Imperial and Federal Holdings

[Lorenerd11]

I think it would be cool if the Galactic Emperor, or the president of a Federation with sufficiently high centralization and the relevant laws, were also able to build Holdings on the planets owned by members of the Galactic Imperium or the Federation, respectively.

 

[A2ch0n]

I like the idea but only for the emperor. A federation lead changes too often (even if you can manage to "cotrol" your fed this can happen). And the buildings will be gone at a lead change. But for the emperor this is an exceptional idea.
I still wait for some information about emperor changes. Especially in case of vassallization mechanics. Will we get options here or a special type for the emperor?

 

[Lorenerd11]

A federation lead changes too often (even if you can manage to "cotrol" your fed this can happen). And the buildings will be gone at a lead change.

Nope! The buildings would remain for as long as the empire with the Federal holdings is in the Federation. The owner of the buildings, and the one who can construct them, would always be the president, but as the president of the Federation changes, so would the ownership of the Federal holdings.

 

[great lakes]

I really like the idea of federal holdings, but i think that federal holdings should be a matter dicided by the federation as a whole. i posted this before, and will go find the link.

 

[Lorenerd11]

Additionally, each Federation type would have access to unique Federal holdings, so a Research Cooperative would be able to construct unique research boosting holdings (empire unique, one per member), Martial Alliance would have unique military holdings, etc.

For instance a Federal Science Institute that boosts member research speed by 2.5% president research speed by 0.5%, and the research speed of all members by 0.25% – seems to benefit the member more, until you realize the president can have a Federal Science Institute too, and that the effect from other Federal Science Institutes would stack.

Doesn't have to be this effect exactly, just an example of how it would work – individual benefits stronger for the member, but with stacking benefits for all members or for the president. So, the more members in the Federation, the greater benefits.

 

[great lakes]

I really like the idea of federal holdings, but i think that federal holdings should be a matter dicided by the federation as a whole. i posted this before, and will go find the link.

found it - Edited, this was a link, but i'm replacing it with the post - with overlord approaching, many players wanted federal holdings. at first i was skeptical, but I've come around to the idea, at least in principle. how's this - a federation member nominates a colony as a Federal Center. they remain in control, but the federation gets to build federal building on it (voting on what to build where and when), much like branch offices. all members benefit, and all members share in the cost and upkeep, but the host probably benefits more, and might have a stronger say in federal affairs. Federal Centers would be limited by centralization, either per member or per federation, and buildings would be gated either by tech and/or a scoring system (a Federal Research Academy might need at lest 3 of research coop, materialist ethics, or members with technocracy, natural neural network, static research analysis, or introspective civics (if a member has those last 2, they both count.) there could also be a Federal Capital turning member's unity into cohesion, for insistence.

edit- this could also allow cohesion to be used as a resource.

 

[Lorenerd11]

I really like the idea of federal holdings, but i think that federal holdings should be a matter dicided by the federation as a whole. i posted this before, and will go find the link.

It would be dictated by Federal laws, just like everything else. They'd be constructed by the President, but they have to be enabled first. I imagine they could require Medium centralization for most federation types, and Low centralization for Hegemony federations.

 

[DeanTheDull]

A Federation holding might work better in the sense that every Federation member can build a building in their own capital. Instead of an overlord mechanic for the benefit of the Overlord, it's a mechanic for the benefit of the federation member.

 

[great lakes]

It would be dictated by Federal laws, just like everything else. They'd be constructed by the President, but they have to be enabled first. I imagine they could require Medium centralization for most federation types, and Low centralization for Hegemony federations.

I could see both systems working, with them each having a law. the reason i want holding matters voted on is that federations generally are alliances of rough equals, and voting and consensus in that better upholds the rough equality of the members, and also allows for potentially interesting politics.

 

[Lorenerd11]

A Federation holding might work better in the sense that every Federation member can build a building in their own capital. Instead of an overlord mechanic for the benefit of the Overlord, it's a mechanic for the benefit of the federation member.

I think it should be built by the president, but yeah, each individual building should absolutely predominantly benefit the Federation member, with maybe some exceptions for the Hegemony Federal holdings (some of which would predominantly benefit the president, but not as ostensibly at the expense of the member as some Overlord holdings)

 

[Verx90]

okok...

problem : anything you give to federation, you are giving to vassals\overlords. as they are in no way shape or form excluded from federation , you need to work a new way to limit one of the 2, or renounce .

the solutions are varius , like making the " vassals join federation " have bigger consequenses for the federation cohesion , or create a new federation that doesn't allow overlords\vassals , and that has a new more deep relation with members and alow for "federation holdings" .



what i hope to see for federation is a bigger indept of theyr laws, in particolar , with the rework of the situations , there can be new laws that could be extremly interesting. ( for example, a laws like " energy cooperation " that could give 1% energy production bonus for member , but if one of the member enter a deficit of energy the federation will have a situation that will tick towards bad ending , and there could be votes for how to manage the sistuation . )

i'd like for federation to actualy have a repercursion even in internal politics , if some laws are passed.
and there the holdings could be key for that. like a "federation capital " etc.

but , it need to considerate that overlords\vassals can ( and should probably aim for ) be a federation . this would mean having the overlord holdings , the federation holdings , all the advantage of the vassals specialization and the federation perks .

btw, it would be cool to have the possibility to have contracts between federation members too , like giving tech in exchange for basic resources ... actualy, that would be actualy cool to change the " diplomatic exchange" that there is at the moment in the game. i would totaly see an empire "pay" 20% basic resources to have a defensive pact.

edit: immagine a megacorporation selling energy to half the galaxy in exchange for treaties or research\resources

 

[Pancakelord]

This would be a good use for centralisation.

• Each tier (1-5) adds a capital federal slot, up to 4.
• Each member builds in their own slots (even hygemonies) - only possible if they are free* and aren't a subject. (So, mutually exclusive with overlord buildings).
• Each building that's been built, adds a small multiplier to fed xp gain. So countries all participating rank the fed up faster.
  • [This means a hygemoy full of vassals will rank up slower than a hygemoy full of 'free' states, too, as they'd use a different building set. Only free states would add to fed up, not vassal buildings]

The problem is needing to create enough buildings to fill this in.

• You could have some overlap, like a 'federal outpost' always goes in slot 1:
  • but it's empire wide or capital / core sector specific effects differ based on the kind of federation you are in (trade [trade league] vs defenses [defense league] Vs Diplo power, treaty cost reduction [galactic union] etc).
• But eventually you'll need some unique buildings to make this system stand out a bit (and ideally some locked behind certain fed types).
  • Buffing the entire core sector would be my ideal solution to how federal buildings would apply their buffs, too. Empowering federations comprised of small (upto ~1 sector in size) independent states.
  • Where corporates affect one planet and overlord's buildings seem to affect either certain worlds or whole empires.

All in, you're probably looking at something like 16-24(+) federal holding buildings to really do the system justice, and give each fed type a few unique choices, however.

* Free = not a subject. You can be a free state and still be a client in a hegemony, though.

 

[d00m]

I think it would be cool if the Galactic Emperor, or the president of a Federation with sufficiently high centralization and the relevant laws, were also able to build Holdings on the planets owned by members of the Galactic Imperium or the Federation, respectively.

Why not have federation holdings where all members kan build a number of holdings on other member planets, based on federation cohesion and how much they contribute to the federation?

 

[Lorenerd11]

okok...

problem : anything you give to federation, you are giving to vassals\overlords. as they are in no way shape or form excluded from federation , you need to work a new way to limit one of the 2, or renounce .

I don't see an issue with that. That said, some of the buildings could be exclusive to independent members.

 

[Verx90]

I don't see an issue with that. That said, some of the buildings could be exclusive to independent members.

Some buildings could give malus (resources upkeep) to the overlord of the vassals , to give a sense of the federation imposing on the overlord/vassal relationship.

The problem is absolutely not there, if you don't care about balance, the solution are quite easy to come up with toh...

 

[MathyM]

I think the Emperor definitely needs more power, especially towards improving their naval capacity and ship costs/build speed. On most of my games, I end up staying Custodian, since the benefits are larger.

Federations are fine where they are IMO.

 

[Verx90]

I think the Emperor definitely needs more power, especially towards improving their naval capacity and ship costs/build speed. On most of my games, I end up staying Custodian, since the benefits are larger.

EH... i feel like this expansion bring in alot of things that a " galatic empire" would realy like to have with all members. (contracts and specialization)

we can always hope the custodian team will give the galatic empire some love .

 

[Lorenerd11]

Why not have federation holdings where all members can build a number of holdings on other member planets, based on federation cohesion and how much they contribute to the federation?

Each member builds in their own slots (even hegemonies) - only possible if they are free* and aren't a subject. (So, mutually exclusive with overlord buildings).

I think who builds the holdings, like the number of holdings, could be decided by federal laws. President only, or any member.

I'm not sure how I feel about every federation member being able to build holdings on their own planet though; the very idea of holdings is that they're buildings owned by another empire.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I'm not sure how I feel about every federation member being able to build holdings on their own planet though; the very idea of holdings is that they're buildings owned by another empire.

That's technical debt more then thematic, though- the very idea of holdings used to be that they were mega-corp only, but it was the mechanics of a special building concept that doesn't interfere with planetary management that got it expanded to Overlord.

Technically speaking there hasn't been a theme of 'owned by another empire' because we've yet to have anything but the megacorp holding be published yet. There's literally no pattern yet, until it becomes a pattern of two next month or so.

 

[Verx90]

That's technical debt more then thematic, though- the very idea of holdings used to be that they were mega-corp only, but it was the mechanics of a special building concept that doesn't interfere with planetary management that got it expanded to Overlord.

Technically speaking there hasn't been a theme of 'owned by another empire' because we've yet to have anything but the megacorp holding be published yet. There's literally no pattern yet, until it becomes a pattern of two next month or so.

ah.. 1 think i hate for certain , is that if one megacorp builded a holding first , thats the end . the only thing that take it out is a war with probably friendly empires. because you have no way to actualy have an economical confrontation .

and one of the things that scare me is that an "federation holding" would end up in the same way if evryone can build on evryone .

at least you can't realy have more than 1 overlord.