• 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:
Any chance that sector populations will tend to gravitate towards specific factions and seek independence if they disagree with the ethics of the empire they are part of. That's one part I feel the reworked faction system never managed to get down.
 
I know the intention though there was a post proposing the multiple breeding process (with numbers being visible when mouse over the picture of the next one). It would make sense as when you go for habitability/planet it would make more sense that some pops will be more likely to migrate from harsh environment to more pleasant one hence driving the migration/growth of one particular species on some planets rather on others. On the other hand for Gaia Worlds it would make more sense to see multiple breeds due to how perfect this world is. Same for Habitats and Ring Worlds.

That sounds like a whole lot for the game to keep track of across an entire galaxy. Makes more sense for the species' habitability to be a pretty big deciding factor when rolling for which pop to grow next.
 
So the whole "core worlds" sector is gone and we won't be able to directly manage colonies?

The opposite, you will be able to manage every planet if you want. Sector will become only administrative division (defined by the geography of the hyperlane). And each division can be governed by one governor (this governor will give bonus as presently). So there is in fact nearly no difference between core sector and others, but in the opposite direction: more player control. This fix the problem of the sneaking sector with more planets than possible for the core sector, and will probably give a framework for more feature (more coherent and efficient rebellions linked to regional faction, feodal system, new cassus beli...)
 
That depends on how big these sectors are. If they are small, you would still end up doing the exact same thing the game would do just because your "anti-border gore senses" would tell you to put an entire cluster into the sector.



Unless they become that with a new update. The clusters are already created and important to the Galaxy Generation, and I sure as hell doubt that PDS is done with "Space Geography" with Apocalypse.



Which just supports his point as the larger regions are such because of regions that aren't as habitable, aka because of the geography.


@Nyrael The point of it is that the Devs should allow us the opportunity to design the states in our ways. While Geography does indeed play a HUGE role in how states are created IRL, there are many times when arbitrary borders come about. I think there is room for automated states, but I don't think it would be too hard for the devs to allow for the editing of states. Which is why again I ask @Wiz if he could allow players to continue to modify sector borders? And if not why?
 
Disappointing.

There's a lot more you could do in regards to faction with the new pop system. Especially with political power, revolts and regime change.

Right now factions don't feel like centrifugal forces working for their own gains internally, to the benefit or detriment of the empire, but like an influence producing UI window. Not a lot of gameplay involve them. Your decisions have almost no effect on them either. You can keep on playing for 200 years without any change in how the factions are satisfied, if you just keep the same policies enacted.
 
I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that a pops political power doesn't affect how much influence it gives a faction, so that in a stratified empire the opinions of the upper class matter more for factions just as they do for stability.

Unless it does and you didn't mention it.
 
I feel like a lot of people are judging the current sector overhaul just based on it's current planned changes, and not seeing that in order for cool future features (sector factions, better revolts, better politics, etc.) The sector systems needed to be changed and overhauled.

A small request myself. Could the symbol denoting the capital of your core sector be made different/more fancy so you can easily tell it apart from the others while scrolling? Or will it always be the first sector, so that doesn't really matter? If it is always the first sector, how does that work when you change the location of your capital?
 
Considering that hyperlanes are already grouped into de facto "province" regions, I think this is fine. It's basically just Victoria states.

I'm more unhappy that leader upkeep cost scales with empire size, considering that the amount of leaders you'll need also scales with empire size. It seems more reasonable if leader upkeep were based on their job, so governors get paid according to their sector for example, and only the central government (ie kings and research scientists) have costs scaling simply with empire size.
 
Am I seeing that sectors are going to get automatic labels applied like planets and starbases?

Also if we can give resources to sectors are they still getting all the same options as before where they can build planetary infrastructure, space infrastructure, and even colonize other planets in their sector?

Empire size increases leader cost.
Why does the leader cost need to increase with empire size?
A larger empire already means you need more leaders, so leader upkeep increases already. More controlled space means more sectors which requires more Governors, and the resources let you build more ships, and armies which requires more Admirals and Generals. The only leaders this doesn't apply to is Scientists, since there's only 3 research slots, and the utility of additional science vessels doesn't increase linearly (granted, generals aren't utilized very well at this time either, so aren't actually even required, but fixing that is its own balance change).
 
Last edited:
'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.

Why does the leader cost need to increase with empire size?
A larger empire already means you need more leaders, so leader upkeep increases already. More controlled space means more sectors which requires more Governors, and the resources let you build more ships, and armies which requires more Admirals and Generals. The only leaders this doesn't apply to is Scientists, since there's only 3 research slots, and the utility of additional science vessels doesn't increase linearly (granted, generals aren't utilized very well at this time either, so aren't actually even required, but fixing that is its own balance change).
leader cost was originally in influence, so that hiring a leader was never a casual decision, since influence couldn't be scaled up just by getting bigger. they changed it to energy because they felt influence was too important with the new outpost system, but that has predictably resulted in leader hiring costs being meaningless past the early game.

the number of leaders you need scales up only minimally with empire size.
 
While I am one that would gladly use the automated sectors, I do believe an option to customize them should be present. Stellaris has very good potential for roleplaying, so it should do it's best to allow for more player control if said player wants.
 
How severe is the empire size penalty to leader cost and upkeep? Whats the rational for that? I feel that a scaling cost will just lead to the same thing we saw originally where large empires won't have enough leaders to fill all their leadership positions and will ball all their fleets and army together as a result.

Why make efforts to curtail the amount of leaders at all? Vicky 2, HoI III and IV and CK2 never suffered from having too many leaders to choose from. I never got why EU4 and Stellaris went to such pains to restrict them.
 
Any chance we can allow sectors to produce their own ships? (i'm imagining a future system in which sectors can rebel and use the ships they've already made to defend themselves so they don't immediately get stamped out!)
 
How severe is the empire size penalty to leader cost and upkeep? Whats the rational for that? I feel that a scaling cost will just lead to the same thing we saw originally where large empires won't have enough leaders to fill all their leadership positions and will ball all their fleets and army together as a result.

As this point that's entirely supposition. Trust this to be the diary Wiz forgets to add that numbers are nowhere near final either!

Basically, I strongly doubt they have any idea how severe it will be yet. Likely not prohibitive.
 
I have to admit, I am a bit surprised that a pops political power doesn't affect how much influence it gives a faction, so that in a stratified empire the opinions of the upper class matter more for factions just as they do for stability.

Unless it does and you didn't mention it.

It does.
 
Looks promising - but I still have a few question/suggestions for leaders.

- will governors have a visible ethos? Will that influence ethic drift in their local sector?

- will salary be influenced by level?

- will certain govt types increase/reduce your control over leader appointments? Locally elected governors vs. Central appointees?

- any impact of alien governors on xenophobe pop happiness?

So much potential :)
J
 
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.

While I am one that would gladly use the automated sectors, I do believe an option to customize them should be present. Stellaris has very good potential for roleplaying, so it should do it's best to allow for more player control if said player wants.