• 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 really, really wished that there wouldn't be a hard limit to the amount of planets you could control yourself. I assume we'll be able to redraw the borders as we please, correct?

You'd obviously be able to colonize and conquer other star systems, yes :p
 
I really, really wished that there wouldn't be a hard limit to the amount of planets you could control yourself. I assume we'll be able to redraw the borders as we please, correct?
It won't be a hard limit. The Dev Diary says you will lose income and Influence if you cross the planet limit.
 
  • 4
  • 1
Reactions:
I'm a bit skeptical towards this sector business.
But I'll put some faith into Wiz' abilities to make them useful, and that somebody else makes sure that sectors aren't a sure-fire way to loose planet to rebellion! :p
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I acknowledge the problem of micro, and that needs a solution.

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.

We don't know how Administrative Sectors work, and what tool's we have to manage it. But that in same way will not be enough.

This solution by it self is a political imposition that makes a some small sense in a Republic or Federation or Democracy, it does not make any sense in a Centralized Empire.

If the mechanics impose a Centralized Empire to run amok with ideology, then don't reference a array of political choice because it is lie.

I think the solution as it is diminishes the game. And it's a bit lazy.

The Administrative Sectors Should be a option, and not the only option.

A possible solution with this mechanics would be a Home Sector and a Single Administrative sector that would be very well controlled by the ruler, by some mandatory orders. If you are imposing a restraining mechanic, at least give us some tools for us to mold the Empire instead of mandatory degenerated Sectors.


One of the things that this game have that non of the others had was the freedom to build a Empire as we see fit. This mechanic as it is eliminates that freedom.
 
  • 15
  • 3
Reactions:
This was invented because you thought some people would have issues with the micromanagement of a large empire? So what purpose did making it mandatory serve?
I would be shocked if it wasn't moddable. Indeed, given that it will probably be as simple as changing a number in the defines (in the same way that demesne limit in CK2 can be changed), it will likely be one of the very first mods out there, if you don't feel comfortable modding it yourself.

So, it essentially is optional, it just isn't officially supported and requires a minor bit of extra effort on your end.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
I think the solution as it is diminishes the game. And it's a bit lazy.

You may feel it diminishes the game, fine, that's your opinion. But lazy? For sectors to work properly you need to do a good job with the AI that will run them, and AI is quite possibly the hardest thing to get right.

It's a hell of an odd decision if Paradox wanted to be lazy.
 
  • 14
  • 1
Reactions:
Seems like nice way to deal with micro. Well done.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
Are sector setups are basically a pyramid where instead of a planetary grid, you with a sector grid? I will still have issues as to which planets the sector governor decides to improve, like investing the 80% of the sectors economy on a planet on the edge of his sector in my empire that has a 90% chance of being captured/destroyed by an enemy empire when I want it to be a mining colony I can afford to lose. Also when can a star system be added to a sector and what is the minimum requirement for a star system to become a sector capital? Is it just any star system within 2 jumps? is it a predefined area of space at star system generation? Do you capture the entire sector by just planting a colony in a sector/sub-region? do you lose the entire sector by losing one star system in it to an invasion be it the sector capital or not?
 
granddad:
It's the same reason CK2 works the way it does, the leaders could not manage an unlimited demesne and you can't just say you must have the ability to manage everything without ruining your nation. It's the same reason why even nation states today have to limit whatever constitutes the capital area to a small part of the country, unless the country itself is small and unitary, and even then you need at least one subdivision to take care of local matters.

This. I live in a city-state where you drive across the whole length of the country in less than an hour, and there STILL is quite a lot of subdivision of administration for various things.

While advanced space-faring civilisations will undoubtedly have vastly improved communication and bureaucracies compared to what we have, the size and distance of things is also exponentially greater.

I guess an important point to remember is that centralisation vs. decentralisation isn't a black or white dichotomy. It's a smooth continuum between the two. The most centralised of great empires will have some degree of decentralisation, and vice versa.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
I really like this move by PI.

Personally, I wouldn't have minded this during the 2nd half of my World Conquest achievement run. It gets extremely boring late game; I have yet to get the Just a Little Patience achievement (play until 1820) and I have over 1000 hours played.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, let's work from your example given...

You say there are 10 planet decisions per minute of gameplay. This means you have ~6 seconds to get to the planet, decide what decision is due, analyze the planet's current situation, decide the best course of action, then click to implement said action. In a single player, peacetime, environment that is probably not prohibitive in most instances, especially when you can pause the game if further consideration is warranted. However. that can change pretty dramatically in a multi-player, wartime, situation where taking your eyes off the warfront for even a few seconds at the wrong time could result in a catastrophic loss.

That is not what I said. I said "during a period of time". I did not say that period was 1 minute. It would be unlikely, unless playing at top speed, that 10 decisions would come up in 1 minute. 10 in 10 minutes, much more likely. Please don't have me saying things I didn't.

Or, wow, you might have to pause the game!
 
  • 7
  • 3
Reactions:

So, your opinion is different than mine. That's great. I like what I like, you like what you like. We will never agree.

The only thing I will respond to is your comment that you don't think I know what micro management is. You may be correct, because to me all the things spoke about, and more, are just management. I see no difference between making 10 planetary decisions and 10 decisions on where to send an exploration ship. So you explain to me why 10 planetary decisions are "micro management" and 10 scout ship decisions are not.
 
  • 8
  • 3
Reactions:
Ah give it a rest.
You just keep banging the same tired old drum about how we should be able to micromanage every planet if we want to and ignoring the huge range of arguments people have made in support of the sector system.
Such as this,

And this

Just to point out the most recent ones.

And you shouldn't get so upset about receiving a few "respectfully disagree" checks on your post. You are on the thread of a developer diary where you are raising objections to how you perceive a particular mechanic of the game will or should work. Although you are certainly not alone in your opinion, you "I wanna micromanage every single planet" guys do seem to be a vocal minority, so people respectfully disagreeing with you is simply an efficient way to let the devs know that people respectfully disagree with your opinion, without everyone having to post saying,


"I do say, I respectfully disagree with you sah!".

You like it, I don't. I respectfully disagree with you sir.
 
  • 9
  • 3
Reactions:
You can't expect them to "make it an option" every time someone, somewhere disagrees with one of their design decisions. It's ridiculous.

I don't like the tile management at all, I want settlements instead. Make that an option. Some people don't like the EU4 style diplomacy and war goals. Make it an option! We had a thread on how some people don't like caps on numbers in fleets. Better make that an option. What about the card system for techs, maybe someone would like a traditional tech tree instead? That's an option right there. I'd kinda like to see some tactical combat - Paradox better design, implement and balance one, then make it an option. It's ridiculous, you'd end up with no game, just a 'make your own game kit' but none of the games you could make would be any good because none of them would have been properly designed or balanced, nor would they have AI that works with them.

To be honest, I don't like the EU4 based diplomacy and war goals, nor a cap on the number of ships in a fleet. Tactical combat would be great! Sign me up!

I am not a game designer, and the odds are you are not either. It might be very difficult to code these items as options, or it might not be. I do not have any personal knowledge.

I am sure of two things though. 1) Having more options is more likely to entice more purchasers than fewer options. 2) I personally deplore this movement to make things "easier", to reduce "micro management" and make games "more accessible". I like things to be hard. There is much more satisfaction to achieving something when it is hard than when it is easy. Especially as I know this is not the "modern" view I try to take every opportunity I see to fight back against these trends. I may be the King Canute of gaming, but I will continue to agitate for what I want, and I expect that others will agitate for what they want.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
2) I personally deplore this movement to make things "easier", to reduce "micro management" and make games "more accessible". I like things to be hard.

Ordinarily I'd agree with you on the dumbing down of games, but insofar as the Paradox GSG genre is concerned it seems less about micromanagement and more about simulating the natural physical and mental limitations of an in-game empire.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
So sectors have no ships, that means all local defense ships and shipyards are under empire control? Do we have to build local defenses on planet? Are there local planetary defenses, planetary lasers and missile launchers, moon based weapons, fighter bases, etc.. Do we build them on each planet if we want defenses do these just appear as some statistical defense number in an invasion scenario?

Where do we build ships? can we place shipyards in any star system or are we forced to place them at sector capitals?
 
I for one am glad for the sector governors. I enjoy the idea that I will be able to play multiplayer without just throwing in the flag 5 minutes in because I am not able to match up to the twitchy Star Craft APM kiddo who is hard lining redbull and yellowjackets :p

For those people who want to do it: You can, just accept that the game has a few penalties added in for cumbersome government, that is your option if you want to go it, you are just upset because the penalties are on the players who don't use the AI to help them rather than the other way around.

As for "Realistic" yes, even centralized dictatorships still have a select few they delegate matters to. They don't plan out every building in every town, in their whole country. They might take charge of a few projects here and there, which is represented in this by having a few select worlds under the flag of the primary ruler, you grab control back from the person you delegated it to and do what you want.
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
Guys, give RickInVA a break. I think he's got a point; more options are nice, even if most people only ever use one of them. Ridiculing others because of a difference of opinion (for example, calling them a "vocal minority") is not cool, not cool at all. If given the option, I personally would go for the sectors pretty much every time, but that does't mean that the option shouldn't exist. Other people (such as, for instance, RickInVA) might well prefer the other choice; this doesn't mean that they are wrong, only that they have other tastes, and that is not a bad thing. In fact, it's far better than the alternative.
 
  • 5
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Am i the only one who pretty much deduced already everything long beforehand?
The sole surprise here was that you could tax them and that they do not field their own (battle-) fleets.

They do however have fleets of various civilian crafts like constructors and likely colony ships.
Which is why it would have been simply logical to assume they would have the means to protect those assets too...
 
  • 2
Reactions: