Purge Penalties

[BlackUmbrellas]

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.

On a somewhat related note, does it bother anyone else that you can give planets in trade deals, but can't request them? Even if it was something that AIs were reluctant to do, like research agreements (which I only see very rarely), surely there'd be a way to balance it so that you can ask friendly empires nearby you for that planet they happened to nab right along your border that you'd had your eye on for a while?

 

[Avian Overlord]

On a somewhat related note, does it bother anyone else that you can give planets in trade deals, but can't request them? Even if it was something that AIs were reluctant to do, like research agreements (which I only see very rarely), surely there'd be a way to balance it so that you can ask friendly empires nearby you for that planet they happened to nab right along your border that you'd had your eye on for a while?

It exists to stop the AI from being exploited by the player. I think Paradox has some traumatic memories from Vicky 1.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

It exists to stop the AI from being exploited by the player. I think Paradox has some traumatic memories from Vicky 1.

My point is that surely they could set it up to minimize that danger.

 

[Avian Overlord]

Yup. And it's not like they haven't empires unwilling to trade stuff before. To the point where I'm not sure why there is a trade interface.

 

[Secret Master]

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.

Yep. That's me. Well known around this community for hating stories and never role-playing. I never even wrote gameplay guides for Paradox franchises that involved elements of narrative. They aren't even available for sale even as we speak.

Leaving aside the false dichotomy and hyperbole for a second, let's consider for a moment that maybe the AI could do both. Maybe it can play in some kind of optimized way and roleplay a bit (in the limited sense that programs can do that sort of thing).

What if, and I'm just spit balling here, you could program some new AI personalities that might be willing to beg for subject status when faced with an empire that purges on a regular basis and they are much weaker. Not form alliances with them. Not form federations with them. Not sign non-aggression pacts. Not trade. Just be willing to offer themselves as a subject when an empire with a history of purging is nearby and much, much stronger than them.

That behavior might make some sense and have role-playing possibilities.

I would also accept a diplomatic "reset" if the regime of genocidal lunatics is replaced by something new. That also makes sense.

Here's what doesn't make sense, and what would make for really stupid gameplay:

"Well, the Bugs have murdered untold trillions. They are offering us a non-aggression pact."

"Hmmm. Aren't they threatening several empires in the western part of the galaxy?"

"Yes."

"Haven't they basically committed genocide on all populations they conquer?"

"Yes."

"Do we have enough military might to ally with other empires to try and oppose them?"

"Sure."

"Well, these wars can't possibly be a prelude to the acquisition of more planets, resources, and fleet capacity to eventually wipe us out. Sure. Accept their offer."

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.

If I have a track record of genocidal behavior? Of course it should.

Also, in Stellaris, conquest and colonization is very profitable. If the AI is not going to at least try to take advantage of this, it's going to get its clock cleaned all the time.

AI personalities with any kind of desire to expand should do just as you described.

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.

It's a xenophile AE. Making nice with it is sensible.

Hell, at least the xenophobic militarists, when they wake up, offer you the option of being a thrall.

Contrast this with a normal-powered empire that exterminates people. Why make nice with it, unless you are so much weaker that resistance is futile?

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.

Morals?

There can be only one end game with such a polity: a future war of extermination.

Even if you choose not to exterminate them (no need, really), it will be coming to you.

So, I will reiterate. Unless the empire in question is so much weaker that it can only survive by being a subject, it should not be making nice with genocidal empires.

Declaring an offensive war against such a power is a different question, but signing non-aggression pacts? That's insane. In Stellaris, you can't attack someone even after breaking the pact right away. You sign a non-aggression pact with them, it's 10+ years until you can attack them. They lose an important battle in a war that cuts their military strength in half? Too bad, you signed that pact.

Trading with them? That's a terrible idea, too.

 

[Cagliostro]

If I have a track record of genocidal behavior? Of course it should.

I understand that the argument went a bit past here, but let me remind that the point of the thread was about literally one act of genocide, not a 'track record'.

I am all for genocidal behavior causing upset, and even coalitions. I just think you ought to be able to at least find some cause with fellow evil dictators, close allies, and vassals. In EU, aggressive expansion penalties are modified severely by several such factors.

As to requesting planets, yeah, Victoria. Though you could add a 'threaten war' option like in modern EU, which is somewhat less exploitable.

 

[Secret Master]

I am all for genocidal behavior causing upset, and even coalitions. I just think you ought to be able to at least find some cause with fellow evil dictators, close allies, and vassals. In EU, aggressive expansion penalties are modified severely by several such factors.

