• 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.
Hi folks!

Today, we moved into our brand new offices so things have been a little hectic in Paradox land. The new building is great, but I will always miss the spectacular view of Stockholm from the 24th floor of "Skrapan"...

No rest for the wicked though, so let's talk a bit about the role that characters play in Stellaris. First off, this game is not character based like Crusader Kings, so do not expect a complex web of rivalries and friendships to develop between rulers and leaders with dynamic portraits and genetics. In Stellaris, the real stars of the show are the Pops, with characters acting more like the advisors, generals and admirals in Europa Universalis (though they do have certain personality traits that can affect what options they get in scripted events, for example.) With that out of the way, let's examine the different types of characters:

Scientists can be put in charge of one of the three research departments (Physics, Society or Engineering.) They can also be assigned to captain the Science Ships you use to explore the galaxy. These are all topics for upcoming dev diaries... Suffice it to say that their skill levels and personalities will have clear effects on their tasks. They are also valid ruler candidates in technocratic societies (government types).

Governors can either lord it over a single planet or an entire sector (more on sectors later). They are a very useful way of keeping the populace happy, or increasing the efficiency of a rich and powerful planet even more. Governors are valid ruler candidates under many government types.

Admirals, though they are not mandatory, can give a clear edge to your military fleets, which is pretty straightforward. They are valid ruler candidates in militaristic societies.

Generals lead your armies in defense of your planets against invasion, or when invading the planets of your enemies. Like Admirals, they are valid ruler candidates in militaristic societies.

stellaris_dev_diary_06_01_20151026_leaders.jpg


Rulers give bonuses to entire empires, and, since other leader types can be elected ruler, they typically have a secondary skillset as well. Ruler type characters can also lead Factions; such characters are not recruited by you and cannot be ordered around. Factions and their leaders are, again, something we'll cover in detail later on.

Most leader types are recruited using Influence (a type of diplomatic "currency" in the game) and there is a cap on the total number of leaders you can employ, so you will need to weigh your need for Admirals against that for competent Governors, etc. Although all leaders tend to gain experience and become more accomplished over time, they do not live forever. The day will come when they perish and will need to be replaced…

stellaris_dev_diary_06_01_20151026_empire_details.jpg


Now, as you remember from last week’s diary, there are about a hundred different alien race portraits in the game. Thus, we initially felt that lesser leaders should not have actual portraits, because we could not possibly produce enough of them to provide the requisite variety. But then, the artists started to experiment with different backgrounds and clothes, which thankfully proved sufficient to allow all leaders to show a portrait.

The different types of leaders all use different sets of clothes. This helps increases variety, but also reinforces their role, with admirals having a militaristic uniform, governors being more casually dressed, and scientist being a bit more techy. Clothes are shared between some of the more similar species, because creating five unique apparels for each species is just an enormous amount of work. (Not all species wear clothes though; it would be odd if this was every alien race’s custom.)

I expect that humans will be by far the most popular race to play. Therefore, they are getting some special attention with different ethnicities, genders and hair styles. There is nothing stopping modders from doing the same for other races, of course! For example, the system could easily be used for other things, like an insect race where you have a multi tiered system, with one appearance for the ruler, a completely different morphology for your Pops, and a third for your leader characters...

Until next week, take care all!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The end result perhaps, but welfare is anathema to most Americans. The American Dream is all about everybody getting a chance at making it, because there's no restrictions keeping people down. Not that there's an abundance of everything for everybody. That's more like the socialist dream, the ideal version.

The American Dream could well happen, but then it's all about there being plenty of space and opportunities on the new colonies.

I agree. Abundance is the American Dream but UTOPIAN abundance isn't. The Dream is limited (if thats the right word) to anybody who works hard thus suggesting people are allowed to fail (God saves them that save themselves type thing).

Star Trek is utopian abundance (or at least suggests it should be) - replicators create whatever you want and everybody has equal access to replicators.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
You could just have leaders live longer. It's not a stretch that humans could live to 200 years old, with the technology from 200 years into the future.
Thats surprisingly low for technology thats 200 years ahead of ours in every single field to be honest.
200 years is pretty optimistic. Brain cells have an estimated life time of about 130 years. And so far there seems to be no way to extend the life time of cells.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I agree. Abundance is the American Dream but UTOPIAN abundance isn't. The Dream is limited (if thats the right word) to anybody who works hard thus suggesting people are allowed to fail (God saves them that save themselves type thing).

Star Trek is utopian abundance (or at least suggests it should be) - replicators create whatever you want and everybody has equal access to replicators.

If we assume current levels of US welfare, which is really only guaranteed food, (possibly) subsidized housing, (possibly) subsidized utilities, a very small negative income tax for the very poor and the somewhat poor with children, pensions for the elderly, non-elective healthcare (though not necessarily best prognosis preventative), education through secondary school and guaranteed loans for higher degrees, and fairly comprehensive care of children who have lost their parents, and assume vastly lower prices on consumer goods due to increases in automated production, then the US would be a de facto Star Trek state.

The biggest potential hurdles are going to be housing and food prices from overpopulation or poor fiscal management bankrupting the welfare programs, again primarily from overpopulation.
 
Thats surprisingly low for technology thats 200 years ahead of ours in every single field to be honest.
Even if you achieve biological immortality you can still die in battle, in an accident, from
200 years is pretty optimistic. Brain cells have an estimated life time of about 130 years. And so far there seems to be no way to extend the life time of cells.
Also, even if you achieve biological immortality there are still plenty of ways to die. Especially for an admiral, general or experimental scientist.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
We have got now 6 DDs and there are allready so many (unanswered) details, that I really hope that they make a good, oldfashioned manual. It can be thick...
 
  • 7
Reactions:
biological immortality
I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Making a person immortal (in the sense of not aging) also means making cancer and similar diseases immortal too.
That's why I think 200 years are optimistic.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
200 years is pretty optimistic. Brain cells have an estimated life time of about 130 years. And so far there seems to be no way to extend the life time of cells.
Well, in 200 years you may well learn of a way to double that, even if we don't know how yet. Who knows. Seems pretty plausible to me.
I'm not sure if that's a good thing. Making a person immortal (in the sense of not aging) also means making cancer and similar diseases immortal too.
That's why I think 200 years are optimistic.
I think in 200 years we will have found effective ways to either cure cancer or treat it so effectively that nobody (under treatment) dies from it (like HIV).

Also, even if you achieve biological immortality there are still plenty of ways to die.
In the Commonwealth Saga they achieved something very close to immortality, basically a tiny (resilient) computer recording everything you think and constantly mapping your brain so that if you die you can be reconstructed with everything intact, even the memory of dying, unless you choose to have it edited out.

Some people believed they still died though, and was a new person with the same memories. Depends on perspective.

Extreme destruction can still lead to permanent death but they also had memory banks so you only lost a few years. They sent out soldiers with a backup from the moment of deployment so those whose chips couldn't be recovered were reborn without memory of having been at war.
 
Well, in 200 years you may well learn of a way to double that, even if we don't know how yet. Who knows. Seems pretty plausible to me.

I think in 200 years we will have found effective ways to either cure cancer or treat it so effectively that nobody (under treatment) dies from it (like HIV).


In the Commonwealth Saga they achieved something very close to immortality, basically a tiny (resilient) computer recording everything you think and constantly mapping your brain so that if you die you can be reconstructed with everything intact, even the memory of dying, unless you choose to have it edited out.

Some people believed they still died though, and was a new person with the same memories. Depends on perspective.

Extreme destruction can still lead to permanent death but they also had memory banks so you only lost a few years. They sent out soldiers with a backup from the moment of deployment so those whose chips couldn't be recovered were reborn without memory of having been at war.

There's also the option of using nanobots to continuously repair a body. With advanced enough sciences it could be possible to replicate even brain cells. If the nanobots are capable of self-replication as well and are able to scan and use a collective memory to record the individual's body, anything short of complete disintegration would be repairable. Obviously if this is even possible in-game it would be end-game technology, but it's not totally outlandish to imagine technology like this based on current technology.
 
"I would just like to point out that the issue with the orbits of the Galilean Moons has been fixed. Thank you for bringing it to our attention. :)"



Neil Degrasse Tyson will be pleased
 
Even if you achieve biological immortality you can still die in battle, in an accident, from

Also, even if you achieve biological immortality there are still plenty of ways to die. Especially for an admiral, general or experimental scientist.
I was only speaking of agelessness. Not invulnerability. :p

200 years is pretty optimistic. Brain cells have an estimated life time of about 130 years. And so far there seems to be no way to extend the life time of cells.
First on a sidenote: Which brain cells specifically by the way?

Now for the rest: This is why I brought up transhumanism. While I've no idea how far we'll get with it in 200 years(going by how fast tech develops, probably very far depending on cultural and religious hiccups that could get in the way), I'd at least assume we would've found a way to deal with that issue in some fashion(such as replacing them like we do with every other cell in the body).
 
Hmm.. I hopewith a expansion comes a more fleshed out dynastie system. With sort of elecetion game and so forth for others
Would totally love it.
 
First on a sidenote: Which brain cells specifically by the way?
IIRC the grey ones.
But that doesn't matter which one, a brain needs all types of nerve cells to work correctly.
 
We have got now 6 DDs and there are allready so many (unanswered) details, that I really hope that they make a good, oldfashioned manual. It can be thick...

I hope not. Judging from CK2 and EU4 it would be obsolete and plain wrong after the first few patches and a DLC anyway so I think time would be better spent elsewhere.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
In space monarchies will space governors be called space counts or space dukes and have inheritable space titles.
If Stellaris is anything like other PDS titles, making custom titles for government types will be the easiest thing in the world, taking about 2 minutes to mod.
 
So can someone explain to me what "pops" are? Is this just what signifies population?
Population units. They are used in the Victoria games and inhabit each land province in the game and are broken down by demographics. For example, one POP consists of 5000 Swedish, Protestant Farmers, another POP in the same province consists of 200 Swedish, Protestant Clerks and a third POP consists of 500 Norwegian, Catholic Capitalists. All in the same province. Each POP has their own needs that they want fulfilled, follows a given ideology and so on.

I don't expect POP's in Stellaris to be that detailed, but from the dev diaries they will at the very least have values that determines their size, race and ethics. How inter-empire factions play into it all has yet to be explained, but I'm assuming POP's can have faction allegiance aswell.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
So can someone explain to me what "pops" are? Is this just what signifies population?
Pops represent different parts of the population. They're used in Victoria 2. You could have, for example, a "pop" of catholic, French, socialist farmers. They're essentially a group of the population that share characteristics. I really liked the pop system in Victoria 2.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
If we play with an authoritarian regime, I hope we can forcefully move POPs around the empire, like the likes of Russia and the USSR used to do.
 
  • 2
Reactions: