Internal Politics - what do you NOT want to see?

[Losttruppen]

I don't want it to be only for players. A lot of the fanciest things added to the game since launch have resulted in power creep and leaving most AI empires far behind what a player can achieve.

 

[BrokenSky]

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.

The problem with this is the fact that empires are usually set up to spawn with opposing ethics to the player(s) - so if you play pacifist, enjoy not only being surrounded by a bunch of aggressive militarists, but also being punished for being attacked, or attacking them to stop them purging your mutual neighbors.

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of empires having to stick to their ethics to avoid upheaval, but if they don't fix the un-fun hostile-galaxy generation system it could easily make the situation even worse.

 

[TrotBot]

Don't get me wrong, I like the idea of empires having to stick to their ethics to avoid upheaval, but if they don't fix the un-fun hostile-galaxy generation system it could easily make the situation even worse.

i think a better mechanic for this goes with the whole politics overhaul. for example, megacorps spawning next to megacorps is dumb too. megacorpos imposing ideology leading to other megacorps is another issue which would be helped by a more in-depth liberation wars system where you choose what you impose.

but yeah, the spread of ethics generation mechanic needs to be played with.

 

[Snoipah]

It's quite simple:
Favoritism

I want to see balanced pros and cons to each ethic and not something where people start to wonder if there is a bias for one thing over the other. An example is how Spiritualism is so freaking bad that it's almost better to NOT have the ethic than to have it, what with how much you suffer in regards to building robots, or how shared burdens+starnet creates a snowball.

I don't want to see how leaning into one ethic is purely advantageous where as leaning into another causes problems.

I would love if you lean too hard into xenophile that your reckless acceptance of all refugees causes terror attacks, maybe you straight up lose a starbase if your government's arms are too open. Egalitarianism could use some massive nerfs, maybe if you lean too far into that you end up with people straight up refusing to work 'cause the government is providing them with everything you need.

A great idea could be you have a choice between putting in place a vetting process for immigration, which pisses off the xenophiles, whom scream "no xeno is illegal!" and it pleases the xenophobes, but it also, like, prevents major terror attacks.

Before people think I'm bias, for xenophobes make it to where if you lean too far one way, people are killed for suspecting someone is hiding xenos or is sympathetic towards them, reducing stability, or for authoritarians make people afraid to leave their homes, which reduces birth rates.

No idea how pacifist/militarist would work, maybe pacifists have increase build times for ships? and militarist has a chance for infighting if a fleet doesn't engage an enemy fleet within a set time?

Just spitballing.

 

[Archon87]

I don't think there should be so much focus on factions and rebellions to the detriment of all the other types of internal politics possible. Internal politics has the potential to end in conflict, but I think people want that much more than I want that.

I'll second some of the things others have said:

• I don't want it to be some very ignorable mechanic. Every empire type should get something from it that must be dealt with, even gestalts.
• I don't want this to be something that only human players get. The AI already falls behind too quickly, partially due to the power creep from the DLC content.
• I don't want this to be either mostly event-based or entirely composed of flat modifiers. A happy medium should be reached.

As far as what it could be, I'd like more detail to leaders, with more traits, more ways to use them, make envoys full leaders with their own trait types. You could easily add dissident or challenger leaders in normal empires or deviant drone leaders in gestalts who pop up specifically to cause problems and must be dealt with one way or the other. More types of factions, and more ways of interacting with them. Perhaps factions that either don't align with an ethic, or align with more than one, for more variety, while still keeping the flavor of the faction system. More interaction with pirates and trade value, and more depth to the crime mechanic. That was all off the top of my head.

 

[klopkr]

I don't want internal politics to act entirely alien to vassal nations. Both should compliment each other with subtle differences.

 

[Anemetius]

There is some kind of politics in this game?

 

[TrotBot]

It's quite simple:
Favoritism

I want to see balanced pros and cons to each ethic and not something where people start to wonder if there is a bias for one thing over the other. An example is how Spiritualism is so freaking bad that it's almost better to NOT have the ethic than to have it, what with how much you suffer in regards to building robots, or how shared burdens+starnet creates a snowball.

I don't want to see how leaning into one ethic is purely advantageous where as leaning into another causes problems.

I would love if you lean too hard into xenophile that your reckless acceptance of all refugees causes terror attacks, maybe you straight up lose a starbase if your government's arms are too open. Egalitarianism could use some massive nerfs, maybe if you lean too far into that you end up with people straight up refusing to work 'cause the government is providing them with everything you need.

A great idea could be you have a choice between putting in place a vetting process for immigration, which pisses off the xenophiles, whom scream "no xeno is illegal!" and it pleases the xenophobes, but it also, like, prevents major terror attacks.

Before people think I'm bias, for xenophobes make it to where if you lean too far one way, people are killed for suspecting someone is hiding xenos or is sympathetic towards them, reducing stability, or for authoritarians make people afraid to leave their homes, which reduces birth rates.

No idea how pacifist/militarist would work, maybe pacifists have increase build times for ships? and militarist has a chance for infighting if a fleet doesn't engage an enemy fleet within a set time?

Just spitballing.

lol i don't think egalitarianism needs any nerfing, are you kidding? slavery is pretty op. if anything, a proper politics system will challenge the slavers more than the utopians. i'm fine with having things to deal with, like an authoritarian or xenophobe faction, so long as i can get really deep suppression mechanics cause they ain't welcome in utopia the community militia will deal with them (i love that DS9 bajoran forces after the occupation are called militia)

 

[Swarm lover]

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?

I do NOT want empires of completely different ruling systems to function the exact same way. A feudal empire with nobles should not work the same way as a democracy.

I do NOT want the empire ruler to still be the sole person of authority in the empire. (Things like prime ministers of different areas etc aswell as making governors matter and have importance.)

I do NOT want your ascension to not have an effect on your society. (Like right now a fully spiritual empire has zero problems becoming machines which makes no sense). Your actions need to affect your pops.

I do NOT want imperial type governments to constantly be a smooth affair when a new ruler takes over and their heir comes out of nowhere. Would love some actually dynasty kind of thing.

 

[A2ch0n]

-I don't want empires anymore to expand infinite without increasing penalties. The higher the distance to the homeworld, the higher the loss of ethic attraction and stability.

-I don't want different governments feel identical to others. A democracy i.e. should have much longer delays until something useful happens but a dictatorship should have a higher chance of rebellion or at least unrest. This could interplay with different ethics and even diplomatic behavior.

-I don't want that agressive expanding is as rewarding as it is now. The larger a empire and the more pops, the more management is needed to keep it stable. Especially conquered territory should have a hard increased chance of rebellion.

- I don't want that hives and machine empires can ignore those mechanics!

 

[Snoipah]

lol i don't think egalitarianism needs any nerfing, are you kidding? slavery is pretty op. if anything, a proper politics system will challenge the slavers more than the utopians. i'm fine with having things to deal with, like an authoritarian or xenophobe faction, so long as i can get really deep suppression mechanics cause they ain't welcome in utopia the community militia will deal with them (i love that DS9 bajoran forces after the occupation are called militia)

First off, as I mentioned, Shared Burdens+Starnet is incredibly strong.

Secondly, what you're proposing is kind of the opposite of egaltarianism. Suppressing people for their opinion and kicking them out of your utopia is very anti-egaltarian in stellaris.

"We say we're egaltarian, so us forcing people to adopt our way of life is ok"

Whatever you say, Democratic People's Republic of Space Korea.

 

[BrokenSky]

It's quite simple:
Favoritism

I want to see balanced pros and cons to each ethic and not something where people start to wonder if there is a bias for one thing over the other. An example is how Spiritualism is so freaking bad that it's almost better to NOT have the ethic than to have it, what with how much you suffer in regards to building robots, or how shared burdens+starnet creates a snowball.

I don't want to see how leaning into one ethic is purely advantageous where as leaning into another causes problems.

I would love if you lean too hard into xenophile that your reckless acceptance of all refugees causes terror attacks, maybe you straight up lose a starbase if your government's arms are too open. Egalitarianism could use some massive nerfs, maybe if you lean too far into that you end up with people straight up refusing to work 'cause the government is providing them with everything you need.

A great idea could be you have a choice between putting in place a vetting process for immigration, which pisses off the xenophiles, whom scream "no xeno is illegal!" and it pleases the xenophobes, but it also, like, prevents major terror attacks.

Before people think I'm bias, for xenophobes make it to where if you lean too far one way, people are killed for suspecting someone is hiding xenos or is sympathetic towards them, reducing stability, or for authoritarians make people afraid to leave their homes, which reduces birth rates.

No idea how pacifist/militarist would work, maybe pacifists have increase build times for ships? and militarist has a chance for infighting if a fleet doesn't engage an enemy fleet within a set time?

Just spitballing.

For militarists, maybe more risk of fragmentation, especially via civil wars / bands of random 'adventurer' fleets trying to carve out an empire for themselves in your borders (with the caveat they they could also spill over into neighboring territory, so having a militarist neighbor might encourage you to keep a raid/adventurer protection force nearby even if you're on good terms with them). Of course this is more channelling 'space orc' / barbarian / Mongol / Viking vibes, for something more like a military junta, I guess infighting?

For Pacifist I think slower war build up? Maybe if starting a war required you to do some kind of prep-work (building war support or something) and fighting wars without it caused major political issues at home, but pacifists had a hard time building it up (which in turn made it harder to deal with things like your local neighborhood devouring swarm before they'd eaten a few of your friends).

I guess these are more "if you don't play the ethic" things rather than "if you play the ethic too much" things though...

lol i don't think egalitarianism needs any nerfing, are you kidding? slavery is pretty op. if anything, a proper politics system will challenge the slavers more than the utopians. i'm fine with having things to deal with, like an authoritarian or xenophobe faction, so long as i can get really deep suppression mechanics cause they ain't welcome in utopia the community militia will deal with them (i love that DS9 bajoran forces after the occupation are called militia)

If you're authoritarian you can have suppression mechanics (but then you might have to run the risk of your best scientists being purged for political disloyalty). If you're egalitarian, tolerating people you don't like is the trade off. Of course you could always implement the authoritarian ideological crack downs anyway, and run the risk of creating an undercurrent of bitterness among the disenfranchised which leads to populist support for anti-government parties, leading to a political crisis if one of the populist leaders gets elected and seizes political power to make himself supreme leader president admiral for life : P

As you said, there should be consequences for breaking with your ethics. Natural consequences which lend themselves to an engaging narrative I mean - not just brainless penalties.

 

[SacredDatura]

It's already been mentioned a few times, but I don't want effects that amount to just small percentage changes. Looking at traditions for example, things like -10% food upkeep or +5% worker output is... staggeringly boring. I pick them and then forget the modifier even exists the moment I exit the screen.

They should instead unlock ways to play, subvert normal gameplay rules, or constrain player freedom in interesting ways. Basically, playing democracies (for example) should feel substantially different to playing dictatorships, and oligarchies, instead of just "I'm X% better at doing the same thing I do in every game".

 

[Liggi]

I'm definitely ok with some aspects of it being based around modifiers. I think being able to define / develop particular institutions that provide modifiers is totally fine, and I'd welcome that if it feels like have more power to customise my empire in a way that feels immersive.

But yeah, I think the primary thing that Internal Politics is FOR is for stories.

"I created an Institute of Xenology and got +10% Improve Relations and +1 Envoy" is not an interesting story.

"I created an Institute of Xenology as a Xenophobic empire as I was surrounded by three powerful Xenophiles and wanted to keep relations neutral. It gave me an extra Envoy to send to the most powerful Xenophile to attempt to prevent us falling into Hostile relations. The head of the Institute later was elected President, which led to a boost in the number of POPs in my empire leaning towards Xenophile ethics. I didn't want to become Xenophile, so in order to prevent this, I had to run some clandestine operations within my own empire to boost the Xenophobic faction" is an interesting story.

 

[Mik_C]

I don't want that the expansion/update only focuses on an aspect of "internal politics" while the rest has a small rework and everything is presented as the "internal politics" update as it happened with diplomacy and federations.

I don't want a system that is independent and don't affect all other systems (for example internal politics should change how empires engage in diplomacy directly between them and in the Galactic Community).

 

[GnoSIS]

1. Constant micromanagement.

2. Arbitrary limits to mechanics.

3. Choices that are not meaningful.

 

[TrotBot]

First off, as I mentioned, Shared Burdens+Starnet is incredibly strong.

Secondly, what you're proposing is kind of the opposite of egaltarianism. Suppressing people for their opinion and kicking them out of your utopia is very anti-egaltarian in stellaris.

"We say we're egaltarian, so us forcing people to adopt our way of life is ok"

Whatever you say, Democratic People's Republic of Space Korea.

Filthy neutrals always forget space WWII. Suppressing space nazis is egalitarianism incarnate.

Also, calling for nerfs to egalitarianism which is weak, because your mod makes it strong, is pretty crazy. No. That's not how this works, and vanilla game weak ethics should not be nerfed to make a mod balanced.

If you're authoritarian you can have suppression mechanics (but then you might have to run the risk of your best scientists being purged for political disloyalty). If you're egalitarian, tolerating people you don't like is the trade off.

No, it isn't. Stop trying to remove the cold war mechanics that make ethics matter. we want more political maneuvering, not less. suppressing space nazis is what egalitarians do. Liberation wars is egalitarianism and xenophilia by force

 

[Ludaire]

I want whatever it is to be a system that can work for gestalt empires, too. Gestalts already don't have factions, elections, heirs, trade, and a few more things. They also have fewer options for civics, origins, diplomacy, event choices, etc. Cases where they have as much extra stuff individual empires don't have to compensate tend to be rare. Sometimes like with trade, they effectively have nothing to replace it.

I don't want to see another system where a bunch of work goes into it that isn't applicable to a huge portion of the possible empires. There's already more of that than there should be, and we should be striving for less, not more.

That said, if internal politics introduces two different approaches that are on a similar level, I'd be okay with it. That seems like it would be double the work, though, so it's unlikely.