Well, that's why I think federation members who vote for a genocidal war shouldn't care about purge penalties. And vassals shouldn't, either.

I don't know, say, Star Trek history very well, but I imagine the Klingons, Romulans, and Cardassians 'purged' some people they didn't like. Yet they were still able to make and maintain alliances with some other people (I think the Cardassians had some sort of federation?). Even humans and Kzinti made peace after many wars (including purges) without a -300 malus effect to diplomacy. And the Kzinti were purging humans.

The Romulans were a reclusive empire for most of the various TV shows. They only allied with the Federation after they thought one of their politicians was assassinated by the Dominion. (And that was actually a false flag operation by Sisko.) But they were so secretive that most of their activities were not even known by the galaxy at large. (Something we don't have in Stellaris.)

The Klingons weren't really into genocide. Warfare, yes. Conquest, yes. I can't think of instances of purging, though. (At least none that were acts of official policy.)

The Cardassians had poor relations with basically everyone. They end up allying with the Dominion, but the Dominion are kind of like a mediocre AE in Star Trek. And the only reason relations get better with Cardassia is that they switched sides during the Dominion War, overthrew their government, and had already lost millions or even billions of civilians to reprisals from Dominion forces.

So, I don't think poor relations with genocidal regimes is bad, but there need to be some changes in how federation members and vassals look at it. It would also be nice for the Vic2 diplomacy reset to happen if the government is pushed out of power/ethos changes.

 

[faljen_isus]

if for instance you have a couple of vassals from the very beginning of the game, and you decide they get to keep their planets, and heads for that matter, but you are on a purge frenzy across the galaxy, the AI should be able to figure out that when you come by asking people to be your vassal that that is actually a good idea and that you abide by your word (some sort of EU4-ish reputation system comes to mind)

i mean, the game already has the mechanic built in for awakened empires, why not enable it for the player?

ps i also think extermination penalties are too harsh, but not on the fact of the moral aspect of it but only the aspect that after you do 1-2 purges in the early game you get closed off afterwards

 

[Cagliostro]

So, I don't think poor relations with genocidal regimes is bad, but there need to be some changes in how federation members and vassals look at it. It would also be nice for the Vic2 diplomacy reset to happen if the government is pushed out of power/ethos changes.

I guess my main point is what one considers as a 'genocidal regime' and 'poor relations'. Like, severing all diplomatic ties with someone because of one war crime (no matter what kind of government or species you are) seems scaled wrong to me. If you actually have a history of war crimes, you will quickly rack up hundreds of negative points with everyone in the galaxy - which means not only no diplomacy, but no diplomacy for centuries (basically the entire game period). Unlike EU's aggressive expansion I don't think there's any way to mitigate the penalty (by changing government or policy, or by losing worlds, or whatever).

I mean, do you think the Cardassians would have really cared if somebody else were purging people? It would at least take a lot of genocide to piss them off, I would imagine.

I don't think we're far off from each other, though - penalties yes; but at least somewhat situational penalties.

 

[Secret Master]

I mean, do you think the Cardassians would have really cared if somebody else were purging people? It would at least take a lot of genocide to piss them off, I would imagine.

Well, not directly. But on the other hand, I assert that such an occurrence would have been used to justify current xenophobic and genocidal/enslavement policies of the Cardassian Union.

I don't think we're far off from each other, though - penalties yes; but at least somewhat situational penalties.

Yes.

I will add that the AI may not actually be able to do some of these things. Aggressive expansion penalties (and it's ancestor Bad Boy, as you well remember), are set up guide AI behavior since it's not really "thinking" in the sense a person might.

 

[Ikael]

There are current ongoing purges taking place (well, "forced displacements" in game terminology) with little to no diplomatic repercussions and minimal media coverage (Myanmar comes to mind). Also, there are historic examples of regimes undertaking severe, million casualty-wide purges whose atrocities were ignored due to realpolitik concerns or outright cover up, the Soviet Union or the old European Imperial powers during the XIXth century being prime examples of that. So yes, factors such as distance from your own empire, mutual interests, ethos similarities and more importantly, who is purging who, that is, if people who are in the recieving end of purging matters to the interstellar community at large, should factor in diplomatic penalty reductions for committing atrocities, at least if you want a realistic (and depressing) depiction of it. An if at some point spyionage is introduced, some kind of system for either covering up your own atrocities or using your foe's atrocities as propaganda and motivation for the fight against them could be in order too.

Another thing that gets me scratching my head is to limit purging to just two types of ethos (autoritarian and xenophobe). You don't need to have an officially xenophobic ideology in place in order to say, starve millions of people to death for geopolitical reasons. And while things like turning pops into cattle are apropiately monstruous enough to warrant a xenophobic requirement, some of the new purging types, such as neutering, should be avaible for everyone. I mean, forced sterilization was carried on by perfectly democratic regimes and even vigorously defended by allegedly "progressive" factions (eugenic movement in the USA and nordic countries). I mean, if we're going to be grimdark, we might as well go "real life grimdark", I think.

 

[gluck3d]

Yep, current penalties are to high from my point of view. I don't want to role-play democratic ultra-friendly mushrooms like devs on the stream...
I want to have other species as slaves. I want to purge the non-neccessary ones. For example if I conquer a new fully settled planet, why should I keep the locals on science building where they have the penalty?

Still, I hope that new stuff based on species approach may be useful. And they would balance penalties.

I'd say we need a separate penalties for both pops and other empires.
Like 'genocide of any living being' for xenophiles in other empires and individualists in your own. May be decreased penalty for individualists in other empires as well.
'Genocide of my own species' for any other.

While I think that xenophobes and militarists (may be collectivists as well) should have lesser penalties (as they some kind of understand the behavior).

And finally, the way it wears off should be changes as well. -1 does not make sense for massive purges. It should be something like 'the biggest of -1 or -1% of existing penalties' to make it sensible. In the above example, it will limit the max time to wear off the purges penalty

 

[Sportsmaster]

I have not read this entire thread, but I think the issue on which we should be focusing is that diplomacy in Stellaris does not mitigate, balance, or even interact with heavy opinion modifiers at all. In real life, the reason acts of genocide are often overlooked by contemporary nations is due to racism and/or complex socioeconomic and diplomatic relations (e.g., "we will not stop the atrocities in X region because we support the instability of our foreign competitors" or "we will not intervene in the brutal civil war of X country because the region is rich in natural resources and we intend to exploit one of its competing factions.") I write this NOT to say that genocide should not carry heavy diplomatic penalties, but in reality there are—unfortunately—other factors which complicate or even overcome such "negative opinion modifiers" between nations to the extent that they will argue around what is and what is not genocide.

Right now, diplomacy in Stellaris does not simulate or accommodate this level of complexity except maybe group threat—under which a repugnant xenophobic empire (-100) might ally with xenophiles against galactic invasion (+150). The problem is that there are not enough diplomatic events which develop empire relationships or emotionally invest players to engage in diplomatic roleplay. So please do not rationalize this as if any of you are privy to some universal constant about how so-and-so empire would feel about genocide or some inherent human quality which softens our reactions to it. This thread needs to end.

You don't need to have an officially xenophobic ideology in place in order to say, starve millions of people to death for geopolitical reasons. And while things like turning pops into cattle are apropiately monstruous enough to warrant a xenophobic requirement, some of the new purging types, such as neutering, should be avaible for everyone. I mean, forced sterilization was carried on by perfectly democratic regimes.

Democracy and xenophobia can and do coexist, purging policies need not be “official” for purging to occur, and forced sterilizations are no less violent and xenophobic simply because they were sanctioned by a democratic government. Beyond the fact that every ethic in Stellaris ought to have their own definitive options for the sake of replayability—I just feel like most of these arguments aim to prove that slavery is not necessarily bound to authoritarian ethics, that purging is not essentially xenophobic, when they are. These arguments read as “I want to play an empire that enslaves, displaces, and neuters sentients, but like does not overtly despise other forms of life or allow those decisions to affect their politics, who they are, or how they play.” These arguments are really about escaping that level of accountability and blaming whatever game mechanic for not explicitly fulfilling that fantasy… because some of you believe that it is “realistic” or “immersive” to commit violently xenophobic acts without being regarded as dangerous or bigoted by other members of the galaxy. Like... you know who you are, so please stop using this game as a platform for this.

And just FYI, the Cardassians would never readily admit to having purged the Bajorans, but they would attribute any such acts of genocide by foreign polities as irrefutable proof of their savagery, disarray, and inherent antagonism. I do not see why other xenophobic empires would discount this opinion of each other unless they were also motivated by group threat or pursuing some other agenda which Stellaris cannot yet simulate.

 

[gluck3d]

a) Purging is one of the game mechanisms that now has only very limited use. Basically can be used only when you are the most powerful empire in a galaxy, otherwise you will be crushed by united enemies. And they will unite due to negative attitude, choosing you as rival etc.
b) I can think of tons of different scenarios when genocide won't be thought as something bad in stellaris universe:
- Both empires think that some third one does not deserve to live (for example it is very ugly or has committed warfare against both)
- Empire is purging species within its borders but have never attacked anyone outside of it. And keeps trading. May be they just have such strange moral codex..
- lot of other reasons that I don't have time to write, cause I'm leaving office

I would say that purgin must become more useful in the game, while limited to only some of the game styles and mutually exclusive with other beneficial mechanisms.

 

[scaper12123]

I will agree that the purge penalty is a bit heavy, and the fact that the penalty can go up to 1000 is not very helpful. There should be some way for the game to tell the difference between when you're purging rebellious pops or when you're committing mass genocide, such as when you purge a large percentage of a species.

 

[Ikael]

I agree with Sportsmaster's main point: Stellaris require a far more nuanced approach to diplomacy in order to accurately simulate the real world reaction towards genocide (willful ignorance, apathy, cynical mutism, etc). However, what people is arguing in this topic is exactly that we need more granularity to it if one wants to make purging gameplay and all around villany viable.

Democracy and xenophobia can and do coexist, purging policies need not be “official” for purging to occur, and forced sterilizations are no less violent and xenophobic simply because they were sanctioned by a democratic government. Beyond the fact that every ethic in Stellaris ought to have their own definitive options for the sake of replayability—I just feel like most of these arguments aim to prove that slavery is not necessarily bound to authoritarian ethics, that purging is not essentially xenophobic, when they are.

Thing is, goverments in Stellaris are tied to ethics, so as far as I know you cannot recreate real world scenarios where a democracy initiates a widescale purging of their own citizens. Noone here is arguing that purging nor neutering are indeed wholly autoritarian, xenophobic practices. I do think in fact that incurring into these atrocities should indeed strenghten the xenophobic factions inside your empire and even incite regime change. But if we're going to be playing the villain, the great coalition against evil must be the climax, not the beggining of the story.

 

[zanaikin]

Note the Genocidal modifiers (listed on Stellariswiki):

-5 IF NOT {has AI behavior: purger} AND NOT {is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has ethic: Individualist AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-10 IF has ethic: Fanatic Individualist AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has ethic: Xenophile AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-10 IF has ethic: Fanatic Xenophile AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has AI personality: Benevolent Interventionists
-25 Purged our Species

-5 per pop really isn't that much if you're purging only some races but enslaving most. It'd take 20POPs (so, 20 billion) before you hit -100. That's a lot of dead people to annoy an empire to the same degree as a declared rivalry (40 billion to match a reciprocated rivalry). And keep in mind that's only SOME empires.

-10 per POP is a much bigger deal. But if they're fanatic xenophiles/individualists we're dealing with ethical crusaders anyway.

The only thing I find weird is that those relations does not account for xenophobia. Because if their empire is xenophobe/individualist, they shouldn't care if some random alien race got purged.

Note that humanity didn't exactly start turning Individualist until the recent 1-2 centuries (with major gaps in between like the rise of fascism, which coincided with the worst of Stalinist purges). Even today, only the liberal western cultures can really be considered 'Individualist' (whereas if you actually lived in Japan/South Korean you'd realize those democracies are definitely 'Collectivist' in culture). So seriously, stop making comparisons with periods of world history that simply does not apply.

There can be only one end game with such a polity: a future war of extermination.

Even if you choose not to exterminate them (no need, really), it will be coming to you.

Declaring an offensive war against such a power is a different question, but signing non-aggression pacts? That's insane. In Stellaris, you can't attack someone even after breaking the pact right away. You sign a non-aggression pact with them, it's 10+ years until you can attack them. They lose an important battle in a war that cuts their military strength in half? Too bad, you signed that pact.

I've certainly waged alliance war against purger empires for no reason other than the fact they're a purger empire (and thus a future threat). So, from realpolitik (or in the players' perspective, strategic thinking), I see no reason why the AI should not do the same and turn hostile simply because you're a future threat.

That being said, I've also signed Non-Aggression Treaties with purgers -- usually because I play low-key during the early game and maintain a defensive-only military. But if nobody stops me before I enter the mid-game, then my fleet will be a force to be reckoned with. In this scenario, I'm signing the NAP knowing that I will attack and crush them in a future war and simply needs time.

