• 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:
How is this confusing? Players want to micromanage/control a few important things, just not necessarily repeat the same task x20. See: every space 4x game once the player's empire balloons too large.
One could argue how unimportant individual planet tiles are in a galactic empire as well.
Why would you make a mechanic where you can micromanage one part of your game but not be allowed to micromanage another equally identical part of your game?

But the adjacency is only for the capital. In your regular 4x5 (i.e. 20 tiles) planet, only ONE building will give adjacency bonus, and this one building will affect, AT MOST, 4 tiles.
So? You still need to do it mandatory for every planet. Thats true micromanagement.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
About the reasoning of this design decision: don't punish me because I want to micromanage the game, add such features in order to give me options in case I don't want to do it! I really don't understand why game designers have to swing from one extreme to the other, there is a middleground area in all of this.


Would have preferred a less generic way to deal with this than we had in previous Pdox games, but this works well enough.

The demesne limit would have worked for those government types that are closer to the game that implemented this feature the best: CK2, but with Stellaris we have so many more flavours of how a world is governed, so I'm a bit confused by this dev diary. If it's not customised to other forms of organisation, it would be less immersive, though not that different in the end. I can see how one might justify such a feature for a democracy in Stellaris: government overreach would be decried if the government tries to influence too many planets at once, it's not exactly demesne limit, but not that different either. But even so, there needs to be more underneath in order to properly explain this and differentiate across different forms of organisation in the game (which I hope it's present in one form or another, indiferent of my current assumptions). A democratic government should either have the policies to interfere to various degrees in local affairs, but because it would work in a decentralised way, it would have limited means to sponsor various local initiatives that they want to "encourage", not control. This can be considered the tool that differentiates a democracy from a feudal hierarchical society in this game. So the "demesne limit" should preferably not be a hard limit, but be a result of these tools that allows the "sponsorship", which should also be impacted by other features, like those policies that makes this interference possible. That would be one possibility, a central government in a democracy might also have little means to influence local affairs according to current policies and get different bonuses to balance out this lack of choice, but again this would apply everywhere in such a democracy not in a region like a feud, they don't get some generic planets to control "just because". When it comes to centralised governments, despotic/absolute monarchies or empires, militaristic dictatorships, such a feature doesn't make sense as it was in CK2. One of the reason for role-playing such an empire would be to have godlike control, why would the supreme rulers bow down to the whims of their loyal subjects? Of course, you can always add an effectivness penalty when you try to micro-manage too many projects at once, because it always happens in centralised states, it would make total sense. A good manager would probably find ways to counter the effects and dynamically mess with this if there's no hard limit after which things start to go bad.
If you think about it, the things I mentioned are all variation on the same theme, so a demesne limit works well enough and Pdox successfully implemented a form of it, we can rest easy if they choose the form that already worked well for them. My only hope is that it is customised to fit the various ethos and philosophies covered in the game. If it's not customised, it will feel gamey, added there just to make the game more appealing to people who dislike micromanaging, a slap in the face of the traditional playerbase of Pdox games. If it's set on top of game features and mechanics that make this world more believable, it would be easy to justify such a feature and if implemented in a way to also make it easy to manage, it would add to the gameplay experience even if it requires less effort from the player and I'm all for it. The dev diary didn't really convince me one or the other, I'm waiting to see it in the game to decide if I like it or not.
 
Last edited:
I used to dislike this idea, but having see the game streamed, I find it myself liking it more. The actual planet management is not that exciting nor prone to mini maxing, and letting the sector build stations also reduces hunt and peck tedium.

The availability of a government that grants +4 planets also helps. I still feel that 5 is too low, but I can certainly see myself giving planets to sectors / making sectors around 7-9 planets.

Still need to see how the AI handles everything, and there is some concern that I will do too much system swapping in and out of sectors when I want to do something to a planet.

I also see myself keeping control of newer colonies, and letting go of older colonies once I have filled them in, so the AI can handle the tile upgrades.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Maybe it was answered before but forgive for not going through the whole topic, this question came to my mind while I was wathcing the Great Blorg empire: Can you reaquire planets you already gave to a sector? Lets assume I have 5 core world and I start creating sectors around me, then a new tech allows me to have 7 core words. It would be awful to have a new core world at the edge of the empire so the obvios decision here is to make a planet the nearest to my core words my "own" again. Is it possible? I hope it is.
 
Not sure if this has been asked yet but will there be any tech that will increase the number of core worlds you can have?
 
While I can like micro I think the general idea is quite good. The tie breaker will be of course whether I'll play on with the constant feeling that someone to stupid to do anything right is manageing my valuable assets now.

For this it would be helpfull to understand how the sector A.I. will react to certain issues.
  1. How will it treat planetary tiles that would be good for a resource that it is not the sector Fokus? I.e. Sector on energy Fokus presented gets a mineral tile will the A.I. place a mine or a power plant?
  2. As we have seen in the stream a Sektor on mineral focus can run into an energy deficit. Is there any process that will lead to the sector A.I. to maintain a certain balance?
  3. How will the sector A.I. treat food ? Or to ask the other way around: Will a focus on something else stopp the sector from growing population?
  4. Will a sector upgrade buildings that are already in place and do not support it's focus (assumption here is that redevelopment is not allowed of course)?
  5. Will the sector A.I. be allowed to redevelop buildings placed by itself at any given time? Or is it either redevelopment on or off for everything (player placed and A.I. placed)?
    • Depending on the answer to the last two questions we might face the problem of micromanagment through a backdoor. As we saw in the Blorg vids you can take away systems and later give them back to a sector quite easily. So, if I'm not happy with the answeres in 1-3 I could theoretically enforce the development I want and then give the planet back to the sector.
  6. I just assume that the stuff not on colonized planets isn't an issue and the sector A.I. will just prefer to build stations for it's focus first before doing the others.
 
Would have preferred a less generic way to deal with this than we had in previous Pdox games, but this works well enough. The demesne limit would have worked for those government types that are closer to the game that implemented this feature the best: CK2, but with Stellaris we have so many more flavours of how a world is governed, so I'm a bit confused by this dev diary. If it's not customised to other forms of organisation, it would be less immersive, though not that different in the end.
Past GS games have never been about beating the AI. Beating the AI is a sinch once you understand how the game plays. The goal of GS games is to achieve geopolitical objectives, like create Italy in 1700 or capture Moscow as the Nazis or westernise into a Great Power as an Asian nation.
Which is why I think Stellaris is just your straight up 4x game, not grand strat.
If it were a grand strat game, there would be great more focus on space politics. This doesnt just mean diplomacy, but civilisation politics.
For example, when founding a new colony, at first it is dependent on the mother planet, but as time goes on it develops and becomes prosperous. At that point the mother colony can decide whether to keep the colony as a dependent (basically a resource/trade outpost) or let it achieve some or total self governance (increasing poroductivity and happiness) at the cost of control. Then it will form its own colonial government but perhaps something like an ally or protectorate under AI control. Of course you could also have systems that reflect space feudalism, empire, collective (ie communism) and so on. IMO space feudalism would be pretty effective due to the vast distances space involves.
Finally as technology progresses and instellar infrastructure and communications make possible to merge your provincial governments into federation, for example. Likewise for the various government types on the spectrum. Aiming for the requirements to create kingdoms or federated nations in previous GS games is one of its best features
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
Yo.

Pls note I am on Cellphone so things are not Working properly here.
I cant read most of the stuff cuz like half of it is missing but its not allowing me to zoom out.....



I want to say one thing here.
I have been watching the Blorg Stream.
And I do actually like to put things under AI.
But what we would need here is a bit more influence on the AI.


First of All there seems to be no Balanced Setting which tells the AI to not Focus on one thing.
One more importand thing would be to tell the AI it should or should not focus ressources to the point of overwriting tile ressources.

In HOI3 for example I used the AI extensively.
But I always made sure to keep a certain Strategy behind it.


This is somewhat missing here.
Since your actually forcing people to use the AI here. It should be paramount to allow outlining more of the Strategy than just Mineral/Energy Focus.


Greetz Sun
 
Past GS games have never been about beating the AI. Beating the AI is a sinch once you understand how the game plays. The goal of GS games is to achieve geopolitical objectives, like create Italy in 1700 or capture Moscow as the Nazis or westernise into a Great Power as an Asian nation.
Which is why I think Stellaris is just your straight up 4x game, not grand strat.
If it were a grand strat game, there would be great more focus on space politics. This doesnt just mean diplomacy, but civilisation politics.
For example, when founding a new colony, at first it is dependent on the mother planet, but as time goes on it develops and becomes prosperous. At that point the mother colony can decide whether to keep the colony as a dependent (basically a resource/trade outpost) or let it achieve some or total self governance (increasing poroductivity and happiness) at the cost of control. Then it will form its own colonial government but perhaps something like an ally or protectorate under AI control. Of course you could also have systems that reflect space feudalism, empire, collective (ie communism) and so on. IMO space feudalism would be pretty effective due to the vast distances space involves.
Finally as technology progresses and instellar infrastructure and communications make possible to merge your provincial governments into federation, for example. Likewise for the various government types on the spectrum. Aiming for the requirements to create kingdoms or federated nations in previous GS games is one of its best features

Well, Stellaris' diplomacy is not that different from CK2 or EU4 afawk so far from the dev diaries and videos. I can see how you may find this working from the perspective of the colony evolving to independence, but again my point was that this works well only for certain government types. You simply can't justify it just like that why a totalitarian power would not be able to give specific orders to one of their colonies, just to keep them happy... well, I they ruling with an iron fist or what?
 
Maybe it was answered before but forgive for not going through the whole topic, this question came to my mind while I was wathcing the Great Blorg empire: Can you reaquire planets you already gave to a sector? Lets assume I have 5 core world and I start creating sectors around me, then a new tech allows me to have 7 core words. It would be awful to have a new core world at the edge of the empire so the obvios decision here is to make a planet the nearest to my core words my "own" again. Is it possible? I hope it is.
Yes, you can always reassign planets back to your core worlds or to another sector.

Not sure if this has been asked yet but will there be any tech that will increase the number of core worlds you can have?
There are governments that increase the number of core worlds you have (e.g. direct democracy increases it by +1). As for techs, not certain. I havent found any confirmation or denial yet, but I would think there are one or two that increase that cap.

I want to say one thing here.
I have been watching the Blorg Stream.
And I do actually like to put things under AI.
But what we would need here is a bit more influence on the AI.


First of All there seems to be no Balanced Setting which tells the AI to not Focus on one thing.
One more importand thing would be to tell the AI it should or should not focus ressources to the point of overwriting tile ressources.

In HOI3 for example I used the AI extensively.
But I always made sure to keep a certain Strategy behind it.
You can tell the AI what to expand/develop.
So if the sector should concentrate on science, economics or industrial output. It will develop unsettled systems that belong to that sector aswell by building e.g. stations. How good the AI governors are will be seen when the game is released.
 
Well, Stellaris' diplomacy is not that different from CK2 or EU4 afawk so far from the dev diaries and videos. I can see how you may find this working from the perspective of the colony evolving to independence, but again my point was that this works well only for certain government types. You simply can't justify it just like that why a totalitarian power would not be able to give specific orders to one of their colonies, just to keep them happy... well, I they ruling with an iron fist or what?
My argument is that GS games are a bit different than 4x when it comes to gameplay focus. GS games like Victoria try to focus more on rivalry between internal political systems of the era ie communism vs fascism vs capitalism and the different choices you make to achieve, maintain and grow those societies. Now move that to space. How would space societies maintain themselves in such a different and hostile environment?
Similar to societies in our world, culture is a factor and military is factor as well as various socio political mechanisms like economics and diplomacy.
A space democracy would function on representation and trade and shared defense, and less on shared cultural values, for example
A space empire might function on cultural hegemony and military service.
A space kingdom would have feudal lords ruling sectors autonomously but personally sworn to the king who has the biggest domain (like in ck).
A space collective would have some kind of tech or ability to communicate as one entity, like telepathy, physical assimilation (ie the borg) or caste system like insects.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Yes, you can always reassign planets back to your core worlds or to another sector.


There are governments that increase the number of core worlds you have (e.g. direct democracy increases it by +1). As for techs, not certain. I havent found any confirmation or denial yet, but I would think there are one or two that increase that cap.


You can tell the AI what to expand/develop.
So if the sector should concentrate on science, economics or industrial output. It will develop unsettled systems that belong to that sector aswell by building e.g. stations. How good the AI governors are will be seen when the game is released.

See Mate and thats the Problem.
No offense but this is just not enough options there.

Currently yiu got 4 options

Military Focus
Science Focus
Mineral Focus
Energy Focus

And one extra option which is wether the AI is allowed to Raze Buuldings and build a different one.




And sorry

But where is the Balanced Focus which just uses the most profitable ressources of each tile an balances Production for free tiles.

Where is the extra option to prohibit the AI from overwriting ressource tiles with an building that focuses on a different ressource.


Why cant i decree into the AI.
Why is my own control blocked so i cant just do something there.

The way it is now i.ll most of the time just either build up my planets BEFORE assigning it to the AI.
Or i will just remove it from AI control and build stuff.


If we are forced to rely on AI we need proper options.
The AI shouod be an Support System not an annoying burden.


We need settings so the AI will balance things out.
We need settings to prevent the AI from wasting an 5 mineral tile for an 2 energy powerplant just because its energy focus.
And we need an option to cut in on the AI when for example an Primitive Species is around and we want an observation post rather than a mineral mine on that planet. WITHOUT removing that entire Star System from AI control.


Greetz
 
  • 2
  • 2
Reactions:
It'll certainly make multiplayer a lot more fun than 'who can micromanage their tiles best, wins'.
 
You don't have to set a focus. Without one the AI does this.

Unfortunately No.
It does not.

If you dont add an Focus the AI is Set to Mineral Focus by Default.
And there is no Option to Change this.


You only got.

Military Focus
Mineral Focus (Default Choice if you dont choose anything)
Science Focus
and Energy Focus.

there is NO Neutral Setting.



There is an Setting which states to care about the Tile Ressources.
But from Checking in the Actual Game. I do know for now that this is not really working.
Its Overriding Ressources all the time.
Especially Research Ressources which is very annoying.
 
  • 2
Reactions:
After playing the game for the last 11 hours, I can safely say that the Sector system sucks and I don't like it. I probably wouldn't even use it if I had a choice. It's counter-intuitive and also causes confusion as I wasted a whole bunch of influence points trying to make a sector correctly and then realized every click spends points instead of a confirm option.

Sectors suck. I'd rather deal with tons of planets. I mean, it doesn't really take that long to set the planet up perfectly and forget about it.
 
After playing the game for the last 11 hours, I can safely say that the Sector system sucks and I don't like it. I probably wouldn't even use it if I had a choice. It's counter-intuitive and also causes confusion as I wasted a whole bunch of influence points trying to make a sector correctly and then realized every click spends points instead of a confirm option.

Sectors suck. I'd rather deal with tons of planets. I mean, it doesn't really take that long to set the planet up perfectly and forget about it.


Well I dont even think its that Bad.
But there is alot of Problems.

Like the Spaceport being hidden in the Catacombs of Menus with no Fast use if you put em into Sectors...
Or there not being an Balanced Setting.


Generally I found it works good to keep the Sectors all on Energy Focus.
The Energy Focus seems to still Produce a good amount of Minerals.
Without the Problem of the Sector going negative and messing up like it does under Mineral Focus.
 
Yes there seems to be some stuff that either need tweaking of the Sector AI or even better give us the options to tell them. Like telling them to go mineral focus but maintain a neutral energy balance. Then rules on how to use slavery and/or robots. The way it currently works I somtimes don't like what the sectors are doing and want to at least babysit the initial phase of new planets more often than not (and that is not how it should work).
 
Something I'd like to see is some way to take advantage of when you have a sector with a MASSIVE stockpile of energy/credits and is clearly just sitting on them.

For example, I had two sectors at one point that had 13 to 15 THOUSAND minerals being left unused. Minerals that they are never going to get around to really using since they sectors don't make the most mineral heavy thing in the game, Fleets. Minerals that would have been great help to me building up in preparation to the Prethoryn's showing up to eat my face.

And before one says "tax them more", I already had them set to the highest level.
 
  • 1
Reactions: