Do Federations Cost Energy to Maintain?

[CaptainChaos]

I think I a substantial drop in income from +15 to about the same negative and joining a federation was the only new thing I think I did.

Is there a maintenance penalty? And if so, is there a place I can see it? It's not showing up in the energy credit summary.

[Cato]

Yes It costs -15% :

"Members of a Federation have their Energy Credits.png Energy Output reduced by -15%. This tax doesn't apply to Energy Credits.png Energy generated from trade. " (from Stellaris Wiki page)

[CaptainChaos]

ahh must have missed that. wow, expensive. thanks!

[ScreamCon]

The federations fleet do not consume energy at least

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

The federations fleet do not consume energy at least

That's true, but it's sort of a raw deal for federations without a federation fleet. I'd rather see little or no cost to join, but then regular fleet maintenance costs for the federation fleet split among the members in some way (equally, or by fleet contribution, or whatever, preferably as options that the federation would choose from once a federation fleet was available).

[ScreamCon]

I think it's definitely a stat, or feature to be improved on in future. Just thinking of how the costs could be distributed gets my mind excited of the potential of exploiting federations to not have to pay cost lol.

Would be an aspect of diplomacy, could hurt not contributing fleets diplomaticly.

[ScreamCon]

Ya if I could, I would have a hedgemony, ramp the federation members taxation up until they go bankrupt energy wise. Since trade value from what I've heard is counted after tax. I could force as many empires into my federation, then force them to sell their resources for cheap on the market, hungry for energy. Of course this is on the idea that the % is changable. And that me myself don't have my energy coming from generator districts.

If the member doesn't sell resource, they would go negative on energy. Massively hurting their fleet power, further making me stronger in comparison vote wise inside the alliance.

Perhaps it would be good to make a change to how trade works if that turns out to be the case. Or maybe that would be seen as an advantage of having trade power. Gestalt empires would get destroyed inside alliances with determinable tax levels. Gestalt don't have trade.

So in conclusion of this thought experiment, then brings up another question, would federation fleet cost determine tax rate? Would the federation fleet get a penalty to strength if its relative cost to maintain ran out due to having a low tax rate, and huge number of fleet contributed? Or would it automatically scale % based on needed cost of all ships.

This could* lead to weak alliances possibly still getting destroyed economically from automatic scaling fleet tax. Though I do think would be a cool thing to watch. An enemy federation tries to compete with your federation but then its members get weaker and weaker lol.

[CaptainChaos]

It would have been nice if they warned me before I joined. Maybe I just missed it. I mean that's a HUGE tax. It's strange it's not listed in the energy credits breakdown AFAIK?

Speaking of which is there a screen that gives you an ultrabreakdown of your revenue and expense? I mean this game is SUPER intuitive with the UI, and the energy credit thingy is good on the top left, but for instance, I can't figure out where the "federation tax" came from.

Thanks again!

[Tiasmoon]

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

The federations fleet do not consume energy at least

That's true, but it's sort of a raw deal for federations without a federation fleet. I'd rather see little or no cost to join, but then regular fleet maintenance costs for the federation fleet split among the members in some way (equally, or by fleet contribution, or whatever, preferably as options that the federation would choose from once a federation fleet was available).

Federation fleets are unlocked real early tho. Having a zero upkeep fleet is incredibly strong and saves a lot more energy then you lose to the Federation.

Splitting upkeep for the Federation fleet would cause problems with huge energy upkeep for the smaller member states.

[ScreamCon]

I'm not sure about the energy use breakdown but if you mouse over your energy credits can see what profits expenses.

[CaptainChaos]

thanks I know but it's not totally complete. for instance, I don't see Federation in it and that takes more than anything I think. At least I'm not seeing it.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Having to pay for the fleet would be a much greater burden on the federation members though, since 3 small empires simply don't have the same economic output as a large empire of comparable size.

