In that it lasts for too long, pisses off even evil empires, and is instantaneous through the galaxy. Not to mention that similarly horrific things we inflict on planets like giant monsters or ravenous xenomorphs eating everyone don't piss people off. I'm done repeating myself for people like you who aren't paying attention to the conversation. Bowing out of this thread.
Purge Penalties
- Thread starter Cagliostro
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
In that it lasts for too long, pisses off even evil empires, and is instantaneous through the galaxy. Not to mention that similarly horrific things we inflict on planets like giant monsters or ravenous xenomorphs eating everyone don't piss people off. I'm done repeating myself for people like you who aren't paying attention to the conversation. Bowing out of this thread.
I did mention in the original post that one planet gave me a -90 to the entire galaxy immediately. -90 was the minimum penalty, even to xenophobic tyrants. This is of a species related to nobody else. So basically everything about your post ignores entirely both the conversation and the original post in the thread.
I don't expect you to read five pages of conversations in order to comment, but to comment without understanding the initial post is problematic.
i read your OP. and my question remains the same- why is it arbitrary that they are so high and decrease so slowly? as all PDS games (with CK2 as a sorta-kinda exception) take place from the governmental perspective; which naturally is much more acutely aware of situations than individual people; it makes sense that forgiving and forgetting takes a VERY long time. especially since governmental policy and perception reigns king in stellaris.
sure, you have a fair point regarding xenophobes, but that's about it.
I think there needs to be random events that give opportunities to improve relations if they get that far low. Maybe a "we despise your purging, but with the current galactic instability many in our government are pushing for reconciliation."
Well, technically only the humanoids have visible dimorphism (mods nonwithstanding), and only the Earth-centric name lists have specifically male and female names (You can see for yourself in Stellaris>common>name_lists)
Basically, the only things that confirm your species actually has genders is if you give them Human names or set your Empire Leader's title to be gendered, otherwise they could be all one gender.
Even then, they might be like the Sylvari in Guild Wars 2, possessing male and female forms but in terms of reproduction are asexual.
Incorrect. It isn't common, but a few others do as well. Some of the Avian portraits, and the Jehet'ma Fungoid one, at the very least.
Also, events will refer to relevant leader gender.
I really think the malus needs to be influenced by several factors, mainly ethos (maybe also government)
Example:
Other empire sees its own race purged by you: very severe penalty
Xenophile sees any purges by you: severe penalty
Pacifist or individualist sees any purge by you: penalty
collectivist sees purge by you vs. your own race population: strength through unity! (no penalty or small bonus)
militarist sees purge by you: we don't interfere in internal affairs of other countries (no penalty)
xenophobe sees purge: Great job! (relationship bonus)
etc.
Also, border distance should modify the strength of the penalty (or bonus) - the further they are away, the less they care (or maybe hear about it).
Example:
Other empire sees its own race purged by you: very severe penalty
Xenophile sees any purges by you: severe penalty
Pacifist or individualist sees any purge by you: penalty
collectivist sees purge by you vs. your own race population: strength through unity! (no penalty or small bonus)
militarist sees purge by you: we don't interfere in internal affairs of other countries (no penalty)
xenophobe sees purge: Great job! (relationship bonus)
etc.
Also, border distance should modify the strength of the penalty (or bonus) - the further they are away, the less they care (or maybe hear about it).
Last edited:
The problem, from a game perspective, is that it makes committing one atrocity absolutely identical to committing fifty. The moment you enter into atrocity the diplomatic game is essentially over. After this any further atrocity is utterly meaningless, as everyone ALREADY hates you. It is a weirdly ham-handed way of addressing a game mode which is otherwise fully supported. It's not like I modded the game to create atrocities; they are enabled *by default* for a fairly large cross-section of starting species.
The problem, from a realism perspective, is that this does not mimic the behavior of the only sentients we are aware of, humanity. There have been multiple documented atrocities committed in the last two centuries, and none of them have united the ENTIRE world against them. And none of the diplomatic penalties against *people of our own species* have been shown to meaningfully last for more than fifty years. Certainly people care about their own people being exterminated and relocated. But every country known to have committed any level of atrocity in human history has had successful alliances with SOMEBODY.
My position is that it should be possible to maintain diplomatic connection with at least the galaxy's worst actors while committing at least some atrocities. This is currently not feasible.
If you actually create a race, you have the choice of male or female for your leader. Until that is changed, one must assume in-game races have sexual dimorphism. Visibility is not relevant when each character is actually labeled in the game file as male and female, and you choose gender on startup. I mean, roleplay whatever you want in your own game, but it's not reasonable to claim that the species aren't gendered in the vanilla game, when they are specifically mechanically labeled as such.
That’s the problem. You see, in the real world, most people do not react the way it is depicted in the game. Through history, multiple instances of atrocities have been committed with a diverse array of consequences following said atrocities – on one planet, with one sentient species. It is especially true in cases where the countries we talk about have barely if any historical ties whatsoever. I let you entertain the idea now that we translate it about utterly foreign lifeforms, many lightyears away...
A lot of people in this thread, in game terms, would be part of the “Individualist” and/or “Xenophile” ethos and thus will find the act or even the mere thought of it as something despicable in and of itself. It is a bias they should start to acknowledge if we are to keep discussing this troubling aspect of the game. But pretending we are, as a species, consistent on that matter is laughable at best. The United States of America participated in some atrocities targeting the Natives on their soil for a long while, killing whole tribes, displacing them if nothing else, despite the fact they were supposed to be upholding human rights, to be some kind of “morale force”. The same can be said about Afro-Americans… Despite all that, in game terms, the United States were and would be considered “Individualist”, maybe even fanatically so, but not “Xenophile”. So, does it make sense for them to complain about others behaviour in light of their own actions ? Well, yes, it does. Morale, as many other things, is often used on the international scene as a way to project power. But the game has no way to show that, none whatsoever, and we are stuck with the really bad impression that all governments will communally find purging repulsive whereas in reality some government do not care or even find it, in some twisted way, a sign of strength.
Stellaris could do much better on the grand strategy side of thing by adding much needed depth in the diplomacy department, starting by tweaking the way we know what is happening inside the border of any empire at any given time and then have the possibility to create propaganda to influence the way other empires perceive other empires or our own empire.
There should be ways to control the flow of information and what is being said all around the galaxy, and especially what is being said inside your own borders by your own people, all the while other empires will try to get at your secrets through espionage.
There should be a greater emphasis on ethos and the way those will shape the way a nation will perceive the actions of others on the intergalactic scene, especially considering the fact some nations should not care one bit one way or the other for national reasons, with some ethos maybe approving or at least not caring about such actions depending circumstances.
There should be, to some degree, a modifier reflecting the idea of “might makes right”, as ugly as the idea appears to be, because it has some degree of truth to it. Thus, your overall strength in comparison with another empire should influence its diplomacy towards you.
There need to be something akin to Great Powers, like there are in Victoria II, Europa Universalis IV and Heart of Iron IV. Those are essentials if one wants to talk about politics and social movements.
There could be something akin to the Organisation of the United Nations, but slightly altered in its mechanics.
And many other things of the sort could be implemented.
With all this said, it is probably not something we will see in the next expansion ; they have many other things to do. But I hope, at some point, they will do an expansion focusing on politics, especially intergalactic politics. But until then, they need to seriously consider altering the numbers, if it is not done already, so purging is not necessarily perceived as an atrocity by everyone, everywhere, at the very second you decide to proceed with it, because it is just not, as sad this reality might be for some.
But the game lore says nothing about the role of female citizens, they could easily be the fighters while the male of that species take care of the children, that's up to the player to imagine.
This might seem like a weird question, but why would any stellar empire want to cultivate positive relations with genocidal lunatics? Aside from a situation where there are some even more powerful genocidal lunatics purging the galaxy, what possible realpolitik gain could there be from good relations with such an empire? A genocidal empire has shown that they are basically fanatical purifiers.
While I think it's weird that federation members who supported a genocidal war lose relations over the issue (that's weird), I don't see how other galactic powers (aside from fallen empires who just don't care) would not just label such an empire a group of fanatical purifiers and ignore/be hostile to them.
And I find it even stranger that some people are surprised that one group of xenophobic purifiers has bad relations with someone else who does the same. Why would xenophobic purgers from empire A not also feel fully justified in their "kill the aliens" philosophy after watching empire B wipe out a bunch of xenos. Regardless of the hypocrisy, if I were a xenophobic bigot who likes purging xenos, I would say, "Yep, that's why they have to be exterminated. Look at them. Vermin who murder each other. Not pure like us at all."
Maybe I'm just too used to the labels in the game.
While I think it's weird that federation members who supported a genocidal war lose relations over the issue (that's weird), I don't see how other galactic powers (aside from fallen empires who just don't care) would not just label such an empire a group of fanatical purifiers and ignore/be hostile to them.
And I find it even stranger that some people are surprised that one group of xenophobic purifiers has bad relations with someone else who does the same. Why would xenophobic purgers from empire A not also feel fully justified in their "kill the aliens" philosophy after watching empire B wipe out a bunch of xenos. Regardless of the hypocrisy, if I were a xenophobic bigot who likes purging xenos, I would say, "Yep, that's why they have to be exterminated. Look at them. Vermin who murder each other. Not pure like us at all."
Maybe I'm just too used to the labels in the game.
There's clear realpolitik-based ideologies- I don't know if you've played Mass Effect? Basically, even when the Reapers (basically fanatical purifiers) were beginning their campaign some races still thought that it would be possible to reason with them (in game vassalage I suppose) to avoid their fate. It was a fairly central theme of the games. And if we put aside that, there's also the "if we suck up to them now and piggy-back off of their conquests we can defend ourselves later" strategy.
As for other fanatical purifiers, well they're surely aiming towards the same goal (until, of course, they clash). So they should seek an alliance of convenience until they share a border or start purging each other's POPs. Sort of like the USSR-USA relationship during WW2, except with (even) more genocide.
Or, if you didnt play Mass Effect, Freespace 2 is even older and more straight example of trying to "deal with a devil", as Bosch, unlike Saren, was acting according to his own free will.
Must be said however that in both cases attempts failed, mostly becouse Shivans and Reapers are a crisis-like species, not a regular empires.
Yes, and they were stupid to even think that. You're asking the AI to play dumb.
In a narrative with characters, I'm fine with some idiots wanting to try to establish relations with such an empire. But in a game, we need the AI not to act Stupid Good (or lawful dumb).
I've seen what it looks like when an AI cuddles up to a big bad evil empire in other games. It's silly and self-destructive.
Which is why I do think federation members who vote for a genocidal war should not receive the penalty. Nor should vassals.
Oh, so you're one of those people that thinks the AI should always and only play the most optimized possible way and that the game's story aspects are useless filler?
Gotcha.
Gah, I'm so tired of seeing this type of argument. Let's just jump to the natural conclusion -> yes the AI should wreck you as soon as it has more ships, it's the safest and most sensible way for them to play.
I'm sorry, but this game is built entirely on the AI roleplaying. Why would an empire on my borders ask to be my vassal despite being individualist and knowing that I'll enslave half their population and purge them eventually? They're crap scared of me and think it'll prolong their existence! Why do fallen empires arbitrarily decide I can't have that nearby planet with 10 tiles instead of stopping me taking that 23 tile one they have 100% habitability with? They're roleplaying that it's 'holy'!
And back again to the original point: why would these idiots try to ally with me when I'm going around slaughtering species? Because they're weaker (at the moment) and while I'm allied to them I'm not burning their planets! If they go straight -200 "will consider an alliance in 2 centuries" then there's no incentive for me not to squash them and kill everything right now! It's a very short-sighted diplomatic policy. And this of course ignores the possibilities in 1.5 of a change in ethos from Xenophobe to another, non-purging, ethos.
Compare this to a FE awakening- I had this in my latest game. A Xenophile FE awakens in my galaxy. Instead of; insulting it, declaring it a rival, severing all potential ties, I maintain cordiality. I know that- should nothing change in the time it takes them to get to me- I'm at best never going to be independent again. However, things change. I expanded, maintained a large fleet and rushed unbidden techs. The unbidden did in fact invade, and by the end of the game we were in a federation together.
You reference realpolitik. What you're suggesting is the exact opposite, opposing purifiers because of morals. There are plenty of reasons to bide your time and make sure you're not next on the plate.
Apologies by the way. This was longer and more rant-y than it was meant to be.
I just thought of something.
In the vast majority of the examples brought up of real-world atrocities that have been forgiven in less time than 300 years, the ruling party or government that committed said atrocities no longer exists.
Considering that changing your empire's ethics will be a thing, what if moving away from xenophobe (or any ethics that can purge) reduces the malus from past purgings? This assumes that changing ethos won't be an easy thing of course.
In the vast majority of the examples brought up of real-world atrocities that have been forgiven in less time than 300 years, the ruling party or government that committed said atrocities no longer exists.
Considering that changing your empire's ethics will be a thing, what if moving away from xenophobe (or any ethics that can purge) reduces the malus from past purgings? This assumes that changing ethos won't be an easy thing of course.
You know, there are two types of AI attitudes that let you willingly become the subject of a larger non-FE empire; Protective if they are friendly, Domineering if they are not and of the AI type to have vassals.
On the other hand, the only time you, as a player can ask an AI empire to become your subject is if there are positive relations with very high modifiers. There is no situation that I'm aware of where an empire can be so scared of you that they would be willing to become your vassal rather than face war, even though there is obviously a situation where the AI expects to be able to do the same thing to a player.
That is an interesting point actually. In the game that I described with the FE I did have an empire with ~100 relations offer to be my vassal (they were on my doorstep, I had 120k fleet they had maybe 20k). Yet before I accepted I checked their response if I'd asked- a firm no. So it seems that you're half right. You can't demand it of them (without high relations), but they can ask it of you. Very bizarre.