Would "interest groups" serve as a good replacement for factions?

[Liggi]

Like I'm sure many people have, I've been following the development of Victoria 3. One thing that stands out to me as a good paradigm that Stellaris could potentially utilise is Interest Groups.

We all know that Factions in Stellaris are reasonably pointless. They are kinda Influence factories, with very set "Issues" that you can, for the most part, ignore.

What if we had Interest Groups instead (perhaps with a different name). Pops of particular types could have various types of interests and form groups to pressure for those interests. Perhaps Clerks would want increased political power for workers (if they also have egalitarian ethics), would want Trade / Economy-focused laws passed in the Galactic Community... maybe if we're talking about Spiritualist Clerks, they might want Temples on the worlds they work on etc.

I'd also like to see the Democratic Agendas replaced, so maybe this could tie into that. If you elect a Ruler from the Agrarian interest group, they may want Farming Subsidies and so on.

 

[Dlin369]

I’d like to see how Victoria III works out before making suggestions for Stellaris, but so far I think their system seems promising

 

[DukeLeto42]

Factions feel like the skeleton to a system that never got fleshed out, a system that Vicky 3 looks to be taking and running with.

The idea that each pop has a primary ethic is good, as is that they create a distinct political group once there are enough of them. So too is that they have specific things they want, and that their happiness (and thus pop happiness) is driven by your satisfaction of these issues. I like that their happiness in turn generates influence for you to act on the galactic stage.

But then, it stops. Sure, there's odd cases where a newly-conquered planet with highly divergent ethics is the source of a new faction, the faction hates you, and as a result the planet has low stability and might revolt, but those are rare. It feels like factions are meant to go that next step, interfacing with your governmental ethics and civics and having an advocacy role in the empire, yet they don't have it.

In other words, it sounds like what you're asking isn't for new "Interest Groups," or even the removal of Factions, but rather the empowerment of the Faction system to do what it sounds like Vicky 3's Interest Groups will.

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Factions feel like the skeleton to a system that never got fleshed out, a system that Vicky 3 looks to be taking and running with.

The idea that each pop has a primary ethic is good, as is that they create a distinct political group once there are enough of them. So too is that they have specific things they want, and that their happiness (and thus pop happiness) is driven by your satisfaction of these issues. I like that their happiness in turn generates influence for you to act on the galactic stage.

But then, it stops. Sure, there's odd cases where a newly-conquered planet with highly divergent ethics is the source of a new faction, the faction hates you, and as a result the planet has low stability and might revolt, but those are rare. It feels like factions are meant to go that next step, interfacing with your governmental ethics and civics and having an advocacy role in the empire, yet they don't have it.

In other words, it sounds like what you're asking isn't for new "Interest Groups," or even the removal of Factions, but rather the empowerment of the Faction system to do what it sounds like Vicky 3's Interest Groups will.

negative faction approval needs to come with real risks. i'm looking forward to an internal politics overhaul. i'm sure it's coming. i can feel it in my waters.

 

[Bezborg]

Queue the "omg but that's adding more calculations, the game can't take it" crowd

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Queue the "omg but that's adding more calculations, the game can't take it" crowd

maybe that's why it's taking so long. i'm patient.

 

[Liggi]

One of the main things I'm unsure about is how to have "interest groups" ask for things that actually make sense and aren't annoying.

Say there's an "Agrarian" IG that consists of the farmers from a number of different planets, it's unclear to me what they could actually pressure for. More farms? I guess Farming Subsidies makes sense, but that's just one thing. Enforcers could be part of a "Law & Order" IG, but again... what could they even ask for other than more jobs of their type? Or low Crime, which is already trivially easy, and if you already have a Law & Order IG you probably have really low crime already from the Enforcers.

It's not clear to me that there's actually much for Interest Groups to actually ask the player to do, so I'm not really sure how to solve that problem.

 

[A2ch0n]

I would maybe wait how internal politics play out as soon we get some infos about it. I don't really see a "real" difference to factions with a interest group mechanic despite they care about other things basically. I expect to see faction demands like FE's or Marauder do anyways (i'm not saying that's a good idea) and like you said, it's hard to find a balance between annoying and interesting/usefull. I fear that it could end up like they have done to my beloved espionage. Simple a sidenote, in best case a meme...

 

[prismaticmarcus]

I would maybe wait how internal politics play out as soon we get some infos about it. I don't really see a "real" difference to factions with a interest group mechanic despite they care about other things basically. I expect to see faction demands like FE's or Marauder do anyways (i'm not saying that's a good idea) and like you said, it's hard to find a balance between annoying and interesting/usefull. I fear that it could end up like they have done to my beloved espionage. Simple a sidenote, in best case a meme...

espionage is alright once you get the hang of how and when to use it, i think.

 

[A2ch0n]

espionage is alright once you get the hang of how and when to use it, i think.

Sorry, but no...
I play every game with an espionage focus including subterfuge tradition and i'm sure to know how and when to use it. And that what i want to do with it is impossible. I.e. breaking federations, manipulate ethics, start wars destroy buildings and fleets, deactivate mega structures and so on. That what we got is basic at best (but promising, especially the asset system). Even steal technology is only good to sort out tech cards and that is absolutely not what i'm (and other players that like espionage) are looking for.

Sorry that i started with a off topic comparison.

 

[methegrate]

Like I'm sure many people have, I've been following the development of Victoria 3. One thing that stands out to me as a good paradigm that Stellaris could potentially utilise is Interest Groups.

We all know that Factions in Stellaris are reasonably pointless. They are kinda Influence factories, with very set "Issues" that you can, for the most part, ignore.

What if we had Interest Groups instead (perhaps with a different name). Pops of particular types could have various types of interests and form groups to pressure for those interests. Perhaps Clerks would want increased political power for workers (if they also have egalitarian ethics), would want Trade / Economy-focused laws passed in the Galactic Community... maybe if we're talking about Spiritualist Clerks, they might want Temples on the worlds they work on etc.

I'd also like to see the Democratic Agendas replaced, so maybe this could tie into that. If you elect a Ruler from the Agrarian interest group, they may want Farming Subsidies and so on.

That makes lots of sense to me.

The other thing I'd like to see is much stronger policies. Of Stellaris' (many) underused mechanics, I feel like policies might be the most overlooked. Letting you set laws for how your empire functions at every level could be an exciting part of the entire game. In practice, though, they're mostly just a few set-it and forget-it options that you tick at the start of the game and move on.

I feel like this would be a terrific combination of mechanics. Make policies have real, significant consequences on your empire and its gameplay options. Have interest groups with policy demands that shift and change according to current circumstances. Give real benefits to making them happy (not just an influence pump) and real consequences for when their unhappy (not just the black and white threat of rebellion). Then let players try to keep that constantly shifting balance.

 

[DukeLeto42]

That makes lots of sense to me.

The other thing I'd like to see is a much stronger policies. Of Stellaris' (many) underused mechanics, I feel like policies might be the most overlooked. Letting you set laws for how your empire functions at every level could be an exciting part of the entire game. In practice, though, they're mostly just a few set-it and forget-it options that you tick at the start of the game and move on.

I feel like this would be a terrific combination of mechanics. Make policies have real, significant consequences on your empire and its gameplay options. Have interest groups with policy demands that shift and change according to current circumstances. Give real benefits to making them happy (not just an influence pump) and real consequences for when their unhappy (not just the black and white threat of rebellion). Then let players try to keep that constantly shifting balance.

Additionally, make government civics/authorities and ethics not a "spend x-hundred influence and then forget," but part of the same system of factions trying to push reforms.

 

[Nikolai II]

I like that their happiness in turn generates influence for you to act on the galactic stage.

I dislike that influence is both your national and international currency.

Factions should cost unity (but cost less the happier they are) and international plays should cost influence that is gained from pops overall (much like voting weight in the galactic community at large - perhaps even exactly like the community rules, which would mean the community has effects even upon non-members).

 

[Ezumiyr]

Nah. As a general rule, just copy-pasting a game mechanic from a game to another isn't a great idea.
Stellaris doesn't really work like Victoria.
In Stellaris, we have political entities that should be important, but aren't: planets and sectors. That's what factions should work with.
Some factions should be planetary, representing the internal dynamics of our planets. Workers, criminals, believers etc. They should all have their own, relatively simple likes and dislikes. You should be able to manage them from the planet screen, see their demands, suppress them, etc.
Other factions should be much more ethics/civics dependant, and control sectors. They would both represent political groups in your empire, and also specialize and administrate at least one planet. Feudal empires would have Great Houses with dynastic "governors", megacorporations would have subcorporations producing unique goods, spiritualist/militaristic empires could get holy orders making their own fleets to support you at war... but in return they would all have their own demands. Holy orders wouldn't accept close relationships with non-spiritualist empires, subcorps would ask for more trade deals and less "taxes", Great Houses would depend on the personality of their leaders and their personal relationship without your leader.

This would not only make factions more important - it would also make empires more unique. Those factions could also persist even when your empire switch ethics, or when a planet is conquered. So you'd have to deal with factions that have some power, can even rebel or ask support from other empires, and may not share the same goals as you do. As a result, the player would actually have to take decisions and make choices that wouldn't necessarily be in their own best interest, simply to avoid a situation where a faction would rebel or get too much power... or on the contrary, they may want to displease a faction on purpose, hoping their they would take power and orient their empire in a different way (like letting a Spiritualist Great House take power in a Authoritarian/militarist empire so they can more easily get unity and aim for psionics).

 

[Blackadder23]

Sorry, but no...
I play every game with an espionage focus including subterfuge tradition and i'm sure to know how and when to use it. And that what i want to do with it is impossible. I.e. breaking federations, manipulate ethics, start wars destroy buildings and fleets

It boggles my mind that you think it's reasonable that espionage operations be able to destroy fleets. That's far beyond anything that espionage is actually useful for in the real world. Not to mention that players (including, I would wager, you) would lose their minds the first time an AI player did that to them.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

It boggles my mind that you think it's reasonable that espionage operations be able to destroy fleets. That's far beyond anything that espionage is actually useful for in the real world. Not to mention that players (including, I would wager, you) would lose their minds the first time an AI player did that to them.

Here's one historical account of precisely this happening:

Finally he reached Carthaginiensis, where his fleet, docked at Portus Illicitanus (near Elche), was destroyed by traitors paid by the Vandals:

While Majorian was campaigning in the province of Carthaginiensis the Vandals destroyed, through traitors, several ships that he was preparing for himself for a crossing against the Vandals from the shore of Carthaginiensis. Majorian, frustrated in this manner from his intention, returned to Italy.
— Hydatius, Chronicle, 200, s.a. 460.

Majorian, deprived of the fleet that was necessary for the invasion, cancelled the attack on the Vandals. He received the ambassadors of Genseric, with whom he agreed to conclude peace, which probably included the recognition of the de facto occupation of Mauretania by the Vandals

I will admit, I got this from Wikipedia, lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian

 

[exi123]

One of the main things I'm unsure about is how to have "interest groups" ask for things that actually make sense and aren't annoying.

Say there's an "Agrarian" IG that consists of the farmers from a number of different planets, it's unclear to me what they could actually pressure for. More farms? I guess Farming Subsidies makes sense, but that's just one thing. Enforcers could be part of a "Law & Order" IG, but again... what could they even ask for other than more jobs of their type? Or low Crime, which is already trivially easy, and if you already have a Law & Order IG you probably have really low crime already from the Enforcers.

It's not clear to me that there's actually much for Interest Groups to actually ask the player to do, so I'm not really sure how to solve that problem.

You are looking very one sided to this. I would say that these groups want to achieve something totally different. Edicts for more production should cause massive problems with your population working that sector. Nutritional plentitude on the other hand is in favour, it lays more weight and importance to their interesests and gives more political power to those producing food.

Thinking further, depending on your empire type, there should also be the will to automate and enslave, leveling normal pops with political power up to better jobs (I stil cant believe that there are no rights which forbid my decadent species to work as workers).

 

[Blackadder23]

Here's one historical account of precisely this happening:



I will admit, I got this from Wikipedia, lmao. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majorian

I'm dubious about the veracity of that tale, but it may be true. It is worth noting that the Vandals themselves had a powerful navy and land army that they regularly used, so they're not a very good example of the type of nation A2ch0n has expressed a desire to play in other threads (i.e., sitting back and winning the game through espionage and sabotage). In fact, the most effective intelligence agencies basically always belong to the nations with the most military power, demonstrating that espionage is a luxury for the already powerful that (perhaps) enhances the effect of armies and navies, not a game changer for the militarily weak that lets them do without armies and navies. It's also worth noting that you had to dig up some dubious yarn from Late Antiquity, which tells me that they are no useful examples from the modern world (which more closely resembles the Stellaris environment) of fleets being destroyed through espionage operations.

None of which changes the fact that the player base would go berserk if the AI players started destroying their fleets with espionage. This is the exact reason that espionage in games is either trivial or obnoxious, and why many people (including myself) were opposed to it being added to Stellaris in the first place. Thankfully the devs opted for trivial over the obnoxiousness of constantly exploding starbases and buildings, but it would have been better to skip it altogether IMO.

 

[Call Me Vandal]

It's also worth noting that you had to dig up some dubious yarn from Late Antiquity, which tells me that they are no useful examples from the modern world (which more closely resembles the Stellaris environment) of fleets being destroyed through espionage operations.

On July 30, 1916, German agents set fire to a complex of warehouses and ships to halt the movement of supplies to Europe. The explosion rocked New York City, windows shattered in downtown Manhattan and the noise was heard as far away as Maryland. The property damage was estimated at $20 million (around $377 million today).
...
One of the most successful SOE stings was Operation Jaywick where agents disguised as Malay fisherman snuck into Singapore Harbour and sunk 30,000 tons of Japanese shipping.

https://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/feature/wartime-acts-of-sabotage/

Granted, neither of the above examples are of entire warfleets being sunk, but they illustrate that it's more than possible for multiple ships to be damaged or destroyed through clandestine operations. I won't comment on the rest of your post, because I don't have any opinions there, but it seems to me that if an interstellar civilization with advanced espionage capabilities decided that it really wanted to sink a fleet, then with enough time and preparation, it would succeed.

 

[methegrate]

I dislike that influence is both your national and international currency.

Tbh, it's not great that influence is the go-to currency for pretty much the whole game. Influence is the one resource that you can't farm with pops and jobs. Since the economy is so wildly out of balance, that makes it the only resource that's actually worth anything.

Instead of constantly putting more strain on influence, they just need to fix the economy. Once other resources are actually scarce enough to matter, then you can have things cost unity, trade, energy, etc.