Influence bonus to Xenophiles, Stability bonus to Authoritarians, and Trade bonus to Pacifists

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Summary

As of the upcoming changes in 3.3, a bonus to (external) Influence is a better fit for Xenophile than for Authoritarian, which in turn can be argued to be a stronger candidate for a Stability bonus than Pacifist, which in turn can be argued to be a better fit for a Trade Value bonus than Xenophile. Hence this suggestion:

• Xenophile takes +0.5/+1.0 Influence from Authoritarian.
• Authoritarian takes +5/+10 Stability from Pacifist.
• Pacifist takes +10%/+20% Trade Value from Xenophile.

Elaboration

As of version 3.3, the Influence resource will solely be about external Influence. All internal uses of Influence are being shifted to using Unity instead. With Influence becoming something that is entirely about external influence, and not even slightly about internal domination, Authoritarian is no longer a strong fit for the Influence bonus. This completely changes the premises for the current ethic-based Influence bonus, and this in turn necessitates a new look at some other ethic-based bonuses.

Xenophile is the new natural ethic for an Influence bonus, as it is the ethic that is all about external relations. If you are better at understanding others, you are better at influencing them. From a gameplay perspective, giving Xenophile the Influence bonus would synergize very nicely with the +1/+2 Envoy bonus, especially when considering that diplomatic actions are one of the few remaining uses of Influence. Xenophile getting an Influence bonus would also be a very fitting mirror to the Xenophobe ethic's reduction to Starbase Influence Cost. However, giving Xenophile the Influence bonus means that it needs to drop one of its other bonuses, in part for balance reasons and in part in order to conform to the "two bonuses per ethic" norm. The bonus that makes the most sense to drop would be +10%/+20% Trade Value, but this bonus would not be a good fit for Authoritarian and would therefore not make a good exchange for the Influence bonus. However...

Authoritarian is a stronger fit for the Stability bonus currently assigned to Pacifist. Maintaining order and stability is the primary goal of any Authoritarian government, the one promise to the people that all Authoritarian regimes have in common and base their legitimacy on. The pops may be unhappy from their poor living standards, but at least they are safe and the trains run on time (so says the news). From a gameplay perspective, a bonus to Stability can be seen as an ability to absorb more unhappiness without becoming unstable, which however also means a higher level of crime at any given stability level (as crime is based on pop unhappiness). This kind of superficial peace in society is a better fit for Authoritarian than Pacifism, as the latter rather should rely on prosperity and Happiness as a source of stability (for instance, the edict "Peace Festivals" adds +10% Happiness). Finally, closing the circle...

Pacifist has always been a strong fit for the Trade Value bonus currently assigned to Xenophile. To begin with, the Pacifist ethic spawns the Prosperity faction, which emphasises trade and wealth even more than it desires peace. You only get +15 faction approval from having the Defensive Wars war philosophy and not being at war, while you get +20 from having at least 5,000 energy credits and having the Mercantile diplomatic stance. A bonus to Trade Value would be a better match for the ethic than either of the current two bonuses, not just because of the prosperity focus but also simply by virtue of trade being nearly synonymous with peace.
(Additionally, the Trade Value bonus can be used to get more Consumer Goods and a thoroughly pacifist empire should also use the Civilian Economy policy choice to produce more Consumer Goods to begin with. Consumer Goods can in turn be used for more Entertainers and/or better living standards, which in turn begets more Happiness and ultimately greater Stability. In a more organic way, with a more solid and crime-free foundation.)

 

[HFY]

Pacifist has always been a strong fit for the Trade Value bonus currently assigned to Xenophile. To begin with, the Pacifist ethic spawns the Prosperity faction, which emphasises trade and wealth even more than it desires peace. You only get +15 faction approval from having the Defensive Wars war philosophy and not being at war, while you get +20 from having at least 5,000 energy credits and having the Mercantile diplomatic stance. A bonus to Trade Value would be a better match for the ethic than either of the current two bonuses, not just because of the prosperity focus but also simply by virtue of trade being nearly synonymous with peace.

Xenophile empires could get some extra bonus to a Commercial Pact treaty (and any trade from a Federation ally) instead of having a +% to all TV.

That encourages them to act like Xenophiles rather than just sitting on stacks of Mercantile Trade Habs.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Xenophile empires could get some extra bonus to a Commercial Pact treaty (and any trade from a Federation ally) instead of having a +% to all TV.

That encourages them to act like Xenophiles rather than just sitting on stacks of Mercantile Trade Habs.

Getting a bonus to Influence would make them afford more Commercial Pacts, though.

 

[HFY]

Getting a bonus to Influence would make them afford more Commercial Pacts, though.

Sure, and that's not a bad thing right? Xenophiles are supposed to be the galactic extroverts.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Yup, makes sense. Well reasoned.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Having had a little bit more time to think about the ethics in 3.3, and Pacifist in particular, I am considering suggesting two possible additional changes to Pacifist:

• +5%/+10% Happiness, instead of -15%/-30% Empire sprawl from pops
• Utopian Abundance living standard (enabled by Pacifist rather than Egalitarian)

Why +5%/+10% Happiness, instead of -15%/-30% Empire sprawl from pops?

• It is not at all obvious why a Pacifist government would have an easier time managing its population sprawl.
• Empire sprawl directly translates to lower Unity and Research costs, effectively making an Empire sprawl reduction a bonus to those things, in all but name.
  • If pops contribute half of the Empire sprawl value, the current bonus equates -7.5%/-15% Empire sprawl.
    (better estimates are welcome)
  • Using the sprawl penalty values of 3.2, -1% Empire sprawl equates -0.4% Tech cost, -0.6% Tradition cost and -1% Edict cost.
    (if anyone knows the current values for 3.3, feel free to mention them)
  • -6% Technology cost, -9% Tradition cost and -15% Edict cost equate x0.94 Research cost, x0.91 Tradition cost and x0.85 Edict cost, which in turn equate x1.064 Research production (speed), x1.10 Unity production (if only spent on Traditions) and x1.18 Unity production (if only spent on Edicts). Note that these multipliers apply to all production bonuses given, making these effects retain their relative impact even as more production bonuses are stacked.
    (if my math is strange, feel free to point this out)
  • Essentially, the Pacifist ethic offers a benefit that is a direct analogue to not just one, but two, other ethics' most important modifiers. While the bonus is smaller than what those other ethics offer, at least for Research (the situation is much more ambiguous for Unity), it is undisputable that this bonus does make the Materialist and Spiritualist ethics less distinct.
• A bonus to Happiness is a much more natural fit for Pacifist than an Empire sprawl reduction, or a bonus to Stability (see the OP for reasons regarding the latter). While it is true that Happiness contributes to Stability (above 50% Happiness, +10% Happiness corresponds to +6% Stability), Happiness is more than just a "lesser Stability value"; Happiness also reduces Crime and increases governing ethics attraction. Unlike Stability, which concerns overt conflicts, a Happiness bonus directly reduces tensions in a society. An increased governing ethics attraction also ultimately feeds back to both Stability and Faction Unity, but the pathways are much more indirect and subject to other influences. It can also be noted that a reduction in Crime aligns quite well with sci-fi tropes of Pacifist utopias.

Why move Utopian Abundance from Egalitarian to Pacifist?

• From a balance perspective, it would be an equalizer. +10% Specialist output and +50% Faction Unity gain are significantly stronger than +20% Trade Value and +10% Happiness. On top of this, Pacifists cannot make territorial claims unless they are in a defensive war, and Fanatic Pacifists cannot declare war at all; these limitations are much more impactful than the policy limitations faced by Egalitarians. Basically, Egalitarians can afford to lose Utopian Abundance and Pacifists have a greater need for it. Access to Utopian Abundance would, to some extent, make up for the War Philosophy limitations. You may not be able to expand aggressively, but you know that your society is happier and probably also more productive than any other society in the galaxy.
• It aligns better with sci-fi tropes. While utopian abundance societies can be portrayed as anything from democracy to benevolent monarchy, they are usually depicted as pacifist and essentially never as militarist. In fact, the utopian pacifist society is not rarely under threat from a brutish, militarist regime with a well-funded military but considerable civilian poverty (the two frequently being explicitly related). Economic priorities matter and the choice is nearly always portrayed as one between military might and civilian abundance. Just compare Star Trek's pacifist Federation and militarist Klingon empire.
• It aligns better with what the ethics represent.Egalitarian is primarily about equality, not necessarily prosperity and civilian abundance - which, arguably, are the core domestic issues of Pacifist empires.
  • Shared Burdens would get a more prominent role for Egalitarians, becoming its natural endpoint as far as living standards are concerned. The living standard itself would become a reason for (Fanatical) Egalitarians to pick the civic, whereas it is currently overshadowed by Utopian Abundance.
  • Materialist ethics enable Academic Privilege living standards. It is not a far stretch that the Pacifist ethic would also offer a special living standard, when considering its focus on prosperity and well-being - and Utopian Abundance is to Pacifist societies what Academic Privilege is to Materialist societies. A perfect match.
• It aligns with other game mechanics. Especially the Economic Policy, where it can be argued that a true pacifist chooses the Civilian Economy policy. This policy increases Consumer Goods production by +25%, which makes perfect sense to combine with Utopian Abundance (and it makes little sense to choose that policy otherwise).
  • Pacifist Authoritarians (the nice kind of Authoritarians who care about their citizens' well-being) would be able to use slavery to grant their other subjects Utopian Abundance living standards, while still meeting the requirements for the "Stratified Economy" +10 faction approval (enslaved species or Slaver Guilds civic). Authoritarians would however not be able to engage in a more equitable distribution of resources, i.e. an Utopian Abundance not based on slavery, as that would get them a -20 Faction approval modifier (on top of missing out on +10 from having a more stratified society). A Faction approval of 40 (55 at the most) would be very bad news for their Faction Unity.

Between the +5%/+10% Happiness from the ethic, the +10% Happiness from the Peace Festivals edict and the +20% happiness from the Utopian Abundance living standard, Pacifist societies could potentially be pretty gosh darn happy. The Pacifist ethic would be the ethic for those wanting to play a harmonious utopian society of prosperous abundance where everybody is nice to each other and there is no crime.

 

[HFY]

It is not at all obvious why a Pacifist government would have an easier time managing its population sprawl (a case could even be made for the opposite).

Just to play devil's advocate, perhaps pacifistic pops are less aggressively unruly.

Tibet didn't have a lot of jackbooted riot cops when the Dalai Lama was in charge.

(Not saying the current bonus is better than your idea, but I think the current bonus could be justified in its flavor.)

 

[Commander Tobe]

Simple but brilliant. That makes a lot of sense to me. Well done!

 

[Ikael]

I strongly agree with giving xenophiles the influence generation bonus, it just makes too much damn sense both thematically and both due to the unity rework. It would just feel right. Same with giving Utopian Abundance to pacifists.

The stability bonus for authoritarians makes thematic sense as well, even if I can't see it synergizing too much with its gameplay.

However, I am torn about what to do about pacifists bonuses. I mean, their whole thing was that their pops are supposed to be more efficient than the rest of ethics, something that their gameplay style needs due to their inability to "acquire" pops via conquest, hence their stability and sprawl bonuses.

Perhaps it would be better if they retain their stability bonus and don their sprawl bonus to authoritarians instead? (since centralized big government, yadda, yadda). A Stability + Trade bonus combo would synergize well with pacifist gameplay, I think. Hell, pop growth could do the trick too.

Still, the main problem is that there are very, very few genuinely pacifist, "builder" things to do in the game, despite the recent Unity rework.

 

[Commander Tobe]

I strongly agree with giving xenophiles the influence generation bonus, it just makes too much damn sense both thematically and both due to the unity rework. It would just feel right. Same with giving Utopian Abundance to pacifists.

The stability bonus for authoritarians makes thematic sense as well, even if I can't see it synergizing too much with its gameplay.

However, I am torn about what to do about pacifists bonuses. I mean, their whole thing was that their pops are supposed to be more efficient than the rest of ethics, something that their gameplay style needs due to their inability to "acquire" pops via conquest, hence their stability and sprawl bonuses.

Perhaps it would be better if they retain their stability bonus and don their sprawl bonus to authoritarians instead? (since centralized big government, yadda, yadda). A Stability + Trade bonus combo would synergize well with pacifist gameplay, I think. Hell, pop growth could do the trick too.

Still, the main problem is that there are very, very few genuinely pacifist, "builder" things to do in the game, despite the recent Unity rework.

Why not stick to the OP's plan and also add a +10% bonus to pop creation rate for Pacifists or something?

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Perhaps it would be better if they retain their stability bonus and don their sprawl bonus to authoritarians instead? (since centralized big government, yadda, yadda). A Stability + Trade bonus combo would synergize well with pacifist gameplay, I think.

I would personally prefer to get rid of sprawl modifiers from ethics altogether; a cost reduction is nearly identical to an income bonus, and a sprawl reduction is a boost to both Unity and Research.

 

[Ikael]

I would personally prefer to get rid of sprawl modifiers from ethics altogether; a cost reduction is nearly identical to an income bonus, and a sprawl reduction is a boost to both Unity and Research.

Agreed. Sprawl modifiers would be best served perhaps by authority types (imperial authorities being better at wide?) or certain perks/civics.

Still, pacifist needs all the help they can get (and spiritualist ethics could perhaps swap some bonuses as well, now that I think about it).

 

[HFY]

Agreed. Sprawl modifiers would be best served perhaps by authority types (imperial authorities being better at wide?) or certain perks/civics.

Imperial has access to Feudal Society, so they could do tall-with-vassals -- Feudal doing that best, but every Imperial having good use of the system.

Egalitarian might do better at wide, since incorporating and making their conquest targets equal seems like something they'd do.

 

[SeraphAscending]

Why move Utopian Abundance from Egalitarian to Pacifist?

• From a balance perspective, it would be an equalizer. +10% Specialist output and +50% Faction Unity gain are significantly stronger than +20% Trade Value and +10% Happiness. On top of this, Pacifists cannot make territorial claims unless they are in a defensive war, and Fanatic Pacifists cannot declare war at all; these limitations are much more impactful than the policy limitations faced by Egalitarians. Basically, Egalitarians can afford to lose Utopian Abundance and Pacifists have a greater need for it. Access to Utopian Abundance would, to some extent, make up for the War Philosophy limitations. You may not be able to expand aggressively, but you know that your society is happier and probably also more productive than any other society in the galaxy.
• It aligns better with sci-fi tropes. While utopian abundance societies can be portrayed as anything from democracy to benevolent monarchy, they are usually depicted as pacifist and essentially never as militarist. In fact, the utopian pacifist society is not rarely under threat from a brutish, militarist regime with a well-funded military but considerable civilian poverty (the two frequently being explicitly related). Economic priorities matter and the choice is nearly always portrayed as one between military might and civilian abundance. Just compare Star Trek's pacifist Federation and militarist Klingon empire.
• It aligns better with what the ethics represent.Egalitarian is primarily about equality, not necessarily prosperity and civilian abundance - which, arguably, are the core domestic issues of Pacifist empires.
  • Shared Burdens would get a more prominent role for Egalitarians, becoming its natural endpoint as far as living standards are concerned. The living standard itself would become a reason for (Fanatical) Egalitarians to pick the civic, whereas it is currently overshadowed by Utopian Abundance.
  • Materialist ethics enable Academic Privilege living standards. It is not a far stretch that the Pacifist ethic would also offer a special living standard, when considering its focus on prosperity and well-being - and Utopian Abundance is to Pacifist societies what Academic Privilege is to Materialist societies. A perfect match.
• It aligns with other game mechanics. Especially the Economic Policy, where it can be argued that a true pacifist chooses the Civilian Economy policy. This policy increases Consumer Goods production by +25%, which makes perfect sense to combine with Utopian Abundance (and it makes little sense to choose that policy otherwise).
  • Pacifist Authoritarians (the nice kind of Authoritarians who care about their citizens' well-being) would be able to use slavery to grant their other subjects Utopian Abundance living standards, while still meeting the requirements for the "Stratified Economy" +10 faction approval (enslaved species or Slaver Guilds civic). Authoritarians would however not be able to engage in a more equitable distribution of resources, i.e. an Utopian Abundance not based on slavery, as that would get them a -20 Faction approval modifier (on top of missing out on +10 from having a more stratified society). A Faction approval of 40 (55 at the most) would be very bad news for their Faction Unity.

I do agree with your some of your points, but i vehemently disagree with your conclusion.

Utopian Abundance fits egalitarians extremely well, because it shares with EVERYONE. The ultimate socio-economic equalizer. It is a super-charged Shared Burdens in an abundance society.

While you do make good points about how it would fit pacifists, i think taking it away from egalitarians is a major mistake.

Just as an example, you could have a fanatically authoritarian pacifist monarchy that is opposed to violence, but also puts people in castes, because some people are just seen as inferior. Utopian abundance would make literally zero sense there.
You will always have a socio-economic difference between higher and lower castes. That's literally what castes reinforce.
Utopian abundance would equalize this in a way that is absolutely theme-breaking.

On the other hand you could have fanatic militarist egalitarians that want to ride through the galaxy on there democratic crusade, liberating every sapient being out there.
Utopian abundance would easily fit into that. Even though economy and peace are not at all in focus for this empire, equality is. Utopian abundance would fit very neatly into the image of an empire that wants to enforce that everyone be their own master - and no one else.

I think you seriously underestimate how much utopian abundance is significant for equality, because wealth disparity is a major contributor to political inequality. If not the most important factor.
Take modern democracies as an example. Yeah, sure. Super rich people also just have 1 vote in elections. But they also fund campaigns with millions to billions of dollars thus having major sway in what candidates even get a shot. Utopian abundance and shared burdens nullifies such an advantage. The ultimate equalizers.

Utopian Abundance belongs with Egalitarianism. Period.

 

[currylambchop]

Pacifist going from stability and empire sprawl reduction to happiness (worse stability) and trade value (useless for most builds)? That’s a pretty hefty nerf for something that isn’t even a strong playstyle.