Stellaris Dev Diary #142 - Sectors

[Methone]

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

Because there is literally not a single physical law saying otherwise?

 

[Zebak]

An idea - likely spoken somewhere - is to choose a focus on dealing with piracy / rogues... just as one can foccus on balancing military and trade stations Vs having multiple ships / fleets patroling a lane, a sector could be toggled to follow one strategy (drawing from your layouts or having their own similar to how you design federation ships).

If fleets, they would not aid in attack wars but could rally to their sector capital and, should one fleet be spotted heading for your empire capital, hurry to its deffense (or stay behind against occupation transports)

 

[aono]

Because there is literally not a single physical law saying otherwise?

I can't name any physical law saying agressor shouldn't often lose or that there is more strategies for resolving conflicts then total war.

 

[Methone]

I can't name any physical law saying agressor shouldn't often lose or that there is more strategies for resolving conflicts then total war.

Look, buddy. Answer the question. I asked why the reasons aggressors often lose, or the methods that often resolve conflicts better than war, would transfer over to interstellar empires.

Your response was not to answer, but to stick your nose in the air and snarkily ask "Well how do you know interstellar empires can even exist?".

If you don't want to have a productive discussion, then kindly don't discuss.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

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

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

Why shouldn't we, if it makes for a more interesting game?

 

[methegrate]

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?

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.

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

Sure! The concept is called “comparative advantage.” Basically, the idea is that different parties can do things more and less efficiently than each other, and wealth is created when trade partners do what they’re best at. It’s best explained through examples.

Let’s say Person A is a web designer and Person B is a carpenter. The carpenter needs a website for his business and the designer needs a chair.

Now, the carpenter could spend all week building a website while the designer spends that time building a chair. It’s inefficient because neither are good at this. Or they could trade. Each would build the product he specializes in for the other. It would take only two days because that’s what he does for a living.

Without trade, each person spends five days and gets a subpar product. With trade, we still create a website and chair, but we do do more efficiently. So they get the product and all the profits from those three days of work. Wealth is created.

On the global scale this defines modern trade theory.

Let’s say, for example, Country A has great schools and Country B has very inexpensive labor. We want to make a widget. In Country A, I can design it for $1 per widget but it costs $2 worth of labor to put it together. In Country B, it costs $1 to assemble the widget but it costs $2 per widget to design. Either way a widget costs $3, so for $60 we can make 20 widgets.

But each nation is more efficient at something than the other. So they trade. I design my widgets in Country A for $1 apiece, then send the schematics to Country B where I can assemble them for $1. Thanks to trade, we can now build each widget for $2. Same $60 budget, same widget, but we get 30 of them now. Through trade we have created wealth, and once these widgets hit the marketplace each country gets richer because of what its neighbor is good at.

 

[Methone]

Why shouldn't we, if it makes for a more interesting game?

Because human beings are only capable of so much suspension of disbelief. In fact, I think you yourself have used 'suspension of disbelief only goes so far' in the past, if I'm not mistaken.

Sure! The concept is called “comparative advantage.” Basically, the idea is that different parties can do things more and less efficiently than each other, and wealth is created when trade partners do what they’re best at. It’s best explained through examples.

Let’s say Person A is a web designer and Person B is a carpenter. The carpenter needs a website for his business and the designer needs a chair.

Now, the carpenter could spend all week building a website while the designer spends that time building a chair. It’s inefficient because neither are good at this. Or they could trade. Each would build the product he specializes in for the other. It would take only two days because that’s what he does for a living.

Without trade, each person spends five days and gets a subpar product. With trade, we still create a website and chair, but we do do more efficiently. So they get the product and all the profits from those three days of work. Wealth is created.

On the global scale this defines modern trade theory.

Let’s say, for example, Country A has great schools and Country B has very inexpensive labor. We want to make a widget. In Country A, I can design it for $1 per widget but it costs $2 worth of labor to put it together. In Country B, it costs $1 to assemble the widget but it costs $2 per widget to design. Either way a widget costs $3, so for $60 we can make 20 widgets.

But each nation is more efficient at something than the other. So they trade. I design my widgets in Country A for $1 apiece, then send the schematics to Country B where I can assemble them for $1. Thanks to trade, we can now build each widget for $2. Same $60 budget, same widget, but we get 30 of them now. Through trade we have created wealth, and once these widgets hit the marketplace each country gets richer because of what its neighbor is good at.

I still have a hard time seeing how this would work. If one country has the great schools and the other has inexpensive labor, then something has caused that discrepancy, no? If we were talking individuals you could say "Well, the web designer just understands web design and the carpenter just understands woodworking". But that wouldn't work scaled up to a country, and certainly not to interstellar civilizations.

From there the cause of the discrepancy would be access to natural resources causing it... in which case conquest still gives you everything.

 

[methegrate]

I still have a hard time seeing how this would work. If one country has the great schools and the other has inexpensive labor, then something has caused that discrepancy, no? If we were talking individuals you could say "Well, the web designer just understands web design and the carpenter just understands woodworking". But that wouldn't work scaled up to a country, and certainly not to interstellar civilizations.

From there the cause of the discrepancy would be access to natural resources causing it... in which case conquest still gives you everything.

Well, let's look at a real world example.

On the American/Mexican border there is an industrial corridor where they make cars. The American side of the border specializes in high-skill manufacturing, the stuff that requires design or advanced engineering. The Mexican side of the border specializes in high-labor manufacturing, the stuff that simply needs a lot of man hours to do.

Because the American economy is a high-skill marketplace workers cost a lot more than they do in Mexico, but because the Mexican economy is a low-skill marketplace it's harder to find qualified engineers. (Edit - Lower skill. Mexico of course has many bright engineers, however its economy overall is defined by inexpensive access to low-skill labor.) So instead car companies build multiple plants literally a few miles apart from each other on opposite sides of the border. They will pass the same vehicle back and forth several times while building it. The expensive engineers in the United States do the high skill work, while the inexpensive factory workers in Mexico do the labor-intensive work.

Each side of the border is better at doing something than the other is. Building a car entirely in the United States would cost much more money, because you'd need to rely entirely on very expensive U.S. labor, so you could make fewer cars for the same budget. Meanwhile building a car entirely in Mexico would also cost much more money because you would need to bid on much more scarce engineering talent in that region. Once again, the same budget nets you fewer cars. But by hopscotching back and forth across the border Ford and GM can build more cars for the same amount of money. Wealth is created.

As to why different nations and economies have different efficiencies, that's a subject of intense debate. It certainly isn't natural resources. Texas and Mexico have exactly the same landscape. Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam share the same peninsula but have wildly different economies, so do Spain, France, Italy and Germany. All western Europe, all good at different things. Entire books have been written on that subject, including Guns, Germs and Steel and Why Nations Fail.

The other basic idea, that nations can seize each others' natural resources and in doing so enrich themselves, is called "mercantilism." It's basically the idea that all trade is zero-sum; if you have something, I can get richer by taking it away. This idea has been discredited since the 1920's or so because it just doesn't work. An economy is about much more than what you dig out of the ground, and even when it comes to mineral wealth the act of declaring war is always more expensive than simply trading. This is especially true in an advanced economy, where the real value is created through labor and ideas, and actually digging up raw materials is extremely inexpensive.

From a gameplay perspective this gives us two useful takeaways: First, positive-sum trade isn't something we've pulled out of thin air. It's real and it defines the modern marketplace.

Second, it gives us a model to work from. We can build trade based on what actually works in real life. Trade agreements should let each participant produce more of what their trade partner is good at because they get access to a more efficient sector of production. From our example above, through trade with Mexico the United States increases its pool of available manpower. (For the same amount of money, I can get more hours of manual labor.) Mexico, meanwhile, has increased its pool of available engineers. (For the same amount of money, I can get more hours of an engineer's time.) And both countries increase their pool of automobiles for sale.

