@NotCaligula I have one suggestion for this quest: can you add the winning plan to the top of the update in a spoiler bracket so that we can have a quick overview of the last vote? It'd help keep the project flow summarized and help readers who don't read the discussions in between keep up.
Sure, I'll start doing that from here on out. Will eventually go edit the old votes onto the already posted pages, but am currently still very busy this week.
That whole description is very yikes.
If we want to be different from the Imperium, then vote to take a different approach from the Imperium, is my bottom line.
I don't want to specifically encourage any sorts of voting, but you will still have the choice to try and do diplomacy and trade with liberation chosen. There are also plenty of cases in 30k of relatively justified cases of conquest, mostly when there's a severe case of chaos corruption tbh. The Imperium being a horrific nightmare state in multiple regards still probably helped planets like Barbaras plenty, even if that did end up rather terribly in the end in that case.
I did end up editing to Negotiation because it is what I want our first recourse to be, albeit with gigantic looming fleets to compel jackasses to open up to us, but the QM did explicitly say we have flexibility, and aren't just describing what our polity will always do.
This vote and discussion has been frustrating on the grounds of I'm not sure what Liberation vs Negotiation vs Economic actually does, in mechanical terms, given we still have flexibility.
Mostly buffs to faction influence as that will start to be a new mechanic starting next turn, and buffs to said actions to negotiate, go to war or trade. It will have narrative weight to it regardless as that would in narrative be the council agreeing to a specific policy to foreign entities going forward, but it won't force to always go to war or the like.
And here is some of my frustration with the current options Centralization vs Decentralization. They seem too extreme and both bad.
Centralization seems like Rome, with 'provinces' rather than member states, requiring 'trusted heads to manage the whole mess'. Aka governors of regions and ministries picked by central entity. Even though we're trying to be a democracy?
Decentralization seems like Holy Roman Empire, says we're not expected to even invest in our member states, and they have direct autonomy over their actions.
I want something like the ideal of the USA (not trying to get political just examples here), member states that can make their own laws and govern themselves, subject to federal oversight and guarantees of human rights from the (democratically amalgamated) central authority. Lots of taxes invested all around, no 'core' and 'outer' territory (again ideally, ideally).
Is that Centralized or Decentralized according to this paradigm? Because seems like could be argued as either of the options.
The rights is a big thing for my vote, I don't want any citizens under PR01's umbrella to lack human rights. I think that would lead our lovable ShipGod to the shitty and tragic logic 'need to accept oppressive feudal behavior from member state for now'. But I could be strawmanning too. (Edit: this tips me over to Centralized barring further clarification)
While some of the ministries might be run from Cantara and have influence over events going down on other planets, under centralization it is assumed that most governors of planets will still be local, either selected by the people of that planet or appointed from among loyal compradors on that planet during a period of occupation.
Under decentralization you will still be able to invest in your constituent members as you so choose, but you'll have less influence on how that Capital will be spent and while you can jockey for specific policies to be taken by their governments they will still have a far greater ability to resist political change.
Getting to a figurative "USA stage of equal-ish development" is possible under decentralization but will require significant amounts of backroom political fuckery to get constituent states agreeing on general policy. Certainly not impossible but the cost of a decentralized government that is reasonably united is that you'll be having to manage a whole lots of folks with very divergent beliefs and intents, and trying to keep them from stepping on each others toes.
There will likely remain a de facto situation of core and periphery within your new polity regardless as you expand either decentralized or centralized, as more developed worlds are going to have much more weight behind them than small colonies. It is a situation you might resolve somewhat with greater funding and effort in either case later on but it will be a present problem for quite the while.
We can still become worshiped with RS but it will take longer and not be as intense, right?
The Cantarans will probably still worship you as a new member of their pantheons yes, but the realmers aren't likely to make that a core part of their syncretized beliefs. If other faiths start worshiping PR-01 for whatever reason it might become more commonplace especially as time goes on, but their current DAOT priesthood and those they've influenced are very unlikely to start worshiping the ship, even if they do start picking up on more animistic views.