Should rulers (be able to) govern the capital sector?

[Tannhäuser Cake]

At the start of the game, the UNE consists only of Earth and a few space stations in the Sol system. Ruling the UNE is completely synonymous with ruling Earth. So why does the starting UNE president not also govern Earth (i.e. the Earth sector)?

This model of thought produces an even more glaring image when we consider a world united under Imperial or Dictatorial rule. It is more believable that the dictator/emperor of the homeworld would additionally grant themself interstellar authority in addition to controlling the homeworld / capital sector, i.e. rule both the homeworld and exercise imperial authority over other worlds, and less believable that they would hand over the management of all worlds in the empire (at first the homeworld, and then other worlds in the capital sector) to another person who could be inclined to use their now-massive influence to completely remove the nominal ruler from power.

Historically, the kings of Spain did not delegate Spain itself to any viceroy, even though Spain acquired other lands that were delegated to viceroys. The queens and kings of Great Britain did not delegate Great Britain to a viceroy, even though they did so with India and Ireland. And so on, and so forth, et cetera.

There may be some potential counter-arguments to these "thematic", "history" and "realism" arguments, but I would also like to point out some further benefits of rulers ruling the capital sector:

• It would give the ruler a physical location, making it look and feel like the ruler actually rules from the capital.
  • Currently, the ruler feels like a nebulous, abstract entity hovering above it all, without any physical presence.
• It would emphasize the difference of the capital sector from the other sectors.
• It would suit Imperial governments especially well, considering their bonus to resources from the capital system.
• It would be a step closer to Crusader Kings, if we consider the capital sector the personal demesne of the ruler.
• It could be one more brick in the development of internal politics, where relationships of/with leaders could matter more.
• It could go well with a "Constitutional Monarchy" civic, where the ruler position is hereditary but democratic elections take place to determine the Prime Minister (council position and governor of the capital sector).

 

[Archael90]

This would also give some variety between different ruler classes, like now ruler commander and ruler scientist are almost the same (later perks they get differ them), with such small change they would govern their homewold differently.

 

[klopkr]

The way leaders already specialize only in traits useful for one leader job is kinda not fun in my opinion. But wouldn't this make your leader have to pick traits that are bad for leadership or bad for ruling a system?

I just wish that leaders could gain traits down multiple job tracks without sacrificing others based on what they're doing. Keep a leader doing science and you expand their science track, shift them to governor capacity and they quickly gain governing traits and can now do both.

or maybe all traits should give bonuses to each leader job path so no trait is useless for specific jobs?

The whole thing feels kinda muddled.

 

[HFY]

The way leaders already specialize only in traits useful for one leader job is kinda not fun in my opinion. But wouldn't this make your leader have to pick traits that are bad for leadership or bad for ruling a system?

I just wish that leaders could gain traits down multiple job tracks without sacrificing others based on what they're doing. Keep a leader doing science and you expand their science track, shift them to governor capacity and they quickly gain governing traits and can now do both.

or maybe all traits should give bonuses to each leader job path so no trait is useless for specific jobs?

The whole thing feels kinda muddled.

Yeah it's a half-baked system. Each trait should impact multiple roles (and not always positively).

Like the Hyperfocus trait could give a really great +% to a governed planet but a -% to the sector -- the leader is hyper focused after all.

With the 4.0 reduction in trait count, this is a great time to re-work traits to impact multiple roles, and make the whole thing more interesting -- with more good traits and more combo synergy, since the opportunity cost has increased for each one.

 

[Arc2442]

I'd be all for this, especially since it's a little odd that the Minister of State, a council role that is entirely based around external diplomacy, is the default governor of your starting planet and sector

It does seem a bit too... I wouldn't say powerful but onerous that the ruler would be the head of your empire and also the head of your home sector, which could potentially be filled with colonies or habitats. At the start it makes sense, but it could work if you hit x amount of planets and you get an event that says the ruler has too much on their plate and the home sector governance has been turned over to an underling. It'd allow tall empires to keep their ruler as their home governor.

 

[Ryika]

I'd be all for this, especially since it's a little odd that the Minister of State, a council role that is entirely based around external diplomacy, is the default governor of your starting planet and sector

It does seem a bit too... I wouldn't say powerful but onerous that the ruler would be the head of your empire and also the head of your home sector, which could potentially be filled with colonies or habitats. At the start it makes sense, but it could work if you hit x amount of planets and you get an event that says the ruler has too much on their plate and the home sector governance has been turned over to an underling. It'd allow tall empires to keep their ruler as their home governor.

I'd argue that you'd not want your ruler to govern your Home Sector in the long run anyway. They do need a completely different set of traits and classes to be effective after all. It's nice to have the option in the beginning, but in the long run, it really makes sense to get specialized leaders for the important jobs, and spread the off-class leaders to where they are not quite as impactful. If your home sector gains more and more planets, the benefit of having a dedicated governor becomes even bigger.

Personally, I think traits should play into this more. Make all but the most powerful non-class traits more versatile, adding bonuses to multiple roles. This would benefit the early game and make the randomness less annoying. Class choice should then give bonuses to a specific role only. When it comes to Class Traits and Paragon Traits, the almost universally useful and good ones should give penalties to non-class occupations, the "decent" ones might be neutral, and the class traits that you generally don't want to see could give some off-class bonuses to allow for picks as council+normal job hybrid leaders in empires that go wide without adding a lot of leader capacity.

 

[Connacht]

Well, it's kinda like expecting that the prime minister of a nation would also be the mayor of the capital. Up to eleven, because it should be noted that an entire planet would be impossible to rule without many delegates and all the bureaucracy of the government.

 

[Kami-sama]

I too was baffled that the ruler wasn't governing the capital sector and I wish they would allow them to be selected as governors. But it still shouldn't be mandatory, at least if Galactic Paragons is installed. That's because the ruler is locked into their council-focused veteran class, making them less effective as governors.

 

[Ikael]

It would make a damn lot of sense, especially for Imperial authority.

But generally speaking, the Empire ruler grants worse bonuses than most council posts, which feels extremely wrong. Leaders turning into rulers often feel like "wasted" leaders. Giving empire rulers more things to do (a la occupying two roles at once), or revising ruler bonuses would help to alleviate that.

 

[Swarm lover]

At the start of the game, the UNE consists only of Earth and a few space stations in the Sol system. Ruling the UNE is completely synonymous with ruling Earth. So why does the starting UNE president not also govern Earth (i.e. the Earth sector)?

This model of thought produces an even more glaring image when we consider a world united under Imperial or Dictatorial rule. It is more believable that the dictator/emperor of the homeworld would additionally grant themself interstellar authority in addition to controlling the homeworld / capital sector, i.e. rule both the homeworld and exercise imperial authority over other worlds, and less believable that they would hand over the management of all worlds in the empire (at first the homeworld, and then other worlds in the capital sector) to another person who could be inclined to use their now-massive influence to completely remove the nominal ruler from power.

Historically, the kings of Spain did not delegate Spain itself to any viceroy, even though Spain acquired other lands that were delegated to viceroys. The queens and kings of Great Britain did not delegate Great Britain to a viceroy, even though they did so with India and Ireland. And so on, and so forth, et cetera.

There may be some potential counter-arguments to these "thematic", "history" and "realism" arguments, but I would also like to point out some further benefits of rulers ruling the capital sector:

• It would give the ruler a physical location, making it look and feel like the ruler actually rules from the capital.
  • Currently, the ruler feels like a nebulous, abstract entity hovering above it all, without any physical presence.
• It would emphasize the difference of the capital sector from the other sectors.
• It would suit Imperial governments especially well, considering their bonus to resources from the capital system.
• It would be a step closer to Crusader Kings, if we consider the capital sector the personal demesne of the ruler.
• It could be one more brick in the development of internal politics, where relationships of/with leaders could matter more.
• It could go well with a "Constitutional Monarchy" civic, where the ruler position is hereditary but democratic elections take place to determine the Prime Minister (council position and governor of the capital sector).

I do agree with that. Always felt weird my ruler was physically present no where.

 

[Archael90]

Yeah it's a half-baked system. Each trait should impact multiple roles (and not always positively).

Like the Hyperfocus trait could give a really great +% to a governed planet but a -% to the sector -- the leader is hyper focused after all.

With the 4.0 reduction in trait count, this is a great time to re-work traits to impact multiple roles, and make the whole thing more interesting -- with more good traits and more combo synergy, since the opportunity cost has increased for each one.

Each perk should have council effect. Council perks should not be separate things.

 

[Cry_Havok]

This would make early game in particular a lot less a pain for republics and oligarchies/megacorps when key leaders get jerked around.

 

[Red Death]

Imperator: Rome strikes again! (They did this with rulers and capital regions).

 

[Jay Sherman]

But generally speaking, the Empire ruler grants worse bonuses than most council posts, which feels extremely wrong. Leaders turning into rulers often feel like "wasted" leaders. Giving empire rulers more things to do (a la occupying two roles at once), or revising ruler bonuses would help to alleviate that.

You know what they say: "In a hierarchy, every employee tends to rise to his level of incompetence."