Home Trending Latest threads New posts Developer diaries

Why do I have to edit my save every time just to keep my ruler in oligarchic election?

Jump to latest Follow Reply
  • 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.
Stellaris 51297 Bug Reports 32009 Suggestions 19784 Tech Support 2992 Multiplayer 383 User Mods 4697 Stellaris AAR (After Action Reports) Console edition 1237
GuardianGI

GuardianGI

Captain
1 Badges
Jul 18, 2015
441
1.064
  • Stellaris Sign-up
Election season rolls up
My leader is a militarists
Military Junta government
Oops we don't allow militarists for this election cycle, only spiritualists (all 4) (reloading doesn't work, it's always 4 spiritualist leaders)
Edit leader to spiritualists
Reelect current ruler
My leader is now spiritualist
Wait 20 years
Oops we don't allow spiritualists for this election cycle, only militarists (all 4) (reloading doesn't work, it's always 4 militarist leaders)
Ad infinitum
 
  • 2Like
Reactions:
So, uh, what's the problem here? Are you just obsessed with the idea of only having a militarist leader?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Methone said:
So, uh, what's the problem here? Are you just obsessed with the idea of only having a militarist leader?
Click to expand...
You can't reelect current leader. Something to do with faction popularity/support I think. If spiritualist faction is slighty more popular than militarist faction then election only allows for spiritualist rulers, etc.
 
GuardianGI said:
You can't reelect current leader. Something to do with faction popularity/support I think. If spiritualist faction is slighty more popular than militarist faction then election only allows for spiritualist rulers, etc.
Click to expand...

That’s the point of an oligarchy no? That only one group is eligible to rule.
 
I think the government type you're looking for is Dictatorship, bro.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Given the only thing having a ruler with a certain ethic matters for is Faction Approval, not really sure what the big deal is?

Also you can see Leader ethics when you hire them. If only only want Militarists in your government, hire more Militarists.
 
If you don't like ruler elections you definitely shouldn't play a government type that has them. Play Imperial or Dictatorial and call it a day. Personally, I prefer Imperial - you're basically choosing between "build a specific leader to be a successor with some bonuses, random class" as Imperial or "choose the leader who is best at the time with no bonuses" as Dictatorial. I like to build my future ruler, your mileage may vary but it definitely sounds as though you DON'T like elections which means you can and should avoid them.
 
Wait, did they change how Oligarchic works? Your leader used to always be in the running. And you could boost them via unity.
 
-Marauder- said:
Wait, did they change how Oligarchic works? Your leader used to always be in the running. And you could boost them via unity.
Click to expand...
Are you thinking of Democratic? I've only been playing for 5 years but "boosting" a candidate is a Democratic-only thing. The equivalent action in Oligarchic elections just ends the election with your choice winning outright.

With that said, it is weird how the game will (or would, I haven't tried in 3.8) grab random "leaders" including ones from your pool that haven't even been hired yet - even ENVOYS - to fill out the four candidate slots, rather than allowing your current Oligarchic ruler to run again. Usually they get two terms, and then that's it.
 
Last edited:
SeekingEtermity said:
Are you thinking of Democratic? I've only been playing for 5 years but "boosting" a candidate is a Democratic-only thing. The equivalent action in Oligarchic elections just ends the election with your choice winning outright.

With that said, it is weird how the game will (or would, I haven't tried in 3.8) grab random "leaders" including ones from your pool that haven't even been elected yet - even ENVOYS - to fill out the four candidate slots, rather than allowing your current Oligarchic ruler to run again. Usually they get two terms, and then that's it.
Click to expand...
I mean, even Oligarchic you would outright "elect" them with unity. Sounds odd if they changed that.
 
I abandoned a game recently because it was like year 2380, I hadn't lost a single leader at all by some miracle, and the same guy had ruled my empire the entire time. My leader was the chosen one too, and had traits specifically chosen to sit in that role. An election came along and he wasn't even an option.

I think I know what the issue is though. I was spiritualist, militarist, and authoritarian. You have to be very very attentive to faction support, and promote/stop promoting to keep as even of a balance as you possibly can. Suppress irrelevant factions, promote important factions with weak support, and do not promote factions with enormous support. I think spiritualist factions need the least help in being promoted. Support changes surprisingly quickly, and you have to look at it frequently.
 
Last edited:
  • 1
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Did your spiritualist faction become stronger and then weaker in between elections?

Because if so, that sounds like everything worked as it should. Your leader failed to keep the oligarchs in power and got axed.


If not, then that sounds weird.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Calvax said:
That’s the point of an oligarchy no? That only one group is eligible to rule.
Click to expand...

Oligarchy means that a small elite class rules, as opposed to democracy (large franchise) or autocracy (one-person rule). Megacorps are also a kind of oligarchy (we can imagine the elite class is "shareholders" or something). Historically, typically the unifying factor was that the oligarchs had some sort of hereditary status (e.g. the Polish nobility) and/or were simply much richer (in land or other assets) than the general population (e.g. Romans of senatorial class). It doesn't follow though that the elite is ideologically unified. Actually I would say that most internal political struggles in history have involved large proportions of the elite on both sides. It would certainly be nonsense in Stellaris terms for the elite to inherently share a single ethic, since every Oligarchy in Stellaris has at least two official governing ethics.

In an oligarchic election I would suggest that at the very least, the existing ruler should be a candidate and all of the official government-approved factions should have a candidate (unless this is explicitly changed by civic). Who wins depends on political power, whether the election is rigged and so on, but a one-party state shouldn't just happen by accident.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Thiend said:
If you don't like ruler elections you definitely shouldn't play a government type that has them. Play Imperial or Dictatorial and call it a day. Personally, I prefer Imperial - you're basically choosing between "build a specific leader to be a successor with some bonuses, random class" as Imperial or "choose the leader who is best at the time with no bonuses" as Dictatorial. I like to build my future ruler, your mileage may vary but it definitely sounds as though you DON'T like elections which means you can and should avoid them.
Click to expand...
I just want to reelect my ruler, the one that I gave the snazzy uniform in the starting screen. I would play Imperial or Dictatorial but they suck compared to Oligarchic.
 
Probably should have your ruler as a guaranteed candidate, but that might step on the other authority's toes a little too much?
 
GuardianGI said:
I just want to reelect my ruler, the one that I gave the snazzy uniform in the starting screen. I would play Imperial or Dictatorial but they suck compared to Oligarchic.
Click to expand...
I won't say one is objectively best, but seriously, try Imperial. That power projection boost adds up REAL fast to give ridiculous amounts of influence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back