This is an invitation / solicitation for opinions on the leader trait selection, which has some dynamics I suspect make some leader types more or less reliable, which affects how useful you can plan/expect them to be when strategizing, but hasn't been a topic of discussion due to the overall leader cap dynamic.
Bottom Line: Are the Veteran traits you want too unreliable to pull at the first chance?
Current Situation:
This is a case where I admit I haven't been able to clearly understand the exact boundaries of leader trait selection from the wiki or looking at the common folder code. Specifically things that provide weighting factors, or all the trait option modifiers good and bad.
In the current system, there seems to be a design intent of intended randomness, and then doubling down. The potential leader trait pool (common traits, class traits, and veterancy traits) is larger than your trait options, but once you have a trait, you can double down. This means you're not guaranteed an ideal trait in any level-up, but once you have a good one, you can double-down on it if the new roles weren't ideal.
This means that the chance to getting a good leader build depends on the RNG of pulling the traits into your trait pool on leader level up. A high level ruler could- with bad RNG- get stuck in a cycle of only pulling bad/not good traits that don't support the desired build. Normally this means restarting in truly bad cases, but in edge cases this means you could be holding out for the Veteran traits that matter more, and then end up disappointed. Given the XP cost curve, going from 6 to 7 costs almost as much XP to get a leader from 1 to 5, for far more leader trait rolls.
There are some mechanics that offer different ways to increase you chance of good-traits:
Meritocracy/Ruthless Competition civics, and Erudite rulers from genetic ascension offer +1 trait options to pick from. The +1 trait option means a greater chance every level roll to find a trait you didn't already take.
Heroic Past civic and Aptitude tradition offer +1 starting trait. In trait-diversity terms, these let you pick a trait and take it out of the RNG pool for future levels, increasing your chances.
Crusader Spirit and Letters of Marquee civics have certain leaders start with a guaranteed trait. Notably the Material Acquisition / Zealot traits for admirals come from a specific veteran tree (Aggressor), meaning they take it out of circulation for that pool of veteran traits.
Ethic requirements for some traits screen out traits. This is most relevant for destiny traits, but functionally can screen out 'unwanted' traits from selection, reducing RNG.
The Problem(?)
If you want a specific Veteran trait, how reliable do you feel it is to get them?
The issue I see is that while doubling-down on a good common trait in the early levels works well-enough, Veteran traits are a bit higher stakes due to the time it takes to reach them, and the relative power vs reliability.
In some leader contexts, the traits you can generally count on getting are good enough that specific trait builds are less important. For a Science ship researcher, which survey bonus you get matters much less as long as they're supporting the same function. Between survey speed and anomaly discovery chance, you may have a preference, but both ultimately boost the same thing. When overlap is high, the reliability is also high, especially when a leader is expected to cover multiple roles. IE, an explorer ship turning to an anomaly-researcher.
But in other contexts, specific leader traits are needed for specific roles, and some traits can be totally dead in value but take up the selection spot for what you want. When it comes to Governors, for example, Trade Value traits (Trader / Investor / Galvenizer) are extremely powerful for buffing a dedicated trade world... and every trait on buffing resources from jobs is dead space competing for the draw chance, or no real value if drawn just to get it out of the pool.
And in some rare contexts, you want a specific trait to make a particular leader worth the opportunity cost in the leader system as a whole. Generals are the most obvious case of this- Kidnapping is only a great asset if you can actually get it- but others can arguable fit the need later on. If you're trying to maximize power projection via an Admiral, there really is no substitute for Intimidator... but it's in competition with the other traits.
And that's the crux of the question if you feel the traits are reliable enough with the pool size as-is. Do you feel the other traits too often crowd out what you want at later levels? Are common / generic leader traits over-competing with what you want? Or do you feel there are enough options that you can consistently get what you want?
The Solution(?)
How much of a solution is needed depends on how much of a problem people feel this is.
If people feel it's a non-issue, obviously no focus here is needed. If there is an uncomfortable level of 'not what I wanted/my investment was wasted,' then some veteran-level-trait selection mechanisms might be warranted.
A few ways that come to mind might include-
-A larger filtering bias in favor of veteran traits. Say that on your first level(s) of veterancy, ONLY traits from your veteran subclass can show, screening out the common-veterancy.
-A mechanic to reroll traits at level up, at a cost. Say that- if you have an ascension path / chemical bliss - you can force a reroll of traits, but gain a leader negative trait in return.
-A way to pay costs to limit certain traits from showing up again for a role. (Maybe an option to block a trait that shows one roll to re-appear in a future, at a XP% cost for a certain time/until the next level.)
-A way to guarantee that traits, once selected the first time, can be guaranteed again. (Leader/'Memory'-themed civics- ie. Vaults of Knowledge, Heroic Past, Philosopher King, Memorialist, and other authority equivalents, offering a chance to pay unity to guarantee a previously picked option, say 500 unity per leader level.)
-A way to give up 'dead' traits, but also remove a malus trait. In this context, giving up a boon and a malus may make the leader less powerful overall (fewer perks), but incentivize keeping a leader who didn't actually draw what you wanted early.
These are intended to provide various ways to manage the RNG, pay costs to override it, or absorb the shock of bad leader RNG roles.
Thoughts? Opinions?
