Hot posts in thread: ISG Dev Diary #5: Leaders

Totalwar has being doing a good leaders system based on emergent traits and personality for some time.
I'm not really a fan of the Moo2 leaders.Three static bonues and a picture was all you had.

One thing missing here is the leaders or government for the actual state.There should be a king,president,etc at the start at least.I would go for the empire races cabinet mechanic you get in Total war Warhammer.,

 

Joe3 try to look at this a bit differently. You do not own the leader, you hire him. You are paying him money for his service, he is your employee.As an employee he might want to quit his job if something is not to his likeness. I woulnd't worry that much about micromanagement, it is not like you will have 20 leaders and each turn you will have to fulfill someone's desires

 

I like the leader personality add

 

ChrisKonstantine, thanks for the reply. I just read the writeup again (carefully). Sorry, but I still think the idea of dissatisfied, unhappy, greedy or traitorous leaders is going to be a pain in the management joint. I'm not saying it's a deal breaker, I'm just saying... But like everyone else, I'll wait and see. Most everything else about the game sounds great. Bring it on!

 

Don't worry Joe3, the Devs managed to pull it off without it becoming a micromanagement headache, it's actually quite elegant and simple and definitely gives the leaders a "lite" RPG element.

 

OK, sorry to be so long posting this, but here goes. Leaders is a great idea and I'm happy to see it. Thanks. I do have one concern: It seems to me that, as planned, you're adding an element of micro-management. Now not only will I have to be concerned with all the usual factors in the game, I've got to worry about unhappy or dissatisfied Leaders. What? Gimme a break, please. Give them different levers of skill, etc., but please don't make me worry about what they're thinking or feeling or doing while my back is turned.

Having said that, for what it's worth, thanks for everything you've done to make this game. I'm really looking forward to playing it (after I buy it, of course)!

 

read it only today.. :-(
I was very busy with my normal work..

it seem to me a well worth addition and a better and more elegant system respect to the original seen in Master of Orion 2

 

OK, Adam, well done. I like what I've seen here, especially the ability to have more than 4 of each type of leader. Ya done good! Keep it going.

 

I like the depth you've described in this update. While I see the point of a few posts above about overpowered leaders in a heavy-immersion setting, I think what is presented here is a good balance. The fact that they have a more meaningful place in the game than in SotS, or in Stellaris is a big plus IMHO.

 

I'm a big fan of MoO and just discovered this project. Interesting discussion on bringing in leaders. Have you considered the way Crusader Kings does leaders and traits? Briefly, a leader is just a person with a background story, and they have traits, some they are born with and some they can gain, that make them better or worse at various roles. There would be no "governor" vs "captain" leaders per se, just a collection of traits that are better suited to a particular role. And it opens up the door for various roleplay and modding options down the road.

 

Haha

I would allow to edit background and upload custom image. Other than that I think that leaders could die in battle. That makes you care more about them, but you also should have a possibility to build escape pods (increases cost of ship and reduces free space) for them.

I don't see difference between fantasy game and sci-fi game. It does not matter whether your hero is commanding ships or trolls, both are just units at your disposal. I think leaders should be precious to you if you level them up but shouldn't be a defining force in a galaxy. I think MOO2 had good balance in that matter.

 

Sounds good Adam, from a design perspective at least it looks like PSS is shaping up to be clearly superior to MOO 2, at least in this area.

No I was talking about player avatar leaders (presidents or emperors modeled as leaders) not ordinary garden variety leaders, sorry if that wasn't clear. I dont see any reason to dismiss them from consideration simply because of a blanket statement like "they dont belong in a sci-fi 4x" which - lets face it - really only boils down to personal preference. Player avatar leaders are a lot of fun in AoW and Crusader Kings and I dont see any reason why they couldn't also be a lot of fun from a roleplaying / immersion perspective in a space 4x as long as they dont overtly dominate gameplay.

Playing Sherridan, Londo, Delenn or Palpatine could be extremely cool and If included they would only be as powerful as the devs make them, which might be very ineffectual indeed in the grand scheme of things, there's absolutely no reason for them to follow AoW's example in terms of power level or influence.

Deeper roleplaying maybe, that could be interesting, but very powerful, no, I'm with you on that, I dont think they should be particularly powerful at all or a no-brainer to choose. But once again their power or lack of it is entirely under the control and design of the devs and should be carefully tweaked, adjusted and re-adjusted for maximum gameplay potential.

 

What?... I didn't say they should be discarded from the game. I just dont want to see the actual player leader as a hero (avatar) in the game, but recruiting other hero leaders is a definite must have feature for the game. But just dont make them over powered that if you loose one in battle, you feel like immediately quiting the game because the loss is to devastating (like AoW was). They should also not be so beneficial that when you are given the opportunity to recruit one its always a definite yes or that you'd be dumb not too. You should have to think hard about recruiting them, and weighing the cost of doing so. And 50% of the time you should decide no I can't afford this hero or my resources are better spent elsewhere. If the game can do this, then the hero system will be a good addition.

If you want deep roleplaying with the hero/leaders and to also have them be very powerful game pieces, then that would be best left for a custom scenario game or add on content. Maybe players can create these types of custom scenarios themselves, and upload them for other players to play, and they would come with a story and that kind of stuff. But for a general open world game, especially multiplayer games, I would rather have heroes on the weaker side then the strong side of the curve but for sure there still needs to be heroes.

 

While I agree completely with your cautionary criticism, I think your "solution" is unnecessary. Yes leaders (including any player avatar) should definitely not be so overpowered that they become super-weapons who make or break the entire game, that would be true for either fantasy or space 4x and I agree that AoW can occasionally suffer from that problem. However I dont think the solution is to just completely discard the entire concept and forget about it. The obvious solution would be to just limit the amount of effect that leaders can have on the game to whatever seems best balanced for optimal gameplay.

You mention that role-playing leaders is a good fit for fantasy but not for space 4x although I really dont see how that claim is in any way self evident except as an expression of your specific personal taste. Personally I would find role-playing a leader-type character in a space 4x to be quite an interesting and immersive mechanic, just as it is in Crusader Kings, although admittedly I'm not totally married to the idea either and could easily live without it.

Leaders - including player avatar leaders - could be designed to barely have any impact at all, be moderately influential or be completely overpowering. Either extreme is undesirable IMO and while AoW seems to have erred slightly on the OP side, there's really no need for PSS to exactly follow suit. Its entirely up to the devs to get the balance right through game-testing and tweaking.

 

While i really liked AoW too, i dont like the idea of role playing your leaders/heroes to the point that AoW did. AoW had horrendous balance issues, the leaders/heroes we over powered super weapons in that game, and if you lost one, the whole game was lost, particularly in multiplayer. Role playing your leader fits particularly well in a fantasy setting, but not so much in a futuristic space setting. I would like to see leaders that can turn the tide in combat between 2 equal forces, not super powered weapons that can make a much weaker force defeat a much strong force. And i would prefer to not have your leader avatar be present in the game.

I think an argument can be made for that type of game where your leader is present and you have heroes leading your army and they are super powered units, such as AoW and Endless Legend, but that would require a more limited game time scale, such as AoW and Endless Legend do. Not a game that spans hundreds or thousands of years. Maybe that could be an expansion pack or a scenario addon type of content.

 

Yes, I'm a big fan of the AoW games and that is one of the things I like in that game, the player is represented "in game". Huge plus for immersion and adds an extra layer of strategy and tactics to the game.

The player is like the king in chess but with more practical power. Big thumbs up in my opinion.

 

Some very interesting ideas here, expanding the role of leaders in the game can only be a good thing. I like the idea of the president or emperor of your faction also being styled as a "leader" with abilities and limitations, it worked well in Age of Wonders.

How will the player obtain these leaders? Is it just pure luck or will the player be able to "advertise" to improve their chances?

What about the number of leaders the empire can have at once, will it be fixed or will government or other in-game choices affect how many you can have and in what areas?