Pacifism bonuses.

[Sapidianus]

Right now according to wiki pacifism provides following bonuses:

Empire modifier:
​

• • +1 Maximum embassies
  • -25% Rivalry influence gain
  • -10% Army damage

Pop modifier:
​

• • +10% food
  • -25% War tolerance
  • -10% War happiness

Which leads to following questions:

1. Why there is a food bonus? I guess it represents the consumer-oriented economy, which makes sense, but considering that militarists get happier from wars and can sustain war longer due to higher tolerance and also get more influence from rivalries and also need less armies due to army damage bonus, maybe giving pacifists a small mineral bonus is a viable idea, especially when no other ethos provides mineral bonus.

2. Militarists get more influence from rivals and spend more influence on alliance upkeep. Maybe pacifists should get less alliance upkeep cost to prevent them from starving influence compared to other nations?

3. Why is army damage malus empire-wide? If it represents certain restrictions on the use of over-violent weapons, does it mean, that pacifists cant purge pops too?

 

[Yenzen]

1: Technology and resources are oriented towards civilian use. More farmland, more food production technology and such, instead of armies and weapons. A mineral bonus would work too, but the food bonus means that pacifist nations become internally stronger, faster.

2: Extra embassies mean that making alliances and keeping neighbors less angry will be easier. Militarists have (as I remember) higher costs for alliances, so they have a malus rather then a bonus for pacifists, so it works out about the same.

3: There are non-violent ways of purging people .

 

[Sapidianus]

2: Extra embassies mean that making alliances and keeping neighbors less angry will be easier. Militarists have (as I remember) higher costs for alliances, so they have a malus rather then a bonus for pacifists, so it works out about the same.

Yes, I meant that, militarists get extra influence from rivals, but lose more influence from alliance upkeer, so in order to use their ethos efficiently, militarists have to rival more and ally less. Pacifists will get less influence from rivals than other not-militarist nations, but while they can have more embassies, extra embassies wont always lead to more allies, and even if they get more allies, with less influence from rivals they will bleed influence faster, than nations on neutral mil/pac scale. So you have more friendly nations, but you will be restricted from allying too many of those friendly nations by the amount of influence you generate.

 

[BrokenSky]

Maybe Pacifists have more vegetarians? Animal farming does produce less food per unit area than plant farming, especially if you don't optimize for space (battery farming). No-one acres about free range corn after all, and it's a lot easier to grow vegetables hydroponically in farm-scraper type buildings.

 

[Chilitoke]

3: There are non-violent ways of purging people .

Sterilisation? and Paitience

 

[kalauer]

Yes, I meant that, militarists get extra influence from rivals, but lose more influence from alliance upkeer, so in order to use their ethos efficiently, militarists have to rival more and ally less. Pacifists will get less influence from rivals than other not-militarist nations, but while they can have more embassies, extra embassies wont always lead to more allies, and even if they get more allies, with less influence from rivals they will bleed influence faster, than nations on neutral mil/pac scale. So you have more friendly nations, but you will be restricted from allying too many of those friendly nations by the amount of influence you generate.

Is alliance cost based on the amount of members? I think they cost 3 influence flat. And if they do not, then the pacifists maybe should convert to federation once they reach 4 members in the aliance? I guess those will not be based on members, or federations would be limited to below 10 members (or similar) in general due to available influence.

 

[Koplin]

I've been on the fence of adding pacifism to my ethos for my human empire for a while, and honestly, it isn't because of the lack of bonuses, its mainly due to the fact that I plan on playing a heavy role in federation forming in my MP game and while pacifism is great trait to have for this, I feel that when the federation gets pulled into war, being a pacifist will be one of those "Ughhhhhh" moments when efficiency gets shot to hell because half of my pops are hella unhappy.

Just some food for thought. But I think the pacifist bonus/penalty is right on target with what I imagine PDS is trying to create with this ethos.

 

[Sapidianus]

1: Technology and resources are oriented towards civilian use. More farmland, more food production technology and such, instead of armies and weapons. A mineral bonus would work too, but the food bonus means that pacifist nations become internally stronger, faster.

They get more pops, which is good early game, but by mid-game, when war becomes more important, than colonization, planets get filled one way or another, pacifists will be at a disadvantage.

It's easier for militarist nation to conquer planets in the early game, because their armies will be stronger, their pops wont object to waging war.

Pacifists will breed faster, but in order to breed you also need Lebensraum, the place for those breeding pops to fill.

So militarists and pacifists claim planets by colonising at the same rate, I presume. Militarists have easier time getting new planets by conquest. Pacifists will be at a disadvantage there, because their pops will get unhappy, their armies will be weaker, so they will need to build more of them, wasting more minerals and energy.

In an average game it will probably lead to a situation, where militarist empires are wider (more planets) and pacifist are taller (less planets, but more focus on having good allies to fight wars with you).

Now, food bonus for a tall empire will be usefull in the early game, but later, when you fill most tiles on your planets, you wont need that extra food, because you cant grow more pops without tiles for them to occupy and the bonus will be wasted in later mid-game.

Suggestions:

- It could be viable to give pacifists bonus to peaceful intergation of vassals or any vassal bonus.

- Pacifists could get bonus to mineral output (a small one, like 2% for normal and 4% for fanatic).

- Pacifists could get a bonus to colonisation.

 

[cold warpgates]

Do embassies generate influence? If so that could round out the influence gap between pacifist and militarist.

- Pacifists could get a bonus to colonisation.

My thinking was that more food -> more pops -> more production -> more colony ships

 

[ikki]

+10% would be accurate for more or less 100% vegetarianism.
I know all the nonsense propaganda about 14 times as much food... but its humbug. Take wheat, a pretty small part is grain.. the rest is grass best fed to animals.

Of course a modern society would be more interested in recycling city feces and dead bodies into food than using sumerian level tech to grow food under the open sky

 

[Tiaexz]

I also heard the malus was for offensive wars too, not defensive. Which makes sense, the population would hate going to war, but they wouldn't object to self defence.

 

[ikki]

The rivalry influence gain is a fascinating change too. Guess pacifist rivalry is more akin to "we will outdo you in sports and growing larger tomatoes.", for fanatics "we will outdo you in aid to the poor and catvideos!". And correspondingly militarists go from military marches to boasting the bestest genocide tools.

 

[Trithemius]

Maybe sapients who are chill just eat less?

 

[cold warpgates]

The rivalry influence gain is a fascinating change too. Guess pacifist rivalry is more akin to "we will outdo you in sports and growing larger tomatoes.", for fanatics "we will outdo you in aid to the poor and catvideos!". And correspondingly militarists go from military marches to boasting the bestest genocide tools.

I think pacifists would rival countries for the same reasons as anyone else (relative parity in strength, plus competing interests), it's just that pacifists get less hyped about conflict.

 

[Sapidianus]

Maybe sapients who are chill just eat less?

Collectivists eat less (-5/10% food consumption), pacifists produce more.

 

[Trithemius]

Collectivists eat less (-5/10% food consumption), pacifists produce more.

Pacifists eat less and then give it to their friends? Maybe?

(Good point)

 

[suplanter]

Sterilisation? and Paitience

HAHAHA! this is amazing and sad.

Of course a modern society would be more interested in recycling city feces and dead bodies into food than using sumerian level tech to grow food under the open sky

what kind of terrible world is this?!
"whats for dinner?"
"corpses and poop."
"my favorite!!!"

 

[Number 7]

Sterilisation? and Paitience

If you as a pacifist wanted to non violently purge a planet, you just have to use a fairly realistic method. Although it would require temporarily restricting migration (or having it "primary species only")

step 1 - "liberate" planet / integrate it from a vassal or whatever, its full of filthy xenos but your pacifists xenophile people would be extremely upset if you purged them

step 2 - Put the navy in orbit and some armies on the planet because the next step is going to cause some unhappiness

step 3 - Delete all food production on the planet and on the station

Step 4 - wait.

congrats, you purged a planet without making your core planets unhappy! I can imagine at most only a single pop survives, but maybe you can shift him off all food tiles and have truly zero food and have them all die.

then your pacifist people can move in and enjoy their new planet without having to get their hands dirty

 

[TheBeautifulVoid2]

congrats, you purged a planet without making your core planets unhappy! I can imagine at most only a single pop survives, but maybe you can shift him off all food tiles and have trul

Does starvation actually kill pops in Stellaris, or does it just cause immense unhappiness due to the corpses-and-poop diet they have to adopt?

 

[Number 7]

Does starvation actually kill pops in Stellaris, or does it just cause immense unhappiness due to the corpses-and-poop diet they have to adopt?

my assumption is it kills pops and that they can't generate enough poop and corpses to keep themselves afloat (but extremely unhappy)

if i'm wrong, it'd require much more inventive methods to help pacifist genocides along