The ethics as they are now are way too skewed towards Collectivist Xenophobes

[DàbiànLājīdàrén]

Like really, this game doesn't reward Pacifists at all and there's almost no point playing a Xenophile.

As a Collectivist Xenophobe you get expanded borders and enslave everything. purge everything, everything is yours. There is literally no point in playing anything besides Collectivist Xenophobes.

As a Fanatic Pacifist you are unable to expand at all. There is literally nothing fun about it because war is the only thing you can do in Stellaris.

 

[Zarohn]

But you get a -10% happiness penalty for declaring an offensive war if you don't have millitarist. Throw millitarist in there!

 

[LordMagus]

Currently playing as a xenophile, surrounded by other xenophiles. There's barely been any wars that weren't started by me, and I'm not allowed in a federation due to war philosophy differences. The only advantage I have is that pretty much everyone in the galaxy likes me, despite how big a threat I am. So I'm unlikely to get lots of people fighting me at once, and can gobble up empires one at a time (not that I need to, I probably have enough fleet strength to fight the rest of the galaxy all at once).

 

[Repeats]

Fanatic Pacifist is by far the worst ethic in the game. The only way someone will declare war on you is by being weaker than the enemy. But in that case, you are just going to lose in the defensive war and lose your territory. So if you are stronger than the AI, they will leave you alone, which forces you to expand by colonizing. But you will eventually get caged in, stagnating your efforts to grow.

 

[smjjames]

Eh? I thought it was skewed towards Fanatic Individualist?

Anyways, it seems like there are more 'peaceful' personalities than there are 'warlike' or 'aggressive' personalities.

 

[maxirage]

Nah, it's biased towards Fanatic Individualists. You can do the same aggressive warmongering playstyle as collectivists/xenophobes, except everyone loves you for it (instead of hating your guts).

 

[smjjames]

There will be a completely new balance in 1.5 though.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Yeah, this is both

1. Entirely debatable, likely untrue
2. Irrelevant due to pending 1.5 Banks update changes to Ethics

 

[Surimi]

Honestly, the most absurdly OP game of stellaris I ever played was with extremely adaptive, pacifist, individualist xenophiles. Peaceful bureaucracy.

Expansion for days. Non-stop, glorious expansion for days with absurd habitability to steal all my nearby neighbours planets. By the time I needed to declare war, happiness levels were so high that pacifism wasn't a problem. I used liberation wargoals to balkanize other empires and then offered vassalization to the little baby empires. I stopped because honestly I don't actually enjoy getting too big, but it's the most insane game I've ever played.. and with all the resources I could have been throwing away on early game wars I was able to do so much without firing a shot.

 

[jazzglands]

I dunno. That's kind of always a thing in PDS games; tyranny is very efficient when used with care, benevolence trades efficiency for stability, economics (by which I mean production of the 'money' resource), and AI friendship.

Being a Xenophile and keeping a decent fleet means never going to war unless you want to, for the most part.

My Xenophile/Fanatic Spiritualists are very easy to play. I refuse to do any math, but qualitatively that combo feels a little OP too.

 

[Diezy]

They all have their strengths, after trying them all.

As far as I'm concerned, Individualist/Xenophile makes for a very effortless government. You can happily conquer everyone and almost nobody will mind! If they diverge into xenophobes all you have to do is drop a Visitor Center and everyone's happy again!

(Not to mention Fanatic Xenophile gets that lovely pink frilly background, which makes it the ultimate ethic. )

 

[Cagliostro]

Xenophile sooooooo much easier than xenophobe. Everyone likes you and you can set up migration treaties, assuring that you can settle any type of planet easily. People continue to love you forever no matter how large and threatening you get. Force another nation to release a few planets, and then diplovassalize those planets. Then, because the original nation doesn't hate you because you are such a nice guy and didn't annex any land, diplovassalize the guy you declared war on (since he's smaller than he was when you declared).

Keep bringing pre-FTL species to sentience, and then you have new protectorates, which give you .5 influence each. In my last game I had so many of them I was still earning influence with plenty of frontier posts, *while* suffering -5 for annexing a vassal.

If you think xenophile is useless you are not playing them right.

 

[Dominik]

Just accept that Millitarist Collectivist Xenophobe is the supreme form... in Stellaris and IRL too

 

[Kat Tsun]

Fanatic individualist and militarist or xenophile seems to be the best min-max.

Human bias confirmed.

 

[Bobylein]

I play most of the time pacifists+xenophile, since 1.4 pacifist+fan individualists. No idea what you are talking about not being able to wage war, my friends always taunt me that I play space america that "liberates" everyone.

That liberation war goal is really awesome, you balkanize your enemies and gobble up all that little states via vassalisation request, in fact they often even ask for it because they love you. 10 Years later you integrate them into your empire, no unhappy pops there and often they already changed a lot towards your own ethos because they lived on or near the coreworld you "liberated"

 

[klingonadmiral]

Fanatic individualist and militarist or xenophile seems to be the best min-max.

Human bias confirmed.

Fanatic Individualist + Materialist for Direct Democracy/Subconscious Consensus (+5/10% happiness, faster leader exp gain), Research Institute and Stock Exchange

 

[alteration]

They should add for pacifist ethic something like +10% (+25% for fnatic) weapon damage in defensive war and another +10% (cumulative, +25% for fnatic) in own controlled territories

 

[Elfin]

Collectivist Xenophobe WAT??? First allows you to enslave&purge anything, second - enslave&purge anything but your own species, so why would anyone need both at the same time?
Personally on 1.4 I prefer Militarist+Spiritualist+Collectivist Divine Mandate. No problems with ethic divergence, no happiness penalty while at war, enslave what you want and purge everyone else.

 

[Surimi]

They should add for pacifist ethic something like +10% (+25% for fnatic) weapon damage in defensive war and another +10% (cumulative, +25% for fnatic) in own controlled territories

Personally, I really don't like the idea of pacifists getting war bonuses.

That said, pacifism is good. No really, it's good. Influence cost is useful, peacetime happiness is great for pops and the unique building is amazing (it's a farm which also boosts happiness and gives a habitability bonus, since you need farms anyway every planet should have one). The pacifist governments are also very good, perhaps a little too good at the moment because of the weaknesses of the sector AI. Being able to directly manage 15 planets at once means you can develop them faster and more rationally without compromising expansion, although it is kind of micro hell to do so.

 

[Bobylein]

Personally, I really don't like the idea of pacifists getting war bonuses.

That said, pacifism is good. No really, it's good. Influence cost is useful, peacetime happiness is great for pops and the unique building is amazing (it's a farm which also boosts happiness and gives a habitability bonus, since you need farms anyway every planet should have one). The pacifist governments are also very good, perhaps a little too good at the moment because of the weaknesses of the sector AI. Being able to directly manage 15 planets at once means you can develop them faster and more rationally without compromising expansion, although it is kind of micro hell to do so.

It's micro hell, but if you RP true pacifists it's currently most of the gameplay you have left.