So, in Stellaris, trading with someone who is better at producing consumer goods than I am gives me access to their marketplace. I can buy or create more consumer goods for each energy credit I spend because now they are cheaper. Meanwhile, by accessing my vast network of foundries, every 1 energy credit they spend on alloys nets them more production than it used to. We both spend the same energy upkeep as before, but nevertheless get richer.

Again, this isn't to say that this should replace or overpower conquest. (Although in the real world it does work that way. War always costs more than it's worth, even in purely mercantilist terms.) Simply that positive-sum trading is a very viable option for a trade and diplomacy path to power, and we don't even have to reinvent the wheel. There's tons of real world examples to start modeling from and then we can chuck whatever parts of realism aren't fun.

 

[Methone]

Well, let's look at a real world example.

On the American/Mexican border there is an industrial corridor where they make cars. The American side of the border specializes in high-skill manufacturing, the stuff that requires design or advanced engineering. The Mexican side of the border specializes in high-labor manufacturing, the stuff that simply needs a lot of man hours to do.

Because the American economy is a high-skill marketplace workers cost a lot more than they do in Mexico, but because the Mexican economy is a low-skill marketplace it's harder to find qualified engineers. So instead car companies build multiple plants literally a few miles apart from each other on opposite sides of the border. They will pass the same vehicle back and forth several times while building it. The expensive engineers in the United States do the high skill work, while the inexpensive factory workers in Mexico do the labor-intensive work.

Each side of the border is better at doing something than the other is. Building a car entirely in the United States would cost much more money, because you'd need to rely entirely on very expensive U.S. labor, so you could make fewer cars for the same budget. Meanwhile building a car entirely in Mexico would also cost much more money because you would need to bid on much more scarce engineering talent in that region. Once again, the same budget nets you fewer cars. But by hopscotching back and forth across the border Ford and GM can build more cars for the same amount of money. Wealth is created.

As to why different nations and economies have different efficiencies, that's a subject of intense debate. It certainly isn't natural resources. Texas and Mexico have exactly the same landscape. Laos, Cambodia, Thailand and Vietnam share the same peninsula but have wildly different economies, so do Spain, France, Italy and Germany. All western Europe, all good at different things. Entire books have been written on that subject, including Guns, Germs and Steel and Why Nations Fail.

The other basic idea, that nations can seize each others' natural resources and in doing so enrich themselves, is called "mercantilism." It's basically the idea that all trade is zero-sum; if you have something, I can get richer by taking it away. This idea has been discredited since the 1920's or so because it just doesn't work. An economy is about much more than what you dig out of the ground, and even when it comes to mineral wealth the act of declaring war is always more expensive than simply trading. This is especially true in an advanced economy, where the real value is created through labor and ideas, and actually digging up raw materials is extremely inexpensive.

From a gameplay perspective this gives us two useful takeaways: First, positive-sum trade isn't something we've pulled out of thin air. It's real and it defines the modern marketplace.

Second, it gives us a model to work from. We can build trade based on what actually works in real life. Trade agreements should let each participant produce more of what their trade partner is good at because they get access to a more efficient sector of production. From our example above, through trade with Mexico the United States increases its pool of available manpower. (For the same amount of money, I can get more hours of manual labor.) Mexico, meanwhile, has increased its pool of available engineers. (For the same amount of money, I can get more hours of an engineer's time.) And both countries increase their pool of automobiles for sale.

So, in Stellaris, trading with someone who is better at producing consumer goods than I am gives me access to their marketplace. I can buy or create more consumer goods for each energy credit I spend because now they are cheaper. Meanwhile, by accessing my vast network of foundries, every 1 energy credit they spend on alloys nets them more production than it used to. We both spend the same energy upkeep as before, but nevertheless get richer.

Again, this isn't to say that this should replace or overpower conquest. (Although in the real world it does work that way. War always costs more than it's worth, even in purely mercantilist terms.) Simply that positive-sum trading is a very viable option for a trade and diplomacy path to power, and we don't even have to reinvent the wheel. There's tons of real world examples to start modeling from and then we can chuck whatever parts of realism aren't fun.

Starting to make a bit of sense.

What I'm getting from this is:

1) Buff trade agreements to not just be Trade Value AND/OR more Trade options to simulate the cooperative/trade (Which you can argue pulls resources, not from nowhere, but from the same place the Market does)
2) Make Devastation really painful to recover from. If I bomb a world to 100% devastation trying to weaken the Fallen Empire's defensive armies, that world shouldn't be operating at even half capacity a year after I take it.

 

[aono]

Now, the carpenter could spend all week building a website while the designer spends that time building a chair. It’s inefficient because neither are good at this. Or they could trade. Each would build the product he specializes in for the other. It would take only two days because that’s what he does for a living.

...or one of them make a website, then takes a gun and go to carpenter with words "give me your chair or I'll kill you". That's the most efficient for him, no?
Robbery DO work (for robber). That's why it's exists!

say, for example, Country A has great schools and Country B has very inexpensive labor. We want to make a widget.

Who are "we"?
This model suppose both A and B needs widget. Still, even then for each of them it would be more efficient to conquer another and pay less then 1$ for their resource. If A conquered B, and pays 0.5$ for work per device, total cost would be 1.5, meaning it's 40 for budget of 60. Or, hell, pay nothing at all, and it's 60 for 60.
Again, slavery DO work. And, as you pointed on Mexico-US situation, I should remind that Mexican-American War of 1847 created a lot of profit for US.

Although in the real world it does work that way. War always costs more than it's worth, even in purely mercantilist terms.

And this IS the point. Mercantilism worked just fine while wars were one-sided, and essentially they were far more powerful country essentially go into the fray and say "you'll do as we say". After WW1 it became understood that no new war for cheapest resourses (including brains or labour) would be one-sided - it would always be hard, punishing, total war of equals. Who didn't understood it after WW1, got it on WW2. Robbery made inefficient by additional expenses - we're, as a society, making it sure that such actions would be punished beyond profit robber can take. Same about slavery (and we make far better work with robbery, truth to be said).
Problem is, wars in Stellaris (and actually every other 4x I can name just now) are cheap and very effective. So, even if you make devastation painful to recover from, it wouldn't help - you'll get Fallen Empire world, you'll weaken Fallen Empire (or even just destroy it), and you would be able to recover from it in your own time. It's cost of war a thing that should be empowered. War should hit you NO MATTER win you or lose, and hit you noticabely.
Still, question "what's fun of this" would be totally valid. Why would I need more resources, if war isn't useful, trade is far more nice, and I have not deep and intresting gameplay for internal politics?

Your response was not to answer, but to stick your nose in the air and snarkily ask "Well how do you know interstellar empires can even exist?".

Hell, I'm not sure are you sarcastic or not. I assumed you are and answered in kind, if you didn't, I'm sorry. It would take some lenght though.
Essentially, answer to question is "because we have no reason to assume that interstellar empire with dozens of planet would have some another conflict theory everything we ever seen comply".
The reason of agressor often lose is because we're assuming opponents are equal in their ability to harm another, and first strike doesn't remove this ability. It's not some special circumstances of our current situation - it's a logical consequences of both sides being equal. You must include some another factor but "interstellar empire with dozens of planets" to explain WHY agressor is far more powerful then defender.
It's possible situation. For example, imagine two countries. Both has enough sets of nuclear weapons to destroy another, but no means to survive such a strike: the one who strike first would win. Or imagine two animals, both are poisonous to another, slightest scratch is enough, poison is instant: first striker would always win. Or a race, where first player touching a flag wins, and it's forbidden to interfere to each other, and both a equally fast: first who start his run wins. Or two duelants who are equally precise: the first shooter wins. Or, the hell, two draught men threating each other: the men whose player's turn is wins.
It's possible to construct a situation with interstellar empires with dozens of planets that satisfy. Still, it's equally possible to construct a situation where it's not, and vast majority of situations in sci-fi isn't. For all we can say, interstellar empires with dozens of planets would comply the same conflict rules other entities in the world comply. Assuming they do exist, because there are some physical laws making it difficult. It's important, and not just snarking, because the rules under which they do exist are the rules of engagement: for example, in Bujold Barrayar series it's defender who have upper hand, because stars are linked by wormholes, and only one ship can pass one wormhole in each given second. All other things being equal, agressor would always lose (and therefore star wars, especially successful star wars, are quite rare there).
Same about a question "why do we believe there would be another ways of solving conflict". Because, as a rule, we can (and should) assume that increases in complexity means increasing of number of strategies, and, as a rule, we can (and should) assume then conflict of two interstellar empires with dozens of planets is MORE complex then conflict of two sides in draughts game. And we can (and should) assume that It's possible it's not; but it's this position that should be defended, not the opposing one.
So, the correct answer to your question IS counterquestion "why shouldn't we?". What's so special about interstellar empires controlling dozens of planets? Why the things working everywhere we're looking for conflicts, from ecology to love triangles, suddenly doesn't work for them? It's not like it's impossible for situation to be this way. It's logically possible. But I can't say how just actors being interstellar empires controlling dozens of planets would make a difference.

 

[methegrate]

Starting to make a bit of sense.

What I'm getting from this is:

1) Buff trade agreements to not just be Trade Value AND/OR more Trade options to simulate the cooperative/trade (Which you can argue pulls resources, not from nowhere, but from the same place the Market does)
2) Make Devastation really painful to recover from. If I bomb a world to 100% devastation trying to weaken the Fallen Empire's defensive armies, that world shouldn't be operating at even half capacity a year after I take it.

(To everyone who's not interested, sorry for the tl;dr. Basic idea: I agree, devastation should be more... well, devastating. And empires should get cooperative trade agreements where each gets more resources based on what the other does well. Maybe with an inflation mechanic that increases maintenance costs in the sector you're trading away once it goes too far.)

Agreed. Like you said, we're not pulling resources from nowhere. Those resources are created by creating a trade relationship in which each partner is better at something, then letting everyone do the thing they're best at.

Another example: Some areas of China have developed an advantage in electronics manufacture. This is not just because of the cheaper labor market but also because of a specialized production corridor. Some smartphone assembly plants will literally be built next door to the factory that makes the casing screws, down the street from the plant that makes the phone faceplates and so one. It's cheaper to make a phone here than somewhere else because they have built a production line dedicated to doing that one thing.

Pivoting back to Stellaris, I agree. We could have trade options that simulate this cooperative, positive-sum model. If you produce more alloys than me, then by getting access to your better, more efficient foundries I can produce more alloys for the same amount of money. If I produce more consumer goods than you, then by getting access to my artisans you can produce more consumer goods for the same amount of money. It's why I like the idea of a %-boost tied to the difference in production between the two empires. It lets us emphasize two trading partners capitalizing on comparative advantages.

Another option (someone else suggested a version of this a while back) would be to reduce relevant costs. So, for example, if you produce more alloys than me our trade deal would reduce all of my alloy costs by X%, while your consumer good consumption would drop by Y%. I thought that was also a really cool idea.

Now, we would need some sort of throttle on this. In the real world the next step is issues of inflation, productive capacity and domestic vs. global demand. Here, influence costs do a pretty good job, I think at least. Maybe at a certain point trade deals would also boost the upkeep of the sectors an empire traded away due to inflation? Like, if I trade away too much access to my artisans they become increasingly expensive for me to maintain, because they have half the galaxy demanding their services. Idk... Depends on specific implementation.

And re: conquest, you're absolutely right. Devastation should take a lot longer to recover from.

Another example, the Berlin Wall fell in 1991. That was almost 30 years ago, but East Germany still has not caught up with the West German economy even today. They are literally two parts of the same country but the scars of that decades-long occupation remain. Heck, even during occupations seizure tends to be unprofitable. The British Empire spanned the globe and ostensibly made Britain rich... But in reality it was London's trading hub that made the United Kingdom so wealthy. The empire itself actually cost more to maintain and hold onto than Britain ever made in resource extraction. Slavery in the U.S. south (seizure and extraction of labor rather than resources) caused their economy to become so stagnant that, during the U.S. Civil War, the North's chief advantage was its overwhelming economic superiority.

