Execute negative leaders as warning

[Confector426]

Suffice to say, the leadership changes, the leaders changes in general, are not going over well with me.

I wouldn't mind negative traits showing up if I had a huge list of candidates to replace them from, but that's not an option.

I want an option to turn off this trait crap period, i'll take the penalty/loss of awesome rather than deal with the fact that some idiot decided to put this crap in and now I only have, at most, 3 leaders to choose from if one goes bad.

Or. I want an "Let them serve as an example" option. I'd sacrifice half the value of my empire just to devise new ways to keep the torture going, promotion to Nobility for the one that sets the record for just how long they can keep the corrupt leader alive but tortured, every single day. I'll build holo centers at every outpost period, just to stream it live to the entire empire.

This is what happens to those who stray.

As it is. it's killed any and all enjoyment I have with this game. Period.

At least give us the option to elect out of this, turn it off, or set an example of the traitor.

10/10 on how to make someone stop playing your game.

[Coryak]

That's why I like to play a Machine Empire-Gestalt Consciousness. Correctional Bysection and the bad traits on the leader nodes are gone.

Doesn't work for regular Leaders, but you get buffs and perks to prevent them from getting bad traits.

[Cerodil]

I don't get it is one or two negative traits really enough to make someone quit?

You know planets have always had chances for negative traits and I've never seen anyone quit over that. Also you can't replace a planet but you could potentially and eventually replace leaders.

I don't see the point when none of the negatives are really that bad in the grand scheme.

[Nighthaven]

I for one feel highly annoyed. Even when skilling highly in civics, traits and units features to reduce it, it feels like it is happening far to often. And if you don't go that route, you'll barely have much of that freshly employed leader for long as negative traits make it hard to keep them around.

The chance for the negative traits they get, not to impact their field of work seems rather slim too. Like, I don't mind if they reduce energy credit production or start learning slower when I need them to just increase research efficency. But suddenly getting a negative 5% research on a leader that barely provides 8% bonus to begin with is, meah.

Negative traits are ok as such, but the frequency they are given at feels much to high and gives me the feeling I am being railroaded to specialice my empire into reducing the impact, unless I want to swap them out over and over again. If at least there was some research available to reduce the chance of it happening, but I have yet to find any.

Playing Hive or Machine feels much more comfortable now, even if it means less counciler possitions, those positions least become incredibly powerful while everyone else can barely manage to keep a decent leader in even one position for long. The fluctuation feels, much to high.

[Cerodil]

Nope, I still don't get it. Even if I had a leader with the max amount of negatives and the worst ones at that I still can't understand why someone would quit the game over that.

I personally see the negative traits as a part of the challenge of the game. Especially since nothing in game is really as challenge once you know what you're doing.

There's usually was to deal with most of the traits anyways. If you get a minus research bonus on a councilor then swap them with another leader and have them be a governor. If you get a governor with a bad trait like increased crime then put them in the galactic community.

You don't need to fire or execute a leader just because you don't like one or two things about them. The game for the most part gives you the tools you need to deal with all it can throw at you, it's your job as the player to use those tools and find the solution that works best.

Now if you want to have a conversation about not having enough options or arguing that we should be able to do this or that to solve certain issues then I can understand that. This game is constantly evolving and I've no doubt that in the future we'd have some of these ideas added or something else similar.

[Nighthaven]

Um, yes, and no. My researcher can be both, Govenour and on the Council. If he gets bad stats on the council, and I have already two more science officers exploring the map, skilled specifically for nothing else, and I am at 3/3 Science officers, then I am sorry, but he has to go and be replaced with fresh meat.

In such a case, it becomes highly annoying when your specialising your officers and they turn bad, and nowhere do you feel it as bad as with science officers, least in my eyes.

With the two other leader classes I agree, and it's fine. And more often then not, it can be swapped out in some way without firing him or her outright. But unless there are more, alternatives for exploration, I don't see me being any less annoyed when my investment turns sour.

Not quitting the game over it, and usually the negative impact is still something I can endure for a time.

If anything, it feels like exploration may need some, alternative means that not so heavily relies on Scientists alone.

EDIT: And lets not forget long living Dictatorial leaders >.> Really fun if he turns ignorant when your surrounded by xenophobes and got a Fanatical purifier breathing down your neck. Really need that thrust growth not to be reduced on me for the next 140 years *chuckles*

[Cerodil]

I can agree the choices for scientist are a little lacking. Having them be able to be governors is nice since before they were mostly useless once all the exploration was done.

AS for you trying to specialize your leaders, it sounds good in theory. However in reality I would argue it's a fools errand. Think about it in real life is there any leader that is perfectly suited to their position at any level? I would argue no. I don't want to start any off topic discussions but to expect any of your leaders in game to be perfectly suited to their positions is unrealistic and I'm happy that it's that way. It's more realistic and makes me feel more like I'm controlling a real civilization of real beings with all their negatives and positives helping to shape their future and my decisions.

[Nighthaven]

On the same side of the coin though, having a bunch of, Jack of all trades isn't helpfull either. I usually have at least one Scientist, two If I can afford it, specialise in exploration at the beginning as, if you want to expand quickly to any juicy bit of free tech and Archeological sites, you need to be swift with your exploration.

And Even if only to find the most suitable choke point for yourself to expand towards, exploration is slow enough that It can slow down any sensible expansion before all wortthwhile estate is grabbed up and the slugging fests start.

So, that is the Scanning part, which is skilled asap for me, as well as anomaly and archeological site workings, and some scouting abilities on top for when the borders are set and the spygames can begin. Adding in anything research related is less then adequat there.

And along that line of work, My Research Counciler Tends to get research related skills, and either some exploration, or Governing skills depending on what I need him for. Sure, if he turns bad, he still can just fly some science vessel until the end of his days. But due to my specialisation with my other two officers, that option becomes, pointless, and it is best to kick him out once the negatives get to painful to be worthwhile. Even if I have the scientist leader space to just get another, the unity upkeep alone prevents me from doing so, especially in my current game.

Playing a Very Strong / Venerable, Life seeded Sciene dictatorship ( Fanatic Autocracy / Materialist ). I simply dont have the unity income to waste on less then efficent cogs in my Emperial machine. I need all of that to get advancements to reduce negative trait impacts, and set up stronge starbases and suitable fleets. Because basic doesn't cut it on higher dificulty levels. And I am already playing a less then stellar Composition as is XD


Honestly, it get's a little frustrating at times. Playing Hive and / or Machine is easy, you just bisect the nodes and be done with it. And who cares about the actual leaders ? They have nothing to do with the council anyway, even if they still have access to their skills >.>

Honestly, if there was some kind of means to *correct* your Leaders negatives again, that would be lovely, but save for 1 random event within the last 5 games I run, I havn't seen anything like that yet for non hive/machine empires.

[Cerodil]

I don't understand why you would terminate a leader just because it has a few red traits. Even if I got a leader that had 3 negatives I wouldn't consider getting rid of them, the waste of unity is not worth it. Also what do you do with your scientist when you've surveyed everything? You know making them governors lowers your empire size based on their level, you're going to get less if you fire your high level leaders for so called "better ones"

I think 3 is the max, I could be wrong though, never seen that much but you can get a species trait and there's a tradition that lowers it as well.

[Nighthaven]

I usually have my exploration scientists in active espionage with empires I don't get along to well, or that have a scientific edge on me. Aside from envoys, which are also in short supply based on your built, I have no other means to keep a sufficent Intel level on them until late game, and by then, I usually only have as many Scientists as I need for the council positions. Tend to have Officers and Commanders as sector govenours as my Science centric planets are usually good enough with those to outperform most others.

The Problem of my frustration stems solely from the early / mid game, where the negatives become painful. It may only be one or two negatives on one Researcher, but add in the negatives across the whole council that start popping up around then, and it starts to hurt. Especialy in cases as is right now, where I am playing a Venerable species build within a dictatorship, my Science based Leader can not be swapped out, he can only die of old age, so any other Researcher that adds to the problem tends to be unwelcome eventually.

My previous attempt was an Officer build leader, and his minus 30 Trust cap and Negative stability alone, at the age of 70 with a minimum livespan of around 160 years, was bad enough.

It is not that one Researcher is the problem, it is the amount of them all together that makes it troublesome. I can compensate some negatives, but stacking it with a leader that can not be swapped out surmounts to a problem. And even if that is not the case, if He used to give me positive 6 research from traits, and 6 from council position, and then gets a minus 5 hit. it feels nasty. Still have positive, sure, but If I can swap him out for a new one that starts with 2 extra skill levels, it is much easier to fetch a new one to outperform him. Until that one also gets a negative that impacts me the wrong way.

I did some runs with Species set to reduce the Negative impacts, and that worked great as the negative hit usually happen towards the latter end of their lifespan, by that time, they have so many positives that it barely matters, but thats where I start feeling frustrated and railroaded into a specific built. Doing anything but reducing the negative trait impact feels like a bad experience right now to me.

EDIT: granted, if I keep them, I can probably level them to the point where the negatives do not matter. But that feels like a Luxus that I can not affort to have in the early game.

[Confector426]

Don't worry about it. I solved my problem. Uninstalled the game.

This lovely game where I had all DLC's. No longer a fun gaming experience, now trash.

So I tossed out the trash. Problem solved.