• 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 #316 - Leader Consolidation

Hello everybody!

Today we’re going to look at a likely 3.10 feature, some changes that we’ve called the Leader Consolidation.

With leaders becoming more important to your empire following the 3.8 ‘Gemini’ release alongside Galactic Paragons, there were some rough edges leftover and experiences that could be better. Some of the changes we’re implementing during this leader consolidation were things we talked about during the development of Galactic Paragons but decided against for various reasons, or were out of scope at the time, while others are based on data gathered since then and community feedback.

So What’s Changing?​

Some of these names are still being argued over, so are subject to change. Hate one in particular? Let us know. One of us probably hates it too.

leaders_military.png
Admirals and Generals will be merged into the Commander, the Military leader class.

Admiral and General will remain as veteran classes, with the following foci:
  • Admiral - Focuses on Fleets and general naval combat
  • General - Focuses on taking planets and assaulting static defenses - Armies, Planetary Bombardment, Ground Combat, and attacking defensive structures such as Starbases are the General’s forte
  • Commissioner - Focuses on Planetary Governance (Martial Law)
  • Strategist - Focuses on the Council, especially the Minister of Defense position

leaders_administrative.png
The old Governors and some Envoy functions will be merged into Officials, the Administrative leader class.

Their veteran classes will be:
  • Delegate - Focuses on Federations and the Galactic Community
  • Industrialist - Focuses on Planetary Governance (Industry and Development)
  • Ambassador - Council Focus (Diplomacy, Espionage, and First Contact), especially suited for the new Minister of State position
  • Advisor - Council Focus (Economy)
This does give the Officials two council focused subclasses, but the two are different enough that we felt it best to let them specialize accordingly. The Advisor is expected to thrive in some civic based council positions.


leaders_scientific.png
Scientists remain the third, Scientific leader class.

Veteran Classes:
  • Explorer - Focuses on Surveying and Exploration
  • Academic - Focuses on Archaeology and Anomalies
  • Analyst - Focuses on Planetary Governance (Assist Research)
  • Statistician - Focuses on the Council, especially the Minister of Science position

As suggested in last week’s teaser and by some of the above bullet points, “governor” will no longer be a leader class. Instead, a planet or sector can be governed by any leader, regardless of class, with differing effects. For example, instead of being local planetary decisions, placing a Commander in charge of a sector will place the entire sector under Martial Law. (The exact effects of which will be changing somewhat too - we want it to be a reasonable thing to put the military in charge of a newly conquered or disruptive set of planets until the condition stabilizes.) Administrative leaders will have most of the effects of the current governors, and the Assist Research effects will be moving to the Scientific governors.

You will still be able to override a Sector Governor on a specific planet by placing a Planetary Governor there, so your Forge Ecumenopolis could have an Industrialist governor in a sector that is otherwise led by a Scientist.

We’re also doing a major rebalancing of the traits themselves. As part of this, we’re reintroducing some sector-wide traits to governors (though now they’re split across the governing veteran classes), and the traits themselves will clearly show if they’re of sector or planetary scope. Note that a sector-wide governor trait will not apply to a planet that has its own local planetary governor overriding them.

So are Envoys Real Leaders Now?​

Partially.

A single Administrative leader can be assigned to your Federation and another to the Galactic Community (or Empire) like numerous Envoys did in the past. Their level and traits will determine how effective they are at the job instead of cramming every Envoy you can spare into there, making Delegates the optimal candidates for this sort of thing.

The Minister of State position is being added to the base council alongside the military and scientific ministries. This councilor will also have general effects on diplomacy, espionage, and first contact.

1696253245523.png

Ruler, plus one red, one yellow, and one blue council member.

Envoys will remain as they were to represent the Minister of State’s bureaucratic reach, and will continue to handle “minor tasks” such as Improve and Harm Relations, maintaining Espionage spy networks, and First Contact.

What About Leader Caps?​

Leader caps remain, but are per-class, with any over-cap penalties affecting only the particular leader class that is over. Civics, traditions, and other effects that previously increased the generic leader cap will now generally increase the cap for one or more specific classes.

We may end up shifting more of the over-cap penalty over to the upkeep cost of leaders.

What about Gestalt Councils?​

Gestalt Councils currently have a significant advantage in passing agendas in the early game due to having a larger number of councilors. This disparity will be lessened a bit due to the regular empires starting with one additional councilor, and we’re also making council legitimacy (how happy your factions are with your council) affect agenda progress.

Their nodes will get a little bit of a reshuffle to accommodate the various changes, but should otherwise remain generally familiar. We’ll be able to share more details later on during the development cycle.

I’m a Modder, Tell Me Modding Stuff​

We’ll have more details in the release notes, but leader classes are no longer hard-coded and are thus much more moddable in script, so you should theoretically be able to do things like "this leader does research, commands armies, and represents us in the galcom!"

Is that everything?​

Nooooo.

Next on our Custodian “this is not internal politics” agenda is to do a pass on council agendas. Our thought is that agendas should have more impactful results (tangible effects rather than modifiers), and the range of available agendas should be related to the ethics of your active councilors instead of the ethics of your empire.

This is planned for 3.11 ‘[REDACTED]’ at the earliest.

In the longer term, we may want to make greater differentiation between the councils of different authorities - the councils of a Democracy and a Megacorp could feel different from one another, for example.

Next Week​

Next week we’ll boldly go where no dev diary has gone before.

(We're all currently at a staff conference, so dev replies to the diary will be delayed, but we'll make sure to read through all of the comments when we get back.)
 
  • 130Like
  • 47Love
  • 13
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Gestalt Councils currently have a significant advantage in passing agendas in the early game due to having a larger number of councilors. This disparity will be lessened a bit due to the regular empires starting with one additional councilor, and we’re also making council legitimacy (how happy your factions are with your council) affect agenda progress.
i have better idea, remove need for expanding council and let normal empires have their councilors from the very beginning, so that non-genstalts have atleast some advantages over gestalts in that area, aspecially with this new legitimacy stuff that likely gonna be another managment headache that normal empires have to deal with but gestalts avoid alltogether
 
  • 10
  • 4
Reactions:
I'd love to see a global overhaul of Espionage! High Empires must be strong in espionage, and Broad Empires must be strong in economics!Envoys must have their own unique privileges or skills!!!Be a skilled Spy or a Good Diplomat
 
Last edited:
  • 4
Reactions:
Really, REALLY glad to see the new Minister of State position. This is very thematic and very realistic, given that Foreign Relations positions are such important parts of real countries. I'm also very keen on the name, as I was hoping to mod in a fourth base/seventh total Council position and give it exactly the same name. Now I won't have to! Brilliant!

I'd really like to hear more information on what Ambassadors do, particularly outside of the Minister of State position.

I really hope this will stop the tragic and gross disparaging of Generals from then on. Imagine being a General and hearing how the Stellaris community talks about you - you'd be broken hearted. Perhaps now that will finally end.

My opinion is that the changes as you're proposing here are very good, and strike a good balance with everything that has been raised since the release of Galactic Paragons. I'd certainly hope that this finally puts the horrendous REEEE'ing - some of it understandable, much of it absolutely not - that we've had so much of since the release of GP finally to bed... although I've been around this community long enough to keep that as a "hope", not a "prediction". Meeting the "Aaaargh no sector governors crowd!" halfway as you're proposing should - also hopefully - placate that lot.

Let this DD in particular serve as a testament against those people who (falsely!) proclaim "Devs don't care about the game, Stellaris is dead now!" crowd. It's also apparent that you HAVE taken a great deal of player feedback on this over the past 5-6 months; good job on that one.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
i have better idea, remove need for expanding council and let normal empires have their councilors from the very beginning, so that non-genstalts have atleast some advantages over gestalts in that area, aspecially with this new legitimacy stuff that likely gonna be another managment headache that normal empires have to deal with but gestalts avoid alltogether
I think part of the reason why you don't get to make more choices regarding your council at the start of the game is reduced mental load.
I assume they don't want to overbloat the pre-game todo checklist of micro-decisions. Those are not there for gestalts, since nodes are fixed.
 
  • 11
Reactions:
No plans to increase the maximum number of council positions at this time.
I implore you to reconsider this.
Seven Six isn't really that many, and it would be so so great to have.
At the very least, perhaps make it an option for us (somewhere in game settings). OR make it easier to mod-in additional Council position slots.

Edit: Derp, I am foolish. Of course I meant six, not seven. Dunno what I was thinking. Corrected!
 
Last edited:
  • 18
  • 4
Reactions:
Would a Commander governor fight in defense of a colony like a General can now?

Are there plans to include class-specific cap bonuses places that don't currently give leader cap? Like maybe the Discovery tradition tree gives you a scientist slot, things like that.
 
  • 6
  • 5Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Will Inward Perfectionists and genocidals (mainly Purrifiers) get a replacement for Minister of State? Since it is a useless position for them since they can barely if at all do any kind of diplomacy. Maybe something like Minister of Internal Affairs as a replacement for them?

Or maybe the councilor position for that civic could replace the Minister of State
 
  • 20Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
These look like great changes, very excited to play around with them. I have a few mostly minor thoughts (you did ask about names afterall)

- Industrialist is a bad name for an official specialised in planet/sector management IMO. It makes sense in industrial worlds sure, but thematically my culture or tech world shouldn't be run by an industrialist. Maybe administrator?
- I'm super happy to see sector wide effects back. Will there be any UI changes coming in the update? The big black silhouette on the sector screens and fleets gives an impression of something lacking despite the new design intent to be that the majority will be unfilled

Other than that I'm interested in learning more about the traits rebalance. It's still difficult to see why general would be picked over admiral when armies are easy to make and dump large numbers onto planets.
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
I think part of the reason why you don't get to make more choices regarding your council at the start of the game is reduced mental load.
I assume they don't want to overbloat the pre-game todo checklist of micro-decisions. Those are not there for gestalts, since nodes are fixed.
this is just ridiculous, if someone will get mental load from additional councilor positions they shouldn't even play this game, or they might die from mental overload in first 10 years of the game, the only reason devs don't change it is that they don't understand how underpowered non-gestalts are compared to gestalts right now
 
  • 24
  • 2
Reactions:
this is just ridiculous, if someone will get mental load from additional councilor positions they shouldn't even play this game, or they might die from mental overload in first 10 years of the game, the only reason devs don't change it is that they don't understand how underpowered non-gestalts are compared to gestalts right now
Then please hand over destiny traits and Paragons to Gestalt
There is no reason to leave Gestalt with nothing
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
No plans to increase the maximum number of council positions at this time.
Can we get the option to reconfigure the default positions instead? I imagine the FPs may want to ditch one of the positions, whether they're Fanatic Purifiers who have no need for envoys or Fanatic Pacifists whose fleets are already upkeep reduced by staying at harbor.
 
  • 13
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
The fact that the leader system is slowly but steadily beginning to resemble the imperator rome system brings me tremendous joy.

After the paragon update the day when leaders have loyalty which triggers civil wars with their fleets and sectors seems to be fast approaching, and I for one cannot wait for it.
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
Reactions:
Hmm! A few thoughts:

  • The return of sector-wide benefits is huge. Since 3.8, it's been hard to even have a governor on every sector capital, and impossible on almost any empire to have one on every planet. It sounds like there's going to be more reason to have one per sector now, and it's unclear how the leader cap will shake out but I'm hopeful that it'll be practical to have at least one governor of some class per sector.
    • With that said, it sounds like you're still planning on planet-specific traits, and all I have to say to that is: PLEASE don't! Even the best, craziest planet-specific traits are almost never worth taking (unless everything else is even worse), because unless you play with massively reduced habitable worlds even on small galaxies, no one colony is important enough to warrant that much of your leader capacity! That's especially true since the reduction to total pop counts and growth on well-populated planets means you no longer get 200+ pop ecumenopoli singlehandedly supplying an empire with alloys.
  • The idea that specific leader subtypes will now be especially suited to particular council positions is interesting! How does that work? Currently council positions don't care at all who is in them, beyond compatibility checks and level; your Head of Research can be a governor with purely economic bonuses and your Lord Chancellor a scientist with a ton of research speed bonuses, and these are exactly equivalent to swapping those two aside from any level difference.
  • I'm very happy to hear that you're rebalancing leader traits. A lot of the current ones are just... really bad. This could be a whole post, or indeed a whole thread, alone (and has been, a few times) but it's gotta be said. There are so many traits that are just crying out for some rebalance. Some partial lists, by reason the trait sucks:
    • Meaninglessly small numbers: Engineer, Material Liberator, Mining Rush, Adventurous Spirit, Resilience, Experimenter, Elite Benefactor
    • Worse than other traits in same or lower tier: Adaptionist II (Gifted II), Gale-Speed (Skirmisher), Intimidator (Deep Connections), Gray Eminence (Master Bureaucrat)
    • Wholly insufficient for their tier: Planetary Analyst, Great Researcher, Architectural Sense, Health Specialist
    • Too situational or shows up too late: Expansionist, Frontier Spirit, Planetary Analyst, Geology Expert, most of the Explorer traits especially the destiny ones
    • Negatives in disguise: Unyielding (especially early), Jury-Rigger, Guerilla Tactician, Driven Educator
  • Please improve gestalt nodes. The benefit of only getting council traits are counterbalanced by so many other problems:
    • Always one fewer trait than normal leaders
    • Can't ever benefit from Veteran subclass directly (there's even a trigger that's supposed to let the ruler get the subclass; it does nothing)
    • Smaller late-game council is a huge downside
    • Can't stack actually good council traits much (e.g. max 30% ship cost reduction for gestalts vs. 60% reduction for normal empires, from council traits)
    • No destiny traits (huge downside to e.g. lategame empire size penalty)
  • The change to give Expertise traits from events to the node was great, now do admirals too? Admirals can gain council traits and these events do nothing for gestalts.
 
  • 5Like
  • 4
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
Lots of great changes coming up, especially the minister of state.

I echo the commentary that a beloved general could be used to enhance the defense of a sector. Located on the front by marauders or a dangerous empire? The people feel reassured he/she is in charge of fortifications and will lead the defense.

I also don’t love the name officials. Maybe Emissaries?
 
  • 3Like
Reactions:
Then please hand over destiny traits and Paragons to Gestalt
There is no reason to leave Gestalt with nothing
gestalt will roll over you long before you get to destiny traits, that without saying that portion of them are trash

edit: honestly, "gestalt with nothing", what a joke
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 5
Reactions:
I posted a lot of critiques of Galactic Paragons when it came out, so I feel obligated to say I really love the direction this is going. Overall these seem like really great changes that will offer a lot of roleplaying and also mechanics improvements.

Praise

Deleting generals but making generals a sub-class who can assault starbases better and bombard planets better is genius. Not only are we getting rid of a useless leader class, but we are getting a distinct and unique sub-class that makes a lot of sense.

Deleting governors is also frankly genius. This lets us roleplay empires with genuinely different elite classes, not just at the central level, but at a regional level. For example we can be an empire where scientists are in charge. Or an empire where martial law is always happening because the military runs things. Or an empire run by industrialists only. Or an empire of intrigue where only paper-pushing advisors are in charge. Or a mix of these. Just great stuff.

Per-class leader caps and over-cap penalties affecting upkeep is also great. Thank God. I also like the idea of leader ethics affecting agendas. Say what you will, but this whole expanded leader thing is really turning into a great and fun way to do internal politics!

Critique

I still have mixed feelings about the sector vs. planetary governance stuff, but it's not a big deal even if it's mechanically kind of weird. I guess the principle is that governors can run sectors or planets and the bonuses are either concentrated or distributed. It's a bit funky but works. Honestly I would almost prefer that sectors are just removed from any mechanical influence and are just aesthetic/roleplay and totally customizable so we can give our galaxy maps some geographical texture and personality. Just make governors planetary. Sectors kind of don't even make sense mechanically because it's not like you get clusters of similar planets that benefit from similar bonuses, unless it's a new frontier colony area. Perhaps the sector governance trait rebalance should really be focused on sector-level stuff like building more rapidly or stability rather than like specific resource bonuses.

Making envoys real leaders is a welcome change. So basically we are getting two diplomatic leaders and two economic leaders. I think this makes sense. But why not have one spy leader and one diplomat leader? The split between an industrialist on a planet and an advisor in the central core makes sense. But the split between "federations and galactic community" and "diplomacy, espionage, first contact" is honestly very clunky. Rather "federations, galactic community, and diplomacy" vs. "espionage and first contact" makes a lot more sense. The former is your "Ambassador" who deals in intrigue, negotiation, ceremony, and networking, while the latter is your "Agent" who deals in intelligence collection, spying, and covert activity. This also sets up espionage for a real rework and dedicated leader in the future. Either can serve as a Minister of State: you can have a high-minded diplomat in charge or a hard-charging cynic from the security services. This reflects real life better.

Mechanically, the way Stellaris is set up, it makes sense to have a "Delegate" and an "Ambassador." But this is actually just carving out a subclass for a federation/community/diplomatic playstyle, while leaving the rest of us with just one subclass. If I don't care about federations or the galactic community, this one subclass is just useless to me completely. This would not be true for Ambassadors/Agents, who would each have a key role. Rather if you care about federations and the galactic community, you should be forced to prioritize your Ambassadors between one-on-one diplomacy and one-to-many diplomacy, two different strategies.

I can live with it, but it's hard for me to see how Delegate/Ambassador is not thematically and mechanically inferior to Ambassador/Agent-or-Spy-or-whatever in the long run. The naming alone shows how disjointed it is. What the hell is a "delegate"? That's not a profession or specialty, that's a ceremonial position any kind of person might hold temporarily.

I would add that I think it makes more sense both thematically and mechanically for the hypothetical espionage leader to be an Official rather than a Commander. In real life there is a split between military and non-military intelligence, but military intelligence is always clearly under the purview of the military and this is always supported by a general foreign intelligence or domestic security organization that may or may not use military-style ranks. Stellaris espionage is clearly trying to model non-military intelligence and this works great. So this shouldn't be an obstacle to an espionage subclass.

On Naming

Assuming you go with the current mechanical divisions, most of the names work great. Commander/Official/Scientist is great. A few names suck though:

1. "Minister of State" is an unholy Euro-English mash-up of European naming conventions and the U.S. convention for foreign ministers. You have a U.S. Secretary of State (Foreign Minister) and then you have Ministers of Foreign Affairs. In the UK a Minister of State is a general description not a foreign minister. I would rename this to "Foreign Minister" or even the clunkier "Minister of Diplomacy" (let us rename!). Frankly I would simplify the naming even further: give us a "Defense Minister," "Science Minister," and "Foreign Minister." Very simple and clear.

2. I am against the idea of a "Delegate" subclass, but even the name is bad as mentioned above. I would propose a more serious rework of names: the current "Delegate" should be renamed "Ambassador." The current "Ambassador" should be renamed "Advisor." The current "Advisor" should be renamed "Planner" or "Administrator" or "Executive" to reflect their focus on central administration of economic planning.

For example: an "ambassador" who deals with federations and the galactic community, an "industrialist" who develops planets, an "advisor" who decides diplomatic and espionage strategy, and an "administrator" who implements economic policy.

In reality foreign ministers are rarely career ambassadors but are always close advisors or confidants of the ruler. Career ambassadors are beneath them.

3. "Explorer" and "Analyst" are alright. But "Statistician" is awful. Why should a council minister be a statistician necessarily? This makes no sense. "Academic" is also awful, it's practically a slur. Instead of "Academic," why not just "Professor," which is respectful, or even "Theorist" to describe the kind of person who has to make sense of new inexplicable things (like archaeology or anomalies). Instead of "Statistician," how about "Expert," which is the accepted label for a scientist in a position of power to force society to accept their science as legitimate and necessary. Or if the idea is more "chief researcher," then how about "Director."

Final addendum: please, please, please can you let us rename council positions easily in-game for roleplaying?
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
I like the idea of a merger of admirals and generals, but I think it would be best received alongside a ground combat rework. Those situation based events teased in the new Star Trek Stellaris game looked really promising.

Regarding these changes specifically can we please keep the "general slot" in the planetary UI? I really like that the current system allows you to assign a governor, general, and scientist (assist research) to a single planet. This is a huge advantage for tall empires and helps offset going wide.

Secondly, I am a modder and made a mod called "Paragon Leaders Expanded" [LINK]. In making the mod I discovered that Gestalt is hard coded blocked from being able to take Destiny traits. This block is tied to their government type (Machine / Hive Mind) and the only way around this is to completely replace the vanilla government type. The UI is also hard coded to lock max council positions to 6. As a modder I want to increase this to 10. Could these hardcore blocks be removed for the modding community? Thanks!
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
this is just ridiculous, if someone will get mental load from additional councilor positions they shouldn't even play this game, or they might die from mental overload in first 10 years of the game, the only reason devs don't change it is that they don't understand how underpowered non-gestalts are compared to gestalts right now
You misunderstand the problem. It is not that this one thing would be too much, but there are many, many things that are slowly eased into the game over the early game phase to reduce mental load and pre-game setup times.
This is just one of those.

For veterans this is often a slight annoyance, but for anyone but veterans this is really important.
Please do not project your own expertise in the game and how easy-to-navigate the mechanics are for you as an experienced player onto newbies. Overwhelming new players right away will deter them from continue playing or recommending the game and inhibit Stellaris' revenue and thus growth. And i sure hope for more growth of Stellaris (and an eventual Stellaris 2).
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions: