Great Sector management ...
- Thread starter RicardoSilva
- Start date
-
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.
Is that your home system and you set the game to spawn a half dozen habitables near you?
This wouldn't happen if they had the Sectors three jumps each from the initial system rather than just two :/
Look at the rest of the map, it's about 3x-5x habitable worlds. Also, this isn't related to the OP, like, at all.
Since the OP basically did not include any words, who is to say what is and is not related. Is he trying to make a point, and if so, what? Perhaps he is just saying, "Hey guys look what I did."
To me it looks like he is trying to say - like dozens have said already - that automatic sector management creates horrible, ugly, pathetic excuses for a sectors.
That is not what I see at all. That mini sector on the right is because he is sharing it with a neighbor. One good war will fix that problem.
Yes sector auto management is horrible, nothing to do with planets since I have 2 systems with ring worlds and was trying to place everthing I could in 1 sector.
Mostly I see it as a problem with the new starlane system. Literally dozens of star systems neighbor his empire, and he has four connections out to them. Three, once he takes Lishval up top.
This wouldn't be so bizarre and ugly if any of those small sectors could keep expanding, but the map has become so constrained and riddled with chokepoints that it isn't really possible anymore.
This wouldn't be so bizarre and ugly if any of those small sectors could keep expanding, but the map has become so constrained and riddled with chokepoints that it isn't really possible anymore.
If you think the choke points are too restrictive, just kick the frequency of starlanes up a notch in map creation.
I kind of had a similar setup to the OP on my start that I posted about here:
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ome-smallish-suggestions-for-sectors.1138029/
I started playing the game from 2.1.4 and found the Sector system a valuable aid (and rather liked being able to create semi-independent regions) when I was learning to play. By the 3rd game I moved on to building up my colonies from scratch, but still loved being able to offload management to governors.
Often I would build up a Colony manually and then once happy with it I would assign to a current sector (or a new one if it wasn't adjacent another); it also helped keep the out-liner uncluttered, so that I could focus on those colonies not assigned to sectors, reasonably content that as long as the AI governor isn't able to redevelop buildings (all of those finer control options for sectors are now gone...), they generally will keep things ticking over without me having to worry much.
Alright, I need to vent as a 2.1.4 newbie:
The current 2.2 sector system is one of the most horrible downgrades I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing, and I have no idea how anyone can suggest that is an "upgrade" in any shape or form from the previous system.
Perhaps people were unhappy with the planet limit; or the 75% cap on resources...but that could of been changed without gutting all of the useful functionality out of the older sector system.
If sector sizes needed to be limited to 2 jumps for this update, then at least allow me to customize where the sector "capital" is and the sector area up to those 2 jumps. At least this way you can shape overlapping sectors as you wish to avoid the situation that the OP and myself have run into.
https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/foru...ome-smallish-suggestions-for-sectors.1138029/
I started playing the game from 2.1.4 and found the Sector system a valuable aid (and rather liked being able to create semi-independent regions) when I was learning to play. By the 3rd game I moved on to building up my colonies from scratch, but still loved being able to offload management to governors.
Often I would build up a Colony manually and then once happy with it I would assign to a current sector (or a new one if it wasn't adjacent another); it also helped keep the out-liner uncluttered, so that I could focus on those colonies not assigned to sectors, reasonably content that as long as the AI governor isn't able to redevelop buildings (all of those finer control options for sectors are now gone...), they generally will keep things ticking over without me having to worry much.
Alright, I need to vent as a 2.1.4 newbie:
The current 2.2 sector system is one of the most horrible downgrades I've ever had the misfortune of experiencing, and I have no idea how anyone can suggest that is an "upgrade" in any shape or form from the previous system.
Perhaps people were unhappy with the planet limit; or the 75% cap on resources...but that could of been changed without gutting all of the useful functionality out of the older sector system.
If sector sizes needed to be limited to 2 jumps for this update, then at least allow me to customize where the sector "capital" is and the sector area up to those 2 jumps. At least this way you can shape overlapping sectors as you wish to avoid the situation that the OP and myself have run into.
Sectors designated a sector capital which is the first planet colonized. Sectors will extend up to 2 systems away from it. This makes them more manageable at least when expanding via colonization.
The problem with sector management comes with war and making new sectors from the planets taken. How does it designate sector capitals?
The problem with sector management comes with war and making new sectors from the planets taken. How does it designate sector capitals?
It's not that. I think it's a function of the new constellation map modeling. I play with starlanes cranked up all the way, but because stars are now arranged in clusters with limited entrance and exit points there's only so much that can do.
The map in the OP is pretty representative of what I've seen in my own games. He has long borders with other empires and systems that never connect. His star Wua is right next to Iram, but also a minimum of 11 jumps away.
In the sector context, I think one of the reasons for the ugliness is that the constellation format has led to really weird travel issues. His Xirak sector wouldn't be so stubby and alone if it connected to Rimmock, but even though they neighbor each other they're 5 jumps away. Tybby and Isius neighbor Qad Vhi and Monboth but there aren't any connections visible on the map. The sectors could grow more organically if this new map system didn't create so many impassable borders.
Now what you are describing is completely different from the usual sector complaints I read. For most of those I have little sympathy. The game creates little sectors, so what. It is a trivial problem if even a problem at all.
Now this constellation and travel situation you describe is a bigger deal. I see it as actually significant. I agree it can be awkward, but at the same time, I like it. It adds a certain strategic terrain aspect to the map and to wars. As a human player this is potentially one of your greatest advantages versus the AI. The ability to see the strategic big picture and recognize systems that are key because of their position instead of their resources is interesting, IMO. This very possibility is why I am glad the great FTL reduction landed on hyperlanes instead of on warp.
If the map were more well connected in general, it would be near impossible to have fortresses that were good for anything but protecting the colony in their system. It would be hard to stabilize on one front so that you can be on the offensive on another. This is especially interesting when you are fighting more than one comm at the same time and they are stronger than you.
Looking at the OP's image again; I noticed that Lishval should actually be part of the sector Xirak is in, but misses out simply because Eden's sector grabs Olympus denying it the ability to expand it's borders 2 jumps away to Lishval.
This is part of the reason I firmly believe in getting sector customization back. Keep the 2-jump limit in; fine, but allow me to extend or retract sectors based on those limitations and set the sectors "capital" (perhaps have it cost influence if it feels too cheap to change at any time to represent a governor changing their home city).
This could help resolve the sector issue for the OP in a couple of ways:
1) Remove Olympus from Eden's sector and extend Xirak's sector to cover Olympus & Lishval.
2) Set Ecynth as the sector "capital", and you only need a single sector (instead of 3) that will actually cover all planets (since all are within 2 jumps of Ecynth), and you also get access to Xubak's Maw & Lishval as a bonus.
Being able to set the sector capital and being able to remove systems you don't want in that sector should also help with clearing up the sector mess with conquering territory or vassalization that TheAzureLiger bought up.
This is part of the reason I firmly believe in getting sector customization back. Keep the 2-jump limit in; fine, but allow me to extend or retract sectors based on those limitations and set the sectors "capital" (perhaps have it cost influence if it feels too cheap to change at any time to represent a governor changing their home city).
This could help resolve the sector issue for the OP in a couple of ways:
1) Remove Olympus from Eden's sector and extend Xirak's sector to cover Olympus & Lishval.
2) Set Ecynth as the sector "capital", and you only need a single sector (instead of 3) that will actually cover all planets (since all are within 2 jumps of Ecynth), and you also get access to Xubak's Maw & Lishval as a bonus.
Being able to set the sector capital and being able to remove systems you don't want in that sector should also help with clearing up the sector mess with conquering territory or vassalization that TheAzureLiger bought up.
I agree completely. I don't really have much interest in how sectors look or get chopped up. They're basically decorative at this point.
Re: the lanes, it's absolutely a difference in personal opinion. Mine is completely different than yours. ; ) I don't like chokepoints for all the reasons you do actually.
As you say, "the ability to see the strategic big picture and recognize which systems are key" is what makes strategy in the game interesting. I don't like that it's completely defined by position though. I don't feel like chokepoint-based geography gives the player any interesting options, either on offense or on defense. It boils strategy down to finding the one way in or out of an enemy's empire, then fighting over that system. In the OP, for example, if he goes to war with the orange empire in the south, the war will be fought in Tybby or Kastra (depending on if he's the attacker or defender).
I'd like geography to matter, but far more than that I'd like the strategic big picture to be about economy, infrastructure and military advantage. I would actually really like it if fortresses were only good for protecting the colony in their system, because then we would have to decide which systems were most worth defending. Between anchorages, trade centers and shipyards we have vital infrastructure in space. Now with specialized planets the same is true on the planets. That's what I would like to define the strategic big picture. As the attacker I would like to see the map and have to balance the value of a target against the risk of attacking it. As the defender I would like to see the map and balance the value of planets and infrastructure against my limited resources. I just don't think any of that is possible when the map is built so that you physically have only one option of where to attack or defend.
That's why I personally dislike the new map generation system so much. It takes what I already disliked the most about the new mechanics (chokepoints) and turns it up to 11.
Personally, if I were doing it, chokepoints would be real but uncommon. It would be like finding a pulsar, nebula or black hole, an occasional feature of galactic terrain worth seizing for the opportunity it provides. However you would use that to supplement strategy, not define it. The strategic big picture which would be about recognizing which systems are key based on your strategy and play style. I'd like to build sensor-heavy defensive platforms along my whole border to make sure I can see an enemy coming, specifically because I don't automatically know which system they'll have to come through. I'd like to send small scouting fleets into enemy systems to try and figure out his infrastructure, and then to decide whether to try and defeat him militarily, to try and bankrupt him or to bombard his farm worlds while driving up the price of food on the market.
Then I'd like an espionage DLC so I can invest in finding out where his empire is most vulnerable. Does he have only one forge world? Or only one shipyard? Does he buy all of his strategic resources? Can I map his trade routes for raiding?
I'd go on but this is already too long. My point just being that this is a matter entirely of personal opinion, but I dislike the chokepoint based system because I think it precludes literally all of that. It's by no means objectively wrong, but certainly a different approach to strategy than the one I would prefer.
I like chokepoints, but the new constellation system really makes some weird connections and sometimes creates monsters. Next run i'll try to ramp up a bit the hyperlane connections.