• 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 Dev Diary #126 - Sectors and Factions in 2.2

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today we're going to continue talking about the 2.2 'Le Guin' update, on the topic of Sectors and Factions. As said before, we're not yet ready to reveal anything about when Le Guin is coming out, only that it's a long time away and we have many more topics to cover before then. Also as said before, screenshots will contain placeholder art and interfaces and non-final numbers.

Sector Rework
Sectors have always been a bit of a controversial feature. Even if you disregard arguments about the general level of competence of the sector AI, the fact that sectors effectively force the player to cede control over all but a few of their planets has never gone down well with certain players. In truth, the decision to force players to give planets to sectors was very much a result of the old tile system - because of the sheer amount of micromanagement that was involved in managing a large number of planets, it was decided that automation was necessary, and also to make that automation mandatory (barring mods) to effectively force players to not make themselves miserable by micromanaging the tiles of a hundred different worlds. With the planetary rework in the Le Guin update, we no longer feel that this mandatory automation is needed any longer, and so we've decided to rework the sector system entirely.

Instead of being autonomous mini-economies, sectors are now administrative units in your empire, with their layout decided by galactic geography, with each sector corresponding to a cluster of stars in the galaxy. Sectors are automatically created when you colonize a planet in a previously uncolonized cluster, and your 'core sector' is simply the cluster in which your capital is located. All interfaces that are relevant to sectors and planets (such as the outliner) are now organized by collapsible sector entries, allowing for better overview and management of a large number of planets. As before, each sector can have a governor assigned to it, but sectors now automatically send all of their production to the empire stockpile instead of having their own fully realized economy. However, since we still want players to be able to offload some of the planetary management when controlling a large number of worlds, it is still possible to allocate resources to a Governor, who will use those resources to develop the planets under their control. This of course means that there is no longer any core sector limit, and anything that previously used to give a bonus to core sector planets has either been changed into a different bonus or removed altogether.

EDIT: Since there's a lot of questions about leader capacity, please read down a bit further in the thread where I address this issue. Thank you!

(Note: Image is highly WIP and has missing elements)
2018_09_20_2.png

Faction Happiness Rework
Factions are also changing in Le Guin, though not to nearly the same degree as sectors. Most of the core mechanics of factions will remain the same, but Faction Happiness is being changed into something we call Faction Approval, measuring how much a Faction approves of your empire's policies. Where previously Factions would only give influence when above a 60% happiness threshold, Factions now always give some influence, with the amount scaling linearly to their Approval, so a 10% Approval faction will give only 1/10th of the influence that a 100% Approval faction gives you (the amount they give also still scales to their share of power in your empire). Faction Approval is also no longer directly applied to Pop Happiness, but rather will affect the happiness of Pops belonging to that faction at different thresholds, with small boosts to happiness at higher levels of approval and increasingly severe penalties to happiness at low levels of approval (effectively swapping the influence threshold for various happiness thresholds).

This should mean that even small boosts to faction approval now directly translates into influence gain, and that factions almost always give *some* benefit, even if that benefit may be outweighed by the unhappiness and unrest they can cause. We're also hoping to have time to review the faction issues, tying them more directly to policies to make them easier to understand. For example, instead of demanding that all species have their rights manually set to Full Citizenship, the Xenophile faction might demand a certain empire-wide policy setting that forces the equal application of species rights across all species.
2018_09_20_1.png


That's all for today! Next week we're continuing to talk about the Le Guin update, on the topic of Trade Value and Trade Routes.
 
Last edited:
A simple and elegant solution would be to tie these mechanics to government type. Surely a controlling and min-max micromanager will more often play an authorative dictorial empire instead of a representative egalitarian democracy.
That... doesn't really make any sense at all.

I play lots of autocratic dictatorial empires, because those present interesting roleplaying opportunities. I also play egalitarian democracies, for the same reason.
 
You send a lump sum of energy or minerals which is converted into 'sector budget', from which the governor can build, with special scripted costs. We haven't figured out yet how we're going to solve special costs like rare resources. It's also possible that governors might get a small budget each month based on economic strength of sector even if you don't send them resources.
Hmm, only being able to send minerals or energy sounds restrictive in light of the (Dev Diary #120) new resource system. Will this be mod-able? Or even better: Will this system allow us to send whatever resource we want in the finished version?
Sending food to increase the sector budged might be too cheap for a regular empire, but if I have a modded plant empire, that uses food to "build" (i.e. grow) buildings and ships that would totally make sense instead.
Maybe allow everyone to send whatever resource they want, but add a "worth" to each resource based on empire type? e.g. sending food as anything but a plant hive is worth almost nothing, egalitarians gain more from sending energy, and authoritarians more from sending minerals.
 
This. Min-max vs Roleplay. Control vs Delegation. Automation vs Micromanagement.

A simple and elegant solution would be to tie these mechanics to government type. Surely a controlling and min-max micromanager will more often play an authorative dictorial empire instead of a representative egalitarian democracy.

You want more control over Pop jobs or sector map drawings, you pick a government type that better suits your playstyle.

Tying it to government types just sounds too restrictive. Maybe you wanna min-max as a an egalitarian democracy, maybe you wanna be less controlling as a dictatorship. You don't have to tie how you control sectors to anything, just give the choice to the player. Let us decide how we wanna play.
 
this weeks diary seems lacking in content. Not bad still, seemingly due to fact that it is far away and there would be nothing to add, so piecemealing.

Galactic market is a bad idea imo. If you want markets and if you want to make the 'galaxy' look big, why not have separate markets for alliances that are closed off to hostile empires, blocs. Unless we are given option to make 2 space buildings that will have an event that there could be an adversarial act, where 2 transport ships hit said trade enclave buildings, where a third one, with number 7 on it would disintegrate without getting hit. I think that would be interesting.

Vast galaxies getting a centralization in a galactic market ... but with that hostile empires should imo, not really trade right ? I would think that space empires should have big enoguh economies to harvest so much of space resources, belts, unhabitable planets, that it seems strange that the internal market should be pretty strong, the stronger the empire, the better its internal economy. If your empires is the only one left, your internal market is then the galactic one. There should be tradeoffs for opening ones own economy to foreign trade, where in the long run, your adversaries get better due to you, while you dont get that much. The more economies, diverse ones fill up both demand and supply, the stronger it gets, but also the more addicted said empires become to it, so there should be consequences.
 
Late game sectors for me are vital as emergency coffers, when I suddenly need to replace entire fleets lost to Contingency or other Crisis, being able to pop 70k minerals out of my sector to rebuild is an absolute must.

Will you be increasing the overall mineral caps? considering that with 7 or 8 sectors and a mineral cap of over 80k in each meant a lot of banked resources you could have access too (influence permitting)
 
It wouldn't be 'from nowhere', more like local taxes. Your empire stockpile does not represent all economic activity in your empire, as next dev diary should make clear.

For example, one idea I have for the Feudal Realm civic (but I'm not promising there will be time for) is to have governors be way more autonomous, but have a fairly large income of their own.

Still this sounds like the Core Sector should "produce" more then the goverment Sectors asuming similiar taxation. Or the Core Sector can develop on its own as well. Stil where is the money going when you do not allow them to build stuff? (Mechanically i am fine how ever it turns out, but still i would like a canon immersion explanation that i accept at a suspension of disbelief)

Yep! Leader cost also scales with empire size, so in general it's a lot more useful now.
As Above what's the canon immersion explanation for this? :)
 
A simple and elegant solution would be to tie these mechanics to government type.
Authoritarianism doesn't necessarily mean centralization. Especially on a galactic scale. Even authoritarian societies sometimes use trusted governors to manage territories for them. They just aren't elected, but appointed and can be removed at a whim (speaking of reality or other sci-fi universes here, not Stellaris).
And democracies may be centralized or decentralized to various degrees.
 
Last edited:
Very exciting, even not knowing the final numbers (which mods will inevitably tweak anyways), these changes resolve a lot of annoying issues with the current game for me. The leader cap removal is awesome, as now generals, admirals, and governors all get a fair shot without half my cap usually consumed by scientists most of the game.

I’m also wondering if we will get claims on whole sectors at a discount to encourage less bordergore.

The sector thing is a little ironic, as it felt like the older sectors punished me for micromanagement. In the end, they only ever burned computational power to try to outsmart me on tiles (which they never managed, lol).

Seriously though, love the faction rework but *please* consider changing how the rival/NAP works for imperialist/isolationist factions. This should be more like the materialist faction IMO, where you just have to be equal to others in tech and/or get research agreements. The imperialist faction should be happier if you are so big and bad you can’t even rival your neighbors. Likewise, the isolationists should be happy you have a fleet that can hold the FP or marauders at your doorstep, despite the fact you can’t NAP them. This could work out to being more powerful or having an NAP with all your default empire neighbors, for example. The other factions at least make some kind of sense, but polishing and tweaking so pleasing them is more straightforward is very welcome, as was allowing imperialists to not be angry about federations.
 
Seeing as my accumulated misery from micromanaging tiles caused me to stop playing at 1.6, I absolutely love the prospect of 2.2. I think it's going to be the update that makes me play Stellaris again.
 
As someone who only ever used sectors as "How do I limit the resource suck as much as possible" when drawing the borders, I look forward to this. I definitely understand wanting to be able to customize your sectors, or at least merge 2 bordering sectors though. I imagine the problem with this is similar to the current one of "Why have two sectors with two leaders instead of one giant sector with one leader?" which would lessen the impact of the new leader upkeep/scaling with empire size.

Admittedly I don't understand at all the "Why would you punish wide empires!?" people in regards to the scaling upkeep. Sure a large empire needs more leaders than a small, but if there's no scaling cost there's literally never going to be a time where it's not worth it to throw a governor on a sector (unless the base upkeep for a single leader is so high that it takes more than an entire planet's worth of resources to pay them, at which point I'd ask the balance folks if they're ok or not). Playing a small empire is still more or less suicide in Stellaris and I've no clue what you're on about.
 
@Wiz

Despite the highly WIP nature of the screenshot. I do have one feedback and I don't think I am alone in wanting this either.

index.php


I was looking at the sector. I just realized something. For pozuno sector, you can tell it has a mining space station energy income of 3 but is showned nowhere in the GUI. I might like a new row showing the raw mining space station yields.

Same Scenario for Hydax Sector. Hydax and Persei Prime uses -18 energy but sector is positive 4. Again with mineral -10 vs +1 income.

I think it would be useful in a large empire to not have to do multiple calculation to figure out what is happening to your energy in a sector.
 
Last edited:
I would certainly like to see more types of factions. I frequently play co-op vs. AI games and while it's pretty obvious not to pick xenophobe as an ideology, it would be nice to have a militarist faction that wasn't anti-federation. It is certainly conceivable for a warrior society to see themselves as guardians of the weak, or religious protectors and so on. I'm not saying the current militarist faction needs to change, but more options are nice.
 
@Wiz

Despite the highly WIP nature of the screenshot. I do have one feedback and I don't think I am alone in wanting this either.

index.php


I was looking at the sector. I just realized something. For pozuno sector, you can tell it has a mining space station income of 3 but is showned nowhere in the GUI. I might like a new row showing the raw mining space station yields.

Same Scenario for Hydax Sector. Hydax and Persei Prime uses -18 energy but sector is positive 4. Again with mineral -10 vs +1 income.

I think it would be useful in a large empire to not have to do multiple calculation to figure out what is happening to your energy in a sector.

I like this a lot, but I would add one more thing: Tracking starbases in each sector and their upkeep and impact on the local economy would be handy as well.

May as well drop the suggestion while it is still WIP, looking good though!
 
I would certainly like to see more types of factions. I frequently play co-op vs. AI games and while it's pretty obvious not to pick xenophobe as an ideology, it would be nice to have a militarist faction that wasn't anti-federation. It is certainly conceivable for a warrior society to see themselves as guardians of the weak, or religious protectors and so on. I'm not saying the current militarist faction needs to change, but more options are nice.

They already have something of the sort with the xenophobe faction. If you pick just Xenophobe you get the Supremacist faction which pretty much wants hostility with every other species, but if you're Xenophobe and Pacifist you get the Isolationist faction which pretty much just wants to be left alone. I'm all for more factions that results from ethics synergy. Your idea could very well be the synergy between Militarist and Xenophile. Another idea could be Spiritualist and Militarist which pretty much creates a crusader faction that advocates to make the whole galaxy spiritualist through force.
 
Can I pull a Chechenya and have a governor build a private army in a sector, violently oppress minorities and allow me to pretend I have no clue what is going on towards the wider population of my empire?

(of course, this should marvellously backfire when a robot rebellion starts in this sector and it overthrows my empire)
 
Maybe some bonus to trade? Nothin' like peacetime to get the commerce flowing!
Rule of Acquisition 35: "Peace is good for business."

Unless you're an arms manufacturer.
Rule of Acquisition 34: "War is good for business."

'WIP' may be misleading people. WIP doesnt necessarily mean what you are seeing is half-done. It often means that what you see is a placeholder with no real work having been done on it yet, except by coders getting it minimally functional.
'Work in progress' is pretty self explanatory, if someone chooses to over-interpret that it's their own problem.
 
As Above what's the canon immersion explanation for this? :)

Increased cost of an ever expanding and bloated bureaucracy. I never see leaders as being one person but a vast network of officials and experts and all the surrunding supporting staff.
 
Paying a single person wages relevant on the galactic scale is nonsensical.

Except it does not really represent just one person... as in most other Paradox games it is a highly abstracted mechanic as an entire administrative branch of numerous levels of personnel.