How "big" that fleets needs to be isn't determined by your economy after all, it's determined by the need to match the strength of whatever threat your federation is facing. The fleet being maintenance-free is the main reason these empires can field a fleet of adequate size without facing an economic problems.

A % energy fee on the other hand isn't a disproportional burden for a small empire. If you produce little, you pay little.

Of course if there's no need for a fleet this point is moot, but federations are often a defensive tool that forms to provide security against a threat. So that defensive function must be there, and having to actually pay for the fleet would heavily diminish its effect.

This is psychobabble. The implication is that in order for a federation to be of benefit one must be getting access to a federation fleet whose maintenance cost is greater than the sum of the energy costs paid for membership by its members. There is no question that those situations are a great deal for everyone involved - because they are effectively getting something for nothing - but my comment was directed specifically at those federations who do not receive that benefit.

As it stands now, you pay the same for membership in a federation that has no federation fleet as you pay to belong in a federation with the ability to have a federation fleet but which has not built one as you pay to belong in a federation with a federation fleet at full capacity. It is clearly disproportionate for a small empire to pay 15% of its energy income for no federation fleet to protect it when some other small empire might be paying 15% of its energy income to gain access to a federation fleet.

Also, this isn't a question of how big a fleet is needed to protect a federation - again, because some federations don't have a federation fleet - but a question of how a federation with a fleet should pay for it. As it stands now, no one pays to maintain it. That creates a dramatic disparity between federations with and without a federation fleet, and it is that disparity that I feel should be addressed. My suggested solution could include options for payment that would be proportional to empire size, so that small empires would have options for avoiding excessive burden when they find themselves in a federation with larger members.

[Elitewrecker PT]

There are other passive benefits from the federation other than a fed fleet though.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

Ya if I could, I would have a hedgemony, ramp the federation members taxation up until they go bankrupt energy wise.

Originally posted by ScreamCon:

This could* lead to weak alliances possibly still getting destroyed economically from automatic scaling fleet tax. Though I do think would be a cool thing to watch.

It's up to you to decide what you consider cool to watch, but I doubt anyone in that federation would consider it cool to participate in. There is already a system in place for forcing an empire into subjugation that places a heavy economic burden on them for your benefit, and it is not hegemony. Even an hegemony wants its members to be strong (though each member probably wants the others to be just a little weaker than itself, of course).

You do bring up a good point, which is that there could arise situations where an empire is forced into paying more for federation fleet maintenance than they can afford. However, I will point out that it is currently possible for an empire to be caught in a situation where they can't afford the current flat 15% energy fee for membership but also can't "afford" to be without the protection that federation membership provides. If membership costs reflected federation fleet upkeep then at least an empire wouldn't be caught in a situation where they can't afford to pay but also aren't getting a federation fleet's protection either (which is currently possible).

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by Elitewrecker PT:

There are other passive benefits from the federation other than a fed fleet though.

That's true, and if the 15% energy cost is intended to pay for those benefits then the federation fleet is free, which as I said is a problem. If it is intended to pay for both the benefits and the fleet, then again there is a problem because some federations don't have a fleet but are paying as much (proportionally) as a hypothetically identical federation with a fleet.

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Maybe you should pay more attention to the words that you put on paper. In your original post, there's not as much as a hint that would point at the idea that you were talking about additional options.

It isn't a long post, but maybe you missed it. Emphasis added to make it easier to spot:

Originally posted by tempest.of.emptiness:

That's true, but it's sort of a raw deal for federations without a federation fleet. I'd rather see little or no cost to join, but then regular fleet maintenance costs for the federation fleet split among the members in some way (equally, or by fleet contribution, or whatever, preferably as options that the federation would choose from once a federation fleet was available).

To be fair though, I'm talking about options for how to pay for the fleet, not about the option of whether or not to pay for the fleet. I do think that every federation should have to pay for its federation fleet in some way, and a flat percentage of energy income that is also levied against federations without a federation fleet doesn't meet that condition.