• 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 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!

It does tie in nicely with the other mechanics they highlighted regarding migration and factions though.
You CAN micro more planets but there will be penalties (as described in the DD). It's perfectly reasonable that your central government (in most cases and for most governemt types, exceptions seem to exist) can't micromanage an entire empire without consequences. The Heavy Foot of Government and Bureaucratic Inefficiency is a very real phenomenon and the very reason why almost all successful states through history has a tiered chain of command with increasing autonomy for menial tasks.
In Stellaris you at least get the option on how, when and how much as well as technology and different styles of government that gives the player the possibility to improve the efficiency (thus the number of directly controled planets).

You can always easily mod the game by raising the base demesne (or whatever it's called in Stellaris) just like in CK2 if you so wish if you're hellbent on managing it all by yourself without penalties.
 
Last edited:
  • 22
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
So more like the states/regions/prefectures of present day nation states - they may be responsible for promoting industry, public transport, law enforcement / courts / local legislation, health care, education and so on... But the military, major laws and external relations are a matter for the central government. It's not entirely like the very independent CK2 vassals as people seem to fear.

I like it.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
love the setup of sectors. i really hope for some more peace-time interactions with the sectors besides setting up how much you tax them or not, but this is a fine beginning.

really like that i can gift them starting resources to get things going..

somebody else already asked but can i still build ships in systems that are part of a sector?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I'd prefer if I was given the choice instead of being forced into Demense size mechanics. You could keep sector administrators and all the other mechanics, but I would have the capability to go to a specific planet and order how things will be done, or order the construction of a specific building or how a special resource will be exploited. I don't trust the AI to manage things the way I'd like them to be, and very often I'm right. While I don't mind tedious micromanagement at all, I actually enjoy it. The more important question here is, if I have a multi-species empire and one administrative sector behaves differently than the rest of the empire, in a way I don't want them to behave (e.g. they exterminate/enslave other species whereas I don't want them to or they accept other species, when I'm the one doing the exterminating) can I go in and reprimand them or change how they behave? I don't mind any repercussions from this action, but I'd like to be able to take it.

EDIT: I see a lot of people having the same opinion but being "respectfully disagreed" with. I don't mind it, but please do explain your reasons. I'm trying to be as compromising here as possible. I'd like to understand what's so wrong with having choices how to play the game, without compromising Achievements and Ironman mode?
 
Last edited:
  • 12
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
So more like the states/regions/prefectures of present day nation states - they may be responsible for promoting industry, public transport, law enforcement / courts / local legislation, health care, education and so on... But the military, major laws and external relations are a matter for the central government. It's not entirely like the very independent CK2 vassals as people seem to fear.

I like it.

I would love to see some possibility for semi-autonomous sectors though. Not always but for certain species and governments. Having to rely on a feudal-like system lik CK2 when calling upon the military might of your space-empire (Dune style or Iron Empires) would be a nice touch. Also it would make for a nice diplomatic/political game mechanic dealing with such empires as an outsider. The xenophobe lords of sector X might not like the trade agreement their High Lord signed with your empire and thus raid your merchant fleets. Do you go to war and risk galvanizing your opponent or take the loss and try to sow dissent between the opposing empires lords to divide and conquer at a later time?
 
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd prefer if I was given the choice instead of being forced into Demense size mechanics. You could keep sector administrators and all the other mechanics, but I would have the capability to go to a specific planet and order how things will be done, or order the construction of a specific building or how a special resource will be exploited. I don't trust the AI to manage things the way I'd like them to be, and very often I'm right, while I don't mind tedious micromanagement at all, I actually enjoy it.

Same here, bums me out a bit to see the way this feature is headed. (after weeks of a consecutive hype-train, choochoo!) I'd love it if it came without the aspect of giving up that control.

But then again, it can probably be modded so that everyone who does not like it/wants it changed can still enjoy the rest of their game. Yay!
 
  • 7
  • 4
Reactions:
I'd prefer if I was given the choice instead of being forced into Demense size mechanics. You could keep sector administrators and all the other mechanics, but I would have the capability to go to a specific planet and order how things will be done, or order the construction of a specific building or how a special resource will be exploited. I don't trust the AI to manage things the way I'd like them to be, and very often I'm right. While I don't mind tedious micromanagement at all, I actually enjoy it. The more important question here is, if I have a multi-species empire and one administrative sector behaves differently than the rest of the empire, in a way I don't want them to behave (e.g. they exterminate/enslave other species whereas I don't want them to or they accept other species, when I'm the one doing the exterminating) can I go in and reprimand them or change how they behave? I don't mind any repercussions from this action, but I'd like to be able to take it.

EDIT: I see a lot of people having the same opinion but being "respectfully disagreed" with. I don't mind it, but please do explain your reasons. I'm trying to be as compromising here as possible. I'd like to understand what's so wrong with having choices how to play the game, without compromising Achievements and Ironman mode?

"This tile is now condemned in the name of the Emperor. I'm sorry but I'm going to raze your little hospital city here because this spot is a good place for my imperial summer palace.
They dare rise against my edict? Send in the stormtroopers!"

It seems we're not forced to do anything but keeping to much under central control will mean dealing with penalties.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
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?

Why should I be at a penalty in efficiency if I don't want to micro hundreds of planets? The way that provides the most advantage is the way that people will play, even if it's not fun. Also, it's easy to say that you would have fun microing hundreds of planets, it's another thing to do it, in real time.

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.

I'm sure there will be plenty of player options in Stellaris. Civ is not a real-time game with potentially hundreds of planets under your control. Also, providing options is not cost-free in terms of effects on gameplay and development time. They have to focus on gameplay paths that are actually feasible in terms of player attention.

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.

This sounds like hyperbole to me. There are a huge number of things to exploit and expand as the game moves along. Research, ship design and construction plans, defensive structure design and deployment, diplomacy, internal politics, laws, rebellions and ethos drift. Exploration in Stellaris is not something that peters out after the early game.

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!

The combination of planetary tile system and the sector system gives the player something to manage and exploit in the early game and throughout the entire game without the task growing to gargantuan proportions. As the empire expands, the focus of the emperor naturally shifts to other concerns.

Instead of thinking of it as taking away your giant pile of micro, think of it as the designers giving you a steady diet of micro. I guarantee that the alternative design to having sectors is not "manage a hundred planets and a thousand tiles in realtime", but a far more abstract economy that completely lacks that level of detail.
 
  • 14
  • 4
  • 2
Reactions:
i like some micromanagement, but theres is a point wheres its become just boring endless repetition, this is a 4x but also a GRAND strategy game, and in real life no government could never maintain absolute power over all its states without any penalty

i play the civilization series, that i also love, but I always end up seeing me do the same thing in all my cities is BORING
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Same here, bums me out a bit to see the way this feature is headed. (after weeks of a consecutive hype-train, choochoo!) I'd love it if it came without the aspect of giving up that control.

But then again, it can probably be modded so that everyone who does not like it/wants it changed can still enjoy the rest of their game. Yay!

Sure, but for once, I'd like to play a Paradox game the way I enjoy it and be able to get achievements. I think giving us options to customize our experience would be a lot better than modding those options in.
 
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I think the mentality, "90% of people won't like this, let's not even give the option" is the wrong way to go.

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.
 
  • 11
  • 3
Reactions:
Since when have paradox games ever been about obsessively min-maxing provinces? I recognise that that's something some people enjoy but there are plenty of games that already work that way.

Not every games required to be tailored exactly to your personal whims.
 
  • 13
Reactions:
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.)

What happens if you lose planets from your sector to enemy conquest (or something else), such that the Sector gets split in two? Will all planets remain part of the Sector, or will you have to do something about those that get isolated from the capital?

E.g. in the first screenshot, what happens if Deteenal in the Alvyrra III sector gets annexed by the enemy?
 
  • 2
Reactions:
"This tile is now condemned in the name of the Emperor. I'm sorry but I'm going to raze your little hospital city here because this spot is a good place for my imperial summer palace.
They dare rise against my edict? Send in the stormtroopers!"

Ha, but since we are talking about AI, what if the hospital is built on top of ancient alien burial ground?

It seems we're not forced to do anything but keeping to much under central control will mean dealing with penalties.

Sure, but I'd still like to have the option. Just as you said, I might want to play as a ruthless dictator, or I might want to play a hive species where concepts of individuality are innexistant. CK2's system is something that is there for historical reasons, and the whole game is centered around having vassals. I don't see why Stellaris NEEDS to have the same mechanics, since we are still dealing with migrating pops and not individual vassals, as well as governments/species that would be incompatible with sector governors.
 
  • 7
  • 7
Reactions:
In regards to the "Manage Sector" button present in the second screenshot; would this be used simply to set focus for the sector and set taxes, or could the player take micro-control over sector planets for brief periods of time, while letting the AI go about its business the rest of the time?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Ha, but since we are talking about AI, what if the hospital is built on top of ancient alien burial ground?
The local plebs, uncivilized as they are, obviously don't understand such things. And the Imperial Stormtroopers cares little for xeno burial grounds, they're bred for a different purpose.


Sure, but I'd still like to have the option. Just as you said, I might want to play as a ruthless dictator, or I might want to play a hive species where concepts of individuality are innexistant. CK2's system is something that is there for historical reasons, and the whole game is centered around having vassals. I don't see why Stellaris NEEDS to have the same mechanics, since we are still dealing with migrating pops and not individual vassals, as well as governments/species that would be incompatible with sector governors.
Well we can define our sectors any way we like (as long as they're coherent) so it's not as the vassal system per-se. If you want that particular strategic or otherwise important planet under personal control then don't include it into a sector. It doesn't seem to be like CK2 where your vassal starts behaving like an angry 2-year old just because you took away his income, power, prestige and heritage by reclaiming some counties to crown control and awarded him the honorary title of court jester.
Sector governors don't rebel as described in the DD.

Judging from the screenshots you can chose not to tick the "allow redevelopment" checkbox for each sector so that tiles already defined by you don't change.
 
Last edited:
  • 6
Reactions: