• 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:
With the new name for Admiral/General, it seems mandatory to put into the game a Renowned Paragon named Shepard with about a +1000% strength against Leviathans, Fallen Empires and Crisis. You could balance it with an event where you lose a lot of Unity because they were invited to a dance.
 
  • 6Haha
  • 2Like
Reactions:
I kindly hate on the "Industrialist".
Please just make it a "Governor" veteran class under the "Official" class. Otherwise, I am absolutely thrilled!
 
  • 4Like
  • 3
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

let's not get too hyperbolic here. while I agree with your sentiments regarding the current huge disparity between non-gestalt and gestalt, I think it is clear that devs **DO** understand it and are working to correct it hence:

"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."

Like that statement says it all. They are clearly aware of the advantage gestalt has and are working to fix it.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Scientist naming suggestion:

The scientist naming seems off? Statisticians are typically valuable flunkies, not people in leadership positions (ministers, councilors, etc.) And dragging academics out of their ivory towers to do the field-work investigating Archaeological sites and Anomalies also seems harsh. More Schliemann, less Indiana Jones. Put the pointy-heads on the council instead. How about:[/B]

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



Exceeding leader cap, a question about penalties:

Sounds nice in general, but do I understand it right that if e.g. you have 3/5/4 leader cap and go over that in any of the categories, you will be punished in that category? E.g. if you use 3/9/5 you'll not be penalized in the first category, penalized for +4 of the second and +1 for the third, and the only way of ameliorating the penalties would be through further civics/traits/traditions/techs that increase those specific leader caps?

If this is the case, I strongly support the idea of shifting most or all of the penalty to upkeep cost rather than XP gain or the leader caps are going to feel like straightjackets for players who would like to focus strongly on one aspect of the game and still feel that the max. they can gain from the few sources of increased cap for that aspect is much too small if seriously exceeding that number would cripple the XP gain of exactly the one aspect they are focusing on, whereas if the upkeep costs are increased they have the interesting trade-off of whether they are willing to devote the POPs to unity jobs to pay a premium for more of the leaders they really want.


Federation administrative leader, a question about cohesion:

Assigning many envoys to a federation for a few years when it has cohesion issues, and a small number when it is fully cohesive, is currently the rational way of dealing with a federation and forces the player to consider the trade-offs between assigning envoys to maintaing cohesion and interacting with other actors.

Do I understand it right that in the new system nothing such is possible? That at all times the federation will be getting the same fixed cohesion bonus granted by the assigned administrative leader (affected by level and traits, so potentially high) or none if you haven't assigned one probably leading to cohesion loss, but with no way for the player to put a focus on increasing cohesion when it takes a big hit?

Just a minor point, but I do think the XP penalty is still a GOOD thing, as I think staying under the cap is an incentive to get higher level scientists. Perhaps what would be really nice is that the XP penalty is not linear to the leader, but rather progressive: i.e. As you go over the cap, the higher level you have a leader, then it takes exponentially more XP to get to the next level.

This would mean that empire A with 3 scientists, and empire B with 10 both can level up their scientists from level 1 to level 3 fairly easily, but the cost for empire A's scientists to reach level V or higher may be WAY cheaper than empire B's.

This would result then in the ability for smaller empires to have fewer STRONGER leaders on average, while wider empires have MORE leaders, but (because they're all competing), they have less opportunity to make headway without other advancements.
 
  • 5
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Should Admirals and Generals really be merged? A country like Imperial Japan whose army and navy are in endless conflict could also be an intresting start.
 

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.

With individual leader caps, will there be more sources so I could focus more on specific types?

For example, a Martial Alliance could give additional Commander Leader Cap at some levels, or Fanatic Pacifist could give +1 Official Leader Cap.
 
  • 7Like
Reactions:
Sounds really good in general. I just hope the changes don't come with a bunch of fine print problems that aren't apparent from the dev diary.

Automatic Martial Law from a Commander as governor seems potentially problematic, for example. Shuffling leaders around is always a bit of a micromanagement hassle and something that you shouldn't be encouraged to do to often. Might be better to keep the Martial Law edict but make it stronger with a Commander, so that you don't HAVE to do the leader musical chairs unless you're in big trouble.

As for the leader class titles, these are the ones I don't think fully describe their job:

-Academic, Analyst and Statistician are too vague and interchangeable. Why not just use Archaeologist for the Anomaly/Archaeology one? Academic could be the council focused one.

-Ambassador should maybe be Diplomat, since Envoys are still doing the actual ambassador jobs (improving relations with individual empires). Either way there is some overlap with the Delegate class though in terms of title.
 
Last edited:
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Am I the only one who actually likes the current concept of hive minds getting an additional specialist trait rather than a destiny trait?
I mean, it's kinda cool that they get to have the most specialized specialists
rather than following the delusions of some individual self-fulfilment that normal species get to do
 
  • 4
Reactions:
  • 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)


I think you are heavily undervaluing just how good getting only council traits on gestalt nodes is. Especially now that you can reroll them in the later game.

At the current moment gestalt's council/agenda system is vastly superior in terms of power to non-gestalt throughout the entire early and midgame

The concerns you've stated above, while valid, don't really take into account the vast benefits gestalt have taken advantage of and used to benefit them for the majority of the game to the point where by the time the non-gestalt advantages start to come online (1 extra trait, destiny traits, larger council) the gestalt empires have generally already vastly out-scaled the non-gestalts making these late game advantages no longer matter
 
  • 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?
Emissaries sounds great.

(And the Sisko approves.)
 
  • 1
  • 1Love
  • 1
Reactions:

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.
I concur.
 
I feel very strongly that per-type leader capacity is the worst thing that could be done with leader cap. I fail to see any upsides to it at all, and genuinely have no idea why it was even considered. If someone could enlighten me as to why it's happening, I would appreciate that. To me, the best part of the leader cap was the choices that it created. You could (in theory, assuming the balance is worked out) make interesting decisions between military, science, and economy, where increasing your military strength by hiring a new admiral would have an opportunity cost, as that's one less scientist or governor you could employ. If it's an amount you can field per type, there is no choice to be made, the game simply decides for you. One could argue that civics and traditions adding specific capacity makes sense, as it makes sense for a Technocracy to have a lot of scientists, and while that's true, you can already do that in the current system. The kinds of builds that take Technocracy are also the kinds of builds likely to put scientists in charge of planets. What is gained by removing the player's choice here?
(Editing just to emphasize, that request for an explanation as to why anyone wants this leader cap change is 100% genuine. I'm very curious.)
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 4
Reactions:
I've just read every wall of text in this thread and I have to say, a lot of you guys have much better ideas for the names of these things so kudos to you! I wonder what the studio will settle on.

Question for the devs:
Please may you give us an idea about what will happen to the general slot on planets (if anything)? I would sorely miss their ability to participate in ground combat itself as there is a lot of great storytelling/flavour there.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
No plans to increase the maximum number of council positions at this time.
If you are adding Minister of State position in place of one of civic slots, but don't plan to increase overall position count, why don't just remove Expand the Council agenda, and just make all slots open from get go? It would also remove disparity with gestalts.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
If you are adding Minister of State position in place of one of civic slots, but don't plan to increase overall position count, why don't just remove Expand the Council agenda, and just make all slots open from get go? It would also remove disparity with gestalts.
because that doesn't fit the narrative of a gov't growing larger and more varied over time as the empire grows and changes.

I was always a fan of the opposite approach. start gestalt with 2 nodes and make them Expand Consciousness for the other 2 just like non-gestalt
 
  • 5Like
Reactions:
Administrative leaders will have most of the effects of the current governors, and the Assist Research effects will be moving to the Scientific governors.
So will Assist research still be an action taken by crewed science ships? Or will the act of a a scientist governing be the new 'assist research' function?
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
It's very important that first contact missions do NOT unassign leader positions. they should work like assigning a scientist to a ship and councilor. quite important
 
Last edited:
  • 1Like
Reactions: