Constellations

[irdangerdave]

While thinking about the autogenerated sectors, I wondered why they didn't incorporate sectors into something more stellar...

I was thinking why not make sectors into constellations, groups of star systems several lanes deep and give them a random generated name (mixed in with some real constellation names) and a different minor bonus for owning all the stars in each constellation, giving a reason to fill out your territory over the whole constellation and potentially going to war over missing systems as well as helping dispel the arbitrary sector selections as it at least provides a reasoning for sectors to be created as they are.

This could be furthered and fed into spiritualist ethics, I'm thinking like astrology, getting certain bonuses for certain strata/ethics/jobs depending on time, i.e. It's the year of the <constellation> granting x% increase to y pop, or it provides events for bad omens etc.

This also removes the ugly af sector overlay, and instead make the constellation hyperlanes thicker or different coloured or w.e. to show their grouping.

Any thoughts?

 

[monkeypunch87]

While thinking about the autogenerated sectors, I wondered why they didn't incorporate sectors into something more stellar...

I was thinking why not make sectors into constellations, groups of star systems several lanes deep and give them a random generated name (mixed in with some real constellation names) and a different minor bonus for owning all the stars in each constellation, giving a reason to fill out your territory over the whole constellation and potentially going to war over missing systems as well as helping dispel the arbitrary sector selections as it at least provides a reasoning for sectors to be created as they are.

This could be furthered and fed into spiritualist ethics, I'm thinking like astrology, getting certain bonuses for certain strata/ethics/jobs depending on time, i.e. It's the year of the <constellation> granting x% increase to y pop, or it provides events for bad omens etc.

This also removes the ugly af sector overlay, and instead make the constellation hyperlanes thicker or different coloured or w.e. to show their grouping.

Any thoughts?

A suggestion often made already, I'm all for it.

 

[Spartakus]

I love it. I would also change Empire Sprawl to increase per Constellation instead of per System to avoid some of the border gore that's created by omitting systems

 

[Kain2K]

Even though I'd like to see the current sector system tweaked and expanded upon, I can't whole heartedly embrace your idea.

Yes, sectors should orient themselfes at the galactical terrain.
Yes, there are other things that could be done with sectors, and especially in combination with the galactical terrain.
But I think, that it should be avoided to make Stellaris into an Europa Universalis in space.

Also, I think your "constellations" idea makes only really sense with any kind of spiritualist empire. I'd much rather like to see features that can be used by all, or at least by most empire types, and not just one. If I look at Machine Empires and Hive Minds, which I really liked to play pre 2.2, it doesn't really seem like there is any resolve to expand the gameplay of of those. As long as Paradox doesn't expand existing features (which they usually don't do), I'd really not like to have features that are only used by certain empire types.

 

[Limes]

Constellation-based namelists for sectors would be Nice for flavour, I agree, but the constellations visible from any point in space (e.g. Earth) are made up of stars that have immense separation in space and no relation to each other except that they line up in a cluster when viewed from a specific vantage point.

So it might be more logical for a galactic empire to name sectors for terrain (nebulae) or for the most luminous star in them. Or perhaps for the scientist who first surveyed it?

 

[irdangerdave]

Even though I'd like to see the current sector system tweaked and expanded upon, I can't whole heartedly embrace your idea.

Yes, sectors should orient themselfes at the galactical terrain.
Yes, there are other things that could be done with sectors, and especially in combination with the galactical terrain.
But I think, that it should be avoided to make Stellaris into an Europa Universalis in space.

Also, I think your "constellations" idea makes only really sense with any kind of spiritualist empire. I'd much rather like to see features that can be used by all, or at least by most empire types, and not just one. If I look at Machine Empires and Hive Minds, which I really liked to play pre 2.2, it doesn't really seem like there is any resolve to expand the gameplay of of those. As long as Paradox doesn't expand existing features (which they usually don't do), I'd really not like to have features that are only used by certain empire types.

Wouldn't you just have sectors/constellations named as per species name list? MEs would still have constellations named but based on grid references for instance. I was hoping somebody had some ideas as how they could translate to MEs and HMs as i've never played them so I don't know of any bonuses or mechanics that make thematic sense other than of course denying the constellations to empires that benefit from them.

A more complex way to do it would be that each empire generates their own constellations and then they can feud over which stars belong to who based on their own constellations when they overlap (i.e. 2 of those stars are part of my 'Big Dipper' constellation, yet they form a part of your 'Leo Regulus' constellation).

 

[irdangerdave]

Constellation-based namelists for sectors would be Nice for flavour, I agree, but the constellations visible from any point in space (e.g. Earth) are made up of stars that have immense separation in space and no relation to each other except that they line up in a cluster when viewed from a specific vantage point.

So it might be more logical for a galactic empire to name sectors for terrain (nebulae) or for the most luminous star in them. Or perhaps for the scientist who first surveyed it?

Yes i agree, there should be a main star which is the sector capital and the rest should be explored to be discovered, unless it's already known by your empire, i.e. some constellations should be visible from game start but others get discovered as scientists survey systems. This is why it would be better for sectors/constellations to be claimed/named and then fought over if later you discover another empire wants two of your stars as they are part of their big dipper constellation but they make up half of your Phoenix constellation so it will increase border friction and likelihood of war via free cb etc.

 

[Spartakus]

Constellation-based namelists for sectors would be Nice for flavour, I agree, but the constellations visible from any point in space (e.g. Earth) are made up of stars that have immense separation in space and no relation to each other except that they line up in a cluster when viewed from a specific vantage point.

So it might be more logical for a galactic empire to name sectors for terrain (nebulae) or for the most luminous star in them. Or perhaps for the scientist who first surveyed it?

Immense separation is relative here. Of the 100 brightest stars in our night sky only 7 are more then 1000 lightyears away, so almost every star that we consider part of a constellation is within a sphere 2000 lightyears in diameter. That's only 1% of the diamater of the whole Milky Way.

 

[serpentskirt]

If you want to see how that might look like on galactic map, you can check this suggestion thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...onstellations-map-and-sectors-rework.1068751/

 

[irdangerdave]

If you want to see how that might look like on galactic map, you can check this suggestion thread: https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...onstellations-map-and-sectors-rework.1068751/

Wow you went hard on it, I have a simple thought and you've already mapped it out a year ago!
Nice work, thanks for sharing that.

 

[Kain2K]

Wouldn't you just have sectors/constellations named as per species name list? MEs would still have constellations named but based on grid references for instance. I was hoping somebody had some ideas as how they could translate to MEs and HMs as i've never played them so I don't know of any bonuses or mechanics that make thematic sense other than of course denying the constellations to empires that benefit from them.

A more complex way to do it would be that each empire generates their own constellations and then they can feud over which stars belong to who based on their own constellations when they overlap (i.e. 2 of those stars are part of my 'Big Dipper' constellation, yet they form a part of your 'Leo Regulus' constellation).

Problem is, a bonus, just because you own a certain constellation does neither make sense, from a lore perspecitve, nor from a gameplay perspective. This is especially true when different empire types should gain different bonuses.
It would be a totally different case if you'd say that stellar bodies in constellation x, or rather cluster or sector x, yield above normal science resources, while sector y has more minerals than usual. That way the current planet specialisation system could easily be expanded into sector wide specialisations.
Also: Any system based on astrological constellations, would really make sense for spiritualist empires. For a Machine Empire, or Hive Minds, or even only a materialist empire this just would make no sense.

 

[serpentskirt]

Wow you went hard on it, I have a simple thought and you've already mapped it out a year ago!
Nice work, thanks for sharing that.

I should highlight that slicing pre-generated map into sectors has already indicated serious problem with this approach - sectors need to have at least one habitable planet. That will cause some problems when your habitable slider is at minimum (or if you are start to crack all the habitable worlds/lose them to crisis). Either way you are trying to tackle this problem, you'll need to change existing sectors design quite significantly.

 

[irdangerdave]

Problem is, a bonus, just because you own a certain constellation does neither make sense, from a lore perspecitve, nor from a gameplay perspective. This is especially true when different empire types should gain different bonuses.
It would be a totally different case if you'd say that stellar bodies in constellation x, or rather cluster or sector x, yield above normal science resources, while sector y has more minerals than usual. That way the current planet specialisation system could easily be expanded into sector wide specialisations.
Also: Any system based on astrological constellations, would really make sense for spiritualist empires. For a Machine Empire, or Hive Minds, or even only a materialist empire this just would make no sense.

Having sectors that you can't change is already bad, this is just to give them a reason and further gameplay opportunities if they are continuing down the fixed sector route.
As for constellation not being relevant for materialist, i disagree there. The only data point we have is humanity, which i would say is a materialist ethic (i.e. we don't have spirituality/god as our reasoning for exploring and expanding, it's either for capital which is material or chasing understanding of the material universe) and yet we still have constellations.

 

[Kain2K]

Either way you are trying to tackle this problem, you'll need to change existing sectors design quite significantly.

Not necessarily.
Firstly, in principle, not every System has to be in a sector. There is no problem if one sector without a habitable planet is in no sector.
Secondly, any feature that expands on sectors, would work best, if sectors are pre created.
The only reason why a sector, as of now, has to have a habitable planet (or habitat) colonised, is because sectors are created around that, after the colony is fully established. With pre created sectors, this requirement would have outlived itself, because sectors would exist, regardles of, if there is a colony or not. From that foundation you could develope more features. Be it specialisations for sectors, sectors as a psuedo-autonomous entity for larger empires, and even having the possibility to claim sectors instead of systems.
The pre creation process of sectors may be trivial, or not, this none of us can say. But, at least, the concept behind it is fairly easy.

 

[serpentskirt]

@Kain2K for me it still falls under significant change as the way you are creating sectors will be different. Main point is that you never know how many other things will need correction because of that change.

 

[Limes]

Immense separation is relative here. Of the 100 brightest stars in our night sky only 7 are more then 1000 lightyears away, so almost every star that we consider part of a constellation is within a sphere 2000 lightyears in diameter. That's only 1% of the diamater of the whole Milky Way.

Immense separation is indeed relative. The main stars of Orion, for instance, are between 250 - 2000 ly distant from us, a factor of 10. Bear in mind that the typical separation between stars in our region of the galaxy is about 6,5 ly. Thus, the separation of stars in a constellation is indeed "Immense".

 

[Kain2K]

Having sectors that you can't change is already bad, this is just to give them a reason and further gameplay opportunities if they are continuing down the fixed sector route.
As for constellation not being relevant for materialist, i disagree there. The only data point we have is humanity, which i would say is a materialist ethic (i.e. we don't have spirituality/god as our reasoning for exploring and expanding, it's either for capital which is material or chasing understanding of the material universe) and yet we still have constellations.

Please don't misunderstand my intentions. I am, in no way, against the idea to expand upon the current sector system. I think it is pretty certain that we will not be allowed to freely create our own sectors again. In fact, I think it would have been best if we never had that possibility in the first place.

I just think, that constellations, are not the right thing to use as a basis for the creation of sectors. Constellations, and how they look like, depend on where in the galaxy you are. Stars that, when looking from earth, belong to the Big Dipper could belong to a totally different constellation when looking from Alpha Centauri. Also, there are literally billions of stars, that you can see from earth, that do not belong to any known constellation, others belong to two or more constellations. Some constellations we can't even see because the galactic core is in our way. Also, please take into consideration, that constellations really are mostly things that originated from spiritualistical world views. There is no constellation - at least none that I know of - that originated grom science. Also, why should there?
To orientate the sector creation on clusters (which the game already creates), would make much more sense. Those cluster are the same, regardles of what your planet of origin is. A star A always belongs to a cluster B, whose stars circle around a point C (whatever that is). That is the same for every species in the galaxy, no matter their beliefes or the stars they see.

 

[Kain2K]

Immense separation is indeed relative. The main stars of Orion, for instance, are between 250 - 2000 ly distant from us, a factor of 10. Bear in mind that the typical separation between stars in our region of the galaxy is about 6,5 ly. Thus, the separation of stars in a constellation is indeed "Immense".

We shouldn't forget, that constellations only take 2 dimensions into considerations, the x and y axis. Stars that are close by, from our point of view, could be seperated by several hundred lightyears. They could even be in two different clusters, or even in seperate arms of the galaxy. This is because we only ever are looking at their position on the x and y axis, because at this distances, we can't really can't make out their possition on the z axis, or in other words, we can't see if one star is farther away than an other star. A star that is brightly visible could be much further away than its neighbor that is barely visible.

So in short: Better use constellations in their scientific meaning, than in the astrological. This means: Sectors should be oriented around cluster, aka stars that are physically close by (on an astronomical scale), instead of fantasy constructs, that could enclose stars that may or may not be close by (on an astronomical scale).

 

[LeanneKaos]

While thinking about the autogenerated sectors, I wondered why they didn't incorporate sectors into something more stellar...

I'm guessing it's because trying to mesh that in to a randomly generated map is a major PITA.

 

[irdangerdave]

I'm guessing it's because trying to mesh that in to a randomly generated map is a major PITA.

The mapgen system already does this for sectors, this should be no different other than the graphical representation.