I think I have an idea for market laws if you dont already have one. The closer you get to Laissez Faire the more possible sectors and less core systems you can have and the closer you get to Planned Economy would be inverse with possibly some other effects.

I think more religious policies would be great.
As example:
- State religion: AI-transcendece (no AI-mali for AI-citizenship etc, research bonus)
- State religion: Anciet Gods (maybe stronger units (fanatics), research mali (conservatism)
- State religion: Animism (+growth/opinion, lesser minerals/research)

For the foreign policy there could be too a "Imperialism" one. (+military, everyone hates you)

I suggest to add a gradual change of military doctrine land army and space one else i min max and kill them all by setting swarm for build up and just before a decisive battle set on elite and then my swarm get awesome buff for cheap. For the space and land warfare.

Originally posted by Platonov:

I suggest to add a gradual change of military doctrine land army and space one else i min max and kill them all by setting swarm for build up and just before a decisive battle set on elite and then my swarm get awesome buff for cheap. For the space and land warfare.

It's true, and I had that at first but the game was acting very strange and forced everyone to begin with Swarm as default. This was the tradeoff until I figure out why the code was ignoring some other code.

Suggestion for diplomatic stance.
There should be two kind of externalist or globalist stances: a cooperative one and a supremacist one, one for the xenophiles and one for the non isolasionist xenophobes.

Instead of intergalactic globalism, which sounds odd (you know, global means planet scale), there should be Exceptionalism (non isolationist xenophobic) and Internationalism (xenophilic).

===Internationalism===
Requires:
-Not Xenophobic
Effects:
-Diplomacy Influence Cost = -25%
-Trust Growth = +10%
-Trade Attractiveness = +20%
-Migration Xeno Pull = +20%
-Xenophobia = -10%
-Pop Migration Speed = +15%
-Xenophiles Approve
-Materialists Approve
-Xenophobes Disapprove

===Exceptionalism===
Requires:
-Not Xenophilic
Effects:
-Xenophobia = +20%
-Statecraft Research Speed = +25%
-Country Border Growth = +10%
-Happiness from Alien Slavery = +10%
-Slaves hapiness = +10%
-Unrest -10
-Army Damage on Attack = +20%
-Xenophobes Approve
-Militarists aprove
-Xenophiles Disapprove
-Pacifists disaprove

Also, I suggest to delete the Country Border Growth = 10% from the Isolationist stance (which is transferred to Exceptionalism) because it makes more sense (to me at least).

Edit: Also suggest that the isolationist stance has an aproval boost for pacifists.

Also, I suggest the addition of an aditional autoritarian trade stance: Autocracy which would be the complete shut down to foreign products, like XIX c. Japan.

So since the ethics change, dare I say that the economic policy choices should not effect citizen or faction happiness? Why? Because they are now generally neutral on the left v right spectrum. Or at least more neutral than before.

It made sense for collectivists to like a centralized and socialized economy, while the individualists liking an open market. At least according to the way their discriptions made them out to be. But now, egalitarains and authoritarians can be completely right, left, or neutral on the economic spectrum. Idonno, just a thought. Maybe give more options, like non authoritarain left systems, and authoritarain rightist systems, or maybe just not pin them on faction happiness. Just a thought.

A lot of the 'balanced' modifiers I notice seem to be greatly inferior to their counterparts on either extreme, mostly because of a lack of growing negatives on those extremes that would make a point inbetween those extremes a good third option.

Isolationism versus globalism for example should probably carry over a debuff to military stations on the globalism side of things to make a balanced approach not a terrible idea.

Suggestions:
Religious Policy should also add +Materialistic to Atheist and -Materialistic to Pluralism and Moralism

Intergalactic Commerce is only buffs, making Balance useless(unless there are hidden buffs, the policies list in the discussions seem to be outdated)
Suggested negative modifiers: -Governing Ethics Attraction -Monthly Unity -Monthly Influence -Minus relations to xenophobes

Laissez Faire
+Egalitarian Ethics Attraction
+10% Monthly Credits
+10% Consumer Goods Cost (negative, this is because no more gov't subsidies)

Interventionism
+5% Monthly Credits
+5% Consumer Goods Cost (negative, this is because less gov't subsidies)


Mixed Economy
No Effect

State Capitalism
+5% Monthly Credits
-5% Consumer Goods Cost (positive, this is because more gov't subsidies)
-10% Monthly Influence
-5% Happiness


Planned Economy
+Authoritarian Ethics Attraction
+10% Monthly Credits
-10% Consumer Goods Cost (positive, this is because more gov't subsidies)
-15% Monthly Influence
-5% Happiness

Originally posted by lyndonguitar:

Suggestions:
Religious Policy should also add +Materialistic to Atheist and -Materialistic to Pluralism and Moralism

Intergalactic Commerce is only buffs, making Balance useless(unless there are hidden buffs, the policies list in the discussions seem to be outdated)
Suggested negative modifiers: -Governing Ethics Attraction -Monthly Unity -Monthly Influence -Minus relations to xenophobes

Laissez Faire
+Egalitarian Ethics Attraction
+10% Monthly Credits
+10% Consumer Goods Cost (negative, this is because no more gov't subsidies)

Interventionism
+5% Monthly Credits
+5% Consumer Goods Cost (negative, this is because less gov't subsidies)


Mixed Economy
No Effect

State Capitalism
+5% Monthly Credits
-5% Consumer Goods Cost (positive, this is because more gov't subsidies)
-10% Monthly Influence
-5% Happiness


Planned Economy
+Authoritarian Ethics Attraction
+10% Monthly Credits
-10% Consumer Goods Cost (positive, this is because more gov't subsidies)
-15% Monthly Influence
-5% Happiness

Why would egalitarianism automatically mean free market capitalism, and authoritariansim be nationalized central comittie planning? When you read it, neither the egalitarian nor the authoritarian one even hits at being locked into a specific economic policy. You can have free market dictatorships, and wellfare state republics. Both should be viable options when "choice" is the theme of this whole thing.

Originally posted by Jalios:

Why would egalitarianism automatically mean free market capitalism, and authoritariansim be nationalized central comittie planning? When you read it, neither the egalitarian nor the authoritarian one even hits at being locked into a specific economic policy. You can have free market dictatorships, and wellfare state republics. Both should be viable options when "choice" is the theme of this whole thing.

setting the choices doesn't automatically change the ethos, it just makes them lean towards something.

Yes, Free Market doesn't mean egalitarian, but has similar principles(freedom). Let's say you have a dictatorship and set that option, it's a free market dictatorship, it's still possible, but don't expect that after years of doing that, people will not lean towards egalitarian values because if they are free in market, so why not be free in other aspects as well?

Yes wellfare state republic is still possible, but as said above. When you have a 'free' country but the economy is being controlled, then almost everything that involves money is controlled, that also means propaganda can be easily spread out, and prices will decrease because of subsidy. and the people will lean towards an authoritarian ethos.

Yes, choice is the theme, but ethos play a big part of your empire as well, and you also get to choose your ethos. Kinda like how you can slave or not, depending on your ethos. choice is the theme but that doesn't mean every choice can be chosen. and It's either you're an authoritarian, egalitarian or neither. so you'll always have at least 3 viable options available.

Another alternative effect is to give +Ethics Divergence(-Governing Ethics Attraction) to Free Market because free market means people are more open minded and the opposite to Planned Economy because people are controlled more.

Originally posted by lyndonguitar:

Originally posted by Jalios:

Why would egalitarianism automatically mean free market capitalism, and authoritariansim be nationalized central comittie planning? When you read it, neither the egalitarian nor the authoritarian one even hits at being locked into a specific economic policy. You can have free market dictatorships, and wellfare state republics. Both should be viable options when "choice" is the theme of this whole thing.

setting the choices doesn't automatically change the ethos, it just makes them lean towards something.

Yes, Free Market doesn't mean egalitarian, but has similar principles(freedom). Let's say you have a dictatorship and set that option, it's a free market dictatorship, it's still possible, but don't expect that after years of doing that, people will not lean towards egalitarian values because if they are free in market, so why not be free in other aspects as well?

Yes wellfare state republic is still possible, but as said above. When you have a 'free' country but the economy is being controlled, then almost everything that involves money is controlled, that also means propaganda can be easily spread out, and prices will decrease because of subsidy. and the people will lean towards an authoritarian ethos.

Yes, choice is the theme, but ethos play a big part of your empire as well, and you also get to choose your ethos. Kinda like how you can slave or not, depending on your ethos. choice is the theme but that doesn't mean every choice can be chosen. and It's either you're an authoritarian, egalitarian or neither. so you'll always have at least 3 viable options available.

Another alternative effect is to give +Ethics Divergence(-Governing Ethics Attraction) to Free Market because free market means people are more open minded and the opposite to Planned Economy because people are controlled more.

Lets take actual examples of what I think is "the four" posibilities with this.

Open Market Authoritarianism: The previous dictatorship of Cuba (before Castro) is a good example of this. Complete open market, actively protected by the dictatorship, and enforcing private property laws. And they fell because the hungry peseants wanted to not starve to death as much as they did, so they revolted. And thus, the communist Cuban faction took this to sway them to their side, and boom. Revolution.

Controlled Authoritarianism: Lets make this easy and say The Soviet Union. Clear and easy to see why both these fit that mold rather well.

Open Market Democracy: Easy. The United States. A free market capitalist state, where almost everyone can sell almost anything, to almost anyone. You can even sell medicine that has not been proven to do literally anything, as heart medication. I'm not kidding.

Controlled Democracy: Literally all nations within the Scandinavian region to this day are republics, who score higher on press freedom, freedom of speech, equal citizenry, and least corrpt states, than more open market republics like the United States. This does not make them authoritarian. They are literally "more free" by almost all measurable stanrards exept for market controlls of what products can and cannot be sold.

It's fine if you think that your fictive nations should act a certain way. No freaking problem there! Thats the whole point of this. All I am arguing is that there should be no need for an ethics shift, when literally none of the ethics present argue for any form of particular market policy. We have seen real world equivilants of mixes of all this, and tons more than the options listed in this mod.

Don't think there should be an ethics shift however there should be faction happiness modifiers

Originally posted by Recognizable:

Don't think there should be an ethics shift however there should be faction happiness modifiers

Not a bad idea at face value. Only one problem. We have real life egalitarians today, who could not hate the idea of lassies fair capitalism more, and real life authoritairans who thinks that the sole role of the governent is only to protect private property rights. If that is the case in our actual world... why should it not be allowed to be the same in "this one"? I honestly just think it limits how a person can fashon their ideas for their imagionary space empires.

Dont take this as hostile to your viewpoint by the way. Its not intended to be so in the slightest.

Some good discussion there, I'm leaning to avoid ethics shift as well as it has little to do with ethics.