Stellaris Dev Diary #142 - Sectors

[Orion88]

I think that the overall best solution for reducing micromanagement has been already presented in this thread with planetary AI focuses and build order templates/commands that can be set by the player, which would then outrank any general sector settings on the planet in question.

More interesting traits on leaders would help. Maybe they should all have something good AND something bad so you have to have some trade off with them. Maybe some types of pops can have very strong opinions on what species their governor is. Maybe governors can have have an effect on ethics of their pops or create conflicts with specific ones. There is a lot of room to do something interesting here, and it has nothing to do with fixing planet micromanagement (which should be fixed in some non-sector way IMO).

This. Was already saying it before, but it seems many people here (at least judging from the dislikes) are in love with the current get 3 leader candidates to choose from with each of them having only 1 trait to begin with system. To me at least the way that system is set up currently it rarely offers any interesting choices to begin with (especially with scientists, but governors aren`t much better either).

People here talk about roleplaying experience and having a great story in your game, which are very worthy goals indeed, but so far I at least can`t remember a single leader I have had when playing Stellaris or its mods. So far they have been there just to get you those bonuses that you wouldn`t get without them, but that is it. No roleplaying experience, no memorable moments just some value boosters.

Also if I still remember correctly the base game has a nasty habit of telling the player only that a leader has gained a trait without specifying, which trait and what it does, which certainly isn`t helping either.

 

[Mikhail_Mengsk]

I just discovered this DevDiary and all i can think is YES

 

[Northernwwater]

Who cares about sectors. We need some game diplomacy that has some depth.

 

[Qutugan]

Please mute the building complete notifications for planets inside sectors set to auto build, the spam is both highly irritating and makes it painful to sort through looking for the ones in sectors you're actually personally managing.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Please mute the building complete notifications for planets inside sectors set to auto build, the spam is both highly irritating and makes it painful to sort through looking for the ones in sectors you're actually personally managing.

Unfortunately, sometimes even with auto building sectors, the player still sometimes may directly order something built, and thus want to know when it is built.

 

[aono]

Unfortunately, sometimes even with auto building sectors, the player still sometimes may directly order something built, and thus want to know when it is built.

Well, I'd say that's the reason to add button to override autobuilding lack of notification. I mean, one of the points for automatization of building is to relieve player from notifications.

 

[methegrate]

Who cares about sectors. We need some game diplomacy that has some depth.

I kinda agree with this...

There should absolutely be a robust internal politics scene with sectors at their heart. It should tie in government and governors, and should have both a significance and depth that the current faction system lacks. (Factions are a good idea, and should be part of an internal political mechanic, but cards on the table... It's just a list of chores with a minor influence bump on the other end.)

But if that's not an option right now, I'd much rather see a diplomatic rework than yet another set of rule tweaks to the sector system. I'd like a reason to interact with other empires on the board beyond "are we going to war?"

 

[Methone]

I'd like a reason to interact with other empires on the board beyond "are we going to war?"

Here's my question:

Is this, in fact, even possible?

Because no matter what diplomacy patch comes, no matter how indepth it's made, it seems to me that everything will always boil down to "Can I beat up the other guys and take their stuff"?

 

[methegrate]

Here's my question:

Is this, in fact, even possible?

Because no matter what diplomacy patch comes, no matter how indepth it's made, it seems to me that everything will always boil down to "Can I beat up the other guys and take their stuff"?

It's a fair question. With advance apologies for the tl;dr, I would start four ways:

- First, more complex trade agreements. The commercial and research pacts are a great start, but everything else is "give me stuff and I'll give you stuff."

I would make Industrial Agreements where each empire boosts a given area of production by the other empire's production. I.e., if you produce +10 consumer goods and I produce +10 alloys, a 10% industrial agreement would give me +1 consumer goods and give you +1 alloys. You can propose the percent for each side. (If I really want to close this deal, I can propose sending you 15% of my alloys for 10% of your consumer goods. Or less if I'm really thirsty...)

- Second, symbolic agreements that come at a cost of influence.

Statements and gestures that do nothing but change how an empire feels about you. It should cost an influence amount based on your relationship to that empire and your relative ethics, and other empires will react based on the same factors. (If I want my xenophiles to propose joint military exercises with the military slavers nearby I can, it will just take a lot of political capital and I can expect their neighbors to look on with disapproval.)

- Third, physical trade routes and a way to move around the map.

Making a trade agreement with another empire should create a route that's vulnerable to war, piracy and other forms of disruption. At the same time, this is not viable and military alliances are virtually worthless for any non-neighbor empires because there's just no way to get from Point A to Point B. (Especially given how schizophrenic the AI is about open/closed borders.)

This is why oceans exist on land-based 4x maps. There needs to be a way to physically travel around the galaxy so that I have a reason to make alliances, defensive pacts and other deals with empires who aren't on my borders. If I can't get to the Blorg Empire, their politics will never matter to me.

- Finally, a ground-up rewrite of the AI to weigh trade agreements more pragmatically.

Right now the AI's first priority on trade agreements is whether or not it likes you, with the benefits of the deal a distant second. That should be exactly the opposite. Politics shouldn't be irrelevant, an empire who hates you still hates you, but except in unusual cases it should weigh the benefits of the deal first. (The Federation would almost certainly not bargain with the Borg, but if the Romulans offer a trade pact will probably listen.)

This, along with symbolic agreements, would make it more possible to actually bargain with the AI and change relationships over time.

 

[Methone]

This, along with symbolic agreements, would make it more possible to actually bargain with the AI and change relationships over time.

None of this actually, um, addresses my concerns.

Why would I agree to give you 10% for 15% or whatever, when I can instead conquer you and take it for myself? Why would I want your empire to like me, when I can instead conquer you and take your stuff? And the ways to get around the map fast are the Wormholes and such.

Now, there's always going to be a super-minmax-superior way to play. But it just seems like the distinction between "Diplomacy" and 'Conquer everything' is so wide that nothing can ever, ever bridge that gap short of something truly Draconian like "-X% Resources from Jobs per System Recently Conquered".

 

[Northernwwater]

None of this actually, um, addresses my concerns.

Why would I agree to give you 10% for 15% or whatever, when I can instead conquer you and take it for myself? Why would I want your empire to like me, when I can instead conquer you and take your stuff? And the ways to get around the map fast are the Wormholes and such.

Now, there's always going to be a super-minmax-superior way to play. But it just seems like the distinction between "Diplomacy" and 'Conquer everything' is so wide that nothing can ever, ever bridge that gap short of something truly Draconian like "-X% Resources from Jobs per System Recently Conquered".

If might always wins the game is broken. The market is flooded with vicarious "big bad boy" games. Every genre plays to this boring shoot'em up, bang bang stuff.

 

[Methone]

If might always wins the game is broken. The market is flooded with vicarious "big bad boy" games. Every genre plays to this boring shoot'em up, bang bang stuff.

Yes, I know. So what's the solution?

 

[methegrate]

Yes, I know. So what's the solution?

Two key differences that do address your concerns, but that I should have made more clear.

First, trade deals must be made positive-sum.

One of the most basic flaws in 4x design is that trade works on a negative-sum or zero-sum basis. If I sell energy for minerals, for example, I wind up with fewer minerals than if I had just built those mines myself. If I make a trade deal swapping allows for consumer goods, I lose as much wealth as I gain.

As a result, conquest is always a stronger option because it's the only way you can become unambiguously more wealthy. But this isn't necessary (and it isn't, in fact, even the way the real world works). Trade deals should make both parties wealthier than they were before. If done right, you can become just as rich and powerful trading as you could through taking over those planets.

My idea of industrial agreements is just an example of this. In this example, both empires have a net gain in production. That gain is based on the strengths of their trading partner. Take my consumer goods for alloys example. In the kind of swap mechanic Stellaris currently uses, both parties end up -/+ and +/- (-CG's/+Alloys and +CG's/-Alloys). At best, zero sum. With a percent-based industrial agreement, the math becomes 0/+ and +/0, and empires become more attractive trade partners based on the areas where they have comparative advantage.

Second, political diplomacy becomes a path to strength if your allies can actually show up to the fight.

Right now having allies matters, but it's a little irrelevant. If you're two empires away, you aren't helping me much against the devouring horde on my far border. Sure wormholes and gateways exist, but they are uncommon and rarely go exactly where you need them to. I mean, if a map has five wormholes (let's say), for it to matter to a given piece of diplomacy that wormhole has to go from exactly where I need to start and end exactly where I need to go. Not super useful.

Opening up the board would allow military diplomacy to matter much more. It wouldn't gimp conquest, we don't want that, but it would make forming an alliance a far more useful alternative than under the current conditions where that ally doesn't matter unless they share a border or have a very conveniently placed wormhole.

 

[Methone]

(and it isn't, in fact, even the way the real world works)

While I am by no means an economist, I fail to understand how that works. If you beat someone up and take their stuff, you have their stuff, no?

That gain is based on the strengths of their trading partner. Take my consumer goods for alloys example. In the kind of swap mechanic Stellaris currently uses, both parties end up -/+ and +/- (-CG's/+Alloys and +CG's/-Alloys). At best, zero sum. With a percent-based industrial agreement, the math becomes 0/+ and +/0, and empires become more attractive trade partners based on the areas where they have comparative advantage.

I'm trying to understand it. Say Empire 1 makes 100 CG and 50 Alloys. Empire 2 makes 50 CG and 100 Alloys.

They make a trade deal. Empire 1 says "Empire 2, for every 10 alloys you make, I magically generate 1."

Empire 2 says "Empire 1, for every 10 CG you make, I magically generate 1."

Now they're each getting 100/51 respectively. If Empire 1 were to conquer 2, then they would be making 150/150, which is less than their combined total of 151/151 each. But it's more than the 100/51 Empire 1 themselves get.

So if Empire 1 is trying to get wealthy, then they're still inclined to conquer above all else.

Second, political diplomacy becomes a path to strength if your allies can actually show up to the fight.

This is probably the way to do it, but it gets back to the whole "Just make the AI good" issue.

 

[aono]

While I am by no means an economist, I fail to understand how that works. If you beat someone up and take their stuff, you have their stuff, no?

The problem is, in current Stellaris (and, frankly, vast majority of games on market), when you beat someone, you take their stuff. War is always productive for winner's side, as he takes everything his enemy had - because, essentially, we're playing Star Wars over and over, and wars are the focus of the games.
It isn't a case for real world. RL wars destroy stuff.

If Empire 1 were to conquer 2, then they would be making 150/150, which is less than their combined total of 151/151 each. But it's more than the 100/51 Empire 1 themselves get.

Thing is, IRL it's quite possible Empire 1 would be making 100/25 (or even 75/25 - imagine a war with uncertanty, when both sides had opportunities to bomb industrial centres of the opponent, and used this opportunity) for quite a time after the victory, which is less then 100/51.
That's the point ignored by majority of game makers (essentially, I can't name a game modelling this quite by head).

 

[Methone]

It isn't a case for real world. RL wars destroy stuff.

And it does in Stellaris too. Devastation. Slap a cost-over-time on repairing Devastation and call it a day.

 

[Northernwwater]

While I am by no means an economist, I fail to understand how that works. If you beat someone up and take their stuff, you have their stuff, no?

1) In the real world, aggressors often loose.
2) There are sometimes other options to destroy your opponent. The modern world is packed with examples. It's just that shooting wars are the ones that get the news.

 

[KaideGirault]

And it does in Stellaris too. Devastation. Slap a cost-over-time on repairing Devastation and call it a day.

Something like this with the addition of buildings potentially being destroyed (not just ruined) or even adding new tile blockers to represent dealing with the damage of surface bombardment would help make diplomatic options more appealing.

Of course, we then need to have compelling diplomatic options.


As to the original topic of this thread - I'm glad the devs are taking a serious look at making sectors more usable because right now they're a headache.
I do still want to see some serious political integration with sectors and generally more internal politics, but I suspect I'll be waiting quite awhile for that.

 

[Methone]

1) In the real world, aggressors often loose.

And why should we assume that fact transfers over to interstellar empires ruling over dozens of worlds?

2) There are sometimes other options to destroy your opponent. The modern world is packed with examples.

And why should we assume those methods transfer over to interstellar empires ruling over dozens of worlds?

 

[aono]

And it does in Stellaris too. Devastation. Slap a cost-over-time on repairing Devastation and call it a day.

Something like this with the addition of buildings potentially being destroyed (not just ruined) or even adding new tile blockers to represent dealing with the damage of surface bombardment would help make diplomatic options more appealing.

You see, there is a main problem of design, and I know I'm repeating myself - wars are the focus of games. Essentially, if you're not making war, what are you doing in game? Especially when expansion phase ended and you bordering people on every front (I'm playing largest maps with max civilizations around, and usually it's about dozen, maybe two if I'm lucky, of colonies I have when it's happen)? So, wars are rewarding, because it's what we're playing.
To make diplomacy viable, wars, especially 'equal' wars, shouldn't be rewarding. It should be a gamble where you know you can take a prize, but it should cost a lot. Your own empire should gain maluses for military economics (and being militarists should reduce such a malus, not removing it at all). You can take some kind of instant spoils, but in a medium-time run expansive wars should be resource sink, not a reason of empowering economy. THEN you would consider - "wouldn't it better to cooperate to gain better resources now, not trying to go into a costly war that would possibly destroy me, which, if I won, would give me a lot of resources after century or something like this?"

And why should we assume that fact transfers over to interstellar empires ruling over dozens of worlds?

And why should we assume then interstellar empires ruling over dozens of worlds are even possible?