So far, I have not seen the AI capable of such behavior (fake friendship). Until they do, it would make more sense for them to dislike the player for purging.

Yup. And it's not like they haven't empires unwilling to trade stuff before. To the point where I'm not sure why there is a trade interface.

I use trade extensively to balance my minerals/energy income, for research agreements (at least 1 running at any time), and to swap strategic resources. Just because you're not creative enough to take advantage of it doesn't mean the rest of us are lacking too.

 

[Cagliostro]

Note the Genocidal modifiers (listed on Stellariswiki):-5 per pop really isn't that much if you're purging only some races but enslaving most. It'd take 20POPs (so, 20 billion) before you hit -100. That's a lot of dead people to annoy an empire to the same degree as a declared rivalry (40 billion to match a reciprocated rivalry). And keep in mind that's only SOME empires.

In my case, it was one planet, of aliens which existed nowhere else.

Also, as to the 'some empires', I think you are misreading the values here. The only empires in my entire galaxy that did not suffer the penalty were 'fanatical purgers', who already had a -1000 to me, and fallen empires, with which most diplomacy is basically meaningless. The entire galaxy turned red immediately, and borders were closed by every empire who had them open.

That first value does not mean 'has purging enabled'. It means 'has the personalty type: fanatical purger'. So, no. No. It is not 'some'. It is all.

 

[wurmkrank]

Note the Genocidal modifiers (listed on Stellariswiki):

-5 IF NOT {has AI behavior: purger} AND NOT {is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has ethic: Individualist AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-10 IF has ethic: Fanatic Individualist AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has ethic: Xenophile AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-10 IF has ethic: Fanatic Xenophile AND NOT{is a fallen empire}
-5 IF has AI personality: Benevolent Interventionists
-25 Purged our Species

-5 per pop really isn't that much if you're purging only some races but enslaving most. It'd take 20POPs (so, 20 billion) before you hit -100. That's a lot of dead people to annoy an empire to the same degree as a declared rivalry (40 billion to match a reciprocated rivalry). And keep in mind that's only SOME empires.

-10 per POP is a much bigger deal. But if they're fanatic xenophiles/individualists we're dealing with ethical crusaders anyway.

The only thing I find weird is that those relations does not account for xenophobia. Because if their empire is xenophobe/individualist, they shouldn't care if some random alien race got purged.

Note that humanity didn't exactly start turning Individualist until the recent 1-2 centuries (with major gaps in between like the rise of fascism, which coincided with the worst of Stalinist purges). Even today, only the liberal western cultures can really be considered 'Individualist' (whereas if you actually lived in Japan/South Korean you'd realize those democracies are definitely 'Collectivist' in culture). So seriously, stop making comparisons with periods of world history that simply does not apply.



I've certainly waged alliance war against purger empires for no reason other than the fact they're a purger empire (and thus a future threat). So, from realpolitik (or in the players' perspective, strategic thinking), I see no reason why the AI should not do the same and turn hostile simply because you're a future threat.

That being said, I've also signed Non-Aggression Treaties with purgers -- usually because I play low-key during the early game and maintain a defensive-only military. But if nobody stops me before I enter the mid-game, then my fleet will be a force to be reckoned with. In this scenario, I'm signing the NAP knowing that I will attack and crush them in a future war and simply needs time.

So far, I have not seen the AI capable of such behavior (fake friendship). Until they do, it would make more sense for them to dislike the player for purging.



I use trade extensively to balance my minerals/energy income, for research agreements (at least 1 running at any time), and to swap strategic resources. Just because you're not creative enough to take advantage of it doesn't mean the rest of us are lacking too.

I thought the purge penalty was too much until I saw these modifiers. These are actually pretty reasonable. I think then my only issue-and you mentioned it-is that there is no "and is not fanatical xenophobe/authoritarian" check on these modifiers. Even if you want to change your purge policy so that you can't purge, so that you are not technically considered a "purger" that is only a way of telling other entities who are not okay with purging, that you will not purge for at least 10 years. It has no bearing on how the attitude of your empire views purging in general. Therefore empires who are able to purge-based on ethos alone-with no consequences to themselves (non fanatical xenophobe pops still get unhappy when you purge.) Should not view purging as wrong,

 

[terrycloth]

I'm not seeing these modifiers in my game at all, and I purged a bunch of people. I guess it might be one of the mods that turned them off? I'm not running any mods that (are supposed to) affect diplomacy, though. Just New Ship Types and some other 'added technology options' mods.