• 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.
Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today, we're going to start talking about the Planetary Rework coming in the 2.2 'Le Guin' update - the complete redesign of the planetary management system and replacement of planetary tiles. This is going to be a really big topic, so we're spreading it out across four dev diaries, with today's dev diary being about Deposits, Buildings and Districts. Please bear in mind that everything shown is in an early stage of development, and there will be rough-looking interfaces, placeholder art, non final numbers and all those things that people assume are final and complain about anyway no matter how many of these disclaimers I write. :p

Planetary Rework
Before I start going into details on the actual rework, I just wanted to briefly talk about the reasons and goals that are behind this massive rework, and why we're removing tiles and building a new system instead of iterating on the existing systems. For me, getting away from the constraints of tiles has been my single most desired long-term goal for the game. It's not that I think the tile system is inherently a bad system - it works well to visualize your pops and buildings and for the early game it works well enough in giving the player some interesting economic management decisions. However, the tile system is also very constrictive, in a way I feel is detrimental to the very core concepts of Stellaris. The hard limitation of one pop and one building per tile, as well as the hard limitation of 25 tiles/pops/buildings to a planet, it severely limits the kind of societies and planets that we can present in the game.

Do we want to make city-planets, with enormous numbers of pops concentrated onto a single world? Not possible. Do we want to have a fully automated post-scarcity empire where robots do all the actual work? Can't be done without losing out on valuable building space. Sure, we could fundamentally alter the tile system in a such a way to allow these, by for example making it so each tile could support several sub-tiles with additional pops and buildings, but by doing this we will inevitably lose the easy visual presentation that makes the system attractive to begin with, and even then we would continue to be held back by the limit of one pop per building. In other words, we'd end up with something that superficially might resemble the old tile system but offers none of its main advantages and continues to be held back by most of its drawbacks.

When designing the new planetary management system we set out a number of design goals:
- The new system should be able to simulate a wide variety of different societies, to build on the roleplaying and diversity in play-throughs that is such a fundamental part of the Stellaris experience
- The new system needed to offer more interesting choices about how to develop your planets, while simultaneously reducing the amount of uninteresting micromanagement such as mass-upgrading buildings
- The new system should make your planets feel like places where Pops actually live their lives, as opposed to just being resource gathering hubs
- The new system had to be extremely moddable, to make it easier both for us and modders to create new types of empires and playstyles

We believe that this new system that we have created will not only vastly improve many of the features in the game that we couldn't get working properly with the tile system, but together with the resource rework discussed in the last dev diary will also make it possible for us to create truly weird and alien societies that play entirely differently from anything the game currently has to offer, or would ever have to offer if we had remained constrained by the tile system.

Deposits
Under the old tile system, deposits were simply clumps of resources placed on a tile, which would be gathered by a pop and determined what kind of buildings were most efficient to place there. Under the new system, deposits are more akin to planetary terrain and features. Every habitable planet will have a (semi-randomized) number of deposits, with larger planets usually having more deposits. Deposits represent areas on the planet that can be economically exploited, and most commonly increase the number of a particular District (more on this below) that can be build on the planet. For example, a Fertile Lands deposit represents various regions of fertile farmland, and increases the number of Agriculture Districts that can be built on the planet, and thus its potential Food output.
2018_08_16_0.png

(Note: All deposit pictures shown here are placeholders, there will be new art for them that isn't done yet)

Not all Deposits affect Districts however - some (such as Crystalline Caverns or Betharian Fields) are rare deposits that allow for the construction of special Buildings (more on this below) on the planet, while others yet may simply provide a passive benefit to the planet, such as a spectacularly beautiful wilderness area that increases happiness for Pops living on the planet. Deposits can have Deposit Blockers that work in a similar way to the Tile Blockers of old, cancelling out the benefits of the Deposit until the Blocker is removed through the expenditure of time and resources. A planet can have multiples of the same Deposit, and there is no hard limit to the number of Deposits that a planet can hold (though there is a cap to how many will be generated under normal circumstances). The types of Deposits that can show up on a planet is affected by the planet class, so where an Ocean World might get its Agriculture from Kelp Forests, an Arctic World would have Fungal Caverns instead.
2018_08_16_1.png

(Note: All deposit pictures shown here are placeholders, there will be new art for them that isn't done yet)

Districts
Districts are at at the core of how planets are developed in the Le Guin update. Districts represent large areas of development on the planet dedicated towards housing or resource gathering. For most empires, there are four basic types of Districts: City Districts, Mining Districts, Generator Districts and Agriculture Districts. There are exceptions to this (such as Hive Minds having Hive Districts) but more on this in a later DD. The total number of districts you can build on a planet is equal to its size, so a size 16 planet can support 16 districts in any combination of the types available to you. Additionally, the resource-producing districts (Mining, Generator and Agriculture) are further constrained by the Deposits on the planet, so a planet might only be able to support a maximum of 8 Mining Districts due to there simply not being any further opportunities for mining on the planet. City Districts are never limited by the deposits on the planet, so you can choose to forego a planet's natural resources and blanket it entirely in urban development if you so choose.

The effects of each District is as follows:
  • City District: Provides a large amount of Housing for Pops, Infrastructure for Buildings and Clerk Jobs that produce Trade Value and Luxury Goods
  • Mining District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Mining Jobs that produce Minerals
  • Agriculture District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Farming Jobs that produce Food
  • Generator District: Provides a small amount of Housing/Infrastructure and Technician Jobs that produce Energy Credits
There will be more details on most of the concepts mentioned above coming in the other dev diaries. For now, suffice to say that the way you develop your planets with Districts will shape that planet's role in your empire - a heavily urbanized planet will be densely populated, supporting numerous Buildings and specialist Pop Jobs such as Researchers and providing Trade Value for your empire's trade routes (more on this in a future DD), but at the expense of not being able to produce much of the raw resources that are needed to fuel your empire's growth and manufacturing capacity.

A planet's Deposits and Planetary Modifiers may influence this decision - a large planet with High Quality Minerals and numerous Mining Deposits will certainly make for a lucrative mining world, but what if it also sits in a perfect spot to make a heavily urbanized trade hub? No longer are choices regarding planets simply limited to 'Where do I place the capital for the best adjacency bonuses?' and 'Should I follow the tile resource or not?' but will be fundamental choices that create diverse and distinct planets that each have their own role to fill in your empire.
2018_08_16_3.png


Buildings
In the Le Guin update, Buildings are specialized Facilities that provide a variety of Jobs and Resources that are not suitable to large-scale resource gathering. For example, instead of having your scientists working in a Physics Lab on a Physics Deposit (whatever that is supposed to be...) you now instead construct a Research Labs building (representing not a single laboratory but rather an allocation of resources towards the sciences across the planet) which provides a number of Pop Researcher Jobs that conduct research for your empire. Buildings are limited by the planet's Infrastructure, with one building 'slot' being unlocked for each 10 Infrastructure on the planet. Some Buildings are also limited in the number you can build on a planet, while others can be built in multiples (for example, a planet can only support a single Autotchton Monument, while you can have as many Alloy Foundries as the slots allow). Buildings can still be upgraded to more advanced versions, but generally there will be far fewer upgrades to do and those upgrades will often require an investment of rare and expensive resources, so it's more of an active choice than something you simply have to click your way through after unlocking a tech.
2018_08_16_5.png


Infrastructure comes primarily from constructing Districts, with City Districts giving much more Infrastructure than resource gathering districts do (6 as opposed to 2 in the current internal build, though non final numbers and all that). In addition to unlocking additional Building slots, a higher Infrastructure level also makes some Buildings more efficient, as the number of jobs they provide is fully or partially determined by the planet's Infrastructure level. For example, in the current internal build, Research Labs and Alloy Foundries both have the number of jobs they provide determined by the infrastructure level, meaning that concentrating your research and manufacturing to your heavily urbanized planets is generally more efficient than trying to turn your agri-worlds into science hubs. In addition to Buildings that provide resource-producing Jobs, there is also a wide variety of buildings that provide for the material and social needs of your Pops, such as Luxury Housing for your upper class Pops, Entertainment Buildings to make your populace happy and Law Enforcement to quell unrest and crime. Densely populated planets tend to require more such buildings, as the need for Housing and Amenities scales upwards with Pops and Infrastructure.
2018_08_16_6.png


Whew, that was a lot of words. Still, we're only just getting started on the Planetary Rework and next week we'll continue talking about it, on the topic of Stratas, Pop Jobs, Housing and Migration.
 
Reading your posts, and others responses.. I'm really under the impression that YOU are the one not getting it... On one hand you want more choices, and more interesting gameplay, then on the other you get a bit upset when that happens.

Stellaris is a game about randomization. It seems you hit a randomization you didn't really like, and now are complaining about it as if its some huge problem. Re roll a new game. That's what stellaris is.

If you want less restricting movement, add more hyperlanes at the start...

if you dont want stuff blocking your advances, remove those pesky fallen empires...

To go into a game with restrictive mvoement by limiting your hyperlane density, very small map, and a fallen empire you know you will have to play around, then complain the game is restricting you.. .well I'm sorry but that's entirely 100% your fault.

Increasing the hyperlane density doesn't automatically make starbase bastions useless.. you'll still get choke points, and narrow passages. You may have to build 2 bastions instead of 1 to close off an advance, but they are still viable, especially on such a small map as yours..

but then here you are complaining that opening your movement allowing you to do what you want is somehow bad because then you can't make bastions (which you still can) to defend, and that's bad too....

So you want a game where you aren't restricted and you can end quickly in 1 on 1's, but you didn't set the game up to allow you to do that, because you... iddn't want a quick 1 on 1, and ... I 'm sorry the more I go into this the more back and forth your argument is getting....

You want your cake and to eat it too.. Doesn't work that way.

You are only partially right and missing pretty much everything else I am trying to point out.

My problem with starbase and hyperlane density is not simple as you make it out. Read on.

Shermanator said:
A) They can still be used to protect systems with important planets
B) If you want chokepoints then why are you complaining about chokepoints?

A) Super-fortress planet already exist to fulfill that function which leave bastion starbases in an awkward position especially on 5x hyeprlane density. Because there is no limit, as long you can pay for upkeep of fortresses, on how many of those you can have while you have a soft limit on how many starbase you have. Either you can use them to expand naval capacity to allow you to have a larger invader force or generate more energy for super-fortress planets depending on your current needs. Which allows you to kill chokehold bastion faster. At least on 1x you can depend on your fleet backing your bastion starbase up and have some left over starbase capacity for other needs. One of the first respond to this was change it to 1.5X hyperlane density which tells me that we as a community can't even agree on the ideal hyperlane density. Which ties into the not quite true 4X or true paradox grand strategy spectrum identify crisis Stellaris has.

B) Wrong question. I want a meaningful chokeholds with off-rail travel. Not this "map generation made the chokehold placement choice for you" thing that Stellaris is doing now.
 
Last edited:
Ah of course, he did mention that. I do think it makes sense that an ecumenopolis would get more added capacity however; Master of Nature's added tiles as it is right now feels more like expanding infrastructure to the few remaining wildlands rather than creating huge amounts of land through terraforming. Draining swamps instead of draining oceans.

Anyways I'd love to have the option of terraforming a planet into either a Gaia world or an ecumenopolis, with each type having their own advantages and disadvantages (e.g. habitability/amenities versus housing/jobs, abundance versus efficiency). Completely filling a planet with city districts doesn't really sound like a city covering the entire world, as the planet would still have rural or unoccupied areas like oceans and deserts. An ecumenopolis is full-on terraforming, not just a heavily urbanised planet.

Given the mention of deposits affecting how many resource-producing districts you have, it wouldn't surprise me if ecumenopoli had few to no regular deposits, and thus you could only build city districts. (And a boost to city districts to make it worth it. Like increased Infrastructure, since it's a planet of cities)

(This is based on the assumption that terraforming can change your deposits, which would make sense as otherwise you might end up with a desert planet covered in kelp forests and underwater vents.)
 
i'm guessing that world-cities are something that arises out of your district/building choices, not a special class of planet
 
i'm guessing that world-cities are something that arises out of your district/building choices, not a special class of planet
I've had a suspicion that might be the case since the original screenshot- IIRC, it had the "planet class" blacked out. It seems like it would obviously be a city-world, but if that were the case, why redact it? Maybe its a visual change to a normal planet.

Then again, who knows- maybe it'll be something you need an Ascension Perk for and, I dunno, there'll be a greater variance between stuff like "Gaia" and "City" worlds? Maybe they'd each have their own benefits and costs so there isn't a single "best" terraforming option anymore.
 
I made an account on here just to put my questions and whatnot here.

I understand a lot of people didn't like the tile system, I did and just felt it wasn't utilized very well. Now I don't mind seeing it go, what I'm worried/upset about are the population portraits, I'd rather not see them become obsolete. I liked watching my population grow and become more present on a planet as I played. I liked seeing the mix of races during migration.

Will there be a way to keep that present maybe?
 
I made an account on here just to put my questions and whatnot here.

I understand a lot of people didn't like the tile system, I did and just felt it wasn't utilized very well. Now I don't mind seeing it go, what I'm worried/upset about are the population portraits, I'd rather not see them become obsolete. I liked watching my population grow and become more present on a planet as I played. I liked seeing the mix of races during migration.

Will there be a way to keep that present maybe?
Portraits are still present. We've seen screenshots of the "Population" tab at the bottom of planets previously, and that tab uses the portraits to show which POPs are working what districts.
 
You are only partially right and missing pretty much everything else I am trying to point out.

My problem with starbase and hyperlane density is not simple as you make it out. Read on.
Everyone here is missing what you are trying to point out., so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

A) Super-fortress planet already exist to fulfill that function which leave bastion starbases in an awkward position especially on 5x hyeprlane density. Because there is no limit, as long you can pay for upkeep of fortresses, on how many of those you can have while you have a soft limit on how many starbase you have. Either you can use them to expand naval capacity to allow you to have a larger invader force or generate more energy for super-fortress planets depending on your current needs. Which allows you to kill chokehold bastion faster.
Well, yes, that is the point. There is a strategic decision to be made of how many starbases you want to dedicate to naval cap, energy generation and defense and there is a decision on how many tiles you want to waste on fortresses. The entire point of 5x density is to get rid of chokes and make that decision fairly easy.

At least on 1x you can depend on your fleet backing your bastion starbase up and have some left over starbase capacity for other needs. One of the first respond to this was change it to 1.5X hyperlane density which tells me that we as a community can't even agree on the ideal hyperlane density.
No, no, it's fairly simple: The game is more or less balanced around 1x density, if you want lots of chokes you go 0.75x, if you want less you go 1.5x and if you want your fleets to go wherever you fancy you crank it up to 5x.

Which ties into the not quite true 4X or true paradox grand strategy spectrum identify crisis Stellaris has.
The game catering to different tastes by allowing you to adjust how restrictive the terrain is ties into the game's identity crisis? What?

B) Wrong question.
The question is on point. You want chokepoints but get upset when the chokepoints are blocked by anything. See:

I want a meaningful chokeholds with off-rail travel.
You cannot have chokeholds when units can go wherever. For chokepoints you need terrain that restricts movement. Hyperlanes provide terrain in a space setting. In your particular example case there is a choke to some section of the galaxy that happens to be occupied by some FE, blocking you from killing that other empire behind it. You are basically upset about having to kill the FE second-to-last instead of last which somehow invalidates hyperlane-only FTL travel.

Not this "map generation made the chokehold placement choice for you" thing that Stellaris is doing now.
You mean the thing that every other strategy game does, too? Presenting a map with certain terrain containing obvious chokes and defensible positions?
 
The hardest problems I see are that it only takes one invasion, and the artificial building hardcap might feel frustrating if you've got infrastructure far in excess of the highest level. But the relevance of the ringworld size to invasions should be dealt with by a system to incorporate general population and infrastructure statistics in any planet. I don't have a solution to the building thing since I don't see any point to that restriction (except, I guess, that you don't need to budget UI space for a scrollbar) in the first place. But even if that restriction remains in place on ringworlds, that small bit of unsatisfying weirdness is far outweighed by how cool a unified ringworld would be in the first place.

According to the last two screenshots building's effects scale with infrastructure. So a ringworld with massive amounts of infrastructure is going to get far more armies from a single fortress than a backwater would. But yes, it seems like a pointless restriction.
 
Hmm what happens if you switch ethos mid-game what happens to your barrack-ethos district if you drop militarist for say materialist?

What if I do gestalt conscience and have DE instead of regular hive mind what then? I suppose I still struggle to see how this would be implement in-game without become a mess.

Perhaps it would be better to do something like militarist get XX% bonus to fortress' innate ability. This way you get more benefit from those districts without being a mess.

Let district types have authority, ethics and civic requirements and a list in order of preference of what districts they change into if they become invalid (into the first valid one, or if there's none, they simply disappear).

For example: "Mining guilds" civic grants "mining village" district which is an upgraded mining district which provides more housing and infrastructure. If the civic becomes invalid, the mines turn into standard mining districts, leading to sudden overpopulation and loss of infrastructure and thus a period of great instability for the empire, just like such monumental social change should.

Expanded in this way the district system could completely remove the need for a separate buildings system while at the same time allowing different societies to develop very different worlds. Every combination of ethics and traits would have a unique combination of available districts and thus worlds and strengths and weaknesses.
 
Given the mention of deposits affecting how many resource-producing districts you have, it wouldn't surprise me if ecumenopoli had few to no regular deposits, and thus you could only build city districts. (And a boost to city districts to make it worth it. Like increased Infrastructure, since it's a planet of cities)

(This is based on the assumption that terraforming can change your deposits, which would make sense as otherwise you might end up with a desert planet covered in kelp forests and underwater vents.)

Yes, that's exactly what I mean! I think that would be a very fun addition as it has clear disadvantages but provides interesting advantages.
 
Expanded in this way the district system could completely remove the need for a separate buildings system
I don't agree. It expands the district system in a meaningful way and could remove the need for buildings that you might want to build many of, such as research and military facilities, but I actually like Wiz's plan for those, and your version does not address buildings with esoteric and unique effects. Something that the player should only ever have one of, like a planetary shield generator, or a percent increase on resource generators.
 
Everyone here is missing what you are trying to point out., so... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

You are missing the point that my problem with 2.0 goes deeper than "I don't like changes".


Well, yes, that is the point. There is a strategic decision to be made of how many starbases you want to dedicate to naval cap, energy generation and defense and there is a decision on how many tiles you want to waste on fortresses. The entire point of 5x density is to get rid of chokes and make that decision fairly easy.

No, no, it's fairly simple: The game is more or less balanced around 1x density, if you want lots of chokes you go 0.75x, if you want less you go 1.5x and if you want your fleets to go wherever you fancy you crank it up to 5x.

No no. My point is that having so many hyperlane route on 5x and is supposed to eliminate the chokeholds. The reality is that you can have as many super-fortress chokehold as there are routes which allow you to completely dedicate your entire starbase capacity toward anchorage/energy and act like you are still on hyperlane density 1x with chokehold. That may change going tile-less however I am afraid it will not be enough to fix the lack of strategic choices on 5x hyperlane density.

Here the thing you can also set planet number to 5x and hyperlane density 1x and do the same thing. But I choice to not because AI will struggle with that.

The game catering to different tastes by allowing you to adjust how restrictive the terrain is ties into the game's identity crisis? What?

The question is on point. You want chokepoints but get upset when the chokepoints are blocked by anything. See:

No, no, it's fairly simple: The game is more or less balanced around 1x density, if you want lots of chokes you go 0.75x, if you want less you go 1.5x and if you want your fleets to go wherever you fancy you crank it up to 5x.
You cannot have chokeholds when units can go wherever. For chokepoints you need terrain that restricts movement. Hyperlanes provide terrain in a space setting. In your particular example case there is a choke to some section of the galaxy that happens to be occupied by some FE, blocking you from killing that other empire behind it. You are basically upset about having to kill the FE second-to-last instead of last which somehow invalidates hyperlane-only FTL travel.

You mean the thing that every other strategy game does, too? Presenting a map with certain terrain containing obvious chokes and defensible positions?

Lets use Distant World: Universe as an example of how I envision Stellaris should be more like.

Lets pretend that distant world: universe doesn't have warp for sake of the argument.

In DWU you have a FTL inhibitor module that can be fit on either starbase or starship (heck if you wanted to even civilian ships) and you sacrifice bit of energy to run it. There is also the matter of adding more mass to starship and it will move slower which isn't relative to the comparison to Stellaris since there is nothing like that.

It project a field around itself in which you either have to commit to fighting or go somewhere else and risk them coming after you. Which mean you can't fit them on a large battleship and expect to intercept every ship that move faster. Now that is much more dynamic than what Stellaris has and force you to raid with many starship as you can field meanwhile one large fleet heading to your primary objective. Or you could fit an interceptor with FTL inhibitor bubble and lot of engine to hold them down while the slower damage dealer ship catch up to the interceptor.

Furthermore, DW:U allows you to have different fleets corresponding to how many ships you have with their own objective (blow up the gas mines to force them to pull fuel from elsewhere for an example).


Now back to Stellaris, most of the combat revolve around dealing the most shield/armor/hull before the other can. There is also the issue where a single battleship is enough to ensnare multiple fleet of corvettes no matter if it was a suicide engagement.

My issue with Stellaris combat is that there is very little dynamic or even asymmetric warfare which directly ties into lack of off-rail movement. I will also like to point out this. One of the reasons why Stellaris was pushed into on-rail movement is because people were complaining fairly about not being able to intercept and force a combat.

Another reason was fleets were moving so fast that you were unable to react in a MP environment either to defend or catch them. I always play in SP so pause were there for that and I would be OK with slow down warp/wormhole FTL as a compromise.

One of the suppose change was to break up doomstack. To do that you need to encourage off-rail movement otherwise every individual raider will all go down the same hyperlane to the chokehold. Which bring me to the next thing, de-couple fleet from having one admiral per fleet. Make it so that you have "HOI 4 theater" where you have one overall admiral commanding multiple fleet with different objective of their own. Even if not quite exactly the same as HOI 4 but you get the idea. Of course it would mean giving up some control. At least it will break up doomstack because AI themselves will be also doing it as well.
 
Let district types have authority, ethics and civic requirements and a list in order of preference of what districts they change into if they become invalid (into the first valid one, or if there's none, they simply disappear).

For example: "Mining guilds" civic grants "mining village" district which is an upgraded mining district which provides more housing and infrastructure. If the civic becomes invalid, the mines turn into standard mining districts, leading to sudden overpopulation and loss of infrastructure and thus a period of great instability for the empire, just like such monumental social change should.

Expanded in this way the district system could completely remove the need for a separate buildings system while at the same time allowing different societies to develop very different worlds. Every combination of ethics and traits would have a unique combination of available districts and thus worlds and strengths and weaknesses.

From what I understand each distract cost mineral (city distract cost X00 mineral something). So if you have unique distract with different cost. It might be worthwhile to think about how a min-max player might switch civic around to build the cheaper and have it change into the better one.

IE for example Mining Guide civic grant you access to a cheaper mining distract. You might spend influence to switch to mining guide for cheaper mining distract for a large build up. Then switch out of mining guide once you are done and all your cheaper mining distract "downgrade" to regular mining distract for a large discount even if you lose out on the mineral bonus.

Conversely the opposite can be also annoying because there are some event that can "encouraged" an ethos change that you may not have anticipated forcing you to lose out on something.
 
This sounds promising. At first building on your planets keeping ressources and adjacency bonuses in mind was always pretty fun, but usually, the further along in the game you were, the less interesting and more tedious it became. Especially when later into the game you started getting large numbers of new planets by conquering other empires it usually became a very very boring process to build every tile on every planet, and given how horribly bad the AI was in these things, you never wanted to have it automated, since usually that just netted worthless results. So i think a revamp of this system is for the better.

Although that will mean heavy changes to my mod yet again. Ugh XD