Internal Politics - what do you NOT want to see?

[Liggi]

We've had a lot of discussions about how internal politics could be revamped in Stellaris to be more interesting, and I think everyone suspects at this point that the next large DLC will be an internal politics rework.

I think talking about what we want is great, but I think there can also be value in talking about what we DON'T want. What would be the most disappointing Internal Politics rework?

My thoughts:

- I don't want to see a system that just allows you to add "institutions" that amount to nothing but flat modifiers. I add the "Xenobiology Department" institution, I get +15% Society Research. I add the "Bureau of Espionage" institution, I get +1 Codebreaking and an extra Envoy.

- Likewise, I don't want to see Factions reworked in a way that's similar. Keep the faction happy, you get a flat modifier. Instead of Influence, now keeping the Materialist faction happy gets you +10% Research Speed.

Essentially, I just don't want it to be a very tacked-on system with no interaction with other systems that is nothing but "modifier cards" that you can apply to your empire.

How about you?

 

[Ryika]

Don't make it too event-driven. In threads about internal politics I always feel like some people want it to be a lot of narrative thrown at you all the time, but imagine how frustrating that would become in no time. There is a balance to be struck between events making things more interesting, and events just getting in the way of the things you actually want to be doing.

So I believe the core of such a system needs to be gameplay-based, with a solid backbone of systems that are tied into the rest of the mechanics and stay relevant throughout the game. Events and event chains should be the spice that adds extra flavor. And when impactful changes are on the horizon, that's when events should take over to tell the story.

 

[Empire of Terra Nova]

i want

- unrest to have meaningful consequences with different outcomes; like pops organising emigration waves, striking, colonising planets within borders and turning into primitives, blowing up buildings, inciting revolutions (step down of current ruler, government reform according to dominant factions)

- a rework of democracies; remove that silly agendas and empower factions by introducing a parliament, or some sort of commission or so that would make meaningful demands (government reforms, purge of certain pops, war against rival, starbase/bastion construction and upgrade, joining/leaving the gc et cetera)

- event chains with different dialogues actually to lead to different outcomes and not just saying different stuff

 

[Liggi]

i want

- unrest to have meaningful consequences with different outcomes; like pops organising emigration waves, striking, colonising planets within borders and turning into primitives, blowing up buildings, inciting revolutions (step down of current ruler, government reform according to dominant factions)

- a rework of democracies; remove that silly agendas and empower factions by introducing a parliament, or some sort of commission or so that would make meaningful demands (government reforms, purge of certain pops, war against rival, starbase/bastion construction and upgrade, joining/leaving the gc et cetera)

- event chains with different dialogues actually to lead to different outcomes and not just saying different stuff

The topic was specifically about what you DON'T want. But thanks for sharing! Is there anything you'd really not want to see? What would be a huge disappointment to you?

 

[apples951]

- hive minds being left out

- losing half of my empire due to rebellions because of too much micro and/or rng

 

[Dragatus]

1) I don't want it to add micro on a planetary level. I want the system to run on an empire level instead.
2) I also don't want any sudden surprises where you don't look at the faction screen for a while and then suddenly an entire sector tries to break away without warning. To clarify, I'm fine with sector or planets declaring independence, but I want to be warned there is a risk of it happening before it does, so that I can take actions to prevent it.
3) Finally, I do not want the system to hit AI empires harder than the (casual) player due to the AI's inability to cope with the system.

 

[Janx14]

I don't want to just be punished for unrest. Unrest should create interesting senarios just as much as stability.

I don't want hiveminds to be left out.

I don't want it to boil down to another new screen with an EXP bar.

 

[TrotBot]

purge of certain pops

i love your ideas, and would even want to see a faction try to demand this of me, but "suppress faction" needs to be made deeper and more fun so i can purge whoever demands this

 

[MadCow94]

What do I most not want to see?

The forum tantrum and rampage that is 100% sure to happen with a feature that has been promised since 1.01 and has had 5 years for people to build up their mental hype for everything it could possibly be.

But what do I want? "Dynamic Political Events" changed my life. One of the best mods, it made me suddenly enjoy playing democracies because I actually had to react and stay in character or my country might explode.

 

[Incompetent]

I don't want internal dissent to be a challenge that just gets obliterated with enough tech, like what happens to virtually every other challenge in this game.

I also don't want it to be something you can simply crush with enough armies/fleet power. The challenge needs to go up in a systemic way as your empire gets blobbier. If things start going wrong internally, the loyalty of your military is not guaranteed.

