• 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 #307 - Leader Experiments

Happy Thursday!

This week we’re looking at another of our Summer Experiments, though this one unfortunately didn’t work out as well as we had hoped.

Class-based leader limits.

Why are you looking at this?​

Galactic Paragons reintroduced a limit to the number of leaders you could recruit at one time, and while it was a soft cap that you could exceed, experience gains were reduced and once you hit twice the cap, all leader experience gain stopped. In subsequent patches, we relaxed some of the numbers and added more ways to increase the cap, but it’s still a rather unpopular system that could use some work.

Currently, the presence of a less valuable leader (like a General) takes up the same “space” as something like a Scientist or Admiral, which leads to some unsatisfying gameplay decisions.

I mentioned a few things we were planning on looking at back in Dev Diary #302, along with some of the issues we expected to run into.

So what did you try?​

During our experiments we added the ability to have individual leader caps by class, so that General mentioned above would use up General capacity, but Scientists would be governed by their own limit. “Over cap” effects would likewise be per-class, so if you had too many Admirals, their progression would slow, but other leader classes would be unaffected.

We also experimented with retaining “wild-card” capacity, so you could always get a few over before starting to run into penalties.

Why didn’t it work?​

This experiment largely failed due to UX issues. Stellaris isn’t always the easiest game to parse information from, but this turned out diabolically bad and difficult to fix.

The information transfer is made even harder by Envoys acting as their own “special version” that have their own capacity but behave entirely differently from all of the other leaders.

It says we have 1 leader out of 3, but we actually have 4 out of 5-8. Oh no.
1/1 Admirals, 0/1 Generals, 1/2 Scientists, 2/1 Governors, 0/3 Envoys (but actually 3 Envoys, 0 of which are being used), plus the Wildcards

This could possibly have been shown as something like 1/0/1/2 (+2) | (3), but that’s very confusing.

Five different leader types plus the wildcard was too difficult to explain clearly in the top bar (where the limited space is a major issue) and even in the expanded space available in tooltips.

After several variants and some UX design time, we deemed this variant a failure. We could have continued spending time refining this - but decided that we’d rather pursue a greater rework that we’re hoping to release alongside the 3.10 update. (Custodian initiatives do not generally have hard release dates - if it’s not ready by 3.10 freeze, it’ll move out to 3.11.)

I’ll go into full details after Caelum is released, but the quick summary involves consolidating the five leader classes down to three (Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists) and reworking how Envoys are used. (As they would be merged into the Diplomat class.)

Commanders, Diplomats, and Scientists

Yes, we've had one, yes, but what about second leader rework?

Until then, we’re planning on making some adjustments to the over-cap formulas to reduce their negative effects until the greater rework is ready.

Tell us about Caelum then!​

Like the Stellaris 3.1 ‘Lem’ update, 3.9 ‘Caelum’ has a lot of general improvements scattered across a great number of game systems.

Common Ground and Hegemony are getting some improvements:
  • Your starting federation members no longer own your immediately neighboring systems, allowing both you and them some room for early expansion.
  • The Federation now starts with 0 Cohesion (instead of -100) and halfway to Level 2 (600 XP instead of 0 XP).
  • The requirements for the Origins have been relaxed to allow non-genocidal Hive-Minds and Machine Intelligences to take them. This also allows your AI federation members to occasionally spawn as Hive-Minds or Machine Intelligences.

Common Ground's Federation starting state

We also have some balance changes done for Archaeotechs:
  • Halved the energy upkeep of the Facility of Archaeostudies.
  • Added the Archaeotech Focus admiral trait, which grants increased damage and fire rate with Archaeotech weapons.
  • Decreased the research speed and draw weight for Archaeotech from the Expertise trait, but made it reduce the Minor Artifact cost for ship components.
  • The starting head of research for Remnants empires now has the Expertise: Archaeostudies trait.
  • The Archaeoengineers AP now reduces Minor Artifact cost for ship components by 10%
  • Increased the range of Macro Batteries by 50%.

Expertise: Archaeostudies
Archaeotech Focus

Next week…​

Here are some things that we’ll be talking about in the next few weeks:

Pixelated Collage of lots of tooltips that I figure you'll have deciphered by the end of the day.

We’ll reveal all of these, and more.

We’ll be starting with all the improvements to the Lithoids Species Pack, that are intended on bringing it up to the level of the others..

See you then!
 
  • 89Like
  • 22Love
  • 6
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
I would like to see more variation with federation laws for the different types of federations.

Also I'm not a fan that vassals can join/be forced into federations, especially galactic unions. I think it should be overlords only that can join federations and only certain federations if your the overlord of other empires ie trade league and research federations.

What if there was an empire system similar to the federation system for you and your vassals/subjects. As this empire system levels up and you select the laws it's impacts the loyalty of your vassals making it harder to maintain
 
Statesman isn’t the best word for this.

While the literal definition is somebody involved in governance and administration, the term is typically used to refer to exceptionally competent and venerated leaders. These are the Otto von Bismarcks and Winston Churchills of history rather than run-of-the-mill politicians.
I was told this DLC makes "leaders rarer but more important", so I would assume the 6 people in my nation of tens of billions *are* all Winston Churchill. Though I would say he is way overrated by popular culture, but that's besides the point.
 
  • 4Like
Reactions:
For the leader trouble try this.

Make a rule that if you have one of each leader type then the max leader amount you get is increased by 1.

This will resolve not hiring a general because he takes up a slot that could have been used by something else.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
As others pointed out, puttingtogether admirals and generals while having same trait pool is horrible. I dont like even now that my leader suddenly becomes half councilor-half specalist, and bad at both the same time.
Leaders should have dual role capability. Making every leader be an ultra specialized super supreme leader just makes the game easier. There should be some uncomfortable choices made during play.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
So was anyone able to de-pixelate next week's clue?
  • Agendas (top left)
  • Planet view (left), showing the specialist strata, an enforcer, and some other job (researcher? from the color)
  • Species traits (bottom)
  • Shroud Witches (obviously)
  • An aquatic portrait leader, with traits visible
  • Don't know the top right (I suspect someone could match the text color and configuration to something in the UI, if it's preexisting)
  • Some kind of event text (with an oft-reused image that usually relates to Shroud-y things, IIRC).
 
Last edited:
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd like for vice presidents to be a thing, so we don't have a failed (completed) agenda and an election every few months, as the half-dozen centenarians from the start of the game die off.
 
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
I am referring to the assertion directly from the OP by Eladrin:

"Currently, the presence of a less valuable leader (like a General) takes up the same “space” as something like a Scientist or Admiral, which leads to some unsatisfying gameplay decisions."
By consolidating Generals and Admirals, there would presumably be a lower opportunity cost for picking a particular land warfare trait; Right now hiring a General to get one of the few General traits that can actually be useful fills up an entire leader slot with a leader who isn't going to be doing anything 90% of the time, while on the other hand choosing that same trait on a "Commander" would only take up a single trait spot and would still let you use that leader for your fleets when you aren't invading planets.

obviously spies disguise themselves all the time.. doesn't mean envoy should be able to do 2 jobs... doesn't make sense... we need a clear and useful espionage system and having espionage system being blocked cos u need to use envoys as diplomats (there actual function) doesn't make sense... they need too be separate entirely and then spy system/sabotage tradition/techs can be focused on properly as they all need help in this area
I think it does makes sense, but personally I think it would be better if envoys could multitask building spy networks alongside their other roles. It sounds right for your diplomats to be leading your information-gathering efforts alongside their official diplomatic business, considering how much the two roles overlap.

From a role play perspective this is a big issue I have with the leader cap. Even from the start of the game we’re playing a unified world who have industrialised their home system. Why does my director for science need to captain a ship? Why is my minister of war personally leading fleets? We seriously couldn’t find anyone else in the billions of citizens to do those jobs?

As it scales it gets worse. No sci fi galactic empire operates on the basis only some of their fleets and planets will have leaders.
I think that part of this issue is that its not 100% clear what leaders represent. I assumed that after Galactic Paragons they're no longer meant to represent just "leaders," but specifically exceptional leaders; Your war heroes and luminaries, famous individuals that an average citizen on your worlds might know the name of, notable enough to still have importance on a galactic scale. If the leader system had been originally made like this from the start it might've been called something like a "paragon cap" instead. If you think of it like that the leader cap makes more sense, since thematically the gameplay of having to pick and choose where to place your limited number of exceptional individuals fits very well.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Aren't leaders supposed to represent a (small) portion of your total population that fulfill specific jobs, e.g. leading a fleet or governing a planet. If we extend this line of thought, shouldn't the leader capacity grow with you total population?
 
  • 9Like
  • 1
Reactions:
With the Federation rework, I think the Gestalt change is good in general, but I'd recommend a coding caveat that ensures trade federations don't start with gestalts. It'd be especially annoying for MegaCorps to RNG into that sort of start.
That might be quite tricky, as I think you only choose the federation type after the federation members have been spawned.

On the other hand, the game already can change a regular pre-ftl into a hivemind, so maybe "rerolling" an existing empire would also work.

A similar issue also exists with the Spiritual Federation with a Machine Empire member. That wouldn't hurt the player like a gestalt in a trade fed, but it would still make no thematic sense for the Common Ground origin.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
That might be quite tricky, as I think you only choose the federation type after the federation members have been spawned.

Agreed. It might be pre-empted by doing a screening roll for whether the player empire is either a MegaCorp OR has the Merchant Guilds civics, i.e. the requirements for selecting a Trade Federation.


A similar issue also exists with the Spiritual Federation with a Machine Empire member. That wouldn't hurt the player like a gestalt in a trade fed, but it would still make no thematic sense for the Common Ground origin.

Similarly, this could screen for Spiritualists. IF player is Spiritualist, THEN no member can be Machine.
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
Can we get a specific 'Trade League' start for Megacorps, similar to how Hegemony is separate, which guarantees that Federation members will Not be hiveminds and also that they won't be (competing) megacorps? Maybe also increase the odds that they're running trade-adjacent civics (Anglers, Masterful Crafters, Merchant Guilds -obviously- and Pleasure Seekers)?
I like this, but I'd take it even a bit further: you can take it if you're a megacorp _or_ if you have Merchant Guilds, and in the latter case guarantees that one (and only one) of your partners is a (non-criminal) corp. Sometimes, you want the perks of having a corporate ally without yourself being a corp.
 
  • 2Like
  • 2
Reactions:
This feels a bit like Habitat where throw out the whole system rather than address the ROOT cause. I already posted about how the issue with the Leader Cap is the XP Penalty and not the cap itself. https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...-the-new-leader-system.1589988/#post-29001010

There are SO MANY questions with this new leader rework. I would assume the XP Penalty is staying cause I didn't see any mention of removing it just trying to make better use of the limited Leaders you have while further restricting your leaders and requiring MORE leaders.

Reducing things to three leader types and merging envoys into the mix begs the question... Are we going to get a Larger Leader CAP!?!?! Cause if you go the Diplomatic Route before you could easily have 8+ Envoys to send to other empires, engage in spy actions, work the Fed/Council, and etc. Now were are gonna have even higher demand for our leadership positions so are they gonna give us an extra 8+ to leader cap??

They JUST released Paragon DLC with the Leader Rework and they effectively seem set to throw out the majority of it and completely rework Leaders again all because people don't like how the Leader Cap penalizes them. Instead of fixing the issue that no one likes they are reworking everything else to keep that system.

I've bought every single DLC and enjoyed Stellaris for years but honestly not likely how things are going. The One system Habitat is huge turn off for me as it kills that unique play style the void dwellers had going. Now they are planning to throw out the 4 Leader type system that's been in the game for years after a major rework which had each leader type have it's own traits and veteran classes. I was really starting to like the whole new leader system as I got a better feel for it but I didn't like the cap mechanics. However it doesn't even feel like they gave it a chance because all they care about is keeping that XP cap.

Frankly this is the lowest my opinion has ever been on the direction Stellaris is taking and starting to think it might be time to move on. I honestly can't think of any other changes in the past that had me this skeptical short of when they removed the 3 warp types but even that I was still hopefully optimistic about. Given how badly they fumbled Paragons with making leaders more in demand due to Govs being planet rather than sector bonuses while having a tiny cap and overly harsh penalties only to then compound it by repeating the same mistake of rolling the high count need for envoys into that leader cap and no mention of FIXING THE CAP ISSUE the future does not look bright.
 
  • 7
  • 3Like
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Hey, while you are improving species packs, could you make the Aquatics portraits that have major physical differences between "color" variants use phenotypes?
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Removing the cap and making the leader game trivially easy would be unwarranted.
It's trivially easy either way. We didn't have this cap for a long time, we didn't need it and it served no purpose so it was cut back in the day. The new devs thinking they know better and playing necromancer has come with a whole host of bandwagon issues. To the point they had to try and fix it ever since, and now we're reached them wanting to do another complete rework because of it after we just had one.

The cap does absolutely nothing to enhance the game play or make the game better.
 
  • 11
  • 4Like
  • 2
Reactions:
It's trivially easy either way.
The measure of easy is how thoughtless the game play is. With no leader cap it requires no thought and no trade off to play leaders.

We didn't have this cap for a long time,
There were caps but there we no meaningful impacts to going over cap. No impact to making a choice makes the game easier.

we didn't need it and it served no purpose so it was cut back in the day.
... or it was slightly modified to pacify the complaining.


The new devs thinking they know better and playing necromancer has come with a whole host of bandwagon issues. To the point they had to try and fix it ever since, and now we're reached them wanting to do another complete rework because of it after we just had one.
Everything gets reworked given enough time. Every change comes with a large group of complaining. Some people don't like change. Some people like playing scripts.


The cap does absolutely nothing to enhance the game play or make the game better.
Your statement is wrong. It increased the set of tradeoffs in a strategy game. Choice paths with tradeoffs make a strategy game better. That is why it is called a strategy game.
 
  • 12
  • 2Like
Reactions: