Planets style, etc).


But this:

A player may have to endure 30, 40, 50 years of AI presidency currently. Make it worth the wait for that 10 yr blip playing with the alliance fleet.

Is the wrong idea. A federation is meant to provide protection to its members. If a player joins a federation, chances are they are going to be fairly safe from everything that isn't an end game crisis or Fallen Empire. Making being in a Federation objectively better than not will make it super gamey, everyone will want to be in a federation. There need to be downsides to a federation, they are already much better for defense than an alliance (no border friction, no alliance influence cost, much more stable), making them better in other ways just makes alliances useless.

 

[Jarac Rassen]

The biggest problem is that it's a rotating dictatorship. While there are some benefits, I hate how in Federation you will have no say in the matter of foreign relations.

There needs to be a council that can veto Presidential choices. Maybe also can influence policy depending on the strength of an empire within the Federation.

 

[KonradKurze202]

The biggest problem is that it's a rotating dictatorship. While there are some benefits, I hate how in Federation you will have no say in the matter of foreign relations.

There needs to be a council that can veto Presidential choices. Maybe also can influence policy depending on the strength of an empire within the Federation.

The AI that will most likely agree to, or propose, a Federation forming, are either diplomatic (Traders, Federation Builders, etc) or feel threatened by their neighbors (the Zramas felt threatened by the Just League, if they were alone they would get swallowed easily, so they need allies to survive). A Federation isn't supposed to be a mechanic that allows you to expand easily, it is a defense version of an alliance.
If the President declares a war that no-one else wants, then the others can sit back and let that empire fight alone, and when the Presidency changes they can white peace the war. There does not need to be a council. A council and other mechanics unique to federations would be awesome, but I have no issues with the Federation as is.

 

[.NoWay.]

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

 

[milamber81]

The AI that will most likely agree to, or propose, a Federation forming, are either diplomatic (Traders, Federation Builders, etc) or feel threatened by their neighbors (the Zramas felt threatened by the Just League, if they were alone they would get swallowed easily, so they need allies to survive). A Federation isn't supposed to be a mechanic that allows you to expand easily, it is a defense version of an alliance.

Wrong, we have seen it in the stream, Mushrooms declared an full out aggresive war were they are the only ones to win something. Could you please explain, why that should be a defensive form of an alliance?

If the President declares a war that no-one else wants, then the others can sit back and let that empire fight alone, and when the Presidency changes they can white peace the war. There does not need to be a council. A council and other mechanics unique to federations would be awesome, but I have no issues with the Federation as is.

And wrong again. Around timestamp 1:48:20 in the twitch-stream, Wiz stated, that the other mushrooms were still in charge of the peace talks, while the Blorg already became Leaders of the Federation. So you simply can't sit back and watch the President fight for himself, in order to negotiate a white peace, when you become leader. Because you simply can't negotiate peace...
Also, remember that the defender, in this case the Just League is normally also able to define war goals. So your tactic of doing nothing could lead to planet loss on your side, without your enemys ever been able to reach one of your planets. Because they for example could have definded "Independence for Party Zone" and when the Zramas are totally destroyed, they surrender and you would lose...
And that's just bullshit design, if you ask me...

 

[H4shX]

Another aspect at least, is to have Goals, like to tell the Federation, we want to make contact or explore the system of Sol for example, or we want to concentrate on building up defensive space stations along all the borders. i.e. like your NATO etc, the president even if it not the player can will then focus on those aspects and make decisions based on that.

i.e. Part of the federation but efforts should lead to that whether by war or by peaceful means. The federation as a concept is awesome as is, but to be able to use it for peaceful means like the above could make it better. The leader at the time should be able to have a focus set out by the federation members. Or even yet if one president starts a war, the next president one of his goals if voted on to find a peace agreement. Like a MANDATE set out for the next 10 years.

As a scenario could happen, lets say the player becomes President or is president, and abuses the Federation by means of warmongering, there should be a penalty given in some form where it can risk the federation falling apart. (not sure if it exists already) but there should be negative impact given, The same can be said if the president of the time does not reach out in peace time the goals voted on. So to force the AI to make it like a priority.

The above I think does not make an Alliance useless, the Federation you will not need voting but give at least the power for members to state a mandate for the President, and if the mandate is not reached allow like a penalty so that the AI and the player can determine whether it worthwhile staying in the Federation.

Anyway my 2cents, but I am looking forward to it!!

 

[Brownbeard]

Federation events. Federation olympics. Federation spacevision song contest. Federation reality shows.

 

[KonradKurze202]

And that's just bullshit design, if you ask me...

So don't use Federations. I'm sorry you don't like that they have downsides and aren't just outright OP. If the US lost a war with Mexico (dunno how that would happen, but what if...) and California was a demand of Mexicos then CA would have no say in whether it stayed in the US or was conquered by Mexico, only the US and Mexico are the deciders.

 

[Maarten99]

So don't use Federations. I'm sorry you don't like that they have downsides and aren't just outright OP. If the US lost a war with Mexico (dunno how that would happen, but what if...) and California was a demand of Mexicos then CA would have no say in whether it stayed in the US or was conquered by Mexico, only the US and Mexico are the deciders.

I'm not a fan of having a game mechanic that makes the player a totally passive entity in such a major area of the game. That's not a downside - it's just boring for the player, because you can't fight it. There's literally nothing you can do about it, making it frustrating and bad game design. It's solvable, of course :

- One solution would be to change the elections, so that a player can actively try to be president as often as possible - in which case your inability to do diplomacy when you fail to win the election seems a decent enough punishment. You could copy CKII's republics (bribe your way to the top), or EUIV's HRE election mechanic (make the federation members love you).

- A second solution would be to be able to influence the president's diplomatic actions. Threats, bribes, chantage, promises... could be used to make you get that one war you really need to get going.

- A third (and probably the easiest, but also less 'classy') solution would be to let the player declare wars, but only involving their own Empire, not the Federation. That way, you'll only be able to access you 'superweapon' (Federation Fleet) once every blue moon, but you can pick on smaller targets in the meantime. It does however dissolve that feeling of 'we are one entity now'...

Do I think they're going to redesign it this close to release ? No. It would be crazy, in fact. However, I do hope the current system won't stay in place, because as long as it is, being in a Federation will just be annoying. It makes players totally unable to access a major component of the game, for 80%+ of the time.

TL;DR : You should never take away something from the player (even more so when it's something as huge as diplomacy) without giving them some (difficult ?) way to get it back. This mechanic is just not engaging gameplay, and definitely needs changing.