Galactic Paragons... What was the point?

[rman88]

Hello, i feel like getting an opinion on this before i bother with this. As unlike the past DLC which have easily been a slam dunk. Just buy it and enjoy it. This one seems a bit ehh... Controversial.

Mainly because from the looks of things. it heavily punishes you from playing Wide. The leader cap is so restrictive that you are forced to limit your expansion. Almost as if Paradox decided playing Wide was a horrible idea. And wanted you to be forced to play tall until the late game. As yes i know their will be research that allow you to up your Leader count. That is a giving as their is repetable for every other aspect of the game.

So what was the point of this leader rework? Was it to force you to play a certain way. to nerf say devouring swarms or those civics? Why would i even want this DLC if it overcompensates the leader system. Leading to another tedious thing i have to micro manage?

Mind you i am a player that enjoys playing wide. In fact i like to use console commands to figure out a nice large portion of the universe i could take for myself. Only to build it up as i prepare to go to war or interact with the universe at large. And i like playing with high planet count. So you could see why i would have a concern.

[Ryika]

Originally posted by rman88:

The leader cap is so restrictive that you are forced to limit your expansion.

Why? What exactly is the thought process behind this statement? "I cannot have a governor in this sector, so it's not worth expanding"?

[corisai]

Originally posted by rman88:

Mainly because from the looks of things. it heavily punishes you from playing Wide.

Leader cap is part of CORE game now.

So DLC only make everything better by providing a very powerful and even OP traits to leaders.

P.S. And many mods are solving this issue. We all know that Paradox hates when we're going Wide - they introduced tons of mechanics to hurt such players over years.

[MadArtillery]

Honestly you can mix max to hell and back with this expansion, it's incredibly powerful and leaders matter a lot more now. Next patch will hopefully fix what they missed the mark on for wide empires with being able to get leaders that don't impact the cap. Been a fav of mine, hope they can polish it to fix it's issues in a timely manner.

[AlienWired]

Originally posted by rman88:

Hello, i feel like getting an opinion on this before i bother with this. As unlike the past DLC which have easily been a slam dunk. Just buy it and enjoy it. This one seems a bit ehh... Controversial.

Mainly because from the looks of things. it heavily punishes you from playing Wide. The leader cap is so restrictive that you are forced to limit your expansion. Almost as if Paradox decided playing Wide was a horrible idea. And wanted you to be forced to play tall until the late game. As yes i know their will be research that allow you to up your Leader count. That is a giving as their is repetable for every other aspect of the game.

So what was the point of this leader rework? Was it to force you to play a certain way. to nerf say devouring swarms or those civics? Why would i even want this DLC if it overcompensates the leader system. Leading to another tedious thing i have to micro manage?

Mind you i am a player that enjoys playing wide. In fact i like to use console commands to figure out a nice large portion of the universe i could take for myself. Only to build it up as i prepare to go to war or interact with the universe at large. And i like playing with high planet count. So you could see why i would have a concern.

Not having enough leaders has never stopped me from expanding.

[pete3great]

The point is to turn a strategy game into an RPG, but also to shovel out pointless DLC in the hopes of retiring young, which is easier in Sweden.

[Garatgh Deloi]

Originally posted by rman88:

...

You do realize that there is nothing preventing you from having sectors, fleets and armies without leaders assigned to them. Right?

Leaders are way more powerful now, but you have fewer of them. I would advice seeing them more as special individuals (geniuses and the like) within your empire. Where you position them is your choice and can have a huge impact, but they aren't needed everywhere.

[Athmet]

Originally posted by pete3great:

The point is to turn a strategy game into an RPG, but also to shovel out pointless DLC in the hopes of retiring young, which is easier in Sweden.

Cool story bro

[tempest.of.emptiness]

Originally posted by Garatgh Deloi:

Leaders are way more powerful now, but you have fewer of them. I would advice seeing them more as special individuals (geniuses and the like) within your empire. Where you position them is your choice and can have a huge impact, but they aren't needed everywhere.

I'm almost willing to accept this. Before I can, however, they will need to make it so that a science ship without a leader assigned to it can do anything that a science ship with a leader can do (although obviously without any of the bonuses a leader might provide to that task).

[Locklave]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by rman88:

The leader cap is so restrictive that you are forced to limit your expansion.

Why? What exactly is the thought process behind this statement? "I cannot have a governor in this sector, so it's not worth expanding"?

You are intentionally interpreting what he said in the stupidest way possible.

Less science ships mean slower expansion speed and certain builds rely on rapid expansion, wide builds. Xenophobes for example. Things you are aware of.

Your post is in bad faith.

[Mazey]

Originally posted by Geronimo:

Again, a OP starts a topic with a valid issue. Why is expansion limited through capping leaders? And a bunch of company cheerleaders march out to tell the OP that he's wrong.

IOI all the way, baby!

How is your expansion limited?
You can still expand as much as you want, you can still build as many fleets as you want.
It's just that you might not have governors and admirals for them.

The OP is complaining about not being able to play wide. Which is utter nonsense, wide is still by far the most powerful and effective way to play.

Just saying the words "valid issue" doesn't actually mean the issue is valid.

[Segovax]

Originally posted by Ryika:

Originally posted by rman88:

The leader cap is so restrictive that you are forced to limit your expansion.

Why? What exactly is the thought process behind this statement? "I cannot have a governor in this sector, so it's not worth expanding"?

Because the whole dlc is about leaders, and they capped the leaders too low. "I want to have three fleets in 2275 but I have to choose between 3 admirals and no science officers or 1 admiral and science officers" is not a brilliant way to endorse your cool new leader system.

If all they had done was make the soft cap unity cost only and scale appropriately, it would be fine. The XP penalty on top of bad scaling with extremely limited options to raise the cap otherwise makes it a terrible expansion.

It's like if Federations only let you have 2 other empires in the federation and each one beyond that had -16% xp gain that wasn't offset by envoys, or every minion in Overlord past the first gave -16% opinion on top of existing penalties, without easily accessible options to negate it.

Here's a cool new system, ♥♥♥♥ you for trying to use it is what it feels like.

[corisai]

Originally posted by Segovax:

Because the whole dlc is about leaders, and they capped the leaders too low.

Destiny traits are broken OP. If you would able to stack best of them easily it will be a massive cheese.

Originally posted by Segovax:

If all they had done was make the soft cap unity cost only and scale appropriately, it would be fine.

Seriously? Fine?
But via destiny traits in council alone you could drop leader upkeep costs to 40% :)

[Locklave]

Originally posted by Mazey:

Just saying the words "valid issue" doesn't actually mean the issue is valid.

Mazey has decided it is an invalid issue everyone. Debate over, or how about no.

Originally posted by Mazey:

How is your expansion limited?

Less leaders means less science ships. Taking more science ships means taking substantial penalties to leader exp growth crippling your empire compared to other empires.

But we are pretending these problems don't exist because you ask what they are as if you don't know. Wide build gets punished now,

Originally posted by Mazey:

The OP is complaining about not being able to play wide. Which is utter nonsense, wide is still by far the most powerful and effective way to play.

No, it is not the most powerful and effective way to play. Maybe if you spent more time playing and less time making excuses for the devs on the forums you'd know Vassal builds are the unrivaled kings and tall works perfect for that. It's been like that for several DLCs.

So valid issues, valid because people accept them as valid. Not invalid just because you can't understand the problem created.

[Azor]

It does not punish you for going wide at all. In fact, rulers are so broken right now that you can completely negate Empire Sprawl. I managed to get nearly -90% empire sprawl without going over the leader cap while not even knowing I could achieve it.

[Dave]

I can't find a workaround for the leader cap so I've given up on Stellaris for the time being. It's not computing with my mind.