Now, this isn't a universal story. Japan and West Germany were both invaded and occupied in 1945, yet within 20 years were economic leaders once again. South Korea too. Spain may or may not have net benefited from its massive extraction of gold from Central and South America. (The jury is still kinda out on that one. The flood of gold actually triggered an inflation spiral that led to a near-collapse of the Spanish economy.) So we should be careful about learning any given lesson too well. But, overall, yeah. War in Stellaris should come at a higher cost.

Although not too high. I mean, we don't want war to be a bad option. We just want diplomacy and trade to be an equally competitive one. And besides, war is the most fun part of the game. It shouldn't be a non-starter. Just, like you said, maybe those planets shouldn't be happily chugging out resources again five years after getting bombed back to the stone age...

 

[Peko?]

Because human beings are only capable of so much suspension of disbelief. In fact, I think you yourself have used 'suspension of disbelief only goes so far' in the past, if I'm not mistaken.

Are you saying that the game being more like the reality we know would require a higher degree fo suspension of disbelief?

 

[Imperator Yggdrasil]

Looking forward to seeing some of these proposed changes, which look overall like a healthy balance between the old and new sector systems. Some manual designation by the player is necessary, but sectors as they were before tended to be too much trouble to use effectively, so I like the compromise of setting sector capitals and having players able to adjust which systems different capitals will have jurisdiction over.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Because human beings are only capable of so much suspension of disbelief. In fact, I think you yourself have used 'suspension of disbelief only goes so far' in the past, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't find a space opera game making wars costly unbelievable at all. It doesn't strain my suspension of disbelief, especially if it (hypothetically) results in deeper and more engaging game mechanics.

Your argument appears to be "THIS GAME IS BORING BECAUSE KILLING PEOPLE IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT HAS TO BE I GUESS"?

 

[Methone]

I don't find a space opera game making wars costly unbelievable at all. It doesn't strain my suspension of disbelief, especially if it (hypothetically) results in deeper and more engaging game mechanics.

Your argument appears to be "THIS GAME IS BORING BECAUSE KILLING PEOPLE IS THE ONLY THING THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT HAS TO BE I GUESS"?

Well. I didn't think it was possible for someone to misinterpret things this much - if you need to insert arbitrary mechanics that make no sense for interstellar empires to make them simulate our countries that strains suspension, get it? - , but uh, bravo. Goodbye.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

if you need to insert arbitrary mechanics that make no sense for interstellar empires to make them simulate our countries that strains suspension, get it?

Every mechanic in the game is "arbitrary", though.

I seriously don't understand your stance here. The game currently makes it so conquering people is always the Most Optimal Choice, and you present that as a bad thing, but when people bring up options to change that and make diplomacy more valuable (by modelling it off of real-life phenomena), your response is "WHAT? Making our impossible alien space opera empires behave more realistically? THAT BREAKS MY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF!"

 

[Methone]

Every mechanic in the game is "arbitrary", though.

Really. Pops needing food, too? Pops being miserable in slavery, too?

"WHAT? Making our impossible alien space opera empires behave more realistically? THAT BREAKS MY SUSPENSION OF DISBELIEF!"

No. It's not.

What I'm criticizing is some of the ideas brought up would make no sense applied to interstellar empires. They read like "Using a global pacifier on a planet is unimaginably cruel because they only have the resources of an entire planet to sustain themselves". If people want to rework trade to be more like real life, where you're stronger cooperating, or rework War so that the effects of destroying infrastructure are more punishing, go ahead.

But some other suggestions read like "Aggressors often lose wars in the real world. Therefore, if you're an aggressor in Stellaris, you should be hit with -50% Weapon Damage and -50% Sublight speed to replicate this".

Until you're ready to actually talk to me, and not some imaginary me that you argue with in your mind, where I say the things you want me to say and you come up with the Perfect Counter that shuts me down and renders me speechless with your sheer brilliance, kindly don't.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Really. Pops needing food, too? Pops being miserable in slavery, too?

Those don't need to be modelled, so... I mean hell, have you seen the people that point out what a tiny fraction of our job market is agricultural nowadays, and how by 2200 we should basically have all that totally automated? It would be extremely easy to take that logic and to have built a version of Stellaris that just... didn't model food. Or a game that didn't balance things around slave POPs being unhappy.

Those are arbitrary choices in what to simulate in the game. They didn't have to be included.

No. It's not.

Then you've been communicating your actual point quite poorly.

 

[Methone]

Then you've been communicating your actual point quite poorly.

Or maybe you've been doing a poor job at understanding.

In any case, I'll wait.

 

[aono]

Slavery in the U.S. south (seizure and extraction of labor rather than resources) caused their economy to become so stagnant that, during the U.S. Civil War, the North's chief advantage was its overwhelming economic superiority.

This I would disagree. It's not slavery that made South stagnant. That was monoculturarism.
If you compare American and Indian cotton on european market, you'd notice that cotton economy was so powerful that Southerns really believed world would defend them - because without them they wouldn't have enough cotton for world textile industry. "Stagnant" cotton industry supplied about 75% of world's cotton in late 1850th - just to remind, we're speaking about Industrial Revolution period, when textile industry grown with a demand for cotton. It was rapid growth of economics that empowered slavery in American South, not the stagnation. They followed your recepee - made things they could do the best (thanks for climate + specific types of cotton + organization of work), and monetized it. Plantations needed more workers, and any possible injury to slavery meant killing this economical boom (and that was a real reason Southerns opposed abolitionism - and tariffs - slavery states without reliance on cotton industry supported Union in Civil War). Considering the population of Confederacy of 9 millions, slaves included (for the reference: Union population was 22 millions), I'd say it's not an example for seisure of labour killing economy. I dare to say South wouldn't be economically powerful enough to even dare to think about seccession if not slavery-based cotton industry.
It was very efficient indeed - but the only thing Lincoln needed to do to essentially kill Southern economy was to blocade the ports and survive diplomatic pressure until war would be over. And suddenly South discover that cotton is essentially useless if you have nobody to sell, and you can't eat cotton.

Actually (to stay in Stellaris indeed) I find this illustrative. Economical specialization, which is a prequesite for the model of trade you're describing (and, just in case, I find it accurate; looks like the only place I disagree is the moment where I emphase on expenses being the real problem with military decisions in economics), demands global economy. Meaning to make it significant, economics should be build around mass of resources and industrial chains, and around a consumer market. It were London trading hub that created British wealth, but it was untariffed colonial goods going to British manufactures that created London trade hub (look how british manufactures rise up when tariffes with India were risen).
If, looking on "establishing trade for consumer goods with neigbourghood empire, taking a discount to consumer goods, and giving them a discount on alloys", I can just build another consumer goods factory, and improve my consumer good output without really hurting my alloy output, I can't say I feel urge to specialise. If I have dozen of alloy foundries, and a big enough non-used consumer goods, I can rebuild one consumer good factory into alloy one with 360 game days and 400 minerals (before modifiers), and it would be already boost of something near 10%. Not to mention I would not to see such a system competitive.

But some other suggestions read like "Aggressors often lose wars in the real world. Therefore, if you're an aggressor in Stellaris, you should be hit with -50% Weapon Damage and -50% Sublight speed to replicate this".

Please. You asked "How does it work IRL, [to make people cooperate and be content with lower level to benefit, not declaring war to take everything]?". You got answer - "it's work, because IRL agressors oftern lose [and therefore war is risky], and IRL there are better, more effective ways to resolve conflict [and therefore there are ways to achieve your goals without war]. [Therefore, that should be modelled.]". Then you asked why would both assumptions be correct for interstellar empires with dozens of planets.
Counter-question is "why the hell shouldn't they?".

Oh, by the way. I don't exactly see the how the discussion where arguement "you misunderstand what I did say and just stupid moron and your arguement is invalid because it is" is prevalent is healthy. Try to avoid it, should we?