Thoughts on leader cap?

[Delayio]

I like the new council system and leader changes, don't get me wrong. But what was the issue with having as many leaders as you wished? It just feels off and throws me out of the role playing aspect when you're a powerful interstellar nation, hundreds of billions of pops on tens if not hundreds of worlds, 20-30 military fleets and huge invasion armies, and it's all run buy a handful of people, and my empire with the resources to do and maintain ALL of that stuff, can't afford to hire on enough leaders just to keep every fleet with an admiral, every science ship with a leader, armies, sectors etc?

[Mazey]

All your armies, fleets, and planets do have leaders, but they are no-names that don't offer anything special, so the game doesn't even show you them.

The leaders that you can see are the very few elite leaders that provide more than that.

[Immortalis]

In Crusader Kings you have tens of thousands of troops roaming around the map, led by three commanders. Europa Universalis is even more basic, with a single leader running the entire army, regardless of how big it is.

In Victoria you have, again a handful of generals, leading the entirety of your nation's military. Taking Victoria 3 as an example, you have what, five or six guys managing the entirety of a nation's political and societal apparatus?

HOI again has a necessary abstraction with generals in command of several divisions, and entire armies. You do not have colonels, you do not have majors and so forth.

Likewise in Stellaris you don't get hundreds of different leaders. Not because they are not present in your empire. You have plenty of scientists, and politicians and all other jobs, including military men. *But* when you deal with an interplanetary (let alone cross-solar systems) you only take notice of the *truly* exceptional leaders. It's not like your head of research personally handles all of the research of your empire: it's an abstraction of a much more complex system. A system that cannot be implemented with our current level of technology (and one that would add very little to the game).

[Cinnamoon_dragon]

The old leaders were more just like tokens, I like the new system more, now the characters are more individual and customizable,
something that makes it closer to an RPG experience. The problem is that there is just not enough new content. More characters, more traits that don't just add 1℅ to mineral production, and traits that reflect a character's true experience rather than being randomly generated. Triggers for each of the traits should be added to the game, for example, if a scientist is engaged in archaeological excavation, he has a higher chance of gaining an archeology skill, If the governor is on a planet with a high crime rate, he may start to abuse substances and etc.
It would be more reasonable and interesting. What we have now is a new feature, but not enough options to choose from to unleash its full potential and that explains why someone might want to go back to a previous version

[EleventhStar]

Originally posted by Static-ghost:

The old leaders were more just like tokens, I like the new system more, now the characters are more individual and customizable,
something that makes it closer to an RPG experience.

But they could have just kept the tokens in addition to the new leaders.

the new leaders would suck if you had to manage 20+ of them so i get why they are limited quantity, but i've put a token on my sectors and fleets for the last 5 years so why take that away?

that's what all the leader cap complaints are anyways, they aren't asking for more of tne new leaders, they want _something_ to fill governor/admiral slot that's now empty after years of having a token.

[Urza]

Just poking around a bit in observer mode, I can already see the AI likes to make as many science ships as they used to, but now cant hire the scientists to fill them. Year 20 and the AI has 3 empty science ships each sitting at home.

It also looks like it cant handle Heirs very well. If the Heir is an Admiral or something and it only has one fleet cause its the start of the game, that heir just sits there using up a leader slot for the AI. Not on council, not in fleet. -1 slot, meaning really -1 scientist for that empire till people start dying.

Thats not counting the fact that if the game auto-generates them a General as their first minister of defense instead of an Admiral, they just wont have an admiral.

[box]

Originally posted by Delayio:

I like the new council system and leader changes, don't get me wrong. But what was the issue with having as many leaders as you wished? It just feels off and throws me out of the role playing aspect when you're a powerful interstellar nation, hundreds of billions of pops on tens if not hundreds of worlds, 20-30 military fleets and huge invasion armies, and it's all run buy a handful of people, and my empire with the resources to do and maintain ALL of that stuff, can't afford to hire on enough leaders just to keep every fleet with an admiral, every science ship with a leader, armies, sectors etc?

What they've done is made space CK and throttled your ability to manage an interstellar space empire without the DLC.

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by EleventhStar:

Originally posted by Static-ghost:

The old leaders were more just like tokens, I like the new system more, now the characters are more individual and customizable,
something that makes it closer to an RPG experience.

But they could have just kept the tokens in addition to the new leaders.

the new leaders would suck if you had to manage 20+ of them so i get why they are limited quantity, but i've put a token on my sectors and fleets for the last 5 years so why take that away?

that's what all the leader cap complaints are anyways, they aren't asking for more of tne new leaders, they want _something_ to fill governor/admiral slot that's now empty after years of having a token.

I'd argue the new leaders are just fancier tokens anyway, it's not like they have agency of their own.

Also why not more leaders in their current state really?

[Urza]

https://imgur.com/a/Qeg0A8H

holy crap, I have no idea if it just generated like this or if this AI had some scientists die in unfortunate anomalies or something, but this poor dude has all of 1 scientist.


I'm also not sure if its wise to even -let- the AI generate councilors who dont have councilor traits, cause its not like they cycle leaders to slot that on their own. Like i'd be ok with a mod or update that just gives the AI a free councilor trait on any leader they have that ends up with that job.

[Duder]

Like it now better, AI expands more slowly, leaving more time to expand and claim more territory than before if done right. You can go over the cap by balancing out with unity buildings and XP gain. There's two XP gain bonuses in discovery tree alone.
Need a couple two three more ways to expand leader cap. Trascendent Learning is now a must have Ascension perk, where I never used it before.

[GUNMER2M]

I understand the opinion that "it is impossible to display all leaders". but if that,
At the very least, it's enough to be able to hang the image on the leader's seat like a poster.

They would say, If you don't want hiring cost, you shouldn't hire a leader. However, it is absurd that a fleet or sector without an admiral can function, but a research ship without a scientist can do nothing.Therefore, the employment quota was filled with scientists.
If Paladox simply wanted to reduce the number of research ships, you should have set employment limits for each occupation.
The Japanese community is filled with voices of disappointment over this change.
Contrary to my expectations, I was surprised to find that there were many positive opinions in the English-speaking world.

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by root8456unowen:

I understand the opinion that "it is impossible to display all leaders". but if that,
At the very least, it's enough to be able to hang the image on the leader's seat like a poster.

They would say, If you don't want hiring cost, you shouldn't hire a leader. However, it is absurd that a fleet or sector without an admiral can function, but a research ship without a scientist can do nothing.Therefore, the employment quota was filled with scientists.
If Paladox simply wanted to reduce the number of research ships, you should have set employment limits for each occupation.
The Japanese community is filled with voices of disappointment over this change.
Contrary to my expectations, I was surprised to find that there were many positive opinions in the English-speaking world.

Positive opinions are always the same three people, don't worry too much.

Edit: also there are people who like the update DESPITE the leader cap, which is rather fair.

Originally posted by Duder:

Like it now better, AI expands more slowly, leaving more time to expand and claim more territory than before if done right. You can go over the cap by balancing out with unity buildings and XP gain. There's two XP gain bonuses in discovery tree alone.
Need a couple two three more ways to expand leader cap. Trascendent Learning is now a must have Ascension perk, where I never used it before.

You could just have played on Civilian difficulty if your problem was AI being too good at expanding.

[Duder]

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Originally posted by root8456unowen:

I understand the opinion that "it is impossible to display all leaders". but if that,
At the very least, it's enough to be able to hang the image on the leader's seat like a poster.

They would say, If you don't want hiring cost, you shouldn't hire a leader. However, it is absurd that a fleet or sector without an admiral can function, but a research ship without a scientist can do nothing.Therefore, the employment quota was filled with scientists.
If Paladox simply wanted to reduce the number of research ships, you should have set employment limits for each occupation.
The Japanese community is filled with voices of disappointment over this change.
Contrary to my expectations, I was surprised to find that there were many positive opinions in the English-speaking world.

Positive opinions are always the same three people, don't worry too much.

Originally posted by Duder:

Like it now better, AI expands more slowly, leaving more time to expand and claim more territory than before if done right. You can go over the cap by balancing out with unity buildings and XP gain. There's two XP gain bonuses in discovery tree alone.
Need a couple two three more ways to expand leader cap. Trascendent Learning is now a must have Ascension perk, where I never used it before.

You could just have played on Civilian difficulty if your problem was AI being too good at expanding.

And the whiny insulting complaints begin. I play exclusively on Ironman Commodore and harder
The AI wasn't "good" at expanding. They spam surveyed everything in sight. A whole one hundred years of doing nothing midgame

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by Duder:

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Positive opinions are always the same three people, don't worry too much.



You could just have played on Civilian difficulty if your problem was AI being too good at expanding.

And the whiny insulting complaints begin. I play exclusively on Ironman Commodore and harder

Then you can't complain the AI expands too fast, lower the difficulty.

[Duder]

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Originally posted by Duder:

And the whiny insulting complaints begin. I play exclusively on Ironman Commodore and harder

Then you can't complain the AI expands too fast, lower the difficulty.

Has nothing to do with the difficulty

[Scr(A)tch]

Originally posted by Duder:

Originally posted by Scr(A)tch:

Then you can't complain the AI expands too fast, lower the difficulty.

Has nothing to do with the difficulty

It has all to do with difficulty, the leader cap has never been meant as an AI nerf.