• 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 personally think sectors are as important for gameplay mechanics as much as for removing micromanagement. It is not realistic to run a galaxy spanning empire from one planet. Therefore the mechancis allow you to take it to a set level before it becomes inefficient. Its not to say you cant go past that point as it is a soft cap its just that you are gently nudged to decentralise your empire. To remove this mechanic is to completely alter the gameplay itself. I imagine in future expansions sectors will also involve far more than just admin.

Im sure a mod will develop for those that want this mechanic removed.
 
  • 8
Reactions:
So, because you can't\don't want to perform as good as other person you want to strip him from using some features so he can't do it too?. Well, that certainly not the nicest thing i read there.

And, btw, i think ppl should go and read Stardock forums on GC3. The had tried all approaches to planet management problems.
1) At first there were no automation at all. And that was rather tedious for some ppl to manage.
2) Later they introduced governors. And we discovered the real reason why where were no governors in initial release. They suck on grand scale. They were dumber than bread. They where the reason why players outperform AI that much. And don't forget Stardock was almost boasting about how good their AI was! And what's why, with all due respect to Paradox and Stardock, i'm extremely caution toward all: "our AI will be good". GC3 and HoI3 showed me that it wouldn't.
3) They tweaked AI a bit and made governors mandatory the same way the are supposed to be in Stellaris. A couple of manually controlled planets and other must be controlled by AI. Players performance still decreased significantly.
4) Now they returned to p.1 with governors being optional but still took a good part of customization after removing planetary wheel and changing it to focuses.

So, in the end, artificial restrictions of players doesn't turn out well.

Except the player can do it if he wants to, the game just adds another layer of challenge in doing so by having such a monolithic government have drawbacks.

There are drawbacks to both sides

Full player control: Complete control and optimization. Drawback: More discontent and lower tax efficiency

AI assisted control: Control over a select few worlds, with the AI handling the rest. Drawback: The AI is not as optimized and lacks the ability to support the overall plan.

The problem omes when some people want one thing to have no drawbacks at all, and thus making someone who chooses to do things the other way a failure.

Edit: I would also note that this is pretty much exactly what people asked for when they wanted a difference between Wide empires and Tall empires.

A wide empire has to rely on sector governors to manage their things, making them less efficient, while Tall empires can have a smaller number of systems but have them completely undertheir control, while keeping you from going both Tall and Wide.
 
Last edited:
  • 3
Reactions:
It is not realistic to run a galaxy spanning empire from one planet.
Im sure a mod will develop for those that want this mechanic removed.

Sorry, i kind of missed the moment where we met all different races in the galaxy and it turned out they all use feudal monarchy as their ideal form of government. And they all have government. And they are "real" so we can decide what are "realistic" and what aren't. All cybernetic, hive-mind, one-mind, mushroom-like beings and beings made from pure energy all use feudal monarchy like government form. It's a waste, don't you think?
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
Sorry, i kind of missed the moment where we met all different races in the galaxy and it turned out they all use feudal monarchy as their ideal form of government. And they all have government. And they are "real" so we can decide what are "realistic" and what aren't. All cybernetic, hive-mind, one-mind, mushroom-like beings and beings made from pure energy all use feudal monarchy like government form. It's a waste, don't you think?

I hope we sometime get to play those sort of races but if playing them requiers a different kind of mechanic that is now planned, I'd rather let the devs focus on the current one properly and wait them to have their on dlc.

Also I missed the part where having administrative sectors is considered "feudal monarchy". Doesn't sound too dissimilar from what the US has with states, just in a larger scale. We are yet to see how playing different types of goverments affects the system.
 
  • 6
Reactions:
If I manage to make the sector AI so good that it's outperforming an experienced player, I'd worry less about game balance and more about skynet.

Someone buy this man a quantum computer, it's time to evolve from Ironman to Skynet :p .
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Sorry, i kind of missed the moment where we met all different races in the galaxy and it turned out they all use feudal monarchy as their ideal form of government. And they all have government. And they are "real" so we can decide what are "realistic" and what aren't. All cybernetic, hive-mind, one-mind, mushroom-like beings and beings made from pure energy all use feudal monarchy like government form. It's a waste, don't you think?

When there is a hive mind like race for this game or similar then I am sure the sector management will be changed to reflect it for that race with unique mechanics. But as it stands to my knowledge there arent. So 'traditional' government types are likely to be the norm i would suggest. At least initially
 
Except the player can do it if he wants to, the game just adds another layer of challenge in doing so by having such a monolithic government have drawbacks.

There are drawbacks to both sides

Full player control: Complete control and optimization. Drawback: More discontent and lower tax efficiency

AI assisted control: Control over a select few worlds, with the AI handling the rest. Drawback: The AI is not as optimized and lacks the ability to support the overall plan.

The problem omes when some people want one thing to have no drawbacks at all, and thus making someone who chooses to do things the other way a failure.

Edit: I would also note that this is pretty much exactly what people asked for when they wanted a difference between Wide empires and Tall empires.

A wide empire has to rely on sector governors to manage their things, making them less efficient, while Tall empires can have a smaller number of systems but have them completely undertheir control, while keeping you from going both Tall and Wide.

When we actually are advocating the same thing. GC3 governors and planet management turned out pretty bad because it seems like Stardock cannot decide on some game designs even after half a year after release.

On there other side Paradox is doing great job, implementing deep and flexible design such as Administrative sectors from the beginning. The one thing we have argument about is details.

I'm absolutely not against penalties for managing planets personally. I'm for severe penalty for overstretching your Empire(depending on it's government type and race - to hell with giant blobs we see in every 4X). I'm all for outsourcing mundane and dull planets to AI.

But from initial post i get an impression that penalty is going to kick in fast and hard, actually forcing player to AI-govern 90% of it's empire, literally not allowing you to mange all critical planets and planets you have to supervise right now (due to war, event, etc).

And, btw, are we be able to remove planet from "Sector" if said planet suddenly change it's usefulness due to event or something else. How it would impact things like separatism or another game mechanics alredy mentioned in other Diaries.
 
in ck2 you can build stuff in your vassals castles/cities and temples.... will we be able to change the build order in those sectors also?

personally i would make it depending on government form.. some militaristic centralized empire would always stop doing anything else but the task the superior just told him to.. e.g. if the emperor tells the sector governour to build this freaking mining station with highest priority.. he will order to do it
in a totally decentralized realm the governour would probably say: "thanks for your suggestion, I'll take in into consideration" and then throw it into the trash because he wants the new shiny research lab asap

on the other side.. the more decentralized a realm is the more bonus in efficiency, tax income, research etc. they should have (also less corruption and less rebellion)..
they don't build what you want, but if they build something they do it fast and efficient ;)
 
  • 2
Reactions:
And, btw, are we be able to remove planet from "Sector" if said planet suddenly change it's usefulness due to event or something else. How it would impact things like separatism or another game mechanics alredy mentioned in other Diaries.

Judging by the second screen shot it's a simple tick box option so my guess is that its very easy to remove a system from a sector. Of course this could be wrong but I can't see why I would be.

Unrelated to your post I think people need to calm down a bit here. Your starting to slip in to insults and and even elitism (and I'm not just targeting one side of the debate) and that creates a toxic and not unfriendly forum. So if you can't say what you want to without being overly insulting maybe reconsider what you have to say and why you feel the need to say it in such a way....
 
  • 6
Reactions:
Ooh yeah, lets pander to the lowest common denominator, people who are too stupid to figure out that they're bored or people too arrogant to click an automation button to the detriment of their own fun.

On a personal level I think it would be much better for the course of this game if those people didn't play and give feedback.

I'd agree with you if we would talk about a small portion of the player base disliking a game because of it's incremental core feature, for example disliking the unique combat in Undertale instead of a more straightforward combat mechanic where you'd punch the enemy on the face. Well, that's one of the core aspects of the game that people praised and what made it popular, If you don't like it don't play the game.

But, excessive micro management isn't a core feature here, and those who love it with no bounds aren't the core audience. You can have deep micro management that never gets boring because the gameplay rests on it, it is designed to support it and it is not tedious to the target audience. The problem that we are discussing is that, in numerous examples, in many different games both critics and target audience have disliked the game because of tedious mid- to end-game planet/sector management and think that it is a major downside of the game. If some find it attractive, that's fine but if the devs themselves think it is a problem, it is completely reasonable for them to address it the best way they see fit to make the game more accessible to those they intent to sell it to. In this case to anybody who likes sci-fi, 4x, Paradox games, micro management, empire building etc but doesn't have to love micro managing every single detail all the time to enjoy the game. Sometimes that means taking a little bit away from the minority that by accident happened to like the system that everybody else felt was broken.

I understand that people like that and you and others are certainly free and welcome to express your feelings, but don't critisize people like they are inferior to you just because they have different taste. Especially if the devs want to address the matter that all those people wish to be changed.
 
  • 6
  • 1
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd agree with you if we would talk about a small portion of the player base disliking a game because of it's incremental core feature, for example disliking the unique combat in Undertale instead of a more straightforward combat mechanic where you'd punch the enemy on the face. Well, that's one of the core aspects of the game that people praised and what made it popular, If you don't like it don't play the game.

But, excessive micro management isn't a core feature here, and those who love it with no bounds aren't the core audience. You can have deep micro management that never gets boring because the gameplay rests on it, it is designed to support it and it is not tedious to the target audience. The problem that we are discussing is that, in numerous examples, in many different games both critics and target audience have disliked the game because of tedious mid- to end-game planet/sector management and think that it is a major downside of the game. If some find it attractive, that's fine but if the devs themselves think it is a problem, it is completely reasonable for them to address it the best way they see fit to make the game more accessible to those they intent to sell it to. In this case to anybody who likes sci-fi, 4x, Paradox games, micro management, empire building etc but doesn't have to love micro managing every single detail all the time to enjoy the game. Sometimes that means taking a little bit away from the minority that by accident happened to like the system that everybody else felt was broken.

I understand that people like that and you and others are certainly free and welcome to express your feelings, but don't critisize people like they are inferior to you just because they have different taste. Especially if the devs want to address the matter that all those people wish to be changed.

When tell me why in any other recent Paradox game you either must do almost everything yourself(like EU, Vic) or with some reasonable and historical limitation (CK2) or have an ability to choose automate or not almost every non-abstracted feature (Hoi3). I have never read anything like "pls, remove to manually control armies, because i can't do it manually, it's too hard". Why do it now?
How that's different from HoI case? Why instead of giving bonuses for letting AI handle planets, invent severe maulus for manually managing thing.

And why you decide that "core auditory" don't like micro?
 
  • 6
  • 2
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.
Ah don't be so precious. Pointing out that someone's opinion appears to only be held by a minority of people, despite their repeated proclamations is hardly "ridiculing" them. It's merely saying that not everyone supports the idea, not an attack on the person.

This,
Ooh yeah, lets pander to the lowest common denominator, people who are too stupid to figure out that they're bored or people too arrogant to click an automation button to the detriment of their own fun.

On a personal level I think it would be much better for the course of this game if those people didn't play and give feedback.

That's somebody attacking the people rather than their ideas. Also ironically calling people "too arrogant to click an automation button" while clearly suffering from an overabundance of arrogance.

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.

I'm sorry rick, I really do respect your entitlement to your own opinion on the matter, but I really think you're severely underestimating how big an ask, "make it an option" really is.
Especially when compared to what the relative ease (as probably a dozen people have already pointed out) of simply modding the unpenalized planet cap yourself will be. (You don't have to rebalance the entire game, rework faction and however many other mechanics).

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.

I'm hoping the game will feature strategic difficulty instead of the difficulty imposed by wading through tedium.
I don't think that making systems easier to use is even remotely comparable to making the game too easy to do well in. Nobody wants the main difficulty in playing a strategy game to be the burdensome tedium of implementing their decisions, rather than the decisions themselves.

Besides, I hate to be, "that jerk" but there are literally at least a half dozen other space sci-fi 4x games being released this year. Check them out, be an informed consumer. If you don't like the way the design philosophy of Stellaris is panning out, maybe something else will be closer to your heart. Probably most of them will allow you to micromanage every single planet you own, hell, some of them probably won't have an option to let you not micro every single one.
You don't have to buy Stellaris.
But I'm fairly excited about playing the Paradox GSG revamp of the space based 4x rts instead of just yet another re-skin of the same old space based 4x rts framework.
I have to say, so far the mechanics they're describing in the Dev diaries have been living up to and exceeding my hopes. (For the most part)
 
  • 5
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
I personally think sectors are as important for gameplay mechanics.... It is not realistic to run a galaxy spanning empire from one planet.

I totally buy THAT argument. And if I have to choose between having to use Sector Governors and not being able to use them, I definitely choose the former.
 
  • 5
Reactions:
Being honest to those suggesting otherwise, sectors add more micromanagement in the sense it fosters the realistic pressures of a large Empire compared to the more banal features of clicking and monitoring every single planet for build times which has limited effect and scope.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
i'm a bit confused... on the one hand you can only control some planets on your own.. on the other hand you also are only allowed to have a limited amount of sectors in game (probably based on research, government and size etc.)
So to restrict the player to only tend some planets sounds like the planet management is boring as hell after a while... on the other hand, it seems that you can't give all planets to AI sectors and just concentrate on the rest of the game.. so you are also forced to do this colony building stuff, even if you don't want to

then again IF we are not allowed to build in AI sectors ourselves, you can get direct control on a colony (remove from a sector if needed), build all the stuff there, give it to a sector and restrict the AI to not overbuild your stuff... in the end, you give the AI a full maxed out (gamey) colony... this doesn't make any sense for balancing reasons either.. for these max--out guys it's just annoying tedious to remove the planets from AI, build the stuff they want it to have and give it back?
 
  • 2
Reactions: