Why The F*** Is There No NORMAL (Offensive) Alliance By Now (not Federation)?

[Lord Eddard Stark]

I don't understand Stellaris sometimes, and I'm not sure other players always understand the terminology surrounding alliances. People keep saying: "Oh yeah we had an alliance!" Now to me, that means offensively and defensively. In Stellaris, you can only formally make a Defensive Pact. Yet sometimes the AI acts like you're expected to go to war with it. ♥♥♥♥♥ no, I'm here for defensive purposes only, with no obligation to go on offensive actions at your behest. If I do, great, if not, you shouldn't be angry.

Yes, I know Federations are a thing, but that's entirely different in my book because you're mixing your sovereignty up. What I'm talking about is simple, old-fashioned, separated, offensive and defensive alliances. Think of how the Total War games do it, easy. Why doesn't Stellaris have this most basic feature of any game diplomacy? It would really clarify things sometimes and greatly enhance the game.

[Gnome Boy]

What are you talking about? Aliances help in defencive wars, for offencive wars you ask them to join. Its that easy.

[Dialask]

Mostly due to the whole "war goals" concept. Countries in this game really don't like going to war offensively without getting something in return, which is why you generally have to "bribe" other countries by promising that they will get systems/colonies out of it. On the plus side, you aren't limited to JUST alliance members in those sorts of wars, and I do think countries that like you might be a bit more likely to agree to join for less of a "bribe". Otherwise, in a true offensive/defensive alliance, the AI would want a vote as to whether or not there should be a war in the first place and, by that point, congratulations, you are in a Federation.

[VipreRX]

True, it could do with a military alliance feature. A step above a defense pact, a step below federation.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

True, it could do with a military alliance feature. A step above a defense pact, a step below federation.

There used to be one, it was removed because it was pointless. Now if you're friends with someone just enter a defensive pack with them and invite them to offensive wars, boom the exact same thing as an alliance.

[VipreRX]

Didn't know that was an option, thanks. The complaint is a lot clearer to me now.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Originally posted by VipreRX:

Didn't know that was an option, thanks. The complaint is a lot clearer to me now.

Sure, happy to help.

[GC13]

Originally posted by Fourthspartan56:

Originally posted by VipreRX:

True, it could do with a military alliance feature. A step above a defense pact, a step below federation.

There used to be one, it was removed because it was pointless.

It was actually merged with the federation. At launch the alliance option had the same unanimous consent required for offensive wars just like the federation does now, while old federations had a president who could unilaterally declare war without a vote; people despised the federation because they had no input on wars at all for a majority of the time if they were in a federation.

The current federation is a combination of the old alliance's war declaration system with the federation fleet.

[no one]

If I may politely say, by your definition I don't think Federations in this game are really Federations - no one loses control over anything (policies, migration, or otherwise), Federations in my experience are more of a space-NATO organization than they are a space-EU.

[Swagmaster Love 🇪🇺]

Redundant

You can invite others to a war.

[Cato]

Originally posted by Eugen Bold:

If I may politely say, by your definition I don't think Federations in this game are really Federations - no one loses control over anything (policies, migration, or otherwise), Federations in my experience are more of a space-NATO organization than they are a space-EU.

There is a bit of the EU in that

You Lose fleet capacity + you lose a bit of soverenty in that you cannot end the war if you are not the main attacker (correct me if Im wrong )

This means that if you then attacked by a third party you cannot end the first war to concentrate on the third party.

[Ninjasquirrel]

I think op is complaining that you shouldn't take a penalty to diplomatic relations for refusing to join them in an offensive war when you only signed a defensive pact.

[Cato]

Originally posted by Ninjasquirrel:

I think op is complaining that you shouldn't take a penalty to diplomatic relations for refusing to join them in an offensive war when you only signed a defensive pact.

Thats true Ive had a few offers from the AI when really I would have liked to say - can we wait 5 years Im rebuilding after the last war.

[VipreRX]

Something possibly to be addressed in the coming diplomacy updates.

Defensive and Full alliances are such basic concepts, each with their own obligations and penaties for breaking.

[Apeironic_Entelechy]

Originally posted by Cato:

Originally posted by Ninjasquirrel:

I think op is complaining that you shouldn't take a penalty to diplomatic relations for refusing to join them in an offensive war when you only signed a defensive pact.

Thats true Ive had a few offers from the AI when really I would have liked to say - can we wait 5 years Im rebuilding after the last war.

In Civilization 5 you can tell them to give you time to prepare, there should be an optional like that. So you're agreeing to do it but are waiting for x months to prepare.

Originally posted by VipreRX:

Something possibly to be addressed in the coming diplomacy updates.

Most likely this.

[no one]

Originally posted by Cato:

You Lose fleet capacity + you lose a bit of soverenty in that you cannot end the war if you are not the main attacker (correct me if Im wrong )

You are correct, that did not occur to me.