• 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:
I've been a space 4X gamer for more than fifteen years now, and I can tell you one thing: the absurd micromanagement hell of a late game empire turns any game into a unpaid job.
... Absolutely Right !

What is 4X in all excisting Games ? ...
- Explore: Fly, only Fly, to EVERY particular System/Planet/Moon, to look for their Name/Type and Specials, to sequenze your Expansion ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Expand: Colonization-Spam to EVERY particular Planet/Moon, to initiate their (automated) Process of Population-Breeding, to exploit their Basic-Production/-Research ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Exploit: Construction of Buildings in EVERY particular Planet/Moon, to increase their Basic-Production/-Research ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Exterminate: Destroy (with Expand and Exploit, afterwards) or Conquer (with Exploit, afterwards) all other Empires till You have painted the whole Map with your Colour ...
This is the ultimate Victory-Condition ...

And in every 4X-Game, You achieve in every Case the Victory, due to the Fact, that You keep going this repetitive (boring), but unavoidable Cycle of Explore-Expand-Exploit, to have the superior Amount of Production (to maintain the superior Amount of Ships) and in Connection with That, to have the superior Amount of Research (Highest Level of Technology) ...
It is only a Motivation-Issue ! ...

I'm glad, that Stellaris tries to avoid It with this Concept of the limited Amount of Planets/Moons under my direct Control via "Administrative Sectors" ...
Otherwise, I would have an inner Urge to micro-manage all my Planets/Moons (myself) and the whole Feature of Having "Protectorates"/"Vassals"/"Factions" WITHIN my Empire/Federation would be, More or Less, meaningless ...

We should not forget, that Stellaris is a Paradox-Game ...
We can expect, that We have much More to do, than this (simple) repetitive (boring), but unavoidable Explore-Expand-Exploit-Stuff, Which I mentioned Above.
 
Last edited:
  • 4
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
To justify not adapting multiplayer AI:

If equal to or less than 1/10 of the systems are human controlled: It doesn't matter much, game will more or less be standard, maybe with a few co-operating players forming a faction, if they can find one another.
If 1/10-1/3 are human controlled: The entertainment is working together to beat the numerically superior, but intellectually inferior AI, followed by inter-player politics, diplomacy and wars.
If >1/3 are human controlled: Nobody cares about the AI, it's doomed and the real diplomacy will between real, thinking people.

... But as everyone else have said, it's not nearly the same effort as to include extreme variations in the gameplay limitations of players.

Hence my specific statement that Good Multiplayer requires etc., etc. Your listed scenarios for type 2 and type 3 are what happens when you have the same game for Sp as MP. I would hope that no one would say that such is a Good MP experience. If you think that the non-human players being immaterial is Good MP, then we have no common ground to discuss from. IMHO that is Bad MP.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
That's not what I'm saying, note the ratios. I'm saying that if the AI is good in example 1, it is also good in example 2 and 3. It does not need to realize that there are more human players with agency in the first example (other than it would treat "player 1" in a normal SP game), and to beat the latter two examples, you need AI that's either made by a large team of specialists tweaking it as the game goes on, or you need to make the AI an overpowered cheating bastard. Example 2 and 3 get interesting because of the human players that are present, any AI nations are just there to populate the game world and make for early challenges or player tools against other players. Ruined empires can be funny co-op targets though, but will likely make the players taking it on exposed to other players!

If you're 5-6 people who want to play this game competitively, you would surely select a small 200 star map or a 400 map and make it half human half AI to have some room to expand first. Usually in Paradox MP games, you spend the first third mostly taking out the AI and forging relations (though early player-on-player wars do happen!), then it progresses to player-to-player diplomacy and wars.
 
not really. the multiplayer in EUIV is exactly liek singleplayer, bar more people are humans. same checksum, same mechanics. the meta changes - you cant exploit a human player nearly as much as the AI, so you need a stronger millitary and diploamcy becomes a far larger factor. the game however stays the same. what you are proposing is changing up the general mechanics of the game - not at all the same thing.

Really? Huh, then I wonder why I'm always reading posts on other Paradox forums about all the problems with MP and the time that Pdox spends on making it work right. But I'm sure you are right, they just take a SP game and say its MP and with no work to be done, magically it is MP.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
... Absolutely Right !

What is 4X in all excisting Games ? ...
- Explore: Fly, only Fly, to EVERY particular System/Planet/Moon, to look for their Name/Type and Specials, to sequenze your Expansion ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Expand: Colonization-Spam to EVERY particular Planet/Moon, to initiate their (automated) Process of Population-Breeding, to exploit their Basic-Production/-Research ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Exploit: Construction of Buildings in EVERY particular Planet/Moon, to increase their Basic-Production/-Research ...
Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ...
- Exterminate: Destroy (with Expand and Exploit, afterwards) or Conquer (with Exploit, afterwards) all other Empires till You have painted the whole Map with your Colour ...
This is the ultimate Victory-Condition ...

And in every 4X-Game, You achieve in every Case the Victory, due to the Fact, that You keep going this repetitive (boring), but unavoidable Cycle of Explore-Expand-Exploit, to have the superior Amount of Production (to maintain the superior Amount of Ships) and in Connection with That, to have the superior Amount of Research (Highest Level of Technology) ...
It is only a Motivation-Issue ! ...

I'm glad, that Stellaris tries to avoid It with this Concept of the limited Amount of Planets/Moons under my direct Control via "Administrative Sectors" ...
Otherwise, I would have an inner Urge to micro-manage all my Planets/Moons (myself) and the whole Feature of Having "Protectorates"/"Vassals"/"Factions" WITHIN my Empire/Federation would be, More or Less, meaningless ...

We should not forget, that Stellaris is a Paradox-Game ...
We can expect, that We have much More to do, than this (simple) repetitive (boring), but unavoidable Explore-Expand-Exploit-Stuff, Which I mentioned Above.

If you feel that the whole 4X genre is "Repetitive (boring), but Unavoidable Stuff to achieve the Victory ..." then why are you even remotely interested in Stellaris. It isn't going to be that different.

I also find the very often repeated argument that "if they allow me to manage my planets directly, and it is any more effective to do that than to have the AI do it, then I will feel compelled to do so even though I don't want to" to be incomprehensible. For one thing, you will be able, very easily, to mod the game to do so, so by this argument everyone will mod the game to be able to micro the planets because it will be "better" than the AI doing it. For another, I'm amazed at the lack of self control Paradox gamers have. Lastly, this exact same argument can be applied to each and every game function. "If they let me explore directly... If they let me design my own ships... If they let me move my own fleets..." It is a nonsense statement. Yes, if they let you play the game instead of having the game play itself you might feel inclined to actually play the game yourself, so they better not let you do that even if you want to. But since the developers even believe this specious argument I guess I'm just stuck in Wonderland.

Lastly,I don't want to manage my planets because I think I will do it better than the AI. I want to do it because I like to do it, and yes, for all 600 of them! So at least in regards to my statements I wish people would stop inserting the AI into the discussion.
 
  • 14
  • 2
Reactions:
Usually in Paradox MP games, you spend the first third mostly taking out the AI and forging relations (though early player-on-player wars do happen!), then it progresses to player-to-player diplomacy and wars.

Well, IMHO, that sounds really boring. So in accord with the dictum that all boring items must go, please remove MP from the game.
 
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Lastly,I don't want to manage my planets because I think I will do it better than the AI. I want to do it because I like to do it, and yes, for all 600 of them! So at least in regards to my statements I wish people would stop inserting the AI into the discussion.

Well I don't. I find micro of managing planets really tedious in these sort of games. And I imagine you are in the minority, but we shall see. So there
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, IMHO, that sounds really boring. So in accord with the dictum that all boring items must go, please remove MP from the game.

At this point I can't shake the feeling that you are a troll and I've been wasting my time. I'm not angry with you, I'm angry with myself for not realising sooner.

If I am mistaken then please understand that most people are psyched for this, and that some aspects being delegating some things from a higher level, once one is strong enough, does not mean that one is not playing the game... It's just not playing that one 4X game you want.

However I'm done taking to you. I'll read your answer but I'm done.

I mean, why can't you just fly around in one space ship and do odd jobs for various factions and have an alien love interest? Why don't you have that option!? This is a Space Game ffs and I'm disappointed that Paradox won't add a toggle for that and balance it! Pretty shitty Space Game IMO.
 
Last edited:
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
The design has probably been finalized and it is a bit late to go back and redesign a core section of the game. If you don't like the sectors mod the game, make the maximum imperial sector size 1000 planets or the same size of your galaxy. Personally I am willing to give a try and will mod the hell out of it if I do not like it. :p
 
For me it's not allways dull and (at least so far) I have done it better than any game AI I have met.

"I have done it better than any game AI I have met."
And therein lies the rub, would you do it if it gave you a penalty? Would it still be fun if it was suboptimal play?
Because right now you can do it for a penalty.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
"I have done it better than any game AI I have met."
And therein lies the rub, would you do it if it gave you a penalty? Would it still be fun if it was suboptimal play?
Because right now you can do it for a penalty.

First I have to see the game and:
- check what/how much the penalty is
- check can I do micromanaging myself better than AI
- check the relation between those two things
- estimate is it better to do micromanagement or leave it for AI
- evaluate after few games was estimation right
- make a decission for furthermore
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Nobody won, nobody's going to win. Some people want a different game in one aspect or want it modifiable to a degree where it can be one or the other, others don't or do not consider it viable to include that option, because everyone's going to dislike some limitation and it can't all be balanced to be turned off.

You're not going to change anyone's opinion about this because people, at their core, want different things regarding this out of personal preference. Just stop.
It's called a "discussion". The developers might read it and get some new ideas based on our opinions. Or they might not.
You feel supporting two different versions of the game is a viable approach?
I think most people who are against having the choice overestimate how much difference it would make. Unless, as it has been said before, the sector government AI is really that horrible.
I don't get the people who want micromanagement.
Well, clearly, some people want and like different things that you. It's almost as is not all humans think identically.
They made their design choice. If it's that much of game breaker for you, whining about it won't change anything..
a) It's not whining, it's a discussion; and b) it actually might because the game isn't out yet; or it may influence future developments.
I've been a space 4X gamer for more than fifteen years now, and I can tell you one thing: the absurd micromanagement hell of a late game empire turns any game into a unpaid job. Absolutely not fun for the vast majority of players. There is a reason why infinite city sprawling is now considered one among the cardinal sins of 4X design.
Which is why if it gets too boring, we should have the option to say "okay, I'm done, I'm now delegating it to the AI" but not forcing it on us right from the start.
Some people enjoy it, some because they come from having played 4X games where this is the standard and they liked it there. A design decision has just been made to do things in a different way. Disagreeing with it makes sense if you wanted something else, and it can be debated, and it has been debated for 20+ pages.

It'd be more interesting if new arguments rather than:

"It's about user agency and choice!"
"People can use sectors with some bonuses to compensate, it'll be balanced!"
"Micro shows skill!"
"I want control over my own faction and not deal with foolish AI!"

-vs-

"Automation is good because micro is monotonous!"
"This adds a new political faction mechanic!"
"Paradox can't balance the game for being able to change every game design that people may disagree with!"
"People who don't want to micro will feel forced to!"

...But we've just been going through that cycle about 4 or 5 times by now...
Well, if you look at the anti-choicers' arguments, the only one that makes sense is the third one. And it could be somewhat settled if Wiz (or whoever else) came and said "sorry, but giving the option not to use sectors or even increasing the demesne limit so that they are far less significant is too hard for the dev team and would require too much additional work, trust us". It would be disappointing, but personally I would trust him and say "all right then".

Arguments #1 and #2 aren't even from the "choice vs. no choice" debate, it's from "using them vs. not using them". Argument #4 doesn't make much sense to me, honestly. In single player, who cares what other people think of you? You play the way you like, be it micro-heavy or sector-AI-reliant. In multiplayer, you don't have enough time to go full micro anyway, so even the hardcore micromanagers would have to rely on the sectors and the AI, so it's another win for the other side, making micromanagers suffer from not being able to micro even when having the option; isn't that what you guys want?
 
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
I think most people who are against having the choice overestimate how much difference it would make. Unless, as it has been said before, the sector government AI is really that horrible.

As I said, there are several techs and government choices which will be rendered either totally useless or less effective if a hypothetical 'manage all planets' option is enabled.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
Although one thing I would support is the ability to spend influence to interfere with AI managed planets.

Like, if you want to move a pop to a certain title, or construct a certain building on an AI managed planet then you can do it but it will cost you influence to make the change. This would represent central government really needing something done in the provinces and deciding to expand a little political capital overriding regional governors, or putting political pressure on them, or bribing local bureaucrats or whatever is most appropriate in that particular political system.
 
It's called a "discussion". The developers might read it and get some new ideas based on our opinions. Or they might not.

I didn't mind the discussion, I was tired of the same arguments being applied by both sides, repeatedly.

Arguments #1 and #2 aren't even from the "choice vs. no choice" debate, it's from "using them vs. not using them". Argument #4 doesn't make much sense to me, honestly. In single player, who cares what other people think of you? You play the way you like, be it micro-heavy or sector-AI-reliant. In multiplayer, you don't have enough time to go full micro anyway, so even the hardcore micromanagers would have to rely on the sectors and the AI, so it's another win for the other side, making micromanagers suffer from not being able to micro even when having the option; isn't that what you guys want?

Arguments 1&2 refer why Paradox chose this way in regards to #3 instead of the other way. The counter arguments about user agency and choice don't make sense by themselves either, because Paradox isn't releasing a game with unlimited possibilities (you cannot, for example, have a single ship and go on RPG space adventures either - is that also bad because "less choice! What about the people who don't even like strategy and want to gain experience points"?
 
  • 4
Reactions:
if you look at the anti-choicers' arguments,

I don't think anyone is really anti-choice per se. Just not in favor of choices that don't make sense in the game's context.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
used to be a "micromaging guy" since the original Sid Meier Civilization and Master of Orion.

that said, I found the Administrative Sector idea an interesting one and I would like to have the possibility to demand some of the tediuos hard work to the AI if the AI will do it in a "decent" way.

and so maybe changing a bit my bad "gaming habits".. o_O

post scriptum: anyway, as usual, another great Stellaris DD.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: