• 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:
It's too early to judge, because it's not clear how important each plant in Stellaris is, and that is the best planet you can find (extra mineral rich etc.), but right now it looks like aside from micro-reduction this "Administrative Sectors" is a great tool to nerf player.
Like if AI-governor is managing 90% of our planets this mean that 90% of our planets are on the same level (i mean level of, well, "quality of management" - building and social choices made, etc.) as in AI-controlled Empires (because they obviously use same patterns and AI-empires have bonuses). And if each planet worth is low (no uber-planets for ya!) it means player is pretty much limited in a way he can affect situation using planets, leaving him with sandbox of a couple of planets and strategic choices.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I don't agree. It's a very common scenario that people do things that aren't fun but give them some advantage. A player that is willing to micromanage a large number of planets will always be able to squeeze out some advantage over a sector governor. You don't want optimal play to be boring.

First, how does it impact you or anyone else if "optimal play is boring" (boring for you that is), so long as you have another method that you enjoy? Why should you care if I micro all 989 planets in my empire?

Second, I love micro-managing planets in these type of games. I do not do so to min-max (although if that was my goal I don't think there would be anything wrong with that), but because I like it! Why should game design take that option away from me? Does the Civilization series demand that you put city development on "auto"? No! It gives you the option! Giving the players options, what a concept.

Third, planet development is one of the things to do in a space 4x game. One of the main things to do in my opinion. Without that you have taken one of the "x"s (eXploit) away from the game, and degraded the purpose of another (eXpand). For the sake of "player convenience" (that I don't want myself) you are left with only eXplore (which generally ends by a point in the game anyway) and eXterminate. So, by design, Stellaris is to become a 1x game in the endgame? That sounds like a problem to me.

I've liked what I saw in all 20 previous DDs, but this really frustrates me. Why go to the trouble to create all that planetary detail to then deny us the management of it? Seriously, why bother to have it at all? And the paternalistic view "oh, these players don't like having tedious tasks, let's prevent that", well it just offends me. One man's tedium is another's meat and drink!
 
  • 35
  • 16
  • 3
Reactions:
In the first screenshot, how come Bajiol is a part of your empire, but the boundaries don't touch it?
And also I like the solid borders around your sectors, but why not do it for your own core territories?
 

I wouldn't worry about this. By the looks of it sectors are going to work quite similarly to EU4 colonial nations, and it'll be child's play to mod it out by looking into the game files (it uses the same engine).

That's the joy of Pdox games, the moddability. Don't get offended, get modding~
 
  • 12
Reactions:
I wouldn't worry about this. By the looks of it sectors are going to work quite similarly to EU4 colonial nations, and it'll be child's play to mod it out by looking into the game files (it uses the same engine).

That's the joy of Pdox games, the moddability. Don't get offended, get modding~
But I want achievements =(
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Why go to the trouble to create all that planetary detail to then deny us the management of it? Seriously, why bother to have it at all?
This confused me as well. Why make it so detailed, only to hide those details? If management system is too tedious to use on large scale, why not just simplify it?
 
  • 15
  • 2
Reactions:
I like it. It makes sense in a Roleplay perspective. Also it helps keep the gameplay concise and consistent.

I'll definitely use it. But I have a problem with being mandatory... Many people have expressed here they want to micromanage every planet.

So how about, instead of giving penalties for people not using the sectors function, like it is now, basically enforcing people to use it (like it is with demesne in CKII), why don't you give benefits for people using sectors.

So... the player who likes to micromanage everything will be able to do so, without penalties and be able to min-max every planet they have. While most players will use the sectors, but for not being able to min-max, their sectors governors give some advantages. And in the end, while both stiles of play are valid, no one is inherently better.

I think the mentality, "90% of people won't like this, let's not even give the option" is the wrong way to go.
 
  • 12
  • 8
Reactions:
Can a system be part of several sectors? Or can a planet within the core territory be part of a sector, while the rest of the system is not?
 
Does the Civilization series demand that you put city development on "auto"? No! It gives you the option! Giving the players options, what a concept.
By the by, Civ 5 basically does do this. You pretty much can't afford to directly manage captured cities and need to leave them as automated "puppets". I feel that it makes Civ 5 have the least tedious end-game of the series.

I like basically everything about this DD.
 
  • 9
  • 1
Reactions:
This must be one of the best ideas in a game I have seen for a long time... it's like having your cake and eating it at the same time... ;)

I like micromanagement but only on a lower scale... forcing the use of AI governors is a good thing because now you don't have the option to micro manage everything and will not feel forced to because it will always be better than using AI.

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.
 
  • 7
  • 1
Reactions:
This sounds really fun, can't wait for this game to come out. Keep up the good work

Another thing that has nothing to do with this DD, but im gonna write this anyways, this is my post 800. Yay me. :D
 
  • 1
Reactions:
How does colonization work in sectors? Will local authorities colonize for you? And if I colonizea planet within a sector will it be automatically added to it?
 
  • 2
Reactions: