Interest grups instead of leaders?

[Archael90]

Stellaris is vast game about stellar empires. Everything what is happening there is on such huge scale that individuals are meaningless... and its good, its not game about Shepard, or Spock. Its game about empires...
So maybe we should get rid of those meaningless individuals, and instead introduce interests grups. Not single persons, but whole grups, with their leaders and members.
Mechanically it could looks as now but with few tweaks:
1. Leaders rename to interest group.
2. Interest groups are immortal.
3*. IG has skills(?)
4. Each IG is part of faction, and has appropriate name.
5. Numbers of IG is limitted, Democracies has more IG, Imperial has less, but more powerfull (stronger skills?). Gestalt consciousness has only one - ruler,
6. Rulers are in fact whole factions, and changes in intervals, depending on faction support: Democracies changes ruler each 10 years, oligarchies each 20 years, dictatorship each time any faction reaches support treshold (majority for example), imperials never change ruling faction.

This way we would be able to write whole stories about factions, ruling grups, and empires as a whole

 

[GloatingSwine]

Stellaris is also inspired by a lot of different fictions which view the progress of vast stellar empires through the lens of individuals. Whether they be heroic exploring ship captains, brilliant strategists, or great emperors of mighty nations.

That's why we have characters.

The best approach is to make sure that characters feel active and interesting not faceless stat sticks.

 

[DukeLeto42]

The best approach is to make sure that characters feel active and interesting not faceless stat sticks.

Give them each clear faction identities and give factions teeth, and suddenly those leaders' opinions start to matter.

 

[Dragatus]

I'm having a hard time picturing an interest group steering a science ship.

 

[PK_AZ]

I find your premise invalid, as
1) Characters are standard element of grand strategy games, at least since Shogun: Total War (2000), and Europa Universalis (2000). I'm not saying that they cannot be removed or replaced, but you fail to convince me you have interesting idea how to do that
2) it is also not true that 'on such huge scale individuals are meaningless'. Individuals like Shepard and Spock are meaningless (and Stellaris do not include them). But generals, governors, scientists and rulers are m,eaningful enough to often get their place in history books.

 

[Archael90]

1) Characters are standard element of grand strategy games, at least since Shogun: Total War (2000), and Europa Universalis (2000). I'm not saying that they cannot be removed or replaced, but you fail to convince me you have interesting idea how to do that

Yeah, but was that games in the same scale as stellaris? In Endless space, which is in simmilar scale we have individuals, but those are extremally powerful, specially trained chracters with backstory, and quests involved, but even there, empires are maintained by political grups.

2) it is also not true that 'on such huge scale individuals are meaningless'. Individuals like Shepard and Spock are meaningless (and Stellaris do not include them). But generals, governors, scientists and rulers are m,eaningful enough to often get their place in history books.

When was last individual scientist who was known to public? What kind of leaders are important enough to be known? Presidents? In earth scale, equivalent to stellaris governors should be city governors... how many of them you know? No, in Stellaris scale, individuals are meaningless.

I find your premise invalid

I will do nothing with that. Its your own opinion that i cannot change, so either you will listen arguments and confront them with your own or not. But if you wont listen then none of arguments will change your mind. I said my arguments, its up to you to think about them.

 

[PK_AZ]

Yeah, but was that games in the same scale as stellaris?

Actually yes, they were. All three tell the story of nation, through about 400 years (Shogun was shorter, but its sequel, Medieval, fills the bill). All three concentrate on highest echelon of nation control. That in one game you move cohorts, and in another you move army groups? That is just flavor text.

When was last individual scientist who was known to public?

I can think of few engineers or engineer-team-managers. Colt. Ford. Jobs. Gates. That guy who created facebook.

In earth scale, equivalent to stellaris governors should be city governors... how many of them you know?

One current and three former, from last ten years. Plus one who ceased to be city president about 20-25 years ago.

No, in Stellaris scale, individuals are meaningless.

Space-scale means nothing, when we are talking about highest echelons. Every fleet needs a commander, whether it is made of twenty seven ships of the line, or few hundreds squadrons of space dreadnoughts. If that commander eliminate enemy in decisive battle, he or she will get a chance to be remembered by history, whether that enemy had thirty three ships of the line, or hundreds squadrons of space dreadnought.

What kind of leaders are important enough to be known? Presidents?

For standard grand strategy, they would be nation rulers, few up to maybe thirty field commanders and probably either some advisors and ministers, or politicians.

 

[Archael90]

Actually yes, they were.

No. Stellaris is about space empire which is massively bigger than anything you can achive on earths scale.

I can think of few engineers or engineer-team-managers.

Yeah, the whole grups, with only the face of leader. Not individuals.

One current and three former, from last ten years. Plus one who ceased to be city president about 20-25 years ago.

Are they presidents of each major cities on earth? I dont think so. I also can say you (and me too) dont know all presidents of countires on earth. And yet you said that sector governors, shich are somewhere near presidents ARE important.

For standard grand strategy, they would be nation rulers, few up to maybe thirty field commanders and probably either some advisors and ministers, or politicians.

I agree with that. Rulers, some major advisors, admirals. Yes, bot not each individial governor, scientist or envoy. And to be important they must do something important and not only graduate school and become navy admiral. So you would need their whole bacstory, some important quests, etc. But the fact that Stellaris campain is few generations long, those thing too can become meaningless... This is why its better to placed there groups, like whole crew that represents interests of militarist faction in navy. A most supported faction with their leader as face, to rule empire, instead of one person.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Ok quick lightning round:

Yeah, but was that games in the same scale as stellaris? In Endless space, which is in simmilar scale we have individuals, but those are extremally powerful, specially trained chracters with backstory, and quests involved, but even there, empires are maintained by political grups.

And in Stellaris, we have Leaders and Factions.

When was last individual scientist who was known to public? What kind of leaders are important enough to be known? Presidents? In earth scale, equivalent to stellaris governors should be city governors... how many of them you know? No, in Stellaris scale, individuals are meaningless.

I mean, multiple physicists come to mind, but honestly those aren't Stellaris' "scientist" leaders. We're talking Jean-Luc Picard (for a SciFi reference) or major explorers and naturalists like Neil Armstrong or Alexander von Humboldt in our history - people who defined the cutting edge of our knowledge of the universe. Many of them, and this is critical, aren't actually themselves wildly impressive scientists, because their job is to command science ships or coordinate research on an interplanetary scale. This makes them almost the equivalent of the USA's Department Secretaries.

As for governors, they're... governors... They don't run single planets but multi-system sectors, which makes them at least equivalent to the USA's governors (or the heads of your main administrative regions in other nations). Those people have significant impacts on the social and economic outcomes of their area.

Yes, bot not each individial governor, scientist or envoy.

See above for my points on the first two, but yes making envoys named "leaders" was a strange choice. Still, UN ambassadors can be kind of a big deal and play a major role in international diplomacy.

And to be important they must do something important and not only graduate school and become navy admiral. So you would need their whole bacstory, some important quests, etc.

This runs against how Stellaris creates emergent storytelling. The Endless Space franchise is great, but its empires tell crafted, pre-written stories (and also only select leaders in it don't get them). For Stellaris, once a character hits the leader pool, we can safely assume they've done good work in their field and earned some basic recognition. They're also quite definitively "Level 1."

Now, Stellaris could absolutely use some short in-game records for their leaders, with short "leader records" marking off their biggest discoveries or greatest triumphs, and the leaders would benefit from playing into Faction mechanics (they do a bit now, but past "is Faction leader" it's kind of nothing) as Endless Space does, but that's a very different request than to scrap them altogether.

 

[Ryika]

Personally, I'm open to replacing rulers and governors with a less individualized approach. These two leader categories have traditionally been underutilized when it comes to storytelling, and could probably fit into a faction and politics overhaul that "zooms out" a bit. I can certainly see the benefit there.

I think that scientists should definitely stay individuals though, as should admirals. Anomalies are essentially designed for individual scientists and storytelling, and I think while the "scope" of these things is maybe not as grand as the rest of the game, the game mechanics do very much highlight them in the scope that they're in.

And who do I blame for the destruction of my fleet if I don't have an admiral that I can fire? I'd only have myself to blame then, and that's not okay.

 

[Varren]

Are they presidents of each major cities on earth? I dont think so. I also can say you (and me too) dont know all presidents of countires on earth. And yet you said that sector governors, shich are somewhere near presidents ARE important.

There are nearly 200 nations in the world. You probably have significantly fewer sectors in your empire. Between your ruler and governors, you're really only concerned with the top handful of politicians in your empire.

 

[athenir]

from what i see, the problem is about the fact that individual leader need to be replaced manually when they dies.

the solution to that could be a legacy/heritage mechanic where you could decide how much the leader impact would be.

it would be in the form of a pop's right, the pop could have legacy and heritage, legacy only or none.

the effect would be like this:

- legacy and heritage: the leader is replace by it's heir, the player can chose which skill is inherited by the heir based on the former leader's skill.

- legacy only: the leader is replaced by the second in command but the skill is picked randomly based on the former leader's skill.

- none: the leader is not replaced and the player need to appoint a new leader manually.

for balancing the leader upkeep could be increase by 100% for "legacy only" and 200% for "legacy and heritage".
In parallel we have tech like "selected lineage" or "living state" that reduce the upkeep of leaders.