• 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:
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?

I think it is different to have manually controlled armies, we have those in stellaris and people are fine. I also specifally said that core audience likes micro and empire building and details like in any Paradox game but I made clear that the sort of bad micro I was talking about is continous, tedious microing of hundreds of planets in the end-game. It's not hard, it's boring (for most people) and not something player should spent their focus on. I never myself dictated who are the core, the devs themselves said they don't want excessive amount of micro to be there. On the same time people here are agreeing about the decision and referring to other games where they feel that it has been implanted wrong. You can have incredible amounts of deep micro without overdoing it on one particular aspect (planet management for example).

I'd also like that the limits are made soft like penalties and not hard number limits, in support of the sector system. But I think that the sector system offers so many possibilities to make different types of goverments and cultures unique by how they organise sectors and react to events happening to their sectors, that I'd support it just for that alone.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
It is quite feasible to have planetary management that is fun when you have 2 or 3 planets, but boring when you have 20 or 30.

Personally, I like making important decisions. If you have only a few planets, what to be building currently at each planet is an important decision. If you have 30 planets, deciding what to build at your planets becomes a larger number of less important decisions. Switching the management to sectors is one way of keeping the number of decisions per turn constant. If a well designed system, the decisions you have to make at your sectors will be interesting. It is a way of making the late game similar to the early game. A smaller number of important decisions versus a larger number of less important decisions.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
Tactical combat would be great! Sign me up!

It would, but I don't think it's worth the dev time and design problems it would cause for, e.g. multiplayer are worth them including it.

I am sure of two things though. 1) Having more options is more likely to entice more purchasers than fewer options.

I seriously doubt that it makes any difference, most people will be completely unaware about available options before they make a purchase.

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.

Micromanagement of provinces beyond the early game is not "hard" or "challenging", except insofar-as overcoming one's boredom and irritation are challenges.

It also makes absolutely no difference to the outcome of the game: I can happily beat SMAC on transcend, for example, without endlessly fiddling with the placement of works on ever single base one of the 20 or 30 bases I might own on a large map after about 2300. The handful of extra resources you get from doing this do not materially affect the outcome of the game.

It is fine if you take pleasure in this degree of obsessive perfectionism, but please don't try and pretend it's some kind of higher form of gameplay.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
I think it is different to have manually controlled armies, we have those in stellaris and people are fine. I also specifally said that core audience likes micro and empire building and details like in any Paradox game but I made clear that the sort of bad micro I was talking about is continous, tedious microing of hundreds of planets in the end-game. It's not hard, it's boring (for most people) and not something player should spent their focus on. I never myself dictated who are the core, the devs themselves said they don't want excessive amount of micro to be there. On the same time people here are agreeing about the decision and referring to other games where they feel that it has been implanted wrong. You can have incredible amounts of deep micro without overdoing it on one particular aspect (planet management for example).

I'd also like that the limits are made soft like penalties and not hard number limits, in support of the sector system. But I think that the sector system offers so many possibilities to make different types of goverments and cultures unique by how they organise sectors and react to events happening to their sectors, that I'd support it just for that alone.

OK, your post seems totally reasonable at first glance. But where is a couple of things to consider:
1) We arguing about manual planet management will be tedious. But why we deiced so in the first place, even before planet management is properly introduced? Why everyone are so sure it will be boring for average person even after 10th or 20th planet? Maybe building system together with event and anomalies will be fun?
But why make AI governors if planets are so good? Because some people don't won't to bother with it anyway (prefer fleet action or strategic decisions only if not "let the game play itself"). And some planets gonna suck in any game or doesn't request constant monitoring.
2) Second one is about numbers. Numbers of planet. If anything, one of the features that forced me to watch Stellaris very closely is that it would be first 4X game that really going to solve "tall with width" argument, allowing you to have compact, yet effective empire. And in my small effective empire i want no "AI advisers".

And another one about "number of planets" and "core auditory". In GC3 (such a good example in many case, but a negative example too), Stardock gone on a crusade against manual control over planets with a crowd of "microing 100 planets is tedious" cheering them. Then they removed "planet wheel" feature, used to manually adjust planet spending. Then asked why, they answered that majority of players don't even know this feature is present, but allow those who know, to seriously outperform AI. And after asking "how "average" player is playing GC3" it turned out that majority of players plays on normal difficulty on smaller maps and obviously have no need microing a hundred of planets and using "planetary wheel"(because it's not needed on normal). So those who suffered from micro tedious were actually only a part of already small part of players who plays on huge maps. And it's in a game that promoted huge maps as one of the game core features.

So, before introducing some feature, it's better to figure out how a majority of players gonna play it (In other Paradox game we have mandatory map size of "Earth", it;s not a case in Stellaris). Wouldn't it be an over-complication, if for 15 planets empires on "medium" maps player is forced to almost mandatory give AI-control to like 10 of them?
 
  • 3
  • 3
Reactions:
Very interesting concept, but I think it's a pitty that "I'm a micromanagement masochist that wants to handle 100 planetes by himself" is not an option (or probably won't be a viable one due to the maluses)

Also a German Game Magazine (gamestar, the biggest in europe) is claiming that Stellaris is in the Beta stage (probably bc of the missing alpha banners in the screenshtos, on the other hand the same game magazine still printed the release date of February which was leaked in steam, even though I wrote them twice that it's not correct -.-) and PC Gamer even claims that the build that @Doomdark will show in Marhc is "near-complete".
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
Very interesting concept, but I think it's a pitty that "I'm a micromanagement masochist that wants to handle 100 planetes by himself" is not an option (or probably won't be a viable one due to the maluses).

If micro-managing large numbers of planets is not penalised via the game mechanics, then it will always be the optimal strategy. In any game players will want to optimise their strategy. So, without a mechanism for penalising late game micromanagement, players will be pushed in a direction that many find tedious.

You could try to adjust the penalties to a level where both forms of play are feasible, but personally, I don't think one game can simultaneously satisfy both crowds. "Jack of all trades is master of none", and all that.
 
  • 5
  • 2
Reactions:
I think it's fair enough that there should be penalties for managing a large empire directly, as you would find the same in real life. However, I hope these make sense and are not overly harsh or arbitrary (I think it should be more of an exponential curve of inefficiency influenced by a number of factors rather than a discrete limit). I find it a little disappointing that autonomy desire won't be represented at first because this could be both a fun and plausible way to push the player away from micromanagement. I think it would be good if at least one government type (maybe the 'hegemony' type) allowed you to directly govern all planets with no or only a minor penalty to efficiency, but in turn had its own drawbacks. That would allow players who want to control everything to do so without putting pressure on those who don't want this to do the same.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
Whatever Genghis Khan left behind? :D :D
Which was divided between tribal/household leaders for local leadership. That sounds familiar in the context of this discussion. ;)

Additionally, I vaguely remember some sort of formalized division of responsibility of the empire among family prior to Genghis' death (been a while since I read in detail).
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Why do people enjoy busywork.

Why can't you nerds like explosions, borderporn and sexy green aliens like normal people.
Oh, we totally can. In a lot of games out there. But we can only have decent Grand Strategy in Paradox games. And well, grand strategy sometimes requires grand efforts. It's ok, if someone wants to easier the burden, but more effort must lead to better result otherwise it not a "competitive" game.
 
  • 6
  • 2
Reactions:
Very interesting concept, but I think it's a pitty that "I'm a micromanagement masochist that wants to handle 100 planetes by himself" is not an option (or probably won't be a viable one due to the maluses)
I don't know how much I'd mind this, sort of how you can go over your desmene limit in CK2, but I think a mod would be a better choice if you want to micro everything for yourself. That way you'd get to play as you wished without being punished for it ;) .
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Oh, we totally can. In a lot of games out there. But we can only have decent Grand Strategy in Paradox games. And well, grand strategy sometimes requires grand efforts. It's ok, if someone wants to easier the burden, but more effort must lead to better result otherwise it not a "competitive" game.

What does mindless busywork have to do with grand strategies though?

I goddamn love micro, but it scales so badly. On the scales the game presents, managing everything would be a monumental task that would drag on tortuously.
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Oh, we totally can. In a lot of games out there. But we can only have decent Grand Strategy in Paradox games. And well, grand strategy sometimes requires grand efforts. It's ok, if someone wants to easier the burden, but more effort must lead to better result otherwise it not a "competitive" game.

I'd prefer grand strategy to require making grand decisions, not grand efforts.

This is a game. It should be challenging, for sure. But that challenge should come from making difficult decisions, not micro-management tedium.
 
  • 9
Reactions:
So, before introducing some feature, it's better to figure out how a majority of players gonna play it (In other Paradox game we have mandatory map size of "Earth", it;s not a case in Stellaris). Wouldn't it be an over-complication, if for 15 planets empires on "medium" maps player is forced to almost mandatory give AI-control to like 10 of them?

The smallest map size is 200 stars. As stars seem to have something in the range of 1-10 planets each let's call it an average of 5 for simplicity's sake that's 1000 planets in the smallest map size.

I find it highly doubtful that players will ever be content with being such an insignificant faction that at their peak control roughly ~1% of the map. Never mind the fact that the map can be 5 times larger than that..

So in a large map (1000 stars, maybe ~5000 planets) by late game stage it's not inconceivable that your large sprawling mega empire could cover 25% of the galaxy.
Can anybody seriously tell me that they want to micromanage over 1000 individual planets long after the sheer number of them has reduced any strategic significance of personalising the build queue to an negligible factor?
If you do, fine! You will easily be able to mod the number of planets that can directly be controlled without penalty. Add a few 0s to the number, have at it. But please try to realise how unreasonable it is to expect the devs to drastically change the mechanics of the game at such a late stage in its development.
"Add a tick box option for it" as a few have put it, is just a ludicrously naive suggestion.

Some have mentioned how maybe some gov types could have more direct control over more planets, people like mentioning hive minds etc.
Well,
The exact limit for how many planets you can control directly depends on various factors, like your government type and technologies,
Hive minds and such (maybe nomadic system devouring scourge) could make for great dlc content. But for now I really hope they don't waste their valuable time and resources on something so trite as trying to bend over backwards to cater to a slim minority that actually want to micromanage the placement of every single factory on 1000+ planets.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
I'd prefer grand strategy to require making grand decisions, not grand efforts.

This is a game. It should be challenging, for sure. But that challenge should come from making difficult decisions, not micro-management tedium.

And i prefer to has a choice to do micro, if i want. I really can't understand why don't even want to give me a solid choice. I'm not asking to remove AI-governors, but a choice between governors with a bonuses and manual control. It won't even affect multiplayers as in clearly impossible to manage everything in real-time.

And about 200+ planets, 1000+ 1kk+ plus planets you should read my resent post about how it worked out in GC3. Before it turns out that ones with 1000+ planets are the minority.

And once again, no one forcing you to micro, just stop forcing us to give everything to AI.
 
  • 10
  • 4
Reactions:
And i prefer to has a choice to do micro, if i want. I really can't understand why don't even want to give me a solid choice. I'm not asking to remove AI-governors, but a choice between governors with a bonuses and manual control. And once again, no one forcing you to micro, just stop forcing us to give everything to AI.

And once again, a gentle reminder that it'll be easy to mod it in such a way that you CAN micro.
 
  • 7
Reactions:
And i prefer to has a choice to do micro, if i want. I really can't understand why don't even want to give me a solid choice. I'm not asking to remove AI-governors, but a choice between governors with a bonuses and manual control. It won't even affect multiplayers as in clearly impossible to manage everything in real-time.

And about 200+ planets, 1000+ 1kk+ plus planets you should read my resent post about how it worked out in GC3. Before it turns out that ones with 1000+ planets are the minority.

And once again, no one forcing you to micro, just stop forcing us to give everything to AI.

I've already answered this in an earlier post.....

If micro-managing large numbers of planets is not penalised via the game mechanics, then it will always be the optimal strategy. In any game players will want to optimise their strategy. So, without a mechanism for penalising late game micromanagement, players will be pushed in a direction that many find tedious.

You could try to adjust the penalties to a level where both forms of play are feasible, but personally, I don't think one game can simultaneously satisfy both crowds. "Jack of all trades is master of none", and all that.
 
  • 8
  • 1
Reactions:
If micro-managing large numbers of planets is not penalised via the game mechanics, then it will always be the optimal strategy. In any game players will want to optimise their strategy. So, without a mechanism for penalising late game micromanagement, players will be pushed in a direction that many find tedious.
So why people we perfectly OK with allowing AI to handle Armies in HoI3 if manual control is tremendously more effective (even if horribly tedious)? Why they were OK before, but suddenly will mandatory switch to "optimal strategy" in Stellaris or suffer for all eternity?

And btw, if you play on such a huge galaxies, how about other rather common activities? Like anomalies or special planetary events chains? In big galaxies there are going to be bunch of them constantly. You want to auto those too?
 
  • 6
  • 3
Reactions:
I've never played Hol3, so can't really comment on it.

If you are referring to auto-resolving battles in 4X games with tactical combat. I only do this when the battle is trivial - one side has overwhelming odds and no risk of casualties. This is not sub-optimal. Fighting the battle won't give me an advantage.

Regards anomalies and special events. I doubt very much you will see these occurring at the frequency of general planetary management decisions. Otherwise, they wouldn't really be anomalies or special, would they?
 
  • 1
Reactions: