• 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:
Jeiii, with the age of 24 a girl is the leader of the Human fleets and has the rank of Admiral. All feminist on Earth will be very proud.... (we all are going to die)

What an nice and edgy post mate did you summon all the courage you had in you to write that out?
 
  • 11
  • 10
  • 2
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
Well younger leaders may not be such a stretch as future could have very enhanced education, genetic selection, and some biological/technical developments etc.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I see people worrying about the young rulers/leaders. I pressume it's a design decision, as having eg older admirals would only lead to having to have them changed more frequently, which apart from being additional micro on the player, also reduces the time to get attached to that given character.
 
  • 8
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Hmm.. I like it. Soo... when do we get the beta?
Or can we preorder a Beta?
 
Well younger leaders may not be such a stretch as future could have very enhanced education, genetic selection, and some biological/technical developments etc.

One could pressume individuals breed as individuals fully grown at there first birthday. While this could be the case the development the last many years have been that it takes longer and longer time in training before individuals are ready to go out and do stuff. Ofcourse this is only a problem for humans, but I think it would be better to make starting characters at least in there 30-something, and stretch out the life expectency by another decade our so.

(ofcourse this is only a considerations for humans, ailien could have much different life spans)
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I see people worrying about the young rulers/leaders. I pressume it's a design decision, as having eg older admirals would only lead to having to have them changed more frequently, which apart from being additional micro on the player, also reduces the time to get attached to that given character.

Yeah, if I build up good leader's I will want them around as long as possible. Plus reducing micro is usually the way to go.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I see people worrying about the young rulers/leaders. I pressume it's a design decision, as having eg older admirals would only lead to having to have them changed more frequently, which apart from being additional micro on the player, also reduces the time to get attached to that given character.
That's an explanation for problem which could not exist. It's 2200, naturally nobody would have problems if people lived up to hundred of years. So 40+ years old admirals would have plenty of time to fool around.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
I hope we can make immortal rulers somehow be it via tech or other things. I want my immortal empress 'n all. :p

EDIT: I wonder if naming themes and such will be consistent for monarchy type governments though. If I'm playing as space Korea or something, the names should remain consistent with that for example for the rulers while the rest remain mixed.

EDIT2: Is cybernetics and transhumanism represented in human portraits? I'd like to know that too.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
Utopian Abundance - I think this is something akin to the american dream in a sense. If there is an Utopian
Abundance then there is a lot of resources and material goods available for everyone - everyone enjoys a high quality of life. I'm presuming because it is illegal, it's the government which is styming the welfare state, when it is legal or turned on the government funds this high quality of life much more aggressively?
On - Higher approval ratings at the cost of economic growth? (High Tax, lower growth)
Off - Higher economic growth, and pop economic growth at the cost of pop's approval ratings (Low Tax, High growth)
The American Dream is not about having a welfare state! I do think Utopian Abundance means the state subsidizes people getting everything they need though.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I see people worrying about the young rulers/leaders. I pressume it's a design decision, as having eg older admirals would only lead to having to have them changed more frequently, which apart from being additional micro on the player, also reduces the time to get attached to that given character.
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.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
The American Dream is not about having a welfare state! I do think Utopian Abundance means the state subsidizes people getting everything they need though.
Sorry I'll expand what I meant a bit more. The American Dream was the premise that if you worked hard, then everything you could ever want was available in America - if you accept that premise then you can move forward that a Utopian Abundance is the idea that everything is available for you; except the only realistic way you can do that is if it's state funded (on) which lowers pop's wealth but increases happiness, (higher taxes, and also state funded stuff) whereas if it's off they keep more money (more pop wealth - lower taxes) but dont have the approval bonus.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry I'll expand what I meant a bit more. The American Dream was the premise that if you worked hard, then everything you could ever want was available in America - if you accept that premise then you can move forward that a Utopian Abundance is the idea that everything is available for you; except the only realistic way you can do that is if it's state funded (on) which lowers pop's wealth but increases happiness, (higher taxes, and also state funded stuff) whereas if it's off they keep more money (more pop wealth - lower taxes) but dont have the approval bonus.
Right, but what you just described is the exact opposite of the American Dream.

If it's to be similar to the American Dream then it means the state subsidizes people moving to the new worlds and give them a plot of land for cheap meaning everyone gets a shot at greatness, in theory.
 
Right, but what you just described is the exact opposite of the American Dream.

If it's to be similar to the American Dream then it means the state subsidizes people moving to the new worlds and give them a plot of land for cheap meaning everyone gets a shot at greatness, in theory.
I was talking about the abundance idea - at it's core the American Dream was the dream of access to material possession - an access to an abundant amount of them in fact.

So a Utopian Abundance would work on a similar theory right?
 
I was talking about the abundance idea - at it's core the American Dream was the dream of access to material possession - an access to an abundant amount of them in fact.

So a Utopian Abundance would work on a similar theory right?
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.
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Sorry I'll expand what I meant a bit more. The American Dream was the premise that if you worked hard, then everything you could ever want was available in America - if you accept that premise then you can move forward that a Utopian Abundance is the idea that everything is available for you; except the only realistic way you can do that is if it's state funded (on) which lowers pop's wealth but increases happiness, (higher taxes, and also state funded stuff) whereas if it's off they keep more money (more pop wealth - lower taxes) but dont have the approval bonus.

If you assume extremely low production costs, then the American Dream is possible in the conventional method without needing charity or welfare. It's actually probable that manufactured goods at least will likely become extremely cheap due to automation in the next 200 years.