Modding Ethos/Government Selection

[machinekng13]

Hello all,

Has there been any official statements on how moddable the number of ethos and government types will be? I was thinking that it might make sense to add in at least one additional ethos (meritocratic vs. egalitarian), additional government types (vanguard party, minarchist monarchy, corporate state, etc...), and perhaps one row for Anarchic government types (anarcho-capitalist, syndicalist, tribal council, etc...) .

In addition, what ethos or government types that you feel ought to be included in the game (assuming that they aren't later revealed to be one of base government types)?

 

[zukodark]

The money oligarchy probably would represent a corporate state good enough. Although meritocratic vs egalitarian is represented already, it would be good as its own ethos. I'd personally dislike the anarchic government types, but mods are optional. But what I'd love is a meritocratic oligarchic government type, where the best suited are chosen for their skills in the respective area.

 

[aitaituo]

I don't see meritocratic and egalitarian as particularly exclusive.

 

[machinekng13]

I don't see meritocratic and egalitarian as particularly exclusive.

I don't think that they're 100% exclusive either, just like how I don't see the Spiritualist/Materialist divide as 100% exclusive. However, I think it would be an interesting decision to make, and while they're not 100% exclusive, there's definitely some friction.

 

[Safehold]

Hello all,

Has there been any official statements on how moddable the number of ethos and government types will be? I was thinking that it might make sense to add in at least one additional ethos (meritocratic vs. egalitarian), additional government types (vanguard party, minarchist monarchy, corporate state, etc...), and perhaps one row for Anarchic government types (anarcho-capitalist, syndicalist, tribal council, etc...) .

In addition, what ethos or government types that you feel ought to be included in the game (assuming that they aren't later revealed to be one of base government types)?

They've only said that a lot of the code will be externalized and so modified in the same fashion as Clausewitz under CK2 or EU4 perhaps. I haven't seen the exact code they are using, but the modding capability should be there if it is at least equivalent to CK2's various gov and religion and culture tags.

If they are using unique tags, then you can just type in a new one that uses whatever bonuses you want. Duplicating icons though.

The Ethos might be slightly harder to change, since it would be dynamically changing due to various other things. So if it is a new tag/ethos you've added, it might not work with the various events and other stuff until you mod everything else in.

 

[machinekng13]

They've only said that a lot of the code will be externalized and so modified in the same fashion as Clausewitz under CK2 or EU4 perhaps. I haven't seen the exact code they are using, but the modding capability should be there if it is at least equivalent to CK2's various gov and religion and culture tags.

If they are using unique tags, then you can just type in a new one that uses whatever bonuses you want. Duplicating icons though.

Gotcha. Making new icons shouldn't be too hard, since they have a simple and consistent style. The real question is whether it's possible to expand the window, or if the icons will have to be shrunk in order to fit more in.

 

[Safehold]

Gotcha. Making new icons shouldn't be too hard, since they have a simple and consistent style. The real question is whether it's possible to expand the window, or if the icons will have to be shrunk in order to fit more in.

Changing the UI is a separate code template, I would think.

 

[machinekng13]

Changing the UI is a separate code template, I would think.

Gotcha. Hopefully, it should still be possible. I know that EU4 modders were able to squeeze a great deal more flexibility out of certain windows, so it's likely that it'll be possible in Stellaris as well.

I know that adding new ethos/government types would necessitate a fair amount of new/modified events/edicts/policies in order to bring them up to par, as well as figuring out how it affects POPs.

Anyways, other things that I'd like to change includes getting rid of the 5th "neutral column" and instead having individualist and collectivist government types. With meritocratic/egalitarian governments, and the Anarchic row, that would bring us up to 32 government types. I think that this would be an improvement over the current 15, although it would require unique edicts/policies/events as well as new sets of bonuses/maluses in order to make them all feel unique. While the final product may differ, the previews seem to indicate that differences between different types of governments (as opposed to differences between monarchies/oligarchies/democracies) will be relatively minor in the base version, and I feel that this is relatively unsatisfying.

So, general ideas, with some assumptions on the possible types of bonuses/maluses:

Individualist
Monarchy: Star Kingdom (Feudal Empire)
-Pros: Levy edict. Greater expansion potential.
-Cons: Planetary governors have more "autonomy."
Oligarchy: Plutocracy (Merchant Republic)
-Pros: Greater wealth creation. More trade potential?
-Cons: More war weariness. Greater apprehension to taxation.
Democracy: Representative Democracy
-Pros/Cons: Probably equivalent to vanilla Indirect Democracy.
Anarchy: Egoist Society
-Pros: Increased leadership experience. Increased tech progress.
-Cons: Reduced stability. Increased colonial "autonomy."

Collectivist
Monarchy: Despotic Empire
-Pros/Cons: Probably equivalent to vanilla Despotic Empire.
Oligarchy: Bureaucratic Despotism
-Pros: Increased stability. Reduced war weariness.
-Cons: Reduced societal tech progression. More costly expansion.
Democracy: Consensus Democracy
-Pros: Reduced unrest.
-Cons: Longer policy cooldown. Increased chance of democratic crisis
Anarchy: Hivemind
-Pros: No unrest. High slavery tolerance. Unique gameplay.
-Cons: Diplomatic penalties. Tech penalties. Unique gameplay.

Meritocratic
Monarchy: Libertarian Monarchy
-Pros: Increased wealth creation.
-Cons: Reduced ability to issue policies/edicts
Oligarchy: Corporate State
-Pros: Increased wealth creation and trade. Unique gameplay.
-Cons: Decreased stability. Unique gameplay.
Democracy: Citizens' Democracy
-Pros: Increased leadership experience. Reduced ethos shift rate.
-Cons: Reduced ability to integrate other species. Reduced ethos shift rate.
Anarchy: Market Society
-Pros: High trade potential. Easier species integration.
-Cons: Higher unrest. Increased colonial "autonomy."

Egalitarian
Monarchy: Revolutionary Empire
-Pros: Decreased war weariness.
-Cons: Decreased stability.
Oligarchy: Vanguard State
-Pros: Cheaper policies/edicts.
-Cons: Reduced wealth creation.
Democracy: Council Democracy
-Pros/Cons: Compromise between Direct and Representative Democracy.
Anarchy: Syndicalist Society
-Pros: Reduced unrest. Bonus to production.
-Cons: Reduced wealth creation. Increased colonial "autonomy."

Then of course, there'd be tinkering and adding 4th row governments for the other ethos.

 

[aitaituo]

Egalitarian
Monarchy: Revolutionary Empire
-Pros: Decreased war weariness.
-Cons: Decreased stability.
Oligarchy: Vanguard State
-Pros: Cheaper policies/edicts.
-Cons: Reduced wealth creation.
Democracy: Council Democracy
-Pros/Cons: Compromise between Direct and Representative Democracy.
Anarchy: Syndicalist Society
-Pros: Reduced unrest. Bonus to production.
-Cons: Reduced wealth creation. Increased colonial "autonomy.".

What exactly do you mean by egalitarian? This sounds very French revolutionary, but I'm accustomed to egalitarian meaning everyone is regarded as fundamentally equal. So, no class system and no legal advantages towards particular groups.

 

[machinekng13]

What exactly do you mean by egalitarian? This sounds very French revolutionary, but I'm accustomed to egalitarian meaning everyone is regarded as fundamentally equal. So, no class system and no legal advantages towards particular groups.

I agree with this sentiment, which makes it somewhat difficult to come up with an egalitarian form of autocracy and oligarchy. However, the slots do need to be filled, unless there was going to be a more extensive rework. So, the Revolutionary empire would be an autocracy in which the interests of the people are upheld/protected by a First Citizen, while the Vanguard State would be an oligarchy where the people are lead by a vanguard party. If you have alternative suggestions, I'd be glad to hear them.

 

[Safehold]

while the Vanguard State would be an oligarchy where the people are lead by a vanguard party.

How is that different from a regular oligarchy?

 

[machinekng13]

How is that different from a regular oligarchy?

Well, you could have internal political maneuvering, the effects of various posts and positions within the party that you may not see in other governments, as well as the possibility of individuals being expelled from the party, making them ineligible for various positions. Depending on how flexible the system is, you could even have the positions that counts as your faction leader change due to a shift in internal power. Again, this is pretty far out, and fairly speculative at this point, and I'd be happy take suggestions on other unique, flavorful forms of government that could be put in place.

 

[Veracin]

I think it'd be hard to correctly implement an anarchy row, seeing as how all of your policies, edicts, etc. are issued by you as the government/ruler. Though I'm no expert on anarchic societies, it seems like anarchy is the antithesis to having a vast empire of planets under your control.

 

[machinekng13]

I think it'd be hard to correctly implement an anarchy row, seeing as how all of your policies, edicts, etc. are issued by you as the government/ruler. Though I'm no expert on anarchic societies, it seems like anarchy is the antithesis to having a vast empire of planets under your control.

Yeah. It's something I'd like to implement, but there's no way to actually know what exactly will be possible until we get our hands on it. Assuming that you have to have a head of government/state, said individual would have to be either a figurehead or a mere spokesperson. Edicts/policies would be somewhat different dependent on the government in particular, likely with longer cooldown periods, to represent the greater difficulty to have wide-scale coordination, along with unique events.

 

[RebelScum88]

How does a Hivemind count as an anarchic state? A tribal Confederation of some sort might be more appropriate for the Collectivist/Anarchic slot.

 

[machinekng13]

How does a Hivemind count as an anarchic state? A tribal Confederation of some sort might be more appropriate for the Collectivist/Anarchic slot.

It's anarchic in the sense that a Hivemind would have no real head of state/government, even though there's a high degree of coordination (assuming a pure hivemind, without a queen, like the Borg pre-First Contact). I think that a sort of tribal confederation would work well for the Pacifistic/Anarchic slot (like the Na'vi, only more in space.)

 

[RebelScum88]

Yea I can see your point about that. I wouldn't necessarily describe a tribal society as pacifistic, though maybe if they developed FTL tech independently they may have curbed violence between persons and tribes

 

[machinekng13]

Yea I can see your point about that. I wouldn't necessarily describe a tribal society as pacifistic, though maybe if they developed FTL tech independently they may have curbed violence between persons and tribes

It wouldn't be a generic tribal government, more of a space hippie sort of thing. Then again, the pacifistic government column is just kinda weird at this point. I don't think I've left a good spot open for a more generic Anarchic tribal government, since I think the idea would to have a 40K Orks style Warpath government for the Anarchic/Militaristic, and some sort of religious communal society for the Spiritualists. Not sure about the materialistic. Maybe the hivemind makes more sense for the materialistic column (in the same way that the direct democracy fits in)?

 

[RebelScum88]

With the Collectivist Democracy being what you call the Consensus democracy, might not a Social Democracy be more appropriate for that? That is to say, a democracy that prioritizes the lives of its citizens and their wellbeing, which we Terrans would call a socialist welfare state. In my view a consensus democracy, where I imagine all citizens need to agree 100% about every decision(correct me if that is not what you meant) would be a form of anarchy, since nothing could be done until all citizens agreed to it.
Though having written that, Maybe a Social democracy would be more appropriate for a materialist column. My idea was that the people place the wellbeing of citizens over other potential priorities such as pure economic gains or military glory. The Moral democracy might fit that bill on the domestic front.

 

[machinekng13]

With the Collectivist Democracy being what you call the Consensus democracy, might not a Social Democracy be more appropriate for that? That is to say, a democracy that prioritizes the lives of its citizens and their wellbeing, which we Terrans would call a socialist welfare state. In my view a consensus democracy, where I imagine all citizens need to agree 100% about every decision(correct me if that is not what you meant) would be a form of anarchy, since nothing could be done until all citizens agreed to it.
Though having written that, Maybe a Social democracy would be more appropriate for a materialist column. My idea was that the people place the wellbeing of citizens over other potential priorities such as pure economic gains or military glory. The Moral democracy might fit that bill on the domestic front.

I think that I may change it to include your idea, for a Social Democracy (or perhaps a Corporatist Democracy) for the Collectivist government, and then move Consensus Democracy to the Pacifistic column, replacing the Moral Democracy (which is kinda a silly name anyways). The Consensus Democracy wouldn't necessarily be a system where 100% of the votes are required to do anything, but rather a state where a broad consensus is required to make significant decisions, and I think that this focus on eliminating interpersonal conflict through a consensus process would make sense for the pacifist ethos.

As for the Collectivist/Democracy, I see your point on a Social Democracy. I also like the idea of a Coporatist Democracy, where the state, business and labour are to cooperate and coordinate for the good of the whole.