As long as you are not fanatic egalitarian you are hitting and overshooting the leader level cap of ten without even trying.
- 8
- 4
Should the leader level cap be removed/raised or be removable via the transcendent learning ascension perk?
- Thread starter Aepdneds
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
10 is fine, imo there's no point in inflating leader levels. That only makes them even less important. As you say F.egals are the only ones that struggle to hit the cap consistently. Imo R10 leaders shouldn't be common, its an xp balance problem rather than a level cap problem. I'd personally:
- increase XP per rank thresholds.
- add more passive ways to level leaders
- e.g. putting a general on a planet gives them passive xp and boosts stability, lowers crime or speeds up devastation recovery/reduces bombing effects, scaling with rank.
- admirals patrolling could gain some xp over time too
- Spawn random special projects every so often "Science symposium" "Theorem check", "Hyperspace conference", whatever, which sees a manned science ship sent to one of your colonies. Upon completion the scientist gets some xp and you gain some random, scaled, P/S/E reward.
- And maybe scale all leader-trait values by leader rank (so a level 10 scout admiral offers a much larger buff to their fleet than a level 3 scout admiral).
- When a leader hits rank 10 they can undergo a special project to add a 'legendary' trait of the players choosing via popup.
- 8
- 4
- 1
- 1
I’ve increased it to 20 and found that it works pretty well. 10+ leaders give solid bonuses.
You couldn’t raise it much more than this as the maximum level cap you can reach is around 19/20 if your getting all bonuses (and only for Rulers). It’s also very rare to achieve this.
Incidentally, Generals max out at around 14
You couldn’t raise it much more than this as the maximum level cap you can reach is around 19/20 if your getting all bonuses (and only for Rulers). It’s also very rare to achieve this.
Incidentally, Generals max out at around 14
- 2
I wouldn't mind the cap being raised a little bit, especially if it's locked behind an Ascension Perk; that would definitely push Transcendent Learning up a few tiers in viability.
However, removing the cap entirely will do nothing but make Machine Intelligences overpowered again.
However, removing the cap entirely will do nothing but make Machine Intelligences overpowered again.
- 3
- 1
No it won't. The lack of a level cap won't change anything about how difficult it is to get high-level leaders. In my experience, leaders rarely actually reach the level cap, so I don't see how removing it would somehow result in hordes of high-level leaders.
Also, it's not hard for normal nations to research life-extension techs fast enough that they never have any leaders die of old age.
Last edited:
- 5
- 1
I would like there to be ways to start with higher level leaders from the get-go. So hiring a level 2 or 3 leader, so it takes much less time for them to reach max level. That could be the function of features like the talented trait (starting with lvl 2 leaders) which would help its immediate usefulness.
I do really like the idea of specific traits scaling with the level. Intellectual could be +20% science output by level 5 rather than +10% at level one. Or maniacal could have +10% research at level 5, while spark of genius jumps to +15%.
I do really like the idea of specific traits scaling with the level. Intellectual could be +20% science output by level 5 rather than +10% at level one. Or maniacal could have +10% research at level 5, while spark of genius jumps to +15%.
- 8
- 1
The faction doesn't like using the leader boosting policies and since you can just research life extension endlessly anyway it's easier to just leave on natural selection (no boosts) & get the happiness from it instead. Fanatics can't even select the level 1 boosts, normal can but don't like it.
The only leaders likely to get to 9 or 10 are scientists on assist planetary research anyway.
- 2
EVERY leader cap should be removed as it is hard enough to hit the cap by normals means, consequently hitting and exceeding it has to be rewarded
- 8
Machines and forever life leaders are problems, personally I'd would leave Machines and synths at a maximum of 10, life extension techs after 100 years or so should result in reducing the death chance but not the time your leader can go before the grim reaper can roll his dice.
I've detailed this before but I'm too lazy to find it, there would be different paths for different empires to preserve talent. Gene Ascension can stack true life extension traits quite a ways. Synth Ascension makes your leaders truely immortal (but they hit the hard cap), Psi Ascension allows you to enter the Shroud and cause a deceased leader to reincarnate. Transcendent Learning would cause your leaders to gain exp share
I've detailed this before but I'm too lazy to find it, there would be different paths for different empires to preserve talent. Gene Ascension can stack true life extension traits quite a ways. Synth Ascension makes your leaders truely immortal (but they hit the hard cap), Psi Ascension allows you to enter the Shroud and cause a deceased leader to reincarnate. Transcendent Learning would cause your leaders to gain exp share
- 4
- 2
I think having Gestalt Leaders that potentially live forever vs. normal leaders that eventually die and need to be replaced, is actually a pretty cool case of asymmetric design. Bio Leaders that live forever should really be the exception to the rule, and only sustainable if you invest a lot into it. The problem with that is, having leaders die is really, really frustrating right now, and I believe granting access to unlimited levels would just make the problem worse. If a theoretical level... 17 leader dies and needs to be replaced with a level 1 leader, that's just a disaster and feels horrible.
But I think the solution should be a proper redesign of the system, where you actively train replacement leaders for some mild investment costs over time, rewarding players for investing into it, and potentially offering some storytelling opportunities to give those leaders a bit more personality. Increasing the level cap just to allow 150+ year old leaders to continue leveling is the wrong direction in my opinion.
Overall I think leaders should be something that you have to replace a few times each game, not something that you just keep forever with ever-increasing bonuses.
Training, and replacing leaders should be more fun, though, and definitely needs to be expanded upon.
But I think the solution should be a proper redesign of the system, where you actively train replacement leaders for some mild investment costs over time, rewarding players for investing into it, and potentially offering some storytelling opportunities to give those leaders a bit more personality. Increasing the level cap just to allow 150+ year old leaders to continue leveling is the wrong direction in my opinion.
Overall I think leaders should be something that you have to replace a few times each game, not something that you just keep forever with ever-increasing bonuses.
Training, and replacing leaders should be more fun, though, and definitely needs to be expanded upon.
- 1
- 1
- 1
It's a shame that there are no leadership development techs or policies for egalitarians. Just because those policies would be meritocratic instead of aristocratic (leader gene pools are very authoritarian) doesn't mean that fanatic egalitarians wouldn't train workers into very talented scientists.
I of course oppose the bureaucratic dictatorship of the USSR, but they had more scientists, doctors, artists, and athletes per capita than any other country on earth precisely because they had free education for life so even a peasant farmer boy could and did become a nuclear physicist.
Space communism shouldn't be locked out of developing better leaders.
As for OP, now that I know WHY I've never gotten a level X leader as fanatic egalitarian, I think until this disadvantage is resolved uncapping leader levels would be massively OP for the slavers who apparently regularly hit level X.
I of course oppose the bureaucratic dictatorship of the USSR, but they had more scientists, doctors, artists, and athletes per capita than any other country on earth precisely because they had free education for life so even a peasant farmer boy could and did become a nuclear physicist.
Space communism shouldn't be locked out of developing better leaders.
As for OP, now that I know WHY I've never gotten a level X leader as fanatic egalitarian, I think until this disadvantage is resolved uncapping leader levels would be massively OP for the slavers who apparently regularly hit level X.
- 1
It would be interesting if you could assign a lower level leader to a higher level one to 'shadow' them on the job allowing the lower leveled leader to level up to a certain percentage of the higher leveled leaders level(increasable via techs/policies/civics). And as you said there are story telling/event possibilities in this. The price you pay of course is all the upkeep and maybe reduce the effects of the higher leveled leader a little bit since training up the newbie introduces some inefficiencies into their normal tasks(like maybe -X effective levels scaling by tech/policies/civics?).
This would keep leader training from usurping Gestalts immortality by not letting you train all the way up, there is always a bit of loss, just not the theoretical level 17 to level 1 horror. That said having the Gestalts not having that extra story telling opportunity just feels sad. So I'd like to see them get something out of such an upgrade as well.
Pretty much this. I'd love to see an apprenticeship system that's simular to how imperial rulers work. Or a Retirement System in which you tell a leader to retire and he becomes a teacher increasing the base level of the pool. Preferably both options would be available separately, so some empires use apprenticeship, and other empires use Retirement.
- 1
They do so long as piracy in local system greater then 0, it's just so infinitesimal(5 per month) as to be nigh worthless. At 5 per month it would take 300 years without xp boosts to cap out with most of that being in level 4 and up. And mind if they zero out piracy, which is kinda the point it doesn't count.
Compared to battle XP which is 5 per battle with a half point for every dead ship on both sides, and a quarter for each disengage a single battle can be worth decades of passive leech.