• 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 #126 - Sectors and Factions in 2.2

Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today we're going to continue talking about the 2.2 'Le Guin' update, on the topic of Sectors and Factions. As said before, we're not yet ready to reveal anything about when Le Guin is coming out, only that it's a long time away and we have many more topics to cover before then. Also as said before, screenshots will contain placeholder art and interfaces and non-final numbers.

Sector Rework
Sectors have always been a bit of a controversial feature. Even if you disregard arguments about the general level of competence of the sector AI, the fact that sectors effectively force the player to cede control over all but a few of their planets has never gone down well with certain players. In truth, the decision to force players to give planets to sectors was very much a result of the old tile system - because of the sheer amount of micromanagement that was involved in managing a large number of planets, it was decided that automation was necessary, and also to make that automation mandatory (barring mods) to effectively force players to not make themselves miserable by micromanaging the tiles of a hundred different worlds. With the planetary rework in the Le Guin update, we no longer feel that this mandatory automation is needed any longer, and so we've decided to rework the sector system entirely.

Instead of being autonomous mini-economies, sectors are now administrative units in your empire, with their layout decided by galactic geography, with each sector corresponding to a cluster of stars in the galaxy. Sectors are automatically created when you colonize a planet in a previously uncolonized cluster, and your 'core sector' is simply the cluster in which your capital is located. All interfaces that are relevant to sectors and planets (such as the outliner) are now organized by collapsible sector entries, allowing for better overview and management of a large number of planets. As before, each sector can have a governor assigned to it, but sectors now automatically send all of their production to the empire stockpile instead of having their own fully realized economy. However, since we still want players to be able to offload some of the planetary management when controlling a large number of worlds, it is still possible to allocate resources to a Governor, who will use those resources to develop the planets under their control. This of course means that there is no longer any core sector limit, and anything that previously used to give a bonus to core sector planets has either been changed into a different bonus or removed altogether.

EDIT: Since there's a lot of questions about leader capacity, please read down a bit further in the thread where I address this issue. Thank you!

(Note: Image is highly WIP and has missing elements)
2018_09_20_2.png

Faction Happiness Rework
Factions are also changing in Le Guin, though not to nearly the same degree as sectors. Most of the core mechanics of factions will remain the same, but Faction Happiness is being changed into something we call Faction Approval, measuring how much a Faction approves of your empire's policies. Where previously Factions would only give influence when above a 60% happiness threshold, Factions now always give some influence, with the amount scaling linearly to their Approval, so a 10% Approval faction will give only 1/10th of the influence that a 100% Approval faction gives you (the amount they give also still scales to their share of power in your empire). Faction Approval is also no longer directly applied to Pop Happiness, but rather will affect the happiness of Pops belonging to that faction at different thresholds, with small boosts to happiness at higher levels of approval and increasingly severe penalties to happiness at low levels of approval (effectively swapping the influence threshold for various happiness thresholds).

This should mean that even small boosts to faction approval now directly translates into influence gain, and that factions almost always give *some* benefit, even if that benefit may be outweighed by the unhappiness and unrest they can cause. We're also hoping to have time to review the faction issues, tying them more directly to policies to make them easier to understand. For example, instead of demanding that all species have their rights manually set to Full Citizenship, the Xenophile faction might demand a certain empire-wide policy setting that forces the equal application of species rights across all species.
2018_09_20_1.png


That's all for today! Next week we're continuing to talk about the Le Guin update, on the topic of Trade Value and Trade Routes.
 
Last edited:
What the Heck Wiz?!? I didn't love the old sector system but I liked being able to define the administrative boundaries of my "states". It sounds like now I have no ability to change the borders of such regions? Is this true because that takes away a huge aspect of the game I actually like.
 
@Wiz could you guys make the Transcendent Learning ascension perk give a +xp gain bonus to replace the +leader cap instead of maintenance cost reduction, it's a bit undesirable in the current form and resource abundance towards the mid to late game would render maintenance reductions a waste of a perk.
 
Would it be possible to introduce a way of 'linking' neighboring sectors? Like how you build them system by system now, just sector by sector instead.

Would be nice to link 2 or 3 central geographic sectors into my 'core' sector, or link two neighboring geographic sectors into a 'border zone'
 
@Wiz could you guys make the Transcendent Learning ascension perk give a +xp gain bonus to replace the +leader cap instead of maintenance cost reduction, it's a bit undesirable in the current form and resource abundance towards the mid to late game would render maintenance reductions a waste of a perk.

It’s hard to say how useful it would be since we have no idea what the costs are
 
What the Heck Wiz?!? I didn't love the old sector system but I liked being able to define the administrative boundaries of my "states". It sounds like now I have no ability to change the borders of such regions? Is this true because that takes away a huge aspect of the game I actually like.

Sectors now represent the lowest tier interplanetary administrative units. Thing with those is that they are based on "geographical" traits... or in Stellaris terms, they are clusters of planets that are close enough to efficiently work with one another, have efficient communication between them, efficient trade, etc. If you have two neighboring villages, you will usually put them in the same unit, not arbitrarily put them into their own units with far-away settlements.

For inner structuring, I think it would be better if one added the sectors into higher tier units, which would represent autonomous and semi-autonomous states. Logistics and such would not matter for those, but political choices would be aplenty.

Having a chokepoint be a 1-planet-sector just because it happens to be assigned to the cluster on the other side of the one you claimed is going to be a bit silly.

In return, that planet should be far less efficient in producing resources than if it was in the same unit as those planets. And it should also weaken the "wrong" sector to represent supporting a planet that requires more costs for transport and fast communication than other planets in the sector. Strategically, you should not even want it to be there (because of extra costs and strain), especially if the planet is newly conquered so it doesn't produce much anyway.
 
Sector borders should be a natural consequence of expansion and regional political/military situation.

Having a chokepoint be a 1-planet-sector just because it happens to be assigned to the cluster on the other side of the one you claimed is going to be a bit silly.

On the contrary, a chokepoint being a sector of its own makes perfect sense. If I settled that planet for the purpose of securing some direction from aggression, I am going to want to specialize it for that purpose - building fortresses etc. Having it be its own sector means I can easily tell on the outliner which is my border world(s), and can turn it militaristic focus and dump a bunch of minerals on it, allowing a governor to build the fortresses while I do other stuff.

Sectors aren't arbitrary in the new system, but defined by galactic geography, just like real life adminstrative units are in no small part decided by real geography. Yes, you can't create a long sneaking sector around the edge of your empire and set it to military focus anymore, but border sectors are still going to be border sectors and interior sectors interior ones.
 
Any chance we could get a "Sector Unique" tag ala Planet Unique and Empire Unique? Would be useful to set up or mod in things like sector capitals, governors estates, empire police hubs, specialized science academies and the like. At the very least I assume sectors will be a scope?
 
This all sounds mostly good. Except the pre-scripted Sector borders or clusters mechanic. Right now you could basically create your own mini nations if you wanted. Picking their shape then turning them loose as a vassal. Where as this sounds more like provinces in Total War or something. It would be fine if they actually had plans to do something more interesting with the sectors to make up for it but it sounds like they don't at the moment. The whole thing sounds mostly like they are just keeping it because they know people don't like feature removal. And because a lot of events give Governors. Now i'm interested though to see what bonus the Pacifist government will get to replace Core Worlds.
 
... Now i'm interested though to see what bonus the Pacifist government will get to replace Core Worlds.

Maybe some bonus to trade? Nothin' like peacetime to get the commerce flowing!
 
On the contrary, a chokepoint being a sector of its own makes perfect sense. If I settled that planet for the purpose of securing some direction from aggression, I am going to want to specialize it for that purpose - building fortresses etc. Having it be its own sector means I can easily tell on the outliner which is my border world(s), and can turn it militaristic focus and dump a bunch of minerals on it, allowing a governor to build the fortresses while I do other stuff.

Sectors aren't arbitrary in the new system, but defined by galactic geography, just like real life adminstrative units are in no small part decided by real geography. Yes, you can't create a long sneaking sector around the edge of your empire and set it to military focus anymore, but border sectors are still going to be border sectors and interior sectors interior ones.

Kind of like 40k's Cadia, a very small intrusion into the Eye of Terror "sector" and heavily defended due to who owns the rest of the "sector."
 
I roleplayed as the Amerin Interstellar Republic, AIR (akin to the USA). As such, I created new "states" every so often. After a certain point in the game, each state began to have it's own unique history and importance. From the smaller inner sectors to a large expansive (and sparsely populated) outer rim.

If the Dev team wants to allow for sectors to be automatic, fine, some players just want to min-max. But let me as the User have the final say over boundaries! I'm sure some other players like role-playing with the size and number of sectors, so let them. Wiz what is your opinion this?
 
  1. Well this is very interesting;

It wouldn't be 'from nowhere', more like local taxes. Your empire stockpile does not represent all economic activity in your empire, as next dev diary should make clear.
For example, one idea I have for the Feudal Realm civic (but I'm not promising there will be time for) is to have governors be way more autonomous, but have a fairly large income of their own.

The more income a sector governor has, the more power it has.

The income that it is not bringing to the treasury of the empire, could the sector governor use it for it's own agenda? Like building its own fleet, hiring mercenaries etc.

The sector governor could also give a loan to the empire and thereby win new privileges.

2. Perhaps one of the demands of a sector is that a fleet is stationed at the sector capital for security. Every pirate raid or incursion of the enemy would raise the dissatisfaction of the sector. The result could be that the sector could demand its own ship operating independent of the empire (like vassal fleets) or the dissatisfaction would result in open rebellion.

3. A sector of an empire differs from the sector of another empire. The sector governor might be heredity (feudal), directly chosen (autocratic) or elected from the sector populace (indirect democracy). As an empire you might influence the removal of the governor by requesting the assistance of certain factions, but this might result in another governor, which you might further dislike or create stress in your empire (influence of feudal families).

4. A sector could also be its own faction. Or in a sector there might be several factions. Or one faction might be several factions. For an example, for a corporate empire, each sector could be a independent corporation with a CEO.​
 
In return, that planet should be far less efficient in producing resources than if it was in the same unit as those planets. And it should also weaken the "wrong" sector to represent supporting a planet that requires more costs for transport and fast communication than other planets in the sector. Strategically, you should not even want it to be there (because of extra costs and strain), especially if the planet is newly conquered so it doesn't produce much anyway.
This would only make sense if there was a really notable gap in distance between stellar clusters, however, which in turn would look weird on the galaxy map. The galaxy is not split into scores of bubbles with dozens of stars neatly and visibly clustered.

In-game, the impression may arise due to hyperlanes and how they essentially creating segregated regions. This alone has no effect on how much time or effort it takes to transport resources, materiel or personnel to and from it, though. It just means the system connected to the chokepoint would become a strategically important logistics hub.

... which would, in my opinion, make assigning them to the same sector even more reasonable.

On the contrary, a chokepoint being a sector of its own makes perfect sense. If I settled that planet for the purpose of securing some direction from aggression, I am going to want to specialize it for that purpose - building fortresses etc. Having it be its own sector means I can easily tell on the outliner which is my border world(s), and can turn it militaristic focus and dump a bunch of minerals on it, allowing a governor to build the fortresses while I do other stuff.
Sure, this works if you consider your border security zones to be no larger than a single system, with the fully civilian economy only a single jump away. In my experience, larger consolidations of systems assigned a military purpose provide better security and, frankly, just look a lot cooler. Matter of preferences, I guess.

Sectors aren't arbitrary in the new system, but defined by galactic geography, just like real life adminstrative units are in no small part decided by real geography.
australiamap.gif
 
Unless you're an arms manufacturer.

True but the game's economy isn't nearly detailed enough to specify the interests of particular industries vs the economy as a whole... Yet.
 
I definitely think we could do a lot more with sectors now that they have borders the players can't redraw at whim, but no concrete plans at the moment.

Something this comment made me think about- is there a possibility that how Sectors work now and the Feudal Realm Civic thing are going to get tired together somehow?