• 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:
I don't mean to be rude, but you haven't really answered my question. Why does an empire claiming more territory increase the size of all its bureaucracies, even those that don't have anything to do with the new territory?

Coordination. Not only do Blargon V and Galvax IX need an agricultural development ministry since the recent establishment of the Galvax colony both ministries have had to set up liaison offices to coordinate trade, logistics, collaboration and standardisation.
 
I really hope sectors are still going to be fleshed out, even if if their initial intent was merely to delegate micro-management to the AI. Merely giving more distant sectors some autonomy and some "frontier" story events would make the game a lot more exciting .
 
I definitely think we could do a lot more with sectors now that they have borders the players can't redraw at whim, but no concrete plans at the moment.
This makes me so happy :3 .
 
I like the idea, but Im wondering how large will these new sectors be, because clusters themselves are relatviely small, especially in a large map. Unless that when WIZ means clusters he means a larger grouping of stars than the star clusters mentioned in a previous DD on map geenration.

Also how will these afffect the "highway" stars that span between clusters.
 
While I'm extremely happy with all the changes so far (at first glance of course), and even that sectors are no longer mandatory to avoid micromanagement, I don't really like that you can't change sectors. Specifically being able to select which neighboring planets belong together in a sector. That we are no longer forced to use them is great, but that the sector compositions themselves are now fixed and we merely choose whether they should manage themselves in a limited fashion or not is not something I would enjoy.

I know it's early but based on the dev diary, what's the point of removing the feature if you already make it optional in the first place? Instead of making the sectors fixed, and then enabling the option to let the sector manage itself, why not keep it like it is? If the player wants to reduce micromanagement, they can choose to create one or more sectors with one or more planets that can then manage themselves. But now they just don't have to if they don't want to.

It seems as if sectors are treated as "natural" constructs, but usually, as they are now, they aren't. They are a political construct, decided upon by the government (in-universe) to allow a Governor to preside over more than one planet to reduce the complexity of governing every planet directly. What would happen if the government can't choose which planets (systems) belong together? Basically, I would like to decide that this planet is directly controlled, but these two other planets are part of a single sector controlled by a Governor. Especially if certain planets are focused on mining or energy I perhaps wouldn't really care about directly managing them, but maybe there's another planet nearby that I do want to control directly. If they are all part of a single fixed sector, then I have to either directly control all of them or none of them.

Regardless, I just wanted to get this off my chest. Maybe it's not as worse as I believe it will be (I never ran into a situation yet where sectors were really necessary, just nice for RP).
 
Sectors being fixed and automatic makes sense if you they want them to develop into mandatory political entities in the future. Having internal politics doesn't work so well if you can just get around the system by never creating sectors or only having one of them.
Though the alternative in that case is keeping the core planet limit and custom sectors, but making the maximum sector size fairly small.
 
Pre-set state boundaries was one of the things I didn't like about EU4. It just seemed so arbitrary, and it looks like the Stellaris version is going to have the same drawback (where you choose between an efficiency hit on the provinces in the state or paying full price for a partial state).
 
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.

Im excited!
I'd love to see feudal realms to feel different from other empires, with much more internal struggle to fight with but also benefits from semi-autonomous lords that come to aid the realm.
I guess another box of flavour(, maybe including governor ambitions and intrigue?), will be added in the shrouded future of the probably coming diplomacy patch.

How much independence (for vassals and sectors) will be possible/viable with the new system?
 
Looks like suppressing factions will be more pointless, yet more costly since all factions with a non-zero approval would have given you SOME influence. I was hoping for a little more than some slight tweaks since the current faction gameplay of "change policies once and then forget they exist" is not very fun. I can understand though if it is not a priority until diplomacy gets an overhaul.
 
Im excited!
I'd love to see feudal realms to feel different from other empires, with much more internal struggle to fight with but also benefits from semi-autonomous lords that come to aid the realm.
I guess another box of flavour(, maybe including governor ambitions and intrigue?), will be added in the shrouded future of the probably coming diplomacy patch.

How much independence (for vassals and sectors) will be possible/viable with the new system?

I don't think the game engine can support CKII-style dynastic intrigues, otherwise Imperial rulers wouldn't be stuck with the same heir they designated at ascension.

Maybe we could have governors whose successors are automatically chosen in the same method as the empire's ruler instead of just viceroys.

And I'd like to see a return of sector secession factions.
 
So, just to clarify on sectors, this means we'll now be able to directly control planetary development with the new system now that micromanagement has been dramatically reduced, right? But if we want to let the AI automate, we can give them resources and the governor should handle the busywork for us?

If it is, then as someone who loves building wide, I'm excited! I know a few friends who will also be excited to know this.
 
I really liked making sectors for RP reasons. Hopefully this still turns out fun. I'll miss one system sectors though.
Can we still rename them?

Also, from them now being geographic, does that mean something like EU4s fleet missions could some to stellaris with 'patrol sectors' or etc as now there will be sectors everywhere even outside of their territory for those orders to apply too.
 
I really liked making sectors for RP reasons. Hopefully this still turns out fun. I'll miss one system sectors though.
Can we still rename them?

Also, from them now being geographic, does that mean something like EU4s fleet missions could some to stellaris with 'patrol sectors' or etc as now there will be sectors everywhere even outside of their territory for those orders to apply too.

It would be good for the fleets to have more use besides fighting and then sitting in some starbase. Setting them to patrol your territory could help lower piracy risk and lower the chances of a specific sector revolting on you.
 
Maybe we could have governors whose successors are automatically chosen in the same method as the empire's ruler instead of just viceroys.
What would be nice is some sort of pseudo election for democracies where maybe a new governor is conjured out of thin air and you can't replace them (except maybe through some events when they screw up or commit crimes). But as an authoritarian empire you get to appoint governors at will.
 
Naval capacity doesn't increase the size of the job your admiral is doing, though -- fleet capacity does. So, basing admiral pay off how many ships are in their fleet makes sense and would naturally scale up over time, but if you had twice as many fleets it wouldn't cost four times as much like it will if you scale it based on empire size/naval cap.

Governors are the same way -- you make an average of X energy per planet and have Y planets per sector and that doesn't scale with empire size, but the amount you need to pay your governor does? It's nonsense. You're already paying more by needing more governors for your extra sectors.

The only sort of leader it makes any sense for is scientists because the number of scientists you need doesn't scale up with the size of your empire like governors and admirals do.
While I can agree that empire size is not perfect for determining how much leaders should be paid, I think it makes enough sense, while also keeping the calculations simple so that players only have to track their overall empire size. Yes, an admiral's cost could be more directly correlated to fleet size, but you could look at the correlation with empire size as something along the lines of "as the overall size of the empire increases, each admiral needs more logistics personnel to allocate to different fleet supply points around the empire". You could come up with any number of specific reasons.
Similarly, governors could be strictly based on the number of districts/pops in their sector. However, as your empire grows, they have to manage additional things like migration and supply and demand for the working pops, which would need additional personnel and scale with empire size.

The point I am trying to make is that empire size works well enough as an abstraction, avoiding having to calculate a separate budget for each individual leader.
 
no influence loss when approbation is low, I think it could be better (just a linear transformation in scale) and also more realistic. Moreover it will oblige players to keep their internal politics in check (and also coupled with influence paiement event to avoid rebellion and cool your pops?)
 
It would be good for the fleets to have more use besides fighting and then sitting in some starbase. Setting them to patrol your territory could help lower piracy risk and lower the chances of a specific sector revolting on you.

maybe tie into new economic trade system so sectors benefit from a protect trade type mission?