• 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:
Funny. All these changes seems to be reasonable and needed, but they just do not impress me gameplay-wise compared to all the other new things in the LeGuin. Hope that the updates will use the reworked system as a basis to add more interesting mechanics with propper inner politics, separatism and more factions per ethic.
 
When will they start talking about dlc they will be releasing with this huge update. What kind of theme will it have. What kind of new stuff will it bring to game other than changing how we play core game.
 
One thing - old sectors were also nerf for wide empires, while +core systems was a buff for pacifists. So i wonder if there anything new to nerf wide empires in similar way and represent pacifist power of bureaucracy :).
 
I would suggest a possibility to reintroduce dynamic sectors:
Have an upper limit to the number of systems in a sector. (prevent everything being in the same sector)
Allow systems to be added, but not removed from a sector. (mostly to allow for political movements in sectors).
Colonies not part of a sector gets reduced bonuses (if nothing else, they don't get a governor bonus).
 
Funny. All these changes seems to be reasonable and needed, but they just do not impress me gameplay-wise compared to all the other new things in the LeGuin. Hope that the updates will use the reworked system as a basis to add more interesting mechanics with propper inner politics, separatism and more factions per ethic.
Yeah, both sector and faction rework seem like groundwork that might allow further iterations in future.

Other than that, I think it's pretty solid choice that sectors are based on star clusters rather than arbitrary group of stars systems. Lots of good stuff could be done around this design choice.
 
I would wonder if we could just have it so that the sectors can have a system added to them for a cost of 100-200 influence. It may be crude but the feeling of wielding your political strength to link systems that wouldn't naturally cooperate.
 
I would suggest a possibility to reintroduce dynamic sectors:
Have an upper limit to the number of systems in a sector. (prevent everything being in the same sector)
Allow systems to be added, but not removed from a sector. (mostly to allow for political movements in sectors).
Colonies not part of a sector gets reduced bonuses (if nothing else, they don't get a governor bonus).

I hear you, but think of the problems the developer have faced.
If you introduce planet and System limits in sector creation how do you manage to ensure that during empire growth it doesn't end in a micromanagement nightmare. Or the distribution of system's and planet's between the sector are equal or nearly so.
On the other hand with the fixed sector's per cluster they are able to introduce a specific cluster creation tool to achieve a propper balance of planets and systems in one sector.
I do like the current creation system of sectors but I also see the downsides and exploits and so I do understand why they chose this solution.
 
Lets make a compromise, if you guys also improve the Diplomacy system like EU4 and make federations as deep as EU4 HRE in the next update you can charge me $60 for that shit
And if you make the ground combat as visually pleasing and with the automatic tactical depth of a HOI4 Battle of generals choosing tactics and different units joining in with different types of armor and damage types then fuck it I will gladly pay $180 for that DLC with a huge smile on my face.
 
[1] I know I am not always very precise in my speaking, although I definitely try to. I quoted a post by another in which I highlighted the context of increased player control suited to individual play styles. To which people, including myself have agreed.

[2] @DaydreamerGPSA Wouldn't you agree that we need to draw a line somewhere? On this topic, the devs believe there should be minimal control, whereas you propose full control. I hope to mediate and reach somewhere in the middle.

So what about also tying it to certain civics? You could then have that min-max egalitarian democracy, an empire can be designed as one right from the start or evolve into one. Same thing for a less controlling dictatorship. A quick example, as that egalitarian democracy I take Police State as a third civic, and from now on I can decide (min-max) on my pop jobs.

[3] Isn't the fact that appointed governors in a dictatorial state can be removed at a whim exactly a min-max mentality?

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] ... 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.
 
I hear you, but think of the problems the developer have faced.
If you introduce planet and System limits in sector creation how do you manage to ensure that during empire growth it doesn't end in a micromanagement nightmare. Or the distribution of system's and planet's between the sector are equal or nearly so.
On the other hand with the fixed sector's per cluster they are able to introduce a specific cluster creation tool to achieve a propper balance of planets and systems in one sector.
I do like the current creation system of sectors but I also see the downsides and exploits and so I do understand why they chose this solution.

Unless you are guaranteed a specific number of habitable planets per cluster, you will still not be seeing a balance with the cluster based sectors.
A max limit of X systems per sector would be more balanced in this manner, as players would simply not add uninhabited systems to any sector (unless required to bridge).
Since systems cannot be removed from a sector (other than by foreign conquest), you would only do any sector additions when you gain new inhabited systems.
 
I use the Sector system to automate 3 things, construction on planets, colonising planets, just because it's easier, and most importantly of all automating the damned Construction Ships, even if they only ever create one of the things each, if we could get some other way to do that last then I would be happy to use smaller sectors, heck I can even think of a way to work claims into it.

You use the claim system to mark the systems you want an outpost in paying the influence cost there and then set the ships off to construct the actual stations, using this you could build three stations in a line without using the extra influence or having to wait for the first two to be completely finished.

Of course it should work best in the later stages of the game when you already have a large empire so you can only have about half the number of active claims as you do colonised systems and two nations having a claim on the same unoccupied system means that they are going to have to fight over it with the loser not getting their influence back unless the ceded the claim early on.
 
@Wiz or maybe @Guraan

A few questions/comments about the update:

  • I remember there being a martial law effect on planets that costs influence as a way to reduce crime, however have you thought about allowing militarists ethos empires the ability to normally use soldiers and fortresses to reduce (working class/slave/population being purged) unrest (but not crime), the idea being that while soldiers aren't very good at investigating crime but they're pretty good at crushing peaceful street protests or labor strikes, so even if your planets are high crime hell holes the people cast their eyes down go about their business for fear of getting shot at a rally.
  • Similarly, I really like the idea of different civics giving different leader jobs on planets instead of just making X thing Y% better for the entire empire forever (like aristocratic elite, corporate dominion and probably exalted priesthood), so how does this work with the police state civic? That is does the civic just make enforcers better at crushing crime or does it work at reducing unrest/ethics divergence/increasing core ethics attractions, and do these bonuses come from a leader job (like a "planetary security executor"), or from a certain number of high class secret police jobs.
  • As a sort of egalitarian opposite to the police state civic there could be a "colonial militia" civic, which provides a crime reducing Marshal job on each planet and reduces piracy in non-core systems, and when invaded a planet with a Marshal spawns a low damage/high morale army for every (working class?) population unit on the planet. The idea being that a representative accountable government is encouraging its population to remain armed and organized to assist the few law enforcement/military personnel defending the frontier/everyone is really motivated to defend their home and rights. Police state could also do something similar, but where it spawns a high damage, high morale army for every one of the (very small number of) secret police jobs, which buff the morale of friendly defending units and have a very low chance to get hit so long as other friendly units are still alive. The idea being that the secret police units are really well armed and motivated to defend the regime, while the regular soldiery are more scared of the regimes enforcer units blocking their path of retreat and of the political commissars (or spiritualists confessors) mixed into their ranks than they are of the enemy.
  • With the planetary/sector rework are there going to be "sector capital worlds" similar to the empire capital worlds, which serve as the center of government for a sector and allow for the construction of sector unique buildings which provide buffs to the entire sector. This could also allow for governors or members of other leader grounds to become physical entities on the planets, such as sector capitals having governor job positions, chief scientists existing within a research lab or ministry on the home world, ability to recruit/assign more scientists/generals/admirals/governors to different worlds for different buffs or to investigate special projects, or the existence of cabinet positions within the government similar to advisors from HOI4.
  • This also creates more risk if a planet is invaded and you can't evacuate leaders in time, leaders could be killed in fighting (collateral damage dependent), be captured and imprisoned/executed by the invaders, or turn their coat and join the invaders, giving them a free ruler and potentially mitigating unrest on the conquered world due to continuity of leadership (ethos dependent, an authoritarian ruler might permit a Quisling type to rule a conquered world but an egalitarian empire might try an authoritarian ruler for the crimes they've committed).
  • Similarly, you could then have a huge number of tech, traditions, civics and traits that could interact with some of the above, like a "deep mantle redoubt" tech which gives your leaders a huge chance to survive a planetary invasion/bombardment and allows them to survive and resume their duties once a world is recaptured (and/or they surrender once the war is over), or having the domination tree give a "military governors" tradition which makes planetary rulers count as generals in defensive invasion combat, increasing their chances of dying substantially as they lead their men from the front.
  • Whats the word on gene modding, are we going to be able to granulate what we mod down to a more refined degree than we currently can (that is, mod by strata, job, planet, etc instead of just planet)?
  • Have you thought about making the origins civics part of planet selection and keeping the rest of the being government related, as "living on a post nuclear hellhole" isn't really that government related. similarly, are their any plans to implement civics which can only be added after the start of the game, once certain cultural, civilizational or technological milestones have been made, like a materialist empire transitioning into a pseudo rogue servator empire when they unlock selfaware AI as they leave all the running of the government to the AI, or a where once every social strata has been modded to be a different species you can unlock a civic where you become like the government from gattica/brave new world, stratified along class/occupation with your genes predetermined to fit societies needs before your birth.
Well, thanks in advance, cheers.
 
I don't like the system that a leader should cost maintenance of resources to be able to produce resources. Maybe they should be payed with attention, which is influence. The degree of payment should be change able: a leader, that is not payed well will produce less in his sector and maybe get ideas of his own independent empire, depending on his personality.
 
I don't like the system that a leader should cost maintenance of resources to be able to produce resources. Maybe they should be payed with attention, which is influence. The degree of payment should be change able: a leader, that is not payed well will produce less in his sector and maybe get ideas of his own independent empire, depending on his personality.

Adding more possibility of internal tensions and possible civil war would be great in the future but they seem to have a fairly large patch already given the economic rework. Plus i would love this as part of an espionage dlc so i can destabilize rival empires
 
The intend is that they should be able to upgrade/downgrade to the type they matches, very scriptable.

If you're interested in doing another post... What is the difference between a Frontier and Core sector as currently built? Do they get certain bonuses or function in different ways? Or is it purely cosmetic?

(I agree with the other poster, would be very exciting to see that used to build out regional personality and politics in future updates or DLC.)
 
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? Why would the governor of one sector get a raise when another sector increases in size? Why would an admiral hire more staff when the empire's population increases? I don't think these things make sense, and if they are incorporated into Stellaris I feel they'd negatively impact the game's verisimilitude.

It make perfectly sense and that is how bureaucracy work in reality as well. The larger an organisation is the more bureaucracy and overhead cost there is to run it. This is one perfectly good explanation why you need to pay more for leadership services in a larger empire (organisation). I presume you understand this is highly abstracted?!?
 
I don't like the system that a leader should cost maintenance of resources to be able to produce resources. Maybe they should be payed with attention, which is influence. The degree of payment should be change able: a leader, that is not payed well will produce less in his sector and maybe get ideas of his own independent empire, depending on his personality.

Influence is good currency, but it's no substitute for money. Your admiral can't pay his officers with influence, after all.