• 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:
Your feelings of guilt and inadequacy are your own responsibility and should not affect game design.

Besides, one way to set it up could be to give certain minor benefits (as outlined earlier in this thread) for creating Sectors.

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 implementation of sectors and governors instead of allowing the player to micromanage 20+ planets or systems is a much cooler idea to both fix a possible issue and add a perfectly fitting mechanic for this kind of game. Besides people shouldn't just be able to choose which mechanics they want to opt out of because especially if paradox intends to expand on this mechanic in future expansions (as Doomdark mentioned) to make it a core part of the gameplay.
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1
Reactions:
I honestly love the idea, but I would suggest in a sense allow you the player, to still manually build buildings or whatever is needed in the sector (like an over-rulling) and still opt in for a sector / vassal type of thing.

Give the player best of both worlds. For example lets say My empire is huge, now there are 2 planets that are far away from my core planets however in my play I would like them to be essential as a HUB world. But I do not at times want to keep on developing them, so instead I opt for sector / vassal option. But there would be situations where if there is one building I would liek to have there to atleast be able to put it THERE.

I would say call it like a Government or Empirical building. Which im sure is plausible. Would be a good mechanic in the game aswell, lets say the Empire wishes to build a mine in one planet yet the sector is earmarked for Research, then it gives reason for a Protest. lol
 
  • 2
Reactions:
I honestly love the idea, but I would suggest in a sense allow you the player, to still manually build buildings or whatever is needed in the sector (like an over-rulling) and still opt in for a sector / vassal type of thing.

Give the player best of both worlds. For example lets say My empire is huge, now there are 2 planets that are far away from my core planets however in my play I would like them to be essential as a HUB world. But I do not at times want to keep on developing them, so instead I opt for sector / vassal option. But there would be situations where if there is one building I would liek to have there to atleast be able to put it THERE.

I would say call it like a Government or Empirical building. Which im sure is plausible. Would be a good mechanic in the game aswell, lets say the Empire wishes to build a mine in one planet yet the sector is earmarked for Research, then it gives reason for a Protest. lol

that would be pretty cool if it was tied to government/administration type, kind of like how victoria ii had its different econ policies that affect your ability to build factories/railroads/schools. more "galactic federation" types are required to respect local autonomy while centralized empires would be almost expected to interfere.
 
I'm pretty new to this forum but I have noticed that some posters here seem to have a problem with the idea of others having the gall to merely voice concerns over a design decision by Paradox or going against the majority opinion. I am not sure why exactly that is - would people rather this forum was an echo chamber? For the most part we're not trying to force our ideas on other people - so I don't get the backlash - and neither is "Paradox said it will be this way so you can't argue against it" a valid response to alternative ideas when that is one of the points of being able to discuss something in the first place (critique it and consider hypothetical alternatives).
 
  • 8
  • 7
Reactions:
You cannot have 50 planets Civ style and keep a good flow to the real time gameplay.This is not a turn based game.I was surprised Paradox even had planet building at this scale.The sectors are obviously going to be featured with heavy DLC gameplay and cannot just be changed for some peoples choice.
 
  • 7
  • 2
Reactions:
I honestly love the idea, but I would suggest in a sense allow you the player, to still manually build buildings or whatever is needed in the sector (like an over-rulling) and still opt in for a sector / vassal type of thing.

Give the player best of both worlds. For example lets say My empire is huge, now there are 2 planets that are far away from my core planets however in my play I would like them to be essential as a HUB world. But I do not at times want to keep on developing them, so instead I opt for sector / vassal option. But there would be situations where if there is one building I would liek to have there to atleast be able to put it THERE.

I would say call it like a Government or Empirical building. Which im sure is plausible. Would be a good mechanic in the game aswell, lets say the Empire wishes to build a mine in one planet yet the sector is earmarked for Research, then it gives reason for a Protest. lol

There was nothing stopping the player from building stuff in his vassal's territories for CK2. But you paid for it at the expense of not building up your personal domain armies and structures. In certain situations, such as being constantly raided or attacked by enemies, the feudal lord in CK2 could personally fund walls and fortifications in territories he didn't directly control.

Given that Stellaris is going to adopt the CK2 relationships, minus some features they didn't need, I wouldn't worry too much about "lack of control" over your territories.
 
I too would like a sliding scale for planetary/sector control, dictated by government type/ethos, and the situation on the individual planet. For instance, if a planet has recently been conquered or colonized, I don't think it should necessarily be immediately absorbed into a Sector governate, unless the player allows that. Instead, it would be both more interesting, in that the player could shape the planet's direction, and more realistic, in that acclamation would take time, if such planets could temporarily fall either under direct Imperial rule (affecting demanse cap) or be placed in a sort of "Special Administrative Zone," which would functionally be a less autonomous sector, in order to allow the central government to dictate the planet's initial direction. Especially useful in the post-war reconstruction phase.

TL;DR I like player control and autonomy, and would enjoy seeing specialized sector types
 
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...
Will it be possible to 'gerrymander' sectors in order to divide troublesome ideologies and races?
 
Last edited:
  • 1
Reactions:
I acknowledge the problem of micro, and that needs a solution.

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.

When has any Empire ever been centralised to the point they didn't have Governors, Viceroys etc?

Answer..

Never..

There is no such thing as a centralised Empire. In any form of Government, you will find layers of administration simply because the central Government cannot run everything.

I like this sector idea, I also like micromanagement, but not only does this help with running your Empire and fits nicely into RP stuff, but it also can be fleshed out into some lovely possibilities in DLC/expansions. Anyone whining about it is short-sighted, in my opinion.
 
  • 9
  • 2
Reactions:
I hoped for a Little Bit more Informations, but I like these "Administrative Sectors" ("A. Sectors") ...

A few Questions ...
1. Are "A. Sectors" (like Duchies in CK2) the only Organisation-Structure or have we "A. OVER-Sectors" (like Kingdoms in CK2), too ? ...
2. Have I the Ability to create ((Maybe,) At Least to have a fully organized Empire/Federation) an "A. Sector"/+/"A. Over-Sector" ((Maybe,) to get a Bonus/ To avoid a Malus) for MYSELF ? ...
 
Last edited:
While I agree that too much micromanagement is boring, the opposite is also bad.

Games like Distant Worlds and Sword of the Stars have an extremely barebones colony management (also for convenience) coupled with heavy automisation features (especially in Distant Worlds) which at some point makes you basically just the "Guy who sends the fleets around". If that much.

It lacks a connection to your planets and population (which are both essentially just numbers) and tends to get pretty tedious, in its own way.

I much prefer a middle ground, where the planets have some character. Where you don't just have "Terran Planet #1-#12", but Forge Worlds, Agrarian Planets, Megacities, Vacation hubs etc. etc. Anything that gives the planets some individuality. But in order to do that you need some means of control, that I hope isn't stripped away in favor of bland automisation.
If you sincerely feel that way about Distant World's you need to reduce your automation levels. EVERYTHING in Distant Worlds can be automated... or not. It's entirely dependent on the settings you use, and how you set it all up.

Everyone calls Stellaris the successor to MoO2, etc; but it really isn't. Personally, it feels like an evolution to Distant Worlds due to how many similar mechanics they use, the scale of development, etc. Part of why I'm so excited for it. (And for those of you who have never played Distant Worlds, totally take a look at it. It's a fantastic game, and will help curb the Stellaris urges (atleast it has for me))
 
If you sincerely feel that way about Distant World's you need to reduce your automation levels. EVERYTHING in Distant Worlds can be automated... or not. It's entirely dependent on the settings you use, and how you set it all up.

Everyone calls Stellaris the successor to MoO2, etc; but it really isn't. Personally, it feels like an evolution to Distant Worlds due to how many similar mechanics they use, the scale of development, etc. Part of why I'm so excited for it. (And for those of you who have never played Distant Worlds, totally take a look at it. It's a fantastic game, and will help curb the Stellaris urges (atleast it has for me))

My biggest problem with Distant Worlds was the lack of proper AI to handle the automation necessary to handle so many things that were going on (unfortunately to be expected from a game designed by one person). The ship design automation AI was bad and depended on a list of sub-optimal designs. The taxation AI did not lower taxes to optimize growth. The fleet formation AI often refused to form fleets at all. The military AI attacked useless targets (and often suicided fleets on clearly overpowered ones) while ignoring good targets.

I really, really like the big-picture direction Stellaris is headed, but it will definitely be in need of a competent AI.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
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.

Aside from the discussion of Sectors, I certainly hope that each star does not generally have multiple habitable, exploitable, planets. 1 out of 10 should have something to exploit, not 10 in one.
 
My biggest problem with Distant Worlds was the lack of proper AI to handle the automation necessary to handle so many things that were going on (unfortunately to be expected from a game designed by one person). The ship design automation AI was bad and depended on a list of sub-optimal designs. The taxation AI did not lower taxes to optimize growth. The fleet formation AI often refused to form fleets at all. The military AI attacked useless targets (and often suicided fleets on clearly overpowered ones) while ignoring good targets.

I really, really like the big-picture direction Stellaris is headed, but it will definitely be in need of a competent AI.
It's why I basically play the entire game on manual. Bit more micromanagey (One reason I'm glad to hear the path they're taking for AI contribution on Stellaris), but still a super solid game, especially when you add some of the great mods out there. Few things as satisfying conquering the universe as the klingons, or the ferengi, or the cardassians. :)
 
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.
Why does that bother you? You don't have to be pushed, you can resist if you want to. What difference should it make to you what everyone else does?
 
  • 6
  • 1
Reactions:
The number of planets, people, resources, fleets continue to grow but the system doesn't penaltise you with added planetary micro but added inner politics micro, governor micro, sector micro and so on. Instead of increasing one type of micro, you are needed to manage new types of micro, which you now have time to concertrate on, because the sectors are doing the added work of planetary micro. In short, the game evolves adding depth and freeing players time and focus to where it is really needed.

You feel you will like those other management tasks, and I am happy for you. The task that makes me happiest is to manage my planets. Why should I have to mod the game to keep my happiest task? Why should I want to play a game that virtually insists that I don't do the thing I enjoy most? And lastly, why, if I like all the other things I have seen about the game, should I just keep silent?
 
  • 5
  • 3
Reactions:
It's just as much a matter of leaving the smaller, more minute and tedious tasks to your minions, leaving you to focus on what's actually fun. It's like buying a dishwasher because while you may love to cook and eat food, doing the dishes just isn't as fun.

The same way, selecting 25 provinces and building the same thing in each of them isn't my idea of an enjoyable game experience, hence all the solutions to this we see everywhere, from planetary production templates in Stars! to CK2-style "desmenes" (spelling?), which also work as a good balancing mechanism, in Stellaris.


I'm one of the people who found micro-ing divisions, or worse (ugh) which units belonged to which HQ, and keeping units within HQ range, to be a massive pain in HOI3. Which is why the devs are working on an improved AI control system for HOI4. Just that something is more effective doesn't mean it's always desirable. Some people play games to have fun and enjoy themselves, not as to feel that they have achieved a kind of grand strategy 100% run.

If I like doing the dishes why should I meekly let you force me to use a dishwasher?

Yes, if you do the exact same thing on every province/planet that might be boring. Try doing something different once in a while.

This is my biggest befuddlement. If you don't like doing those things, why on earth would you play HOI3? And again, why should I meekly accept that game systems I love and are part of the greatest enjoyment I get out of the game are taken away so you can just "have fun and enjoy themselves"?
 
  • 8
  • 2
Reactions:
Real World (if such a label can be used here) Example:

We have 50 states in the United States. However, when the Federal Government wanted to build the Interstate Highway System, they did so, and the States had little to no say in it. Similarly with the Roman Empire road construction was planned by the central government.

Yes, all large political entities have subsidiary political units. They take care of things like speed limits and high school budgets. They do not, by and large, decide national policy matters like where to build military bases.

While it is true that our Federal Government does not tell California where to zone for housing, it can deny permits for power plant placement, and dams and other water projects.

So the idea that no central government tells local areas anything, is simply not true.

From a Stellaris perspective it seems entirely reasonable, IMHO, for a central government to tell any and all planets what resources to focus on exploiting, what local unique flora/fauna to research, and what buildings to build (considering that there are likely only 4-8 building to be built on most planets). They are not trying to tell them what local holidays to have, what color to paint houses, or the proper height of backyard fences.

And if you are fine telling your sector administrator these things, how much more trouble is it to click on each of the five planets individually? The way people talk about this you would think you were being asked to prepare tax returns with a pencil and paper. Is it really that hard?

Other than you just don't want to do it, which I have no problem with and welcome Sector Administration to ease your burden, what is wrong with decisions at that scale?
 
  • 8
Reactions:
So all of the minerals and energy credits produced inside administrative sectors go to their respective sector, right? And we can choose whether we want to tax it or not? That's pretty cool.



I also see it as a good way of depopulating alien planets that I want to be populated by my own species. For example, could I create a sector made specially for a specific species of alien subordinates, and the planets populated by these same aliens but that are not inside that sector could start to see a number of aliens leaving to live under their "official" sector? If that's the case, then great, they will be opening room for their human overlords without I having to practice some morally questionable methods.

Because planet ghettos are not morally questionable methods?