• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #307 - Leader Experiments

Happy Thursday!

This week we’re looking at another of our Summer Experiments, though this one unfortunately didn’t work out as well as we had hoped.

Class-based leader limits.

Why are you looking at this?​

Galactic Paragons reintroduced a limit to the number of leaders you could recruit at one time, and while it was a soft cap that you could exceed, experience gains were reduced and once you hit twice the cap, all leader experience gain stopped. In subsequent patches, we relaxed some of the numbers and added more ways to increase the cap, but it’s still a rather unpopular system that could use some work.

Currently, the presence of a less valuable leader (like a General) takes up the same “space” as something like a Scientist or Admiral, which leads to some unsatisfying gameplay decisions.

I mentioned a few things we were planning on looking at back in Dev Diary #302, along with some of the issues we expected to run into.

So what did you try?​

During our experiments we added the ability to have individual leader caps by class, so that General mentioned above would use up General capacity, but Scientists would be governed by their own limit. “Over cap” effects would likewise be per-class, so if you had too many Admirals, their progression would slow, but other leader classes would be unaffected.

We also experimented with retaining “wild-card” capacity, so you could always get a few over before starting to run into penalties.

Why didn’t it work?​

This experiment largely failed due to UX issues. Stellaris isn’t always the easiest game to parse information from, but this turned out diabolically bad and difficult to fix.

The information transfer is made even harder by Envoys acting as their own “special version” that have their own capacity but behave entirely differently from all of the other leaders.

It says we have 1 leader out of 3, but we actually have 4 out of 5-8. Oh no.
1/1 Admirals, 0/1 Generals, 1/2 Scientists, 2/1 Governors, 0/3 Envoys (but actually 3 Envoys, 0 of which are being used), plus the Wildcards

This could possibly have been shown as something like 1/0/1/2 (+2) | (3), but that’s very confusing.

Five different leader types plus the wildcard was too difficult to explain clearly in the top bar (where the limited space is a major issue) and even in the expanded space available in tooltips.

After several variants and some UX design time, we deemed this variant a failure. We could have continued spending time refining this - but decided that we’d rather pursue a greater rework that we’re hoping to release alongside the 3.10 update. (Custodian initiatives do not generally have hard release dates - if it’s not ready by 3.10 freeze, it’ll move out to 3.11.)

I’ll go into full details after Caelum is released, but the quick summary involves consolidating the five leader classes down to three (Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists) and reworking how Envoys are used. (As they would be merged into the Diplomat class.)

Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists

Yes, we've had one, yes, but what about second leader rework?

Until then, we’re planning on making some adjustments to the over-cap formulas to reduce their negative effects until the greater rework is ready.

Tell us about Caelum then!​

Like the Stellaris 3.1 ‘Lem’ update, 3.9 ‘Caelum’ has a lot of general improvements scattered across a great number of game systems.

Common Ground and Hegemony are getting some improvements:
  • Your starting federation members no longer own your immediately neighboring systems, allowing both you and them some room for early expansion.
  • The Federation now starts with 0 Cohesion (instead of -100) and halfway to Level 2 (600 XP instead of 0 XP).
  • The requirements for the Origins have been relaxed to allow non-genocidal Hive-Minds and Machine Intelligences to take them. This also allows your AI federation members to occasionally spawn as Hive-Minds or Machine Intelligences.

Common Ground's Federation starting state

We also have some balance changes done for Archaeotechs:
  • Halved the energy upkeep of the Facility of Archaeostudies.
  • Added the Archaeotech Focus admiral trait, which grants increased damage and fire rate with Archaeotech weapons.
  • Decreased the research speed and draw weight for Archaeotech from the Expertise trait, but made it reduce the Minor Artifact cost for ship components.
  • The starting head of research for Remnants empires now has the Expertise: Archaeostudies trait.
  • The Archaeoengineers AP now reduces Minor Artifact cost for ship components by 10%
  • Increased the range of Macro Batteries by 50%.

Expertise: Archaeostudies
Archaeotech Focus

Next week…​

Here are some things that we’ll be talking about in the next few weeks:

Pixelated Collage of lots of tooltips that I figure you'll have deciphered by the end of the day.

We’ll reveal all of these, and more.

We’ll be starting with all the improvements to the Lithoids Species Pack, that are intended on bringing it up to the level of the others..

See you then!
 
  • 89Like
  • 22Love
  • 6
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
I think merging Generals and Admirals may actually be a bad idea.

Despite both being military leaders, they have very different uses. Army traits will be useless on fleets, and ship traits will be useless on armies.

I assume what will happen, based on being able to take planets from orbit now and Generals being generally (heh) a bit useless is that most of their effects will be removed, rather than diluting the admiral pool.
 
I still don't understand why there needs to be a leader cap in the first place. Supposedly it's because leaders are too powerful to be available in unlimited numbers, but given that other nations can also recruit leaders I don't see how that can be the case. If all players are buffed by an equal amount, how is that bad for balance?
 
  • 10Like
  • 6
  • 5
Reactions:
I still don't understand why there needs to be a leader cap in the first place. Supposedly it's because leaders are too powerful to be available in unlimited numbers, but given that other nations can also recruit leaders I don't see how that can be the case. If all players are buffed by an equal amount, how is that bad for balance?
Plus, leaders being stronger isn't even true. Councilors are stronger, but there's a hard cap on those separate from the leader cap. Admirals are stronger. Scientists (analysts) are stronger (so long as you don't get baited into taking the Explorer class which becomes useless 3 seconds after you pick it). Non-councilor governors are weaker, by a factor of 2-10 (depending on your empires's setup), since traits are 1.5-3x as strong as before, but they only affect a single planet instead of 5-20+. And generals are technically stronger (assuming you don't pick the bait defender class), but still ultimately irrelevant without exploits.

So out of the non-council classes, 3/8 are actually stronger than before.

Unless you're going super tall the result of the leader rework is that non-councilors have less total effect on your empire following the patch that expanded on leaders and was intended to make them more relevant. So the cap, as currently implemented, makes no sense.

It sounds like they're fixing the governor issue, though (they mentioned sector bonuses). What they've hinted at sounds like it may solve all my major complaints.

The leader cap will be much more palatable once the justification for it is actually true.
 
Last edited:
  • 8
  • 2Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
My God... Second leader rework? Envoys upgraded into leaders? ANY LEADER TYPE MAY GOVERN PLANETS?

I think I'm falling in love with stellaris and Custodian Team, again
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Planning any civic changes? I know a ton of adjustments were made in the last patch, so I'm sure some modifications have already come to mind after release.

(Anything on Letters of Marque in particular? I'd love to see some sort of raid mechanic with mercenaries.)
 
  • 1Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I don't understand the UI issues with indivdual caps; why would it matter when one can hire or dismiss leaders from a separate screen? With just an alert for being overcap it would be enough.

Also are traits giving resources out of thin going to be looked at?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Very happy about Hegemon / Common Ground getting a fix for spoilt spawns and cohesion starting from 0, hopefully will see more federations getting to level 4 / 5 and making use of some of those perks.

Thank you!
 
  • 4
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Governors will be part of the Diplomat class, but I've been experimenting with letting any of the three govern a planet or sector in different ways.
What do you think of the idea that a leader can do most or all jobs that any other leader can do, but normally it's best to match the class to the task? Maybe sending certain leaders to certain jobs may have certain consequences. Like sending a Commander to improve/harm relations may send a very different message than sending a diplomat filled with farming traits.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1
Reactions:
I’ll go into full details after Caelum is released, but the quick summary involves consolidating the five leader classes down to three (Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists) and reworking how Envoys are used. (As they would be merged into the Diplomat class.)

If you're going to consolidate leader classes, why not have just two: military and civilian?

Personally, I kinda liked the idea of individual leader class limits you outlined in this DD. The dropdown leader list didn't look bad to me.

Although overall, I have to say, as someone coming back to Stellaris after almost a year hiatus, I'm not a big fan of this new leader cap as it's currently implemented. The idea of having a galaxy spanning empire, and having only a handful of leaders seems silly when you actually think about it.

For example, in my current game I'm still in the early stages, and I just found my second planet. But I can't install a governor for that planet because I'll bust the soft cap limit. Its like saying, "Sorry citizens, but we cannot elect a governor for our planet at this time because we need an extra admiral to lead this fleet over here because were fighting a two front war".

I understand your desire to make individual leaders more meaningful, but caps like this just seem too arbitrary and don't make sense when you think about the fantasy of ruling a galactic spanning empire. Even in the context of one planet... you mean to say that out of millions, or billions of citizens on a planet, one person cannot be chosen to govern, and will bust the bank because the empire only allows 6 leaders for the entire government?

Have you thought about scaling leader caps with population, so the more pops you grow, the more leaders you can have as a base amount, further modified to specific leader classes by tech, traditions, or maybe even buildings?
 
  • 6
  • 5Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Governors will be part of the Diplomat class, but I've been experimenting with letting any of the three govern a planet or sector in different ways.
I 1000% hope this will become a thing. And if so, please allow my leader and/or heir to lead my glorious empire into bloody battle.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Very nice, but I'm still a bit unsure about the leader limit. It's needed to keep people from spamming tons of powerful leaders, but it just doesn't feel organic.

Naval Capacity? Sure, how many ships can our logistics manage.
Mineral Storage? Sure, how many minerals can we actually physically store.

But what does Leader Capacity represent? It seems arbitrary. Surely there must be a more natural way to keep leader limit small?
 
  • 8
  • 4Like
  • 4
Reactions:
I still don't understand why there needs to be a leader cap in the first place. Supposedly it's because leaders are too powerful to be available in unlimited numbers, but given that other nations can also recruit leaders I don't see how that can be the case. If all players are buffed by an equal amount, how is that bad for balance?

For the same reason Starcraft has a hard supply cap. Imposing restrictions to limit players forces them to think more and strategize differently. Post rework leaders are incredibly strong and having them uncapped would be way way too powerful and game's difficulty would become trivial as a result
 
  • 10
  • 8
Reactions:
Sorry citizens, but we cannot elect a governor for our planet at this time because we need an extra admiral to lead this fleet over here because were fighting a two front war".

From a role play perspective this is a big issue I have with the leader cap. Even from the start of the game we’re playing a unified world who have industrialised their home system. Why does my director for science need to captain a ship? Why is my minister of war personally leading fleets? We seriously couldn’t find anyone else in the billions of citizens to do those jobs?

As it scales it gets worse. No sci fi galactic empire operates on the basis only some of their fleets and planets will have leaders.
 
  • 10
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
Great changes ahead, looking forward to it!

Quick question regarding Scientists in the upcoming rework, what are your thoughts on the current requirement of one scientist per science vessel? That's probably the biggest leader bottleneck at the moment.
 
The limit for every type of leader is the best solution in my opinion. This was the first thought I had about that topic. Because it would at least give generals a chance. I don't really understand what is exactly the problem with the leader and UX. The strategic resources have exactly the same issue, it is red, and you have no idea why, until you do not point your mouse over it. You can a) Show overcup throw the different colors. Where red is for admirals, green for generals etc. and have envoys as a separate icon. You can show the cap for the currently most filled cap. There are a lot of ways to fix it, which would in my opinion be totally okay for the player.
 
  • 13
  • 1
Reactions:
what about the "ugly" empty leader spaces? lvl 0 leaders with no traits or even with some mini traits something you thought about?
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
I 1000% hope this will become a thing. And if so, please allow my leader and/or heir to lead my glorious empire into bloody battle.
I also want my ruler to be able to be my homeworld's governor at game start, similar to how scientists can be both the head of research and on a science ship.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
A bit sad that a quick fix of individual leader caps didn't work.
The UI could have used the template for planet/starbase buildings with empty, filled and locked slots.

That would have allowed it to clearly show different numbers of slots for each leader type, and the different ways of unlocking them. Just like building slots can be unlocked in multiple ways. I think if not being able to design a functional UI was a problem, it suggests you need to invest more time for UI design.

But I'm glad leaders are being worked on. Not sure I like the bland titles of Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists. I would be tempted to make a single "leader" type, with the displayed role titles having a lot more variety based on your empire civics and ethics, just like we have varied council positions the names for each role could also change (Admiral, Fleet Commander, Lord Commander, Combat Analyst etc).

I also hope traits will be changed to not be limited to a single scope (Empire, Assignment or Self). It works for Gestalts as their leaders don't move between positions. But normal leaders have to level up traits that do absolutely nothing so that eventually you have someone who can replace your council members when they die, or you have functionally immortal leaders that have traits that no longer have any use (explorers) that you keep around for the high skill level bonus despite lots of non-functional traits. Both situations feel bad to me.

If all traits were useful in all roles that wouldn't be a problem - Expertise: Field Manipulation, beyond the council effect on research could also add to planet physics output when assisting research, add to shield regeneration if that leader could lead a fleet, reduce bombardment damage and increasing shield generator build speed when governing a planet, open up special options for bypassing the "multi-phasic forcefields" event when performing espionage operations, and increase the benefits of a Research Agreement when researching Field Manipulation techs the other empire knows etc.

So:
1. UI issues could have been fixed.
2. All empires having generic Commanders isn't as fun as council position titles (Exopublic Relations Officer, Assets Appropriation Officer... Commander)
3. Leader Traits with limited scopes that are non-functional most of the time make less sense than each trait having an effect for every possible assignment.
4. Leader Traits really need a balance pass... I personally hate the pop-replacer traits and would rather have them synergise with the jobs they currently replace
 
  • 9
Reactions:
yeah for me scientists are always the bottleneck from start of game 4/6 are scientists cos u absolutely need them for expansion /anoms/excav etc.. then u have 1 gov and 1 adm..and u stuck at that 6/6 for most of early game until u complete aptitude tradition and find the Leader tech that ups it1 .. then next way too up leaders is the AP.. eventually u end up with 13?.. if u choose the AP.. u are forced too pick aptitude for the +1 aswell as great leader buffs
 
  • 2
Reactions: