• 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:
I am going to bow out of the discussion, before someone mentions something that is going to bring the mods in here.

IsadorBG, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't share. In fact, I find some of your tone more than a little offensive, but maybe I am being too sensitive. That is the last I will say about it.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Reducing a country to ruins can achieve a great deal of submissivness. Just ask the Japanese.
The Japanese also accepted a degree of blame and certainly accepted that they were defeated.

The Germans absolutely would not have accepted the dissolution of their state after WW1. No way. They would have fought tooth and nail and the Allies wouldn't have had the stomach to oppress them sufficiently (which would have practically required genocide levels of killings). The end result would have been a free and even angrier Germany.

Anyway, we probably won't ever agree. I guess it's too off-topic by now for this thread.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I am going to bow out of the discussion, before someone mentions something that is going to bring the mods in here.

IsadorBG, you are entitled to your opinion. I don't share. In fact, I find some of your tone more than a little offensive, but maybe I am being too sensitive. That is the last I will say about it.

I do it on purporse. That was the mindset of Germany in the mid-war period. The angst was primarly focused on Jews and Slavs and far less so on the Allies and the last issue Germany had with them were long over in 1936. Three long years before the war.
Should tell you something on where were the issues.

The Japanese also accepted a degree of blame and certainly accepted that they were defeated.

I am merely saying that accepting blame and having nothing left to continue the fight are correlated.
The fact that Germans were convinced that they could have won the war had a big impact to how they saw Versailles.

Indeed how could you be treated as a defeated nation if you didn't lost ?
Let's not tell the Germans what fate the other CP had because we know they weren't allied.
 
Last edited:
I am merely saying that accepting blame and having nothing left to continue the fight are correlated.
The fact that Germans were convinced that they could have won the war had a big impact to how they saw Versailles.
The US has soundly defeated plenty of countries, as has Russia. Have they given up? They don't have increasingly extremist leanings and conduct guerilla war and terrorism?

Perception is everything, declaring a state dead means nothing if the people won't accept it.
Indeed how could you be treated as a defeated nation if you didn't lost ?
Easily, they did (or at least so was the perception). It's a question of perception and how thorough the war was won before surrender.
 
The US has soundly defeated plenty of countries, as has Russia. Have they given up? They don't have increasingly extremist leanings and conduct guerilla war and terrorism?

To this date I don't think there is any country that has been so soundly destroyed than Germany and Japan in WWII.
The difference between the guerrilla wars you talk about and WWII is that the Allies would have gone as far as killing the last Germans/Japanese if that was the cost to win that war.

Easily, they did. It's a question of perception and how thorough the war was won before surrender.

They did but they did not believe it. Perception as you say. When your country is intact it is harder to believe you had lost any chance of victory and take any peace you can get than when everything lies in ruin and your civilisation is on the brink of extinction.
 
The difference between the guerrilla wars you talk about and WWII is that the Allies would have go as far as killing the last Germans/Japanese if that was the cost to win that war.
But it wasn't the cost. The war was already won. Also I said WW1, not WW2.

What you are talking about is a harsh and hateful suppression of the German people to prevent any future uprisings. Few democratic regimes would be able to survive such behaviour.
They did but they did not believe it. Perception as you say. When your country is intact it is harder to believe you had lost any chance of victory and take the peace you can get than when everything lies in ruin and your civilisation is on the brink of extinction.
As the Germans had surrendered if you wanted them to be so soundly defeated it means you had to walk in and lay waste to the whole country AFTER the war. I don't think that would lead to a passive and compliant people.
 
IsadorBG has been banned from replying to this thread

Enough of the political conversation.
 
So.... Stellaris anyone?

If it was discussed I must have missed it, the first 3 must be some some sort of mysterious resources, the next 3 are research.

Then comes the mystery, what's the two white triangles that he has 0/0 of?

Is the last symbol a planet and if so does that mean he can only have 4 colonies?
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe the last to are some sort of limited action? Like in EU4 you can only colonise up to 4 planets at the same time with the given tech? And colonisation work simular to EU4 ?
Maybe it's something like 1 system and 4 planets settled? Could be everything.
The white triangle yould be ambassadors ?
I don't know.
 
Third symbol from te left could be a person with a halo or lights entering a tunnel. Probably not a person to be honest as we might be playing a squid and then the symbol wouldn't fit. As to what it means? No idea!!!
 

If it was discussed I must have missed it, the first 3 must be some some sort of mysterious resources, the next 3 are research.

Then comes the mystery, what's the two white triangles that he has 0/0 of?

Is the last symbol a planet and if so does that mean he can only have 4 colonies?

While I'm tempted to say paper, bird and scroll mana just to watch the forums freak out I think the size of the pools are too different for that to be true.

At a guess I'd say energy credits, material wealth, political power, 3 * tech, anomalies researched / found, planets colonised / found
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Possible the White triangles could be trade routes or trade agreements with other powers? 0/0 because the player has not yet discovered other empires...zero routes out of zero possible.
 
Well, it would. Except does anyone without Wormhole tech make stations? If it's an icon it must mean something for everyone.

Well the devs have said we will at least be able to build defense stations, and the screenshots from the official website show a solar system with 4-5 different space stations, which makes it seem like we can build a number of them for different purposes.