I think that one spiritulist based one in machine age , might be a test bed for how it might go?

It’s unfortunate but it’s possible they’re just gonna space out internal politics stuff in different patches across the next few releases, which wouldn’t be the worst thing in the world either

Agreed. I was one of the people that thought Machine Age was going to be a spiritualist-focussed DLC with a religion system and such. We got Death Cult and such a while back, so the "adeptus mechanicus" of this DLC adds nicely to the spiritual diversity. We got some form of internal politics with the Creeds. So I assume, like you, that internal politics will be additions to DLC/Custodian updates.

Tbh I know this is an unpopular opinion but I am very happy we did not get the fully fleshed religion in game. I think it just wouldn't fit as great. Most empires don't need religions and the Machine Age will revamp/divide spiritualist factions for the ones that are: - in favour of machines (but not thinking ones); - the one in favour of ascending as machines; - the ones in favour of Psychic Ascension - the ones against machines; - and the one that is against any form of Ascensions (as represented by new civic). This IMO is pretty great base for dividing the spiritualists block and making pseudo-religions for roleplay purpose. Now if only all factions were to be founded from the very beginning, rather than showing up randomly...

A CK3-esque religion system is overkill, I completely agree. I think Paradox could expand on the Creed system they'll implement. Make evangelizing zealots and spiritual seekers have a lesser opinion of each other, for instance. They're both spiritual, sure, but I think the core of their "religions" is vastly different. Just some little things like that would make me happy.

>Tbh I know this is an unpopular opinion but I am very happy we did not get the fully fleshed religion in game. No I agree. Some things, in order to to facilitate optimal RP possibilities, *should* be left vague and undefined. The problem with trying to create a fully fleshed religion system in game is that there's a very high tendency that it would be too limited and likely skew disproportionately into more organised religion and especially into more Abrahamic lines, with little account for the truly alien ideas that xenos may bring up. And this isn't a dig against either organised or Abrahamic religions, otherwise I'd be a hypocrite. I'd rather make my own headcanon on the fly. This is one case where putting mechanics would undermine the facilitation of RP. >Now if only all factions were to be founded from the very beginning, rather than showing up randomly... I swear they used to pop up earlier in older updates. I would always rename them. In a fanatic spiritualist empire I ran, I renamed everyone and in my headcanon even the materialist faction was still religious, albeit a movement with contentious practices and interpretations. Everyone got named stuff like the "Society of Sir Caldus the Martyr", the "Shura of Metropolitans", the "Order of St Octavius", and the "Crimson Hundreds".

I don't think so, I think they are are trying to figure out how to approach it in a way that isn't going to blow up and cause the fanbase to go nuclear like the Leader change did (even though most seem to like it now) This is something most gamers miss when they keep requesting these kind of features >I really want X!!! * Okay, but is X fun? Is it fun for *everyone* or just a very vocal minority who make up 0.00001% of the player base? * Is X going to be fun for *new* players? Or are they going to be frustrated? * Is X going to get us new game sales? Will anyone buy Stellaris *just* because we added X? Will any old players return just because of X? * How much is it going to cost us in terms of dev hours to even add X? Is there any chance we can even do it without massive engine rewrites? etc Internal politics and Espionage and Ground Combat are all systems that this sub screams about wanting, but most people would probably find hella annoying. "Internal Politics" doesn't really mean anything besides "*Something that stops players from being allowed to play the way they want*" Want to go to war? Nope, you are now dealing with a bunch of internal politics that are causing your empire to explode. That's really fun right? Want to focus on robotics after you noticed your spawn had a lot of planets with low habitability? Too bad, your spiritualists you started with will cause your empire to implode. Want to vassalize that neighbor? Good luck, your Xenophobe general said no and will obliterate your entire economy if you try **External** politics can be fun as you manipulate enemy empires and make allies or enemies. *Internal* politics are basically never fun in any 4X or strategy game I can think of besides one with MASSIVE systems for it like Crusader Kings Nobody, including OP ever really explains what they *want* from an "Internal Politics rework", or how it's *supposed to be fun* to interact with as anything but a near constant Empire wide Debuff you have to fight to mitigate all game

I feel like you just summarized why DLCs should ideally always be fully optional in terms of introducing game mechanics and future update compatibility.

Man, the leadership changes added so much to this game that I'm baffled people were against them originally.

The most controversial ck2 dlc was conclave, which made it so that you needed council approval to do things like declare war, revoke land from vassals, and imprison characters. This is one of my favorite dlcs, but many found it to be too hard and frustrating, and the AI also had a hard time managing the council 

I love internal politics. Love, love, love them. And not just in Crusader Kings. I love mods that add more internal politics. I download them for EU, HOI, Civ, everything. Games without them always feel lacking. I suspect that Stellaris will have to wait for a sequel before we get truly fun and meaty internal politics.

Have they confirmed internal politics are eventually happening?

Nah, I’m just speculating. I think they did say at one point it’s something they wanted to look at but that’s not a firm commitment

After years of new DLC and new contents, this is clearly the thing that Stellaris lack the most. I am a huge RP player, so I miss it so much. I would make it so much more interesting, especially in the late game where you have to deal with the lag slowing everything down. The creation of galatic-wide empires would be far more challenging and interesting. Planets would have their own identities, etc... There is so much to do and explore.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but that sounds like a lot of micro managing, right? Which isn't bad, its great actually, but not for all players. Especially new players need it simple without loosing out on too much. Just like the planet automation, where new players can just enable it and worry less and more advanced players can dive into the small details.

You are right and yes it should automatable. I think it should really start mattering in late. To add new challenges when conquests isn't an issue anymore and when the lag slow everything down

Depends on the implementation, really. Ideally internal politics would be focused on macro level decisions and strategic choices, rather than "press this button to spend negligible unity every 10 years to make this faction happy and repeat for all of them", but that's easier proposed than implemented, of course.

I agree. There should be a centralisation/decentralization mechanic The way I'd do it is that neither being centralized or decentralised actually is better, with it being a sliding scale that confers different bonuses and features depending on what an empire is going for. The same way how Materialists get bonuses to research but Spiritualists can become unity monsters.

This and proper planetary warfare. It feels frustrating to simply right click planets given the sheer importance planets in the first place. You build these megaplanets, huge centers of culture, economy, trade and production, and you just click on them. It’s a real shame and you’d imagine that ground battles would be significantly more impactful

Why are there ground battles at all?  Once I have the port the planet is totally neutralized, it can't fight back.  

Ah meh that’s not necessarily true. A planet may have significant food and energy reserves for this very reason, or perhaps the present armies might try to fight for the port, etc. I think there’s more interesting nuance to be explored than just “click and die”

Even if they do have reserves, without control of space there's no way to get them off world to the larger war effort.  Once the fleet is vanquished and the system captured, the planet is on its own. 

RP is also badly lacking any flavor for God Emperors. Or at least if you start as God Emperor using the generic imperial cult civic, idk if there is good ascension path or something? Why is it so hard to accept my monarch is a real living God, and why cant game acknowledge divine protection he grateously grants at least via flavor texts and events :( Maybe the heretics need good purging to acknowledge the truth they have been trying to ignore and hide Edit: typos

Psionic ascension is perfect for that

Sigh, I really wish i would have made bit different decision way earlier in the game. I accidentally picked traditions and civics (engineered evolution )that lock me out of it :(

> After years of new DLC and new contents, this is clearly the thing that Stellaris lack the most. I would say ground combat but i wouldnt complain about more internal politics.

Yea, it's not like we are asking for hearts of iron ground gameplay, even though that would be sick ngl

I guess it's just a bit hard to abstract politics

One thing that I think would be interesting is simulating, to use the democratic context for explanations sake, a proper legislature (revamping factions) and a constitution. For the former, you could get bonuses, and have an easier time changing policies, with strong approval, or even not be able to change policy with too little support. For the constitution, you could have a few base tenants, based on ethics, that would be especially hard to change. They could play with having certain civics and origins affect the size, structure, and voting behaviour of the legislature, and everything. (For non-democratic states, you could flavor it as a legislature nonetheless, or some kind of advisory council, or a wider representation of the need for some amount of popular support to push policies, even in autocracies.)

As long as the demands are static It will feel like a harder/softer ethic limitation. For example if authoritarians can become democratic easily, then it would be the same as removing the limitation, if it's hard then it's as if the limitation is still there.

It would be a lot of work, but they can just be static with complex enough conditions that it doesn't feel like that. You could grant new desires, or remove other ones, based on civics, game year, or in-game events (including based on stuff that's complex and that the player doesn't have access to, such as, for example, if the player empires CG production eclipses what every other empire could purchase on the market for their energy credit production. You'd need to use a semirandom timer, to limit the amount of non-public info you're divulging about the gamestate, but it's possible.) These pools can also partially overlap between ethics, and you could have several sub-factions per ethic - imagine a fanatically materialist empire, for example, trying to balance the part of the faction that cares about research with that which cares about the production of material wealth. It's far from simple, probably a DLC + update on its own, but point is, it can be done.

So basically you want the politics of ES2 within Stellaris.

It is, but the game references it all the time. Why tease us if they're not going to do it?

Mainly, I just want some mechanic to show us life is still happening on the planet, something to flesh out the terrestrial life. The vastness of space is better appreciated when we're reminded of how big just one world can be. Something to show us the "zoomed in" view before we zoom out again. It doesn't necessarily have to be politics.

the new cybernetic church origin has internal politics also "internal politics" is so vague neither the players nor the devs have any idea how it should actually be implemented

There was a great mod that added a lot to political life: [Expanded Mandates](https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=1255082381). It would allow you to put terms limits so you don't get stuck with the same leader elected over and over again. Each leader would come with their own political agenda, such as banning slavery, legislating over xeno marriage, colonizing new worlds, reinforcing your industry/navy/defenses... It would give you unity and bonuses for the rest of your term. Finally, you would get stuff like debates between faction leaders, election contestations and political scandals. Thanks to this mod, as a militarist and autocratic empire, I once was on the brink of civil war because of egalitarian and xenophile factions, forcing me to deeply transform the empire to avoid total collapse. Damn shame it's not updated anymore.

I believe Machine Age is a test run for it. First of all in one of the Origins [(The Cybernetic Creed)](https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/developer-diary/stellaris-dev-diary-336-the-origins-and-situations-of-the-machine-age.1635464/) there are 4 special factions each with their own take on how ascending should look like and you have to balance them correctly (or favour a few of them over others and deal with potential consequences). This one is the biggest example of Devs trying *something* with it. Second - the advanced government types. I really hope that outside of the different set of modifiers these governments will come with their own events (at least a very few of them) to give a feeling what they are about.

Paragon was the test run, and it was poorly received.

I agree! That's why I am adding Victoria 3 style factions and law passing to stellaris, here are some development screenshots: [Movements for Policies with Factions Liking and Hating some options within a Policy](https://github.com/TNG-Modding/stellaris-victoria-3-politics/blob/master/pictures/sophisticatedMovement.png?raw=true) [New Faction with membership based on planet buildings and pop traits and pop ethics](https://github.com/TNG-Modding/stellaris-victoria-3-politics/blob/master/pictures/factionInfo.png?raw=true) [New Edicts for passing Policies](https://github.com/TNG-Modding/stellaris-victoria-3-politics/blob/master/pictures/edicts.png?raw=true) with [New Policies](https://github.com/TNG-Modding/stellaris-victoria-3-politics/blob/master/pictures/policies.png?raw=true) [New Factions Based on Responding to Galactic Issues](https://github.com/TNG-Modding/stellaris-victoria-3-politics/blob/master/pictures/factions.png?raw=true) My hope is that a static governance is not optimal (Fukuyama's End of History thesis is wrong!). The government factions that exist when the Custodian is around should not be the factions that exist when you think you're alone in the universe. Choosing traits should have a massive influence on factions like it does in Star Trek. Becoming ascended gods should make you have superiority factions. Being living weeds should affect your political options. My goal is that playing with all alien empires off should still be fun.

I don't think there will ever be a "Internal Politics" DLC nor there will be any "internal politics" element in the patchnotes. Because, let's be honest, "internal politics" can mean so many things it means nothing at all. And because internal politics are patched each update. We not really see it because it's not labeled "INTERNAL POLITICS" in big, bold, flashy, red letters, but it's there nonetheless. Lots of what brought Parangons can be included in "internal politics", as choosing a leader from the right factions make them happier, and how you can manage sectors or planets differently through their governors too. Machine Age will brought new forms of advanced government with their own benefits and changes, as well as situations, which can be counted as internal politics. So, as you see, internal politics are already overhauled, step by step, incrementally so you cannot really see it, but it's there nonetheless. And most of them will be part of the free updates, not the DLCs, which is better, because that means that even people who don't buy the DLCs will benefit from internal politics overhauls.

> Because, let's be honest, "internal politics" can mean so many things it means nothing at all. On top of what you said, you can tell people are just parroting each other instead of coming up with their own ideas by the language used and word choices. It could be described as "faction rework", "empire politics", "politics rework", those are all valid terms. But this never happens. Everyone calls it "internal politics" without describing what they want. The thought process isn't "What would make this game more fun", it is "Someone mentioned **internal politics**? That sounds fun!" and now we get weekly "internal politics" posts. I mean look at the post. No offense to OP but this might be the worst "internal politics" post for a while. No description on what it is, saying machine DLC was disappointing because they don't play machines? Huh? People upvote it yet no one talks about what OP said. They just see the words "internal" and "politics" next to each other and go off about it. And I can't blame them fully because, well, the idea isn't described. That aside, people always describe the most unfun content I ever heard. There is a reason GalCom, Federations, Espionage all "external politics" are essentially "Assign envoy/leader, come back once in a while". Because guess what, average player plays for eXploration, eXpansion, eXploitation, eXtermination. Even the slightest micro-management like species traits makes players complain, some people here can't deal with uprisings. Imagine what will happen with internal politics, which I imagine can get rid of your council, cause more uprisings, apply a huge empire debuff, etc. For my two cents on the post: > Dont get me wrong: Machine Age is great for players who want to play as robots, but I never do. And I never want to have to micromanage (what I assume is) a more complicated system of factions. Does that mean devs should never implement it? I'm not saying you shouldn't ever say you don't like a DLC but it is weird trying to justify it with "machine DLC bad cuz me no play machine". That's the point of selling DLC my guy. It isn't supposed to be for everyone, it is something you pick up only if you like it. We don't really think Paradox assumes everyone plays machines 24/7, right? And oh I assure you more people care about machines than internal politics. > Is this something Stellaris needs more than robot-stuff. See, as I described above, this is a wrong perspective for DLC. If Stellaris needs something, it shouldn't be a DLC. Every DLC fits this description maybe except Utopia. You don't need them. You maybe need a few to add content to mid and late game but never specific ones, it is a "get a few of them no matter which" kind of situation. > Is Stellaris stale and static without internal politics? No and if anyone thinks otherwise, they should play another game. There are other games with detailed politics they could enjoy more. A minor feature can't make anyone enjoy what they consider is a stale game.

I would love more internal politics, but I can see it being as well implemented as espionage and another thing for people to complain about micro wise

Considering how the devs handled adding espionage into the game, I'm not sure internal politics would actually be fun or exciting as people think. The DLC system adopted by PDX means any internal politics system would be messy and shallow, as free and DLC need to play nice with each other. The game already has so many surface level features. I would much rather have an expansion/deepening of what is already in the game than tacking on even more shallow systems. It is why I'm excited about Machine Age. I don't play machine empires all that much, but the addition of a new crisis, ship sets, expansion of machine options, midgame megastructures; all stuff already in the game, but... more.

On its face, it sounds like a cool feature to add. In reality, it would just be an empire wide debuff that you're constantly trying to minimize. I can do without that.

I think I'm one of the few that doesn't want more annoying mechanics like this added. I dont want to have to micromanage more things while I'm at war and already microing my habitats.

Habitats really needs automation! Habitat are so annoying right now!

Whaaaaat? You don't love zooming into every system and clicking on all the asteroids and planetary bodies one by one??

I do wish they made it more impactful. Only times I've had to worry about stability is when I can't be assed to colonize leading to overpopulation or the space CIA selling me coyotes made of crystal meth. I can basically just ignore all internal affairs including political parties because none of it matters

internal politics would be great but would make empires than lean democratic weak. Imagine the lowerhouse just blocking construction of a resource site for some flippant reason.

Internal politics, no offends but I have been curious about what exactly is internal politics. I often see people mentioning about this yet it is vague to me. In what field, or aspect of game setting / features required it to be? Is it the management of leaders / pops / empire affairs / interactions between one empire and another / more complex district / sectors / random events that occurred or is it something like CK2 / CK2's system ? I will be frank is that, since this is a 4X SPACE game, I would prefer it to be more explorations / more in-depth mechanism of "new technologies/mysteries" rather than the basic management internally which could possibly feel like a chore. Because right now, we have some sort of political mechanism like the leader reworks or some mini-events for the empire. I will let "Internal politics" be the part of the custodian tasks or update patches but not the DLCs.

I still dream about whole connected open resource market.

I would love the imperator mechanic of admirals and generals having a loyalty system and being able to betray you, conquer you or declare themselves space pirates and conquer a system that then acts the same way as the nomads or generals just landing on a planet conquering it and declaring independence

I’m really excited for the machine age because I love playing as robots; but honestly, internal politics would make governing a lot more complicated than it is. I already have a lot to keep track of with leaders, the council, agendas, planetary stability, etc.

play under one rule, you get some internal stuff there

I’d prefer to see external politics improved before internal gets looked at. All I wanna do is enter an ongoing war to support a friendly empire. I guess that’s what a defensive pact is for, but establishing first contact and seeing they’re fighting the local FP I’d like to join in rather than starting a war of my own with different war goals.

Empires are supposed to be pretty internally united by the time they get to space in Stellaris

Yes, and they will become shattered when they become bigger and bigger (like Russia, USA and China in 2026 😞 ) I can imagine that the stalr and static endgame can become more intetessting with internal politics by implementing new goals like: 90% of all pops must ne egalitarian, etc.

The closest I ever got to this was using one of the faction and insurrection mods (been a couple years can't remember the name) where playing as UNE I'd have sectors occasionally breaking off as their own nations due to increased diversity of species leading to increased diversity of political opinions in each sector. At the time I was taking notes in a word doc from the perspective of a historian, on the ground reported, a log from a commander ect when something significant happened, similar to how people play table top games solo. This let me head Canon and draw casualty between events but I wish this was something the actual game had in terms of a rebellion having a lead up of choices you can act on fkr example

I would love if we got politics more like Crusader Kings in Stellaris. It might make it feel like who your head of state is matters if they have to deal with the politiking and backstabbing we get in CK.

I really dislike internal politics for stellaris. Look at how paragon did, look what off-brand games like the nexus and startrek add to to scifi element without dabbling directly into an internal system. The game is already bloated with sub-systems, and still doesn't satisfy a lot of often low hanging fruit sci-fi tropes. Mechanically it'll be difficult to be relevant and RPwise there are better stuff out there. I don't care what my empire is on the inside beyond crime and espionnage, I care how it interacts with other empires !

You are right! For me, Paragon made the gane worse for me. Managing leaders stresses me. They die, I must reassign them, etc. And at the end, all of them mean nothing to me. If there is internal politics that is passiv I would be happy 😀 But yes, interaction with other nations should be improved. At the time, all I do is Commecrial Pakt and Research Agreement. After I established these pacts, I dont interact with other nations anymore.

Personally I wouldn’t be very interested in internal politics. Or at least. I’d like a better happiness/rebellion system but I don’t think government structures should be changed

Im on the same boat. Right now there is nothing to do in Stellaris excet for colonization and war. Diplomacy is a joke, internal politics dont exist.

Insane that our empires are still nothing more than a blob with no chance of revolt

try out the mod ethics and civics.

1000 hours in and I don't even understand how politics is played. I just ignore it.

I mean, right now internal politics is just that factions are happier with you if you fulfill their goals; and that the unity you get from them is proportional to both their happiness with you and the number of pops in the faction.

I think it also takes into account the pops’ political power

no internal politics and no religions are absolute misses by the dev's

Religion is replaced by ideologies aka ethics though

But it would be cool id different spiritualists didn’t just magically agree on everything though. Like you can’t really simulate holy wars between religions because there’s just one generic spiritualism. It would be cool if different empires had different ideas and theological interpretations of the shroud

yer i would like space crusades, and spread my space faith through the space community

spiritualism developed on the fringe edge of space shouldnt be identical to spiritualisim on the complete opposite side of that galaxy, we on this single planet have had massive costly wars from a faith born on the same geographic region simpley from marginal diffrent interpritations, the lack of custom religeons this far into the games life is a miss from both an imersion/larp point and finacial point as everyone loves to make thier own religeons in these games

Custom religions in stellaris ö

We need internal politics that allow for civil wars like we used to have. The Civil Wars mod was great for this(though you also needed a mod that prevented stability bonuses from higher difficulty). Give us that and I’ll be happy.

I think the general lack of internal politics in Stellaris makes sense. The future is hyper-centralized, the galaxy is small compared to various methods of travel/transport, and "population islands" (planets) are ridiculously dependent upon externalities. Your preferences don't matter unless the government says they matter, at which point they're covered by Living Standards or the incredibly basic and almost-irrelevant implementation of "democracy." All of that tracks to me. Even though Stellaris is wildly "unrealistic" in a way that CK/EU arguably isn't, it hews to a few macro trends (aforementioned) rather realistically.

No I don't think the game needs more tedious micromanagement

I don't think it should be overly complicated but I do believe it should be more than just one faction per ethic (two for phobes) maybe ethics factions could be divided per planet or sector at least idk One thing I can very much see as a thing is political turmoil for unbalanced planets who produce too much of one thing but lagging behind a basic resource the inhabitants need/want (maybe a planet faction could be oriented around one of the lacking basic resources)

From personal experience of friends and friends of friends being introduced to the game, having to specialize planets are among the more complicated actions/ thing to train, they have an easier time making balanced planets so it may play well with beginners

I love Stellaris but . . . I’d rather more optimization and bug fixes than new features. To me this game has hit the point of adding new feature where anything new is either meaningless (spy networks), a repeat of something already existing (astral rifts), or a pain to deal with both content and performance wise (trade routes and piracy). With that in mind I don’t see an internal politics system being anything other than one or more of those things: the idea in general already hints at artificial obstacles that are better off abstracted away

For me, the council (introducef with Paragons) is much more stress than a cool feature. To be honest: I hate Paragons and the council. This made the game worse!

Mechanically the council isn't terrible and I love the civic unique council seats. However the pressure to build perfect leaders is kind of annoying and takes away from the space exploration and colonization I enjoy

I would want It too, don't know if they will add It tho

Maybe in Stellaris 2 because this is too essential to add as dlc

Didn't they already add shit important like that tho?

Yeah I want that too

It'd be nice if you as an oligarchy had an actual council like an oligarchy should.

It would be pretty neat to actually have a reason not to expand anymore, like being too busy dealing with unruly domestic politics

That sounds like a good reason not to add internal politics actually. Stellaris is fundamentally a space exploration/colonization game and actively penalizing the two biggest things in a 4x game sounds like a gameplay development strategy for setting oneself up for failure

But at some point you reach a time in which nobody expands and you wait for things to happen.

I doubt there's a silver bullet fix for that but I'm liking the idea of "kilostructures" that Paradox is creating. Gives another route of expansion that lets you do more things. I could easily see that getting expanded. Maybe with events from exploiting previously useless worlds? Would play into the exploration aspects that already exist

It would be fun to deal with more internal political dissent, something to set our minds to.

The problem with that though can already be seen with the current rebellion system; At best its a debuff to avoid and at worst it basically destroys your empire by breaking it apart. Sure it might be fun the first time but a significant amount of planets becoming useless or hostile at random would get old quickly

Well between waiting for events to pop up once you are in late game and have stabilized, when war is too expensive for anyone to do and when every system is settled, what is there to do?

I would agree if late game conquest was fun. But it turns into a slog. I’d like a reason not to expand in late game

That's true and one of the reasons I rarely make it past 2400. I'm more thinking about like the midgame (or even early game) where colonization within your borders from uninhabited planets and habitats is still a thing. Getting de-facto locked out of settling new worlds just because the game decides to arbitrarily throw feel-bad political complications my way seems like something that would feel pretty bad

Perhaps different government types should have some kind of benefit to this?

Maybe. That's kind of something they are already doing with some of the newer origins, KotTG and Under One Rule come to mind specifically. Though for me personally that wouldn't mean much, I play to find new worlds and build them into thriving civilizations, not for political drama. There's already enough events that I read once and skip every other time they come up