• 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:
Sector Rework

So a couple of questions:

1. Will the Galaxy map Outliner be used to give more information on the sectors now? As this a part of the UI that most players see very regularly I think the way it is currently used with sectors is quite poor. As by default your sectors are put below so much data to begin with that I don`t think many players even notice they are there and even if they do all that the current Outliner really gives you data is the number of planets in a sector with a link to the "Planets and Sectors" menu. Nothing about the productive capabilities of the sector, the sector stockpile of resources, the focus of the sector AI, unrest etc. To reduce the overall number of needless clicks I think the Galaxy map Outliner should definitely be used better.

2. Will it still be possible to leave like 25, 50 or 75% of the sector`s production for the sector AI to work with, if the player so chooses, to prevent the need to always micromanage the amount of resources that is given the sector AI?

3. Will your leaders still only have like one trait per leader when they are recruited and will the recruiting pool of the leaders still stay as shallow as before? Also if the answer to these questions is yes, can we expect some sort of leader rework in the future? As currently at least in my opinion choosing your leaders is a rather booring part of the game as because the leader pool is so shallow and leaders themselves usually only have that one trait with them (not counting age of course) choosing your leader often isn`t really a choice you have to think about. Usually it is more like yes I have a few leader candidates here, but only one of them really works for the position in question, so not much of a choice now is it.

(Note: Image is highly WIP and has missing elements)
View attachment 405542

Also if your planet is currently building something will it be shown here so that you don`t have to go all the way to that individual planet to check it out? (These kinds of general empire [production] management screens can be quite useful in space 4X games where you have a lot of planets in different parts of the galaxy and in different numbers in different star systems as well as they reduce the amount of clicks needed to manage your empire.)
 
Last edited:
Please give us the ability to freely give systems and planets to other empires, at least your allies and vassals! As it is you can only give it to any empire if they have claims on it. It's really annoying especially during big wars, since of course you have no idea which claims your allies have until the war actually starts making it really hard to coorindate, or just during unlimited conquering wars like crisises/collosus CB, so you get these random planets you can't connect to any sector because you grabbed the starbase first. Or if you wanna RP, play tall, or just during the end game "conquer 40% of planets" slog where you'd rather just give the systems to an ally or vassal instead of micromanaging and integrating 50 new planets. i understand there was some concern about bankrupting or starving AI empires by giving them systems but seeing as they cheat so much anyway i dont see

btw anyone gets the bug where after you use console commands to switch to another empire and take ownership of a system for them manually but then get a ++ bonus to resources when you take back control of your own empire from the AI, just save the game and reload
 
the size discrepancies are 100% based on geography, for example WA is so large because of how sparsely populated it is. with a population of 2.5 million(1.7 million of whom live in one city, Perth) it simply would not be geographically viable to break it into smaller units comparable to the size of the other states
You're ignoring that these territories still have wildly different population numbers. If it were "100% based on geography" (actually demographics), the Northern Territory would have to be a lot larger in order to encompass a comparable amount of the population -- not just 250.000 people, a tenth of WA.

The truth is that any borders drawn are never just 100% based on geography; they are also very much subject to local developments, including politics (internal and international) and military conflict. The fact that Australia's internal borders have shifted quite a bit over the centuries is proof. Note further how Tasmania, in spite of the water in-between, started out as a part of NSW.

tumblr_p1ztpkYbkY1rasnq9o1_500.gif


^ this piece of real world history, by the way, would be impossible with 2.2's automated sectors.
 
Last edited:
Enh. Having sectors being pre-set via "space geography" is not perfect. But I do think it's better we 1) Don't have to worry about re-drawing sectors constantly, especially during war, and 2) Have them look more natural. Right now you should only have sectors snake around and engulf planetary systems, only gobbling up energy heavy systems if it has a deficit, while leaving everything else to the core so your precious resources won't get taxed. This sort of snaking just makes the map look gross and nonsensical. The old system was also too easily abused. You could have your core system with 3 planets, and a single governor ruling over your 100 other planets. It's also one less thing thing to hold AI back.
 
Enh. Having sectors being pre-set via "space geography" is not perfect. But I do think it's better we 1) Don't have to worry about re-drawing sectors constantly, especially during war, and 2) Have them look more natural. Right now you should only have sectors snake around and engulf planetary systems, only gobbling up energy heavy systems if it has a deficit, while leaving everything else to the core so your precious resources won't get taxed. This sort of snaking just makes the map look gross and nonsensical. The old system was also too easily abused. You could have your core system with 3 planets, and a single governor ruling over your 100 other planets. It's also one less thing thing to hold AI back.
There's some truth to that, but it's bothersome that more honest players who do not care as much about "gaming the system" should suffer by seeing customization reduced, or having to deal with 1-planet minisectors created by controlling only a portion of a cluster. Anyone who wants to cheat or exploit can still do so, anyways, be it with mods or console commands.

Plus, it's not as if those glaring weaknesses could not have been resolved any other way, either. For years, it was pointed out how giant megasectors are silly and why the number of sectors was limited (and improvable by tech) rather than the size of sectors, or why a governor's bonuses would not just scale to the number of systems they control. And if "snake sectors" truly ever bothered someone, a possible solution would have been to introduce distance-based scaling penalties for worlds too far away from the sector capital.

Really, there are a lot more options than just removing player agency altogether.

This being said, and to not be too much of a pessimist (especially as I still like most of the changes coming with 2.2), could there perhaps be a chance to campaign for a sort of compromise allowing players to tweak auto-sectors in some limited way, such as by being allowed to assign/reassign systems within a range of 1-2 jumps from the cluster border? There could even be a Society tech that unlocks or expands this.
 
Enh. Having sectors being pre-set via "space geography" is not perfect. But I do think it's better we 1) Don't have to worry about re-drawing sectors constantly, especially during war, and 2) Have them look more natural. Right now you should only have sectors snake around and engulf planetary systems, only gobbling up energy heavy systems if it has a deficit, while leaving everything else to the core so your precious resources won't get taxed. This sort of snaking just makes the map look gross and nonsensical. The old system was also too easily abused. You could have your core system with 3 planets, and a single governor ruling over your 100 other planets. It's also one less thing thing to hold AI back.

I don't mind the new system either, but the second problem you outline could be effectively addressed by limiting the max distance of sector systems from one another. E.g. requiring all systems in a sector to be within 5 hyperlane-jumps of each other. That not only limits the maximum size of a sector, but does so in a way that forces them to be fairly cohesive and contiguous as sectors can only "snake" for a maximum of five (or whatever) jumps.

The only vulnerability this leaves is the player choosing to have lots of tiny micro-sectors. Given that sectors in 2.2 have no mechanical impact beyond delimiting where governor bonuses apply (which incentivises larger sectors anyway), from a game balance perspective that would seem to be an effective solution to the problem of allowing players to define their own sectors. It might create problems later if PI want to add in additional mechanics but potentially micro-sectors could be blocked by having a minimum sector size or something similar.

(Obviously that doesn't solve the first problem, but no solution which allows players control over defining sectors can resolve that.)
 
Having larger administrative areas works just fine in HOI 4 with states, so I'm not too concerned.

I do admit I actually sort of like drawing up and nurturing sectors as they are in the current version, though. I have to make a choice of how many systems to allocate them to make them self-sufficient versus my empire's need for those same resources. Plus, I like the roleplaying aspect of forming sectors and giving them immersive names :) .

Plus, letting the sector AI colonise planets and develop some systems for me within their "lands" is such a a good way to reduce tedious micro :D . It lets me sit back and focus on building my empire.

Maybe in a future patch there could be a kind of territories you could draw up to combine sectors into larger administrative units.
 
Last edited:
You're ignoring that these territories still have wildly different population numbers. If it were "100% based on geography" (actually demographics), the Northern Territory would have to be a lot larger in order to encompass a comparable amount of the population -- not just 250.000 people, a tenth of WA.
No I'm not ignoring different population numbers, because geography isn't this 'everything has to be the same' kind deal. NT can't be all that much bigger because being larger would make it even more sparse & difficult to govern, and let's not forget the only reason NT exists is because of geography, NT's population centre is too far away from SA's population centres(literally opposite sife of the continent) for them to have continued being the same state

The fact that Australia's internal borders have shifted quite a bit over the centuries is proof. Note further how Tasmania, in spite of the water in-between, started out as a part of NSW.

I don't think it's valid to proclaim the inter-colony borders as "internal" before Australia actually became a country so lets focus on the small handful of changes that's happened since Australia became a nation, NT left SA for geographical reasons(namely distance), SA split in two but this only lasted 5 years because people realised it didn't work, the ACT i'll admit isn't based on geography at all but politics as VIC & NSW didn't want the other to have more power by hosting the federal government but we won't be able to have something like that in game until we have a proper internal politics system, Jarvis Bay is complicated as it's administered by the federal government & beholden to the laws of the ACT whilst being in name it's own seperate entity. it's purpose was to give Canberra access to the Sea & a port so i don't think a jarvis bay situation is currently something we have to worry about in the context of the game
 
I feel that sectors like could also result in whole sectors being asked for at the bargaining table. With choices such (split sector) withdraw from sector or (claim whole sector)
I can see clearly this leading to quadrants, With the player only being able to interact with one Quadrant at a time. so yeah i think the game is going the way of star trek.
 
The intend is that they should be able to upgrade/downgrade to the type they matches, very scriptable.
Well thats interesting, sounds to me, that sectors have different roles. Those on the frontier are hard rugged blorg defending their homes with plasma guns.
Those in the core are more sophisticated.
 
Sounds absolutely great!

One feature I would very much like to see with the incoming overhaul is the ability to give a planet a rough indication of a role for quickly recognizing what it is, for example, calling your fortified border world Fortress World (not the name, role in addition to it) in such a way it showed up in planets manager and maybe outliner too.
 
you say that like it's a bad thing
Well, yes. Haven't you ever set up a sector with borders concerning other factors than stellar topography? What do you like about the game forcing you to use sectors containing only one or two systems?

No I'm not ignoring different population numbers, because geography isn't this 'everything has to be the same' kind deal. NT can't be all that much bigger because being larger would make it even more sparse & difficult to govern, and let's not forget the only reason NT exists is because of geography, NT's population centre is too far away from SA's population centres(literally opposite sife of the continent) for them to have continued being the same state
And yet the area of NT used to be split up between WA and NSW, and has repeatedly seen its border shift around. So to justify permanently fixed borders by pointing to geography is just plain wrong -- it doesn't even work applying your own reasoning, as population numbers aren't fixed. Colonies in Stellaris will grow in population and importance as well.

I don't think it's valid to proclaim the inter-colony borders as "internal" before Australia actually became a country
Well, I do, because in this game we are also establishing colonies just like Australia used to be. Obviously, the more you limit the time frame we use to look at a region, the fewer changes there will be to internal borders -- or anything else.

In Stellaris terms, Australia is the "cluster", but instead of allowing us to establish sectors reflecting the actual development of local settlements and what this means for administration, the game will just force us to treat it as one entity from the beginning, with zero regard to how much of Australia we control, or whether our cities grow large enough to warrant a sector on their own (e.g. Victoria).

Furthermore, even when limiting our perspective to the decades of Australian independence, you're now admitting that internal borders can change due to politics, which is all I've pointed out before. Now you seem to be shifting the argument to manual border setting not making sense in Stellaris because the game supposedly misses the functionalities for it to make sense. Here I disagree as well, let me explain why:

Admittedly, my position is quite likely biased in large part due to non-vanilla politics brought into the game via mods. I tend to run my games with the Political Events mod, whose emergent storytelling lends itself to establishing and reforming sectors based on, well, political events. You may argue that the game should not cater to optional mods, yet I would counter that we are gaining nothing by surrendering all influence over sector borders, and that retaining anability to affect them would future-proof the game to prepare for a point when such features might become standard in the game with one of the next big patches.

Even with the current vanilla game, however, there are many reasons for why changes to sector borders can make sense -- be them improvements to local economy, the establishment of additional settlements as previously uninhabitable planets become more viable (or an empire begins to construct habitats), or military conflict forcing an empire to redraw its internal borders because an old frontier sector was ripped apart, and it makes no sense to maintain a 1-system mini-sector when the prospect of liberating the other worlds seems unrealistic. Case in point, the federal states of Germany post WW2.

Come to think of it, the administrative partition of Germany underwent even greater changes than Australia, even when limited to a timeframe of the last 100 years. And I'm not referring to the external borders!

it's purpose was to give Canberra access to the Sea & a port so i don't think a jarvis bay situation is currently something we have to worry about in the context of the game
In Stellaris terms, this could easily be applicable to a wormhole system in a neighboring cluster being affiliated with a larger sector, rather than quite nonsensically being its own 1-star-sector.

Will we ever be able to rename factions?
You can already! This is a recently implemented feature. :)
 
Last edited:
Cant wait to see how feudal empires will work with sectors in future now that this foundation has been built, i'd love to see militarised sectors or mini vassals within my own territory.
 
Last edited:
Well, yes. Haven't you ever set up a sector with borders concerning other factors than stellar topography? What do you like about the game forcing you to use sectors containing only one or two systems?
i wasn't talking about the game
 
i wasn't talking about the game
Having a look at Australia's politics, I'm pretty pleased that New Zealand was given independence from NSW in 1841. Completely separate nations with disparate demographics, their own unique cultures are deserving of having their own separate administrative units.