 

[TrotBot]

because I actually had to react and stay in character or my country might explode.

i think this is the most important thing such an update needs to do. you should be forced to play your ethics in character, or else your ethics should drift and all sorts of chaos should ensue like demonstrations, strikes, uprisings, revolutions, and coups. there should be escalating crises if you pick one ethic and play like another instead.

 

[Grand Historian]

Essentially, I just don't want it to be a very tacked-on system with no interaction with other systems that is nothing but "modifier cards" that you can apply to your empire.

This. Basically everything that EU4's estate system was for the longest time should be exactly what Stellaris needs to avoid. I don't want my internal politics system to just be a modifier dispenser to only be interacted with when I want a bonus, I want it to be something that needs to be actively managed to keep my empire stable.

 

[GloatingSwine]

- losing half of my empire due to rebellions because of too much micro and/or rng

Yeah, the idea of the empire fracturing needs to be rethought. It's never actually worked in an interesting way, especially not in the current state of a single system rebelling to create a useless minor empire.

 

[Starfury]

- hive minds being left out

- losing half of my empire due to rebellions because of too much micro and/or rng

Of all the possible DLCs I can think of, the"internal politics" one makes most sense to ignore gestalt empires.

I think at best, they couldn expect to benefit from possible changes to the crime/deviancy system.

 

[MadCow94]

Yeah, the idea of the empire fracturing needs to be rethought. It's never actually worked in an interesting way, especially not in the current state of a single system rebelling to create a useless minor empire.

You can tell who are the Hearts of Iron fans and who are the Crusader Kings fans (I have a theory that Stellaris draws from both and that both sides are constantly at war). HOI fans are like, "Rebellions suck", CK fans are like, "If my empire doesn't collapse so I have to rebuild it every 50 years the game gets boring."

 

[TrotBot]

You can tell who are the Hearts of Iron fans and who are the Crusader Kings fans (I have a theory that Stellaris draws from both and that both sides are constantly at war). HOI fans are like, "Rebellions suck", CK fans are like, "If my empire doesn't collapse so I have to rebuild it every 50 years the game gets boring."

rebellions could be great, the issue is they should not be represented in game by instantly creating an independent empire. that's clunky, and far too punishing to happen that early in the escalation of political events. civil war should use pirate type mechanics first, and the creation of a new empire should be only the consequence of losing that civil war. i want more rebellions, but i also want more nuanced rebellions with escalating tactics. protests, strikes, revolutions, coups, civil wars, there should be a gamut of tactics and they should be different depending on the faction. like authoritarian factions when rebelling shhould tend more towards coups and some sort of ruling stratum equivalent of capital flight, and egalitarian factions should tend towards strikes and revolutions, etc...

 

[Grand Historian]

We've had a sector system that keeps having its utility shuffled around every other rework or so, surely it could be retooled to give an interface for internal politics and rebellions?

 

[sillyrobot]

I don't want the equivalent of Federations: a bolt-on subsystem that affects one strategy of game play primarily and has limited to no effect on most other styles; where the optional choice is to simply not engage and/or swamp the system by being larger than the rest of the galaxy empires combined; where the other empires act effectively randomly and often against their own interests.

I don't want the equivalent of Nemesis: a bolt-on system that only exists by taking away player knowledge and choice that previously existed; where the optimal choice for most strategies is to ignore the system entirely; where strategic choice is non-existent and defences are minimal and entirely passive.

 

[apples951]

i think this is the most important thing such an update needs to do. you should be forced to play your ethics in character, or else your ethics should drift and all sorts of chaos should ensue like demonstrations, strikes, uprisings, revolutions, and coups. there should be escalating crises if you pick one ethic and play like another instead.

I rather not remove more player freedom. The ethics already forces you to play a certain way. Xenophobic prevents you from treating xenos as equals, spiritualist prevents you from treating robots as equals, and egalitarian prevents you from being a dictatorship or imperial.

 

[ZomgK3tchup]

I rather not remove more player freedom. The ethics already forces you to play a certain way. Xenophobic prevents you from treating xenos as equals, spiritualist prevents you from treating robots as equals, and egalitarian prevents you from being a dictatorship or imperial.

You're not forced to play a certain way. You can always swap ethos.

If you create a Xenophobic empire, of course it's not going to give citizenship rights to xenos. In the Stellaris universe, that's what xenophobia entails, and if you want to treat xenos as equal, you're not a Xenophobe.

Of course your Xenophobe pops will be angry if your Xenophobe government is not ruling by its espoused principles. If I were a Xenophobe Human and the Commonwealth gave citizenship rights to those filthy Yondar, I'd be furious.

Player freedom doesn't mean you should be able to do anything you want. If you deliberately play against your empire's ethos, you should rightfully have a bad time.