My dreams about International Organizations

[Melendor]

In Stellaris everything is so complex, dynamic and unstable with the exception of the Federations. They are very stable, monolithic and monotonous. Here are some ideas in order to change it.

• There would be 8 kinds of “federations”, one for each etho;
  
  
• Empires with the opposite etho would not enter in that kind of organizations, but they don’t must have the specific etho. Example: Military Alliance would be the “military organization”. Pacifists would never enter in one Military Alliance but the empire wouldn’t have to be militarist to enter. A religious xenophobic empire could be part of a Military Alliance;
  
  
• International Organizations would have their own budget. Every member would have to give some (maybe 10-20%) of their energy and minerals production to the International Organization;
  
  
• The leader of the Organizations would control that budget. He could constroy Spaceports, Military Stations and Ships, but not mineral and research stations. The members would donate ships too.
  
  
• Each kind of International Organization would give a specific bonus to their members.
  
  
• Each member could propose a resolution every 3 or 6 months. Possible resolutions: invite a empire to be associated or a member; war; close borders with one empire; increase or decrease the member’s contributions; open all internal migration borders; collective research agreement; economic aid to a poor member.
  
  
• The proposes would be voted, they must have approval of 66% of the votes (forget the old consensus). Each type of International Organization would have a specific ways to count votes;
  
  
• The proposes are voted one month after the proposition, in that time the empires can negotiate with other members in other to change their votes.
  
  
• If one empire loses resolutions it will be discontent with the organization and may leave.
  
  
• The leader of the organization will be chosen every 10 years with the proper voting rules of the organization. Maybe in two turns.
  
  
• Each member recognize the citizenship rights of the main race of each member;

Military Alliances

• Pacifists empires would never enter. Pacifists people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the military power of the empire and their subjects;
  
  
• Increase the speed of ships construction and decrease ship’s costs;
  
  
• Can build one special Military Station, the Integrated Headquarter. It would have some expensive modules that give bonus to the Alliance's fleet.
  
  
• Needs only 51% of the votes to approve a war resolution.
  
  
• If it became 10 years without wars, it will be dissolved. The Alliances Spaceports will given to the space owner (or destroyed) and the ships sheared.

Peacekeepers Brotherhood

• Militarist empires would never enter. Militarist people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the number of planets of the empire and their subjects;
  
  
• Military Stations and Spaceports costs less to build and have no maintenance;
  
  
• Can force a Truce after 1 year (?) of war without any wargoals;
  
  
• Can only propose liberate wars against militarist empires and Military Alliances;

Holy Pact

• Materialist empires would never enter. Materialist people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the number spiritualist people of the empire and their subjects;
  
  
• -20% ethics diverse. Spiritualist people gains +0,1% of happiness for each Spiritualist People in the Pact (and their subjects).
  
  
• -50% of Reeducation Campaigns Edicts cost.

Knowledge Collaboration

• Spiritualist empires would never enter. Spiritualist people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the total research produced by the empire;
  
  
• If one member has one technology, it will become available to others choose to research;
  
  
• Knowledge Collaboration’s can construct a Spaceport Module that produces Science for every member.
  
  
• Collective research agreement is always one.

Economic Zone

• Collectivist empires would never enter. Collectivist people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the economic power the empire. Energy stoked plus 10 x Energy produced.
  
  
• The best would be a bonus in a new trade mechanics. Meanwhile, each member gains an energy bonus equal 3% of the energy produced by all members.

Union

• Individualist empires would never enter. Individualist people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the mineral production of the empire and subjects.
  
  
• The best would be a bonus in a new trade mechanics. Meanwhile, each member gains a mineral bonus equal 2% of the mineral produced by all members.
  
  
• Reduces the influence of separatists factions.

Federation

• Xenophobic empires would never enter. Xenophobic people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the number of citizens of the empire and their subjects;
  
  
• +1% happiness for each different race with citizen rights in the Federation;
  
  
• Open all internal migration borders resolution is always on.

Confederation edited
Axis of Supremacy

• Xenophile empires would never enter. Xenophile people gains unhappiness;
  
  
• Votes equal the number of planets of the empire and their subjects;
  
  
• +1% happiness for each different race slaved in the empire or living as a subject;
  
  
• Reduces the influence of Malcontent Slaves and Emancipation factions.

There would be a new kind of leader, Diplomats, that would help to negotiate with other empires.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

As a Canadian, the implication that a Confederation is inherently the same thing as a slave-owners state is insulting.

 

[addsub]

Interesting idea, with a few changes made could be a fun mod or update!

 

[gdj]

The game offers too little variance in actual gov. form differences to justify such a change, only bonus modifiers. For example, running as a mega corporation feels rather empty without trade and real economy mechanics. So why different forms of federations when different gov. forms play out more or less equal?

Also, depending on the number of empires on the map, some players might simply never find a federation partner with such a mechanic.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

The game offers too little variance in actual gov. form differences to justify such a change, only bonus modifiers. For example, running as a mega corporation feels rather empty without trade and real economy mechanics. So why different forms of federations when different gov. forms play out more or less equal?

Also, depending on the number of empires on the map, some players might simply never find a federation partner with such a mechanic.

Also IMO it seems focused on trashing the ability for empires with opposing ethos to be allies, even though that's already difficult-but-circumstantially-possible.

I've had a lot of fun in my most recent game where I just managed to curry enough favour with one of the three Fanatic Spiritualist empires completely surrounding my Fanatic Materialist empire and then used that alliance to hold off the other two. Eventually, we joined a Federation together.

Under this proposed system, you couldn't really do that.

 

[Melendor]

As a Canadian, the implication that a Confederation is inherently the same thing as a slave-owners state is insulting.

I'm sorry. I have never intention to insulte anyone.
I just picked the name because the American Civil War.

It is just a unpretentious idea. If someone try to do a real Mod with it, a more suitable name can be chosen.

 

[dying0d]

I like it, but as others stated, you are locking out an (albeit rare and not easily achievable) option for opposed ethos empires by restricting memberships via ethos.

Like if you took the lock outs off this, I think it would be interesting, certain types of federations that have lock outs of certain actions, rather than what federations amount to as giant space blobs currently

 

[sbalani]

As awesome as the new expansion is, i'm currently off Stellaris until significant advances are made in diplomacy.

Whilst you raise a lot of great Ideas for federations & alliances, there are few things I would add/change.

1. As people have mentioned they like having the rare opportunity to create alliances/federation with empires of oposing ethos. However I also like how you mention different types of alliances, so taking all this into considerations. I think federations should be assembled around certain objectives/ideals. These very ideals, are form the basis for the foundation & starting rules of the federation, including allowing nations to be party to other federations. ALlow me to elaborate

- When forming a federation, the founding members can select the goals & objectives of the federation. Is it a militaristic alliance? is a knowledge sharing foundation? Is it a trade partnership, or an open borders imigration program? By setting foundations such as these, you can have multiple overlapping federations, that are not related to war. For example, just because a nation from the open borders alliance enters a war, does not mean the rest of the nations are obliged to participate in the war, if not indicated in the alliance charter. Furthermore, to move away from creating static alliances, the objectives of an alliance can chagne over time, growing or decreasing in importance, as do the rules of governance. What are the leaderhip rules? How long is each tenure? How is the leader put into office? Is it rotational? Or electoral?

- In some circumstances, federations can even become meta-empires, or merge into one mega empire, if enough edicts are put into play. In some ways, what i'm proposing is akin to the HRE in EU4. I feel, this provides enough flexibility for the player & ai to create truly dynamic & shifting alliances, with no two federations nescesarilly being the same.

Furthermore with modding, the options are endless, and for me as a player, it allows me to realistically roleplay scenarios not too far from those seen on Star Trek or Star Wars (i.e. the republic, an alliance of planets & empires, becomes a singularly ruled empire).

I would gladly pay or a diplomatic centered DLC that preominatly focuses on adding dynamism to diplomacy in the game.

My other major gripe preventing me from playing is significant trade, of which i'm hoping the new goods currency is beggining to address. However just having one of these items addressed would be enough to get me playing again.

 

[henzington]

Intergalactic is the word you want

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Intergalactic is the word you want

That would imply politics between different galaxies.

 

[LordVladek]

As awesome as the new expansion is, i'm currently off Stellaris until significant advances are made in diplomacy.

Whilst you raise a lot of great Ideas for federations & alliances, there are few things I would add/change.

1. As people have mentioned they like having the rare opportunity to create alliances/federation with empires of oposing ethos. However I also like how you mention different types of alliances, so taking all this into considerations. I think federations should be assembled around certain objectives/ideals. These very ideals, are form the basis for the foundation & starting rules of the federation, including allowing nations to be party to other federations. ALlow me to elaborate

- When forming a federation, the founding members can select the goals & objectives of the federation. Is it a militaristic alliance? is a knowledge sharing foundation? Is it a trade partnership, or an open borders imigration program? By setting foundations such as these, you can have multiple overlapping federations, that are not related to war. For example, just because a nation from the open borders alliance enters a war, does not mean the rest of the nations are obliged to participate in the war, if not indicated in the alliance charter. Furthermore, to move away from creating static alliances, the objectives of an alliance can chagne over time, growing or decreasing in importance, as do the rules of governance. What are the leaderhip rules? How long is each tenure? How is the leader put into office? Is it rotational? Or electoral?

- In some circumstances, federations can even become meta-empires, or merge into one mega empire, if enough edicts are put into play. In some ways, what i'm proposing is akin to the HRE in EU4. I feel, this provides enough flexibility for the player & ai to create truly dynamic & shifting alliances, with no two federations nescesarilly being the same.

Furthermore with modding, the options are endless, and for me as a player, it allows me to realistically roleplay scenarios not too far from those seen on Star Trek or Star Wars (i.e. the republic, an alliance of planets & empires, becomes a singularly ruled empire).

I would gladly pay or a diplomatic centered DLC that preominatly focuses on adding dynamism to diplomacy in the game.

My other major gripe preventing me from playing is significant trade, of which i'm hoping the new goods currency is beggining to address. However just having one of these items addressed would be enough to get me playing again.

I think this is a really good idea. Though I would also add the old alliances, so you don't have to be in a federation and still have something resembling a guarantee of having other empires joining in your offensive wars (the current invitation mechanic is Imo a bad joke - most empires that could join don't want to, either because they don't like me or have no interest in taking/liberating planets. And the ones that do, most of the time I have no interest of them taking any objectives/don't need help). Though if the other members of the alliace vote your proposal down you should still be able to declare war without them.
Also I would support more diplomacy with federations besides associate/non-associate. Defensive pacts with them, maybe? (Also applying to inter-federation diplomacy)

 

[Kapi96]

Not what I was expecting...

Don't really like any of that kind of stuff, seems to be what federations should be like except with ethos restrictions. I'd much rather federations were improved upon and allowed more options such as voting for the leader and the like, but to also remain open on membership to anyone that can get the other members to like them enough rather than solely those of the same ethos.

As for what I thought this would be about... internal factions representing different nations interests, that could be pretty cool. I mean the idea of humanity as a single unified empire just doesn't seem realistic. Would make more sense for a looser government structure to be available wherein there are multiple nations competing to lead the faction in the way they think best, with the possibility of some breaking off and forming their own sepearate faction if they grow too dissatisfied (stuff like space Russia/China/Nigeria or whoever breaking off from the united human faction). Could be a believable structure for some aliens too rather than just humans.

 

[monsterfurby]

My dream for federations is less along the lines of broad categories and more focused on small, granular differences - i.e. individual laws. A mixture between GalCiv 2/3's space-UN (including influence peddling) and Space Empire V's alliances would be awesome. Oh, yes, and federations definitely need proper logos of their own, for identity.

 

[sbalani]

My dream for federations is less along the lines of broad categories and more focused on small, granular differences - i.e. individual laws. A mixture between GalCiv 2/3's space-UN (including influence peddling) and Space Empire V's alliances would be awesome. Oh, yes, and federations definitely need proper logos of their own, for identity.

I think for the most part, there is a unison in that the current alliance system is crap, and we would much prefer a much more granular approach to developing alliances & federations, with more granularity the better, allowing for more individually crafted alliances, team-ups & federations.

Also Logos I completely agree. We need them federation logos.