• 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 #21 - Administrative Sectors

Hi again folks!

Today I am going to talk about one of the great pitfalls of strategy game design; dull micromanagement. That is, features which require too much player attention. The trick, of course, is determining how much is “too much”, but it’s useful to consider how central the feature is to the core gameplay, how well it scales between small and large states, and how repetitive it gets with time.

In Stellaris, one feature which risked causing bad micromanagement was the planetary tile system; assigning Pops to tiles and deciding which buildings should go where. It is a fairly central feature and it is fun to use… but if you had to worry about 20, 50 or more planets, it would scale poorly. The obvious solution to this type of scaling issue is automation; you can let the AI handle it for you. This is indeed what we did in Stellaris, but not in a “traditional” fashion... Instead, we opted for something a little bit more akin to the vassals in Crusader Kings through something we call Administrative Sectors.

stellaris_dev_diary_21_02_20160215_edit_sectors.jpg


A Sector is an administrative region under the control of a Sector Governor. You can control a few planets directly (your “core worlds”), but once you go past the limit, you will start suffering penalties to your Influence as well as Empire-wide income. The exact limit for how many planets you can control directly depends on various factors, like your government type and technologies, but, as with the “Demesne Limit” in Crusader Kings II, it will never be a huge number. At this point, it is best to start dividing your territory into Sectors. You can decide the Sector capital and which planets should belong to it (but they must all be connected to the capital, i.e. form one cohesive sub-region.) You are also allowed to name your Sectors, for fun.

Unlike proper Vassals, Sectors remain an integrated part of your Empire, but they will handle development of planets and the construction of mining stations within their region for you. You can give them a focus (Industry, Research, etc), an infusion of Minerals or Energy Credits to help them along, and decide if you want to tax them for Minerals and Energy Credits. Sectors do not possess any military fleets of their own, nor do they perform research (they have access to the same technologies you do, and their research output is all given to you.)

stellaris_dev_diary_21_01_20160215_sectors_list.jpg


While Sectors and Sector Governors cannot demand more autonomy, or directly rise up in revolt (things I’d love to explore in an expansion), over time their population tends to diverge ideologically from that of the regime, and create their own identity. Like-minded Pops will tend to migrate there if allowed to. In the same way, aliens of the same species will also tend to coalesce in the same Sectors. Thus, when Factions form, they will often tend to have their main seat of power in a specific Sector. And Factions can demand autonomy and achieve independence. However, this is something that warrants its own dev diary...

That’s all he wrote folks. This time. Next week, I plan to talk about Alliances and Federations!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 241
  • 70
  • 7
Reactions:
The Demesne limit is a great idea, as that has been the problem with other games like this, as I get bored soon I have an empire as it is just hours of micromanagement which just isn't feasible to manage it all.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Well and if it's like that all core sector would be spaceyards due to no sector fleet so the best option is to only construct ship to defend ai sector i am wrong ?
 
That and it make sense from a realistic point of view... it should be impossible to control everything for a single government anyway and give large empires a bit of dynamic feel.

If the number of planets were in the thousands and millions then I would agree with you. When the number is in the 10s, I have to disagree.
 
  • 9
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Are you crazy? No offense intended :p. As opposed to 95% or 99%? There is no Utopia. I think 90% is a great number to settle with.

Speaking from my GalCiv3 experience, I think managing more than say, 8 planets, becomes a real bore. I haven't played much since they added planetary governors, but I loved playing huge maps for the exploration. But once I had 25 planets I would stop playing because it would take 30mins to play one turn.

Micromanagement is fun to a point, but the game needs to move forward and not be bogged down with the thought that "if I only managed my 50 planets directly, I could get XX% more productivity" - that HAUNTS me in gal civ). I would prefer the option go away so I don't have to worry about it. Or there be a disincentive to make whatever benefit there is to be gained, moot.

This just shows me the wide variety of gaming desires. A wide variety that will not be possible in Stellaris.

I love to manage everyone of those planets in GC3! That is why I play the game! I like it when it takes me an hour to do a turn, the longer the better! If it took 10 hours to do my turn, and the AI 10 hours to complete its, I would be absolutely fine with that. Why should a game be a race to the end? What is wrong with it taking a long time and enjoying it?

Seriously, for all of you that don't like the "micro management" what the heck do you do in these games?
 
Last edited:
  • 17
  • 5
Reactions:
I enjoy micromanagement :(

There's countless games out there for you then. These days it seems to be hard to come by a strategy game that doesn't have a ton of micro. I'm looking forward to having a strategy game that's actually strategic for once (which Stellaris seems to be shaping up to be).
 
  • 12
  • 6
Reactions:
If the number of planets were in the thousands and millions then I would agree with you. When the number is in the 10s, I have to disagree.

Considering that even a fallen empire can have 18+ systems (counted from a DD picture), with possibly multiple planets each, planet count will be in the hundreds in the long run. Unmodded base game will feature 100-1000 systems with God knows how many planets.

And even if it's the future, given that it's hard for us to run even a single country efficiently for a long perioids of time as of now (on average), without corruption and immense amount of bureaucracy, it's hard to imagine that things would improve to planetary let alone interplanetary scale, in a mere few hunder years, with different species on top of that.

Also, even if it's a sci-fi game and we are allowed to take some things for granted without shattering the suspension of disbelief, the distances would make any direct goverment of off-system colonies virtually impossible in real-life. With wormholes and warp motors, sending a message to other system could take anything from hours to days or weeks, depending on the scale of your empire.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
If the number of planets were in the thousands and millions then I would agree with you. When the number is in the 10s, I have to disagree.

Seriously? Are you honestly trying to argue that, from a 'realistic point of view' (the segment you quoted), you should be able to directly administrate dozens of planets?

From a "realistic point of view" administrating a single planet without any subdivision should be an impossible task. But that is not really the point. This game feature is a way counter micromenagement boredom 4x games often reach in the latter stages. The first screenshot the player already had almost 20 systems and it didn't even seem that far into the game.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
  • 12
Reactions:
Seriously? Are you honestly trying to argue that, from a 'realistic point of view' (the segment you quoted), you should be able to directly administrate dozens of planets?
I don't think he's arguing that. I think he's arguing that as a player, he can realistically manage tens of planets within game.
And that's the main point, I think.
If player can manage x number of planets manually, why punish him for doing so with negative modifiers? If he cannot do it, he'll use sectors and governors without any prodding.

Player being allowed direct control, doesn't mean governors would be unused.
Stellaris could plausibly allow sectors option to be under players control, but governors would offer modifiers to things like local agriculture and industry. Kinda like un Eu4, you grant provinces to estates, which gives you bonuses/penalties in that provinces, but player remains in control, building buildings and such, even if in-game province is supposedly autonomous.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
My concern is that this kind of thing managed to tank MoO3 because the AI governors were pants-on-head retarded. I hope that this will not be the case here.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
It is not turn based. Even at the slowest speed, trying to micromanage planets would be a seed of pausing insanity.
I for one welcome my new sector administrator overlords.
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
If player can manage x number of planets manually, why punish him for doing so with negative modifiers? If he cannot do it, he'll use sectors and governors without any prodding.

Because managing planets directly is more advantageous even with the best AI in the world (it can't read the players mind and work out what's their goals are), and so there is a trade off for doing so.

Trade offs being the essence of strategy games and everything.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
Because managing planets directly is more advantageous even with the best AI in the world (it can't read the players mind and work out what's their goals are), and so there is a trade off for doing so.

Trade offs being the essence of strategy games and everything.

"Player is better than AI, so we must give him handicap" is pretty terrible argument. That's what difficulty settings are for, to give player a handicap if he finds game too easy.
And this all the skeptics of sector system are asking for - to give player a in-game setting whether he'll be compelled to assign planets to sectors or not.
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
My concern is that this kind of thing managed to tank MoO3 because the AI governors were pants-on-head retarded. I hope that this will not be the case here.

Making sure sector AI is good enough that most players won't feel frustrated letting it run their planets is *very* high on my priority list.
 
  • 57
  • 18
Reactions:
Seriously, for all of you that don't like the "micro management" what the heck do you do in these games?

Mainly spend looking at the map and the pretty rendering of planets rotating, maybe occasionally do things like
-exploring
-colonising
-surveying anomalies
-react to sudden events
-researching tech
-keeping population happy
-keep up diplomatic relationships
-design ships
-trade
-plan invasion fleets
-wage war
-ponder different strategies for galaxy domination
-form alliances
-micromanage my sectors
-do whatever else a paradox game can offer

While I completely understand and respect your desire to micromanage every single aspect of your 300 planet wide empire (we all like different things), in the grand scheme of this game, micromanaging is but one aspect of the game, one that I might not even mention when summarising this game to a friend or a new player in one sentence. If the devs want to design the game that way for balance or think it is optimal for the game to be designed this way for new types of content, it's for them to decide. It's not a rule that player should be able to micromanage everything, most space 4x game just happen to have this feature, either in the name of player freedom, it's a theme of the game or in a lack of a better system. Stellaris is offering a new system and we should respect that and the devs for trying to form a solution to a problem that many recognise to exist.

To me strategy or grand strategy has never meant micromanaging per se, it is a feature among others and games are made distinct, fun and unique both by the rules they set to the player and the choice of features that they decide to emphasize.
 
  • 13
Reactions:
"We have arrived, and it is now that we perform our charge.

In fealty to the God-Emperor, our undying lord, and by the grace of the golden throne I declare Exterminatus upon the Imperial world of Typhon Primaris.

I hereby sign the death warrant of an entire world, and consign a billion souls to oblivion.

May imperial justice account in all balance.

The Emperor Protects"
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I CAN'T TAKE IT ANYMORE

shut_up_and_take_my_money-wallpaper-800x480.jpg



**Crawls into fetal position until Stellaris comes out**
 
  • 9
Reactions:
"Player is better than AI, so we must give him handicap" is pretty terrible argument. That's what difficulty settings are for, to give player a handicap if he finds game too easy.

It's not about giving the player a handicap because to make up for poor AI, it's about placing a limitation on the amount of optimisation a player can do to advance their strategies, but giving them the opportunity to do more if judge the cost is worth it. Paradox games have always been about simulating politics where Civilisation and co have been about the more mechanistic optimisation of production.

Please stop trying to make every single game into Civilisation or Master of Orion.

And this all the skeptics of sector system are asking for - to give player a in-game setting whether he'll be compelled to assign planets to sectors or not.

Which would seriously undermine what they're trying to do with sectors. They're not there to force the player to automate most of their planets, they're a gameplay mechanic.
 
  • 13
  • 3
Reactions: