Popping in to make a suggestion re:Paragons

[Fermi's_Solution]

There's an imbalance between leader roles (namely, scientists) that I think is strongly affecting how people perceive leader capacity as a limitation:

Assigning a governor to a planet can give that planet huge bonuses, but a planet doesn't necessarily need a governor to function. Assigning an admiral to a fleet can give that fleet huge bonuses, but a fleet doesn't necessarily need an admiral to function.

The same is NOT true for science ships. Assigning a scientist to a science ship can give that ship huge bonuses, but a science ship can't function at all without a scientist.

I feel like a lot of the complaints (or, "complaints") about leader caps right now can be addressed immediately, directly, and with minimal effort by allowing science ships to function even without a scientist assigned to them. If this has to mean science ships become a more significant investment, on par with a colony or a fleet, then that would only be fair.

I personally like how the current leader cap synergizes with council seats to make your leader choices feel like significant, meaningful decisions that feed directly into play styles. It would sort of suck to change that back so soon just because the usual complement of complainers voiced their complaints about major changes in a game that experiences major changes every six months for the last seven years running.

(For everyone else: if you want to hire 2-4 scientists at the start of the game to explore the galaxy, then you need to make sure your civics give them council seats to advance into. This will help to minimize how many leaders your empire needs to function. If you want a military or economy focus instead of a tech focus, then do the same for admirals or governors. Believe me, if you haven't seen what a council of 5 max-level governors can do for your economy, then you need to stop whatever you're doing and try that, because holy crap.)

 

[Scribonius]

I feel like a lot of the complaints (or, "complaints") about leader caps right now can be addressed immediately, directly, and with minimal effort by allowing science ships to function even without a scientist assigned to them. If this has to mean science ships become a more significant investment, on par with a colony or a fleet, then that would only be fair.

This... sounds just about right. I don't hate the leader cap, but it feels extremely limiting because on larger galaxy sizes you do just need more scientists to explore more. Allowing scrience ships to act fully independent without a head sicentist would aleviaate some of the stress given by the leader cap, while sstill letting it be felt. This would also just make more sense in general, as the ships supposedly are full crews and equipment, seems weird you can't just grab Joe from engineering to act as captain until someone more qualified is sent over.

Having said this, the leader cap is just too low. 6 is an aggressively low start and it barely increases at all, in my current game it has increased by 2 in over 60 years of gameplay, 1 from tech and one from an tradition tree. Meanwhile I have 4 sectors, 3 fleets, an army, 4 science ships, and only half of them can be staffed. I can understand wanting to limit the number of leaders in an empire, but then increase their upkeep drastically so that you can't afford them early game anyway. Additionally, they also make most of governors bonuses only effect one planet, meaning you want even more governors than you have sectors, which you already can't really afford to staff because of the aggressive limit (although just changing them back to the way they were would fix that). My point being, the cap does not really increase as much as your demand for them does, leading to a point where you just don't really have close to enough leaders, which is my main issue. with it.

 

[Calvax]

I don’t think that would solve all problems but it would be an interesting change. I can’t see it happening without a lot of work though. Tonnes of the event pop-ups are written assuming a scientist is leading the ship doing the survey. I’m not sure how easy it would be for the devs to change that.

Automatic exploration at least seems quite easy to do.

 

[RoverStorm]

Here are the two primary problems with Leader Cap:

1. Scientists are completely different from the other classes. For the reasons you gave. We need a lot more scientists in larger maps. Even one the map is explored, you still may prefer Scientists over Governors. Assist Research is easy to overlook. Getting +22% science per world per scientist is statistically just better than +10% job output on the same planet, due to how crucial science is.

2. Leaders appointed to the council affect the empire-no problem. Leaders not on the council, however, have a FINITE impact. This means that the larger you get, the more and more irrelevant this makes leaders, unless the leader limit scales at the same rate as your empire, which it currently does not.

That second point is a problem because the update promised to make the leader system more engaging and important. Well they made the council more engaging and important, but they made the rest of the leader progressively more irrelevant as a game goes on!

The update promised to make leaders more impactful and reduce the number of leaders needed to make them more memorable, but the update did just the opposite!


Consider the newest 4X, Age of Wonders 4. Leaders have a finite impact that won't scale with your nation's size. There is also a hard leader cap you cannot go over. But you get +1 leader cap with every city, and leaders can multitask as both a city governor and a general. Closer to home, Endless Space 2 also has leaders with a finite impact, but they don't have any leader cap at all. In both games, leader's are purchased and maintained with that game's "cash currency" rather than their version of unity (which would be influence in ES2 and Imperium in AoW4).

There's something to note here. Civ6 uses the "finite leader impact" and also "hard limit of leaders". This is ALSO how Endless Space 2 USED to work, but they changed it because (to the surprise of nobody who was here the LAST TIME Stellaris removed it's leader cap) they determined it to be poor game design. AoW4, which released very recently, has benefited from the mistakes of the past and avoided this design pitfall.

Leader's who have a finite impact (meaning that the bonus they provide does not scale with your empire) do not have limits or their limit scales with your empire. If leaders have a finite impact, the expectation is to be able to get enough to fill ever open position that requests one.

This makes sense if you think about it. For a game mechanic to remain relevant, it must scale with your empire or it becomes something you start ignoring. Imperial Cult gives a flat +100 Edict Capacity. That's great when edicts cost 20 unity, but completely worthless when they cost 2000. Luckily, you can get rid of Imperial Cult and continue to use a civic that actually scales with your empire, like Enviromentalist.

If Paradox wants a flat limit to leaders, that's fine!

But they MUST make sure EVERY leader has a GLOBAL impact then!

And that's not what they have done this patch. They have made 3-6 (possibly up to 8 I think, if you get the Divine Monarch civic and the Imperial Emperor civic) have a Empire-wide bonus, but the rest have a FINITE bonus and therefore quickly scale to irrelevancy, meaning we don't get to engage with the mechanic that the entire update is focused on.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

This... sounds just about right. I don't hate the leader cap, but it feels extremely limiting because on larger galaxy sizes you do just need more scientists to explore more. Allowing scrience ships to act fully independent without a head sicentist would aleviaate some of the stress given by the leader cap, while sstill letting it be felt. This would also just make more sense in general, as the ships supposedly are full crews and equipment, seems weird you can't just grab Joe from engineering to act as captain until someone more qualified is sent over.

Having said this, the leader cap is just too low. 6 is an aggressively low start and it barely increases at all, in my current game it has increased by 2 in over 60 years of gameplay, 1 from tech and one from an tradition tree. Meanwhile I have 4 sectors, 3 fleets, an army, 4 science ships, and only half of them can be staffed. I can understand wanting to limit the number of leaders in an empire, but then increase their upkeep drastically so that you can't afford them early game anyway. Additionally, they also make most of governors bonuses only effect one planet, meaning you want even more governors than you have sectors, which you already can't really afford to staff because of the aggressive limit (although just changing them back to the way they were would fix that). My point being, the cap does not really increase as much as your demand for them does, leading to a point where you just don't really have close to enough leaders, which is my main issue. with it.

This update lead me to take a different perspective entirely: you might not need a leader in every open slot.

Consider that a single general, sitting all by their lonesome on your council, can apply bonuses to every army you ever field in your empire. Some of the council traits for leaders are even just wordswapped versions of their local, non-council traits, further emphasizing this.

The same is true for governors and admirals. Yes, your multitude of fleets could benefit from being micromanaged by a full complement of admirals, however you don't necessarily need to stick an admiral in every fleet. It's the same number of ships either way (fleet cap increases from direct management, but navy cap does not), and the one admiral on your council can still adequately benefit every fleet your empire fields even when they're only personally managing one of those fleets.

Likewise, an empire with five sectors and four planets per sector could, theoretically, staff all twenty planets with individual governors, then spend the next hundred years suffering under the bureaucratic strain of so much micromanagement. Or, they could slot in one governor per sector (ignoring their one local trait because, honestly, who cares about it), then just have every governor sitting on the council in management roles to benefit all planets simultaneously, each.

The governor example above applies the same to your navy. Previously, I would've said you need twelve admirals to field twelve fleets. Now, after Paragons, I'm not so sure I need more than four admirals to field twelve fleets, and even that might be one too many. Councilor bonuses are stackable, absurd, and do, in my experience, dramatically reduce your need for leaders across your empire.

The only place this doesn't apply is for scientists and exploration. You can have up to five scientists sitting on your council, with each one boosting research speed across the board, however you can only have as many exploration ships as you have scientists.

So far, the only reason I've had to hire more leaders than what I can fit on my council has been for science ships and the odd ecumenopolis/ringworld. And, honestly, the science ships have only been a problem in empires that aren't technocracies lead by a council of scientists, because even on 1,000-star galaxies I find I only need ~5 with the new automation system. If I ever need more than that, which I rarely do so far, there are two traditions and an ascension perk for +4 cap in all.

I'm going to direct this post at @RoverStorm, as well. In my experience, I've found that the council does make local leaders largely irrelevant, except in outstanding cases such as a giant ecumenopolis, or in the matter of science ships.

Right now, I see the complaints as a very normal, very human desire to directly manage everything you're given the option to manage. It's a habit I see in tabletop games and forum games all the time. Maybe my PoV on that might change in the future, but right now, I'm getting so much mileage out of my council in every playthrough that I flatly don't see a need for more than ~4 leaders outside of that... the ones I do hire outside of that are the exceptional few, who deal with the exceptional cases. And I love how flavorful that is, from the perspective of playing as the council/government of your empire.

 

[Scribonius]

Likewise, an empire with five sectors and four planets per sector could, theoretically, staff all twenty planets with individual governors, then spend the next hundred years suffering under the bureaucratic strain of so much micromanagement. Or, they could slot in one governor per sector (ignoring their one local trait because, honestly, who cares about it), then just have every governor sitting on the council in management roles to benefit all planets simultaneously, each.

The governor example above applies the same to your navy. Previously, I would've said you need twelve admirals to field twelve fleets. Now, after Paragons, I'm not so sure I need more than four admirals to field twelve fleets, and even that might be one too many. Councilor bonuses are stackable, absurd, and do, in my experience, dramatically reduce your need for leaders across your empire.

I haven't played around with the council enough to know for sure, but I have yet to see a drastic benefit from my councilors that would not have been given by the old system of leaders on every position. Actually, in my current run my planets would be far better off with the old governors than with the councilor buffs and new system governors. This is somewhat offset by the benefits from agendas, but I don't think enough since I spent about 1/3 of the game trying to expand the council.

Also I don't hate that they have lowered the number of leaders you have, I just feel that they have done so too much now. Like another 25-50% cap would probably be good, or something that allows it scale with empire size.

 

[Pancakelord]

IMO scaling with galaxy size would be nice.

Base leader cap: 6​

Scalar leader cap modifier: 1 per every 100 stars, over 600 stars.​

Alternatively, we could do with some more unique star base and planet buildings. Perhaps an empire unique capital building that increases leader cap by 1,2,3 as it's upgraded.
Or a starbase building that increases leader cap - but costs a ton.

But at the same time, i've been able to make do on a huge galaxy, with 17 leaders, with a cap of 7. It just stops the passive xp effectively, and my brain learns to tune out the leader cap warnings lol. Most if not all are Level 3-5, thanks to spamming the level up agenda, and getting lucky to hire some leaders from external candidate pools. Even a measly level 3 or 4 leader, will have way more impact than a level 10 one on pre 3.8.

 

[Ryika]

I think anomalies and dig sites should require a scientist. Just so happens that a lot of the events associated with those currently do require a scientist to be present (or at least assume that one is present, and will break if there isn't one), and changing them would likely be quite a lot of manual work.

Exploration and Survey though, I think making them not require a scientist anymore does make sense in the new system.

 

[Pancakelord]

I think anomalies and dig sites should require a scientist. Just so happens that a lot of the events associated with those currently do require a scientist to be present (or at least assume that one is present, and will break if there isn't one), and changing them would likely be quite a lot of manual work.

Exploration and Survey though, I think making them not require a scientist anymore does make sense in the new system.

I feel like this is close to restoring the old "any ship can explore" function, if you're doing away with a scientist, it's basically back to spamming out naked corvettes, but with extra steps. And it would need something to keep science ships relevant - if one went all the way in that case, like non science ships with a destination star system that hasn't been previously explored, could take much longer to get there by hyperdrive or something - so science ships would still be useful as more efficient scout/"pathfinder" vessels.

Alternatively, if not doing that, science ships surveying without a scientist could simply take way longer, or find no anomalies, too - so youre exploring for the sake of expansion.
Otherwise there is a risk that I don't think many will end up hiring more than like 3 scientists at any time early game - 1-2 for the council and one to assist research or explore.

 

[currylambchop]

I don’t think that would solve all problems but it would be an interesting change. I can’t see it happening without a lot of work though. Tonnes of the event pop-ups are written assuming a scientist is leading the ship doing the survey. I’m not sure how easy it would be for the devs to change that.

Automatic exploration at least seems quite easy to do.

I think that if a science ship doesn't have a scientist, simply disable those events and anomalies. Make it so that surveying without scientist is just for exploration.

 

[verybad]

I think regular scientists should be just like envoys, they're leaders but not really. But give scientists a chance to advance to leading scientist that are more valuable working on a big planets and leading groups of scientist. Do the same thing with Generals. Give you a base group of generals, base group of Admirals, all populated planets should have leaders that if their planet goes well then their politician might advance to the capability to lead a sector.

Make these advanced leaders unhappy and start new rebellions or at least factions if they don't get to lead what they want. Make them happy if they get a good thing, if their base species doesn't get treated well by the empire they're working for they might get a penalty, etc.

So if you have a lot of leaders that might work ok when they're all level zero, but when they increase in level (to level 1 etc.) then they might get penalties and cost more, so you have to either increase in empire size, if you've overdone the leader group size. Put envoys in the same level, level zeros aren't James Bond, level 10s that are unhappy might use their negative traits to lead massive civil wars against the empire...

I think the leaders system has the capability to bring internal conflict into the game and high-level leaders could even balance themselves if they're not well treated they try to kill the emperor or take over their planet or sector etc. Actually seems as if this is intended by Paradox, don't know if they have the time to do so however.

 

[Sian]

I don’t think that would solve all problems but it would be an interesting change. I can’t see it happening without a lot of work though. Tonnes of the event pop-ups are written assuming a scientist is leading the ship doing the survey. I’m not sure how easy it would be for the devs to change that.

Automatic exploration at least seems quite easy to do.

Could mostly(?) be fixed by scientist-less science ships only being able to do basic survey, but not anomalies

That said, an easy/cheap way of jury-rigging your raw exploration would be to have rare crystals (either via Teachers giving you a raw starting number, or Scintillating Skin on Lithiods) and 'flick' Crystaline Sensors whenever your naked corvettes are at the edge of known space

 

[TheDildoMaster]

Okay but then what's the point of having more then one leader slot in any category.... if you think that all our fleets don't need admirals and planets don't need governors then what's even the point in having them. why not just apply the bonuses nation wide via leader leveling. When you put it the way you are it makes having other leaders sound like useless clutter.

 

[Pancakelord]

I think the leaders system has the capability to bring internal conflict into the game and high-level leaders could even balance themselves if they're not well treated they try to kill the emperor or take over their planet or sector etc. Actually seems as if this is intended by Paradox, don't know if they have the time to do so however.​

I think so too, but balancing is a fine line.
Like, I had a tier6 scientist that got a +energy upkeep modifier (all in, 18 EC upkeep or something) because he 'liked buying nice things'

I'm sitting there looking at it like, my dude you're literally draining more energy from my vaults than my entire 3rd navy. First of all - who approved your payrise, and second, what the hell are you buying lol.​

Balancing them with extra upkeep seems to be the method they use for now. But if you overdo it, it becomes incredulous, and the leader is likely to just be swapped out, sent for negative trait re-education - I'm sure non-gestalts will get it eventually - or a one way ticket on the 'leviathan express' if they can fit in a ship (admiral/general/scientist).

Balancing them by forcing you to care about their biography could work to a degree too. Go on a war of aggression with a pacifist war minister and they might get a "crisis of conscience" timed debuff, annulling heir effects - or outright resign. That pushes you to think about ethics when hiring (a good thing) but doesn't do much to balance, acting more like an extra constraint on the hiring pool.

Also if we own their homeworld and a leader starts playing up or supporting a rebellion against me... I totally reserve the right to park my colossus over it, to 'encourage compliance'.

 

[Fermi's_Solution]

I think anomalies and dig sites should require a scientist. Just so happens that a lot of the events associated with those currently do require a scientist to be present (or at least assume that one is present, and will break if there isn't one), and changing them would likely be quite a lot of manual work.

Exploration and Survey though, I think making them not require a scientist anymore does make sense in the new system.

That sounds pretty effective. I can easily see it being enough with no other changes.

This is different from the (very old) system of sending corvettes out to 'scout,' simply because science ships are slower and can actually survey.

Balancing them by forcing you to care about their biography could work to a degree too. Go on a war of aggression with a pacifist war minister and they might get a "crisis of conscience" timed debuff, annulling heir effects - or outright resign. That pushes you to think about ethics when hiring (a good thing) but doesn't do much to balance, acting more like an extra constraint on the hiring pool.

It would be pretty neat for a leader to resign over ethics... there's already the faction system to tell you how well you're doing for each ethic, so in a way you'd even have fair warning.

 

[verybad]

Oh I very much agree that balance is off right now. Leaders are way to good for some stuff (ship cost I'm looking at you) and boring to use in other cases (eg having to mess with a leader looking for resources on a science ship seems to be based on someone trying to be Kirk in a game that's not about being Kirk. Just seems that having level 0 leaders in base jobs would be a good way to fix the problem (and yeah make other ones, but we're used to that I think.)

If I can pick a worker from my pops, make that worker into a level 0 leader that only levels to level 1 if something they do is interesting ( e.g. find a cool system, win a battle, discover something, make a good planet.) That's great, then let me promote that level 0 worker (the equivalent of an envoy) into a real leader that does more stuff, but want's more things, including their favorite faction getting stuff.

So a level 0 scientist promoted from the ranks would be fine for exploring things, and a level 1 scientist might be even better, but now you might want them on a planet increasing your science, same goes, don't give scientists sector or empire increasing stuff unless they're on the council though, give generals a bonus the same way, a local general on an army should give the army a large bonus and have a chance to go up, if that higher level general doesn't get more armies under his control, then he gets a higher chance of getting a negative trait (including revolts, or just being a drunk as his career flounders),

I like the idea of a cost for leaders that actually means something, a system where you need to make a choice rather than always making the same choice is inherently more balanced, make level 0 leaders cost a pop would make them interesting and making too many too early would cost a lot. Making level 0 leaders that haven't got any traits and need less involvement (eg Lieutenant General, Explorer Scientist, Rear Admiral, Planetary Governors, Envoys) all start at level 0, and provide a cheap predictable bonus in their field, if they get the experience, then they can be promoted (perhaps a Core Sector Governor would be level 4 and be happy if they're running the core sector, but a little less so if they're running a less valuable sector, and even less if they're just running a planet, let alone a garbage bag on the far side of the galaxy)

I really do think they're got all the tools in Stellaris to make a fun internal politics game out of this, with emerging stories without making many changes. Make espionage (if killing an opposing Heroic Admiral sound fun, then.. ) more interesting and bring back the choices.

Again, I absolutely agree that the base balance is way off currently though.

 

[Masked Ermine]

This update lead me to take a different perspective entirely: you might not need a leader in every open slot.

Consider that a single general, sitting all by their lonesome on your council, can apply bonuses to every army you ever field in your empire. Some of the council traits for leaders are even just wordswapped versions of their local, non-council traits, further emphasizing this.

The same is true for governors and admirals. Yes, your multitude of fleets could benefit from being micromanaged by a full complement of admirals, however you don't necessarily need to stick an admiral in every fleet. It's the same number of ships either way (fleet cap increases from direct management, but navy cap does not), and the one admiral on your council can still adequately benefit every fleet your empire fields even when they're only personally managing one of those fleets.

Likewise, an empire with five sectors and four planets per sector could, theoretically, staff all twenty planets with individual governors, then spend the next hundred years suffering under the bureaucratic strain of so much micromanagement. Or, they could slot in one governor per sector (ignoring their one local trait because, honestly, who cares about it), then just have every governor sitting on the council in management roles to benefit all planets simultaneously, each.

The governor example above applies the same to your navy. Previously, I would've said you need twelve admirals to field twelve fleets. Now, after Paragons, I'm not so sure I need more than four admirals to field twelve fleets, and even that might be one too many. Councilor bonuses are stackable, absurd, and do, in my experience, dramatically reduce your need for leaders across your empire.

The only place this doesn't apply is for scientists and exploration. You can have up to five scientists sitting on your council, with each one boosting research speed across the board, however you can only have as many exploration ships as you have scientists.

So far, the only reason I've had to hire more leaders than what I can fit on my council has been for science ships and the odd ecumenopolis/ringworld. And, honestly, the science ships have only been a problem in empires that aren't technocracies lead by a council of scientists, because even on 1,000-star galaxies I find I only need ~5 with the new automation system. If I ever need more than that, which I rarely do so far, there are two traditions and an ascension perk for +4 cap in all.

I'm going to direct this post at @RoverStorm, as well. In my experience, I've found that the council does make local leaders largely irrelevant, except in outstanding cases such as a giant ecumenopolis, or in the matter of science ships.

Right now, I see the complaints as a very normal, very human desire to directly manage everything you're given the option to manage. It's a habit I see in tabletop games and forum games all the time. Maybe my PoV on that might change in the future, but right now, I'm getting so much mileage out of my council in every playthrough that I flatly don't see a need for more than ~4 leaders outside of that... the ones I do hire outside of that are the exceptional few, who deal with the exceptional cases. And I love how flavorful that is, from the perspective of playing as the council/government of your empire.

Then get rid of the local leaders, and make it a 'council of secretaries of various departments'....Get rid of local bonuses, make everything empire wide, make the council have a hard cap at 8 or whatever...give punishing penalties for going over it....

OR

Make it a two tier system of 'field/flag leaders' and council leaders....with separate caps or larger/softer caps.

But don't half ass it between the two by having the necessity/incentive of the second paired with the crippling punishment of the first.

 

[IcyFalcon98777]

This update lead me to take a different perspective entirely: you might not need a leader in every open slot.

Consider that a single general, sitting all by their lonesome on your council, can apply bonuses to every army you ever field in your empire. Some of the council traits for leaders are even just wordswapped versions of their local, non-council traits, further emphasizing this.

The same is true for governors and admirals. Yes, your multitude of fleets could benefit from being micromanaged by a full complement of admirals, however you don't necessarily need to stick an admiral in every fleet. It's the same number of ships either way (fleet cap increases from direct management, but navy cap does not), and the one admiral on your council can still adequately benefit every fleet your empire fields even when they're only personally managing one of those fleets.

Likewise, an empire with five sectors and four planets per sector could, theoretically, staff all twenty planets with individual governors, then spend the next hundred years suffering under the bureaucratic strain of so much micromanagement. Or, they could slot in one governor per sector (ignoring their one local trait because, honestly, who cares about it), then just have every governor sitting on the council in management roles to benefit all planets simultaneously, each.

The governor example above applies the same to your navy. Previously, I would've said you need twelve admirals to field twelve fleets. Now, after Paragons, I'm not so sure I need more than four admirals to field twelve fleets, and even that might be one too many. Councilor bonuses are stackable, absurd, and do, in my experience, dramatically reduce your need for leaders across your empire.

The only place this doesn't apply is for scientists and exploration. You can have up to five scientists sitting on your council, with each one boosting research speed across the board, however you can only have as many exploration ships as you have scientists.

So far, the only reason I've had to hire more leaders than what I can fit on my council has been for science ships and the odd ecumenopolis/ringworld. And, honestly, the science ships have only been a problem in empires that aren't technocracies lead by a council of scientists, because even on 1,000-star galaxies I find I only need ~5 with the new automation system. If I ever need more than that, which I rarely do so far, there are two traditions and an ascension perk for +4 cap in all.

I'm going to direct this post at @RoverStorm, as well. In my experience, I've found that the council does make local leaders largely irrelevant, except in outstanding cases such as a giant ecumenopolis, or in the matter of science ships.

Right now, I see the complaints as a very normal, very human desire to directly manage everything you're given the option to manage. It's a habit I see in tabletop games and forum games all the time. Maybe my PoV on that might change in the future, but right now, I'm getting so much mileage out of my council in every playthrough that I flatly don't see a need for more than ~4 leaders outside of that... the ones I do hire outside of that are the exceptional few, who deal with the exceptional cases. And I love how flavorful that is, from the perspective of playing as the council/government of your empire.

From a raw numbers perspective, yeah, you don't need a governor for every planet. The planets can run fine without it. However, considering they just added the option in for individual planet governors, it's really, REALLY counterintuitive (and not fun) to say "Hey, here's this new option that you can't really take advantage of because of an arbitrary limit we're also adding in." Even if they kept the number the same but made each type of leader have their own pool (effectively multiplying your cap by 4), you'd still only end up with enough governors for each sector with maybe 1 or two extra for the powerhouse planets that already have a large population. Yes, this is presuming a huge galaxy, aka 1000 stars, but if the game has an option for a bigger galaxy then you should have options to genuinely play in that bigger galaxy without being penalized for it.

Also the argument flat out fails when it comes to scientists since the game has been designed for years around science ships requiring a scientist to man it. By saying that I CAN put a governor on each planet at the cost of having enough scientists for just the basic stuff, they're effectively saying that I can get some minor stacking boosts to some planets at the cost of engaging with a core part of the game, exploration (which includes way more than just revealing the galaxy). That kind of cost is just untenable. I MIGHT, MAYBE, play ONE, 1!!!!! game without doing (or having severely minimal) exploration at some point just to see what it's like being a true isolationist. But considering how much anomalies, archaeology sites, and all the other parts of exploration add to the game....HELL NO! That's not a play style that I'm interested in beyond a very, very short passing curiosity.

 

[Taritu]

Having played thru the early game to mid twice now I have to say I haven't found the leader limit a big deal. It does slow down early exploration, yeah, but I don't find it a huge problem. I usually go 2 over cap after about 10 years or so and haven't found it that slows down advancement much (especially since cap raises to 8 pretty fast), and after all, later on, all my scientists were just sitting over planets.

The main weirdness/wrong feel for me is having so few governors.

 

[Losttruppen]

Or a starbase building that increases leader cap - but costs a ton.

There is one sort of, though it's empire unique and I'm not sure what an "External Leader" is.

I am against this sort of change and the Devs stated intent of reducing the number of Leaders from an RP perspective; I want my Planets, Fleets, Armies, and Science Vessels to be manned by everday ordinary Leaders who can maybe one day become my Picards or Paul Atreides(if I want to spend generations breeding the Chosen One I need lots of genetic strands to work with). I certainly don't like an empty portrait slot with a black silhouette.