What follows is one fan's essay on the latest Beta and a slight tweak I think would have a big effect
Introduction
The new 3.3 Stellaris update appears aimed at several goals:
Feel free to skip the Background section if you don't want or need an explanation of why Wide is the best source of economic growth.
Background: The goal of Stellaris and its economy
The Goal of Stellaris
Before further discussion, I want to give a very simple overview of what I think players are trying to accomplish when they play Stellaris and how they do it. In this regard, I think there are basically two things players care about:
The economy of Stellaris
This leads into a very general description of the Stellaris economy. In Stellaris, to have the most, best ships you need two things: Alloys and Research. These are the two resources that you must have in order to have plentiful ships, and research is necessary to make each ship stronger. And the more Alloys and the more Research you have, the more and better your ships become.
These resources are predominantly generated by Pops who work in Jobs. Jobs are created by districts and buildings, and there is upkeep associated with these Jobs. So, to create and operate Jobs you need minerals, energy, food, and consumer goods. These resources are themselves generally created by Pops in Jobs.
(As a brief aside, you do also receive resources from mining stations in systems, but these are a comparatively limited source of resources in comparison with jobs, so for simplicity I am treating them as insignificant)
The above observations lead us to a pretty basic conclusion: to increase your Alloys and Research to get the most, best ships, you need Pops and you need Jobs. But where do we get Pops and Jobs? We get them on colonies. Every colony has available spots for districts and building, enabling us to pay to create jobs. Every colony also has Pop growth, which is the other important resource we need. We can see immediately that settling new colonies will grow the economy.
Now, there are other sources of economic growth. There are Pop traits, Ethics, Civics, Traditions, and Tech which increase output. However, these are not dynamic sources of growth. You generally will either start with productive traits, ethics, and civics or perhaps increase them once during the game. Tradition increases to output have the same issue where they will give you a percentage output bonus once or twice, but then once you've taken the tradition, that's it, you have the bonus. Tech has multiple instances of productivity boosting in the form of unlocking building or directly modifying job output, but also generally once you have the whatever % bonus from a tech, that's it, no additional growth after that.
All of this is to say that settling additional colonies is more reliable and can occur more repeatedly. It is the best path to making a large economy, and a large economy means you achieve your objective of having the most, best ships. When it comes to growing the economy, no other choice the player can make during the game is as reliable or repeatable as settling more colonies. Currently, there are no negative returns on expansion.
The Other Resources
Other than Research and Alloys, nearly all other resources in Stellaris are incidental to acquiring more Research and Alloys (until they let us make ships out of Consumer Goods). Minerals and Energy are needed to buy and upkeep buildings and Jobs. Consumer Goods are needed to upkeep Pops and Jobs. Food is needed to upkeep Pops. Unity is used to buy traditions, leaders, edicts, and planetary ascensions. Trade value is incidental to acquiring Energy, Consumer Goods, and Unity. Amenities are a local only resource which help make Pops happier, which raises Colony Stability and provides output bonuses. None of these things directly helps us have the most, best ships. These resources just enable us to produce more Alloys and more Research to get what we want.
The pattern of economic development
Where we end up is that there's a pretty consistent pattern to developing an empire's economy. We want to have as many Pops working in Jobs that produce Alloys and Research, and we employ just enough Pops in Jobs that produce The Other Resources to maximize the output of the Pops in the good Jobs. Regardless of the specific mix of Jobs you choose, it's still the case that that we grow the economy by having as many colonies and pops as possible. That means settling the planets under our control and taking the Colonies from other empires as often as possible. To grow Big, you are best served by growing Wide.
Sprawl: A counterbalance to Wide? Or a nerf to Big?
In the 3.3 Beta, Empires which exceed 50 administrative cap experience sprawl, which causes technology cost to increase on a percentage basis. The presumed goal of this system is to disfavor the wide play-style. In effect, we are trying to slow down the snow-ball effect where Empires with stronger economies are better positioned to become even stronger. I view this as a basically reasonable goal, but I think the system as implemented suffers from some limitations. My issue is not with the penalties, which I think could actually be harsher. My issue lies with the way sprawl is calculated. Currently, the base contribution to sprawl from each Colony is 10, from each System and District is 0.5, and from each Pop is 1.
Anyone who has played the Beta can tell you that by the midgame, sprawl from Pops easily outpaces all other factors. This isn't necessarily bad, but as I have described above, Pops in Jobs are your primary source of economy. The sprawl system does not penalize a Wide development path so much as it penalizes a Big economy. Even a Tall development path will be hit by sprawl, and nearly as much as a Wide empire.
It is true that a Big economy can outproduce the sprawl penalties it faces, whether it is Wide or Tall, but there have been several complaints that people don't like facing a penalty that cannot be mitigated. Currently, the only way to have less sprawl is to make your economy smaller by giving up Pops and Colonies, which runs against the goal of making the most, best ships. It also impacts some people's enjoyment of map control, as you have less direct control over a vassal state.
It is also my personal opinion that one of the problems the current sprawl calculation experiences, is that it is not dynamic. Unless you release a vassal or lose Pops, it doesn't really go down (other than the adoption of a few traditions which will drop it; but after those drops, the player experience from that point on is only sprawl growth). This means the sprawl system is not particularly interactive, which is never much fun in a video game.
Making Sprawl better: Make Colonies matter
Well, if you've made it this far, I admire and appreciate your patience. My proposal for calculating sprawl is simple, but will feature several benefits from a gameplay experience. Disclaimer: the specific numbers can be tweaked, but the relationship between the variables is what matters. I would also suggest adjusting the actual sprawl cap (probably to 100) and boosting sprawl penalties., but these are not essential features of the formula.
First, every Colony has its Colony Sprawl calculated. Then, the sum of of Colony Sprawl is the Empire Sprawl. Empire Sprawl determines tech, tradition, and edict cost penalties.
The basic formula for Colony Sprawl would be
(1+p)[Number of Pops] x ((1+s)[100-Colony Stability]/20)
where p=Pop sprawl modifiers (such as unruly/docile/psionic)
and s=Colony Sprawl Modifiers (would include ethics, civics, traditions, and location-based modifiers).
Now, there's an opportunity with the s variable to add some interesting things which could impact tall and wide.
Some possibilities for Colony Sprawl Modifiers
+0.1 for not being in the Empire Capitol System
+0.1 for being in a sector that does not contain the Empire Capitol
-0.1 for being a sector capitol
+0.3 for not being in a sector
Features of the proposed formula
So far, I have mostly been addressing my ideas towards regular, organic empires. What do I suggest when it comes to gestalts?
First, I think it should be acknowledged that by avoiding Consumer Goods, Gestalts already have a large economic efficiency advantage because they do not need Pops to generate Consumer Goods. This efficiency lets them make Alloys and Research more easily.
Second, my suggestion for how both fit into this system is fairly simple: remove the extra bonuses and penalties they get to sprawl cost. Instead, Gestalt consciousness have to contend with the implication that they have fewer tools available to raise planetary stability. Gestalts would inherently have to deal with more sprawl because it would be harder for them to reach 90%+ stability.
This would also create a niche role for Rogue Servitors because they CAN get stability higher compared to other Gestalts.
What about Mega-Corporations?
Mega-Corporations in 3.3 also face additional sprawl issues, as this empire type is meant to be played Tall. My suggestion for Mega-Corporations would simply be to amplify their location-based Colony Sprawl Modifiers to reward them for staying geographically compact.
But shouldn't Systems add to Sprawl directly?
I have seen others mention this in the Feedback and Discussion threads, and my answer is: No, systems should not be included in the Sprawl
I really admire the work going into Stellaris right now. In general, I have enjoyed my games on the 3.3 Beta. But I do understand some of the player frustration, and once this other approach to calculating Sprawl got into my head, I couldn't just leave it there. I hope that whatever the developers do, they take some time to consider making the system more dynamic than it currently is and put some consideration into what incentives that they are giving players for how they develop their empires.
Introduction
The new 3.3 Stellaris update appears aimed at several goals:
- Making unity more important
- Slowing down tech rush
- Changing Empire Sprawl (presumably to accomplish the first two)
Feel free to skip the Background section if you don't want or need an explanation of why Wide is the best source of economic growth.
Background: The goal of Stellaris and its economy
The Goal of Stellaris
Before further discussion, I want to give a very simple overview of what I think players are trying to accomplish when they play Stellaris and how they do it. In this regard, I think there are basically two things players care about:
- To have the most, best ships
- To control the map
The economy of Stellaris
This leads into a very general description of the Stellaris economy. In Stellaris, to have the most, best ships you need two things: Alloys and Research. These are the two resources that you must have in order to have plentiful ships, and research is necessary to make each ship stronger. And the more Alloys and the more Research you have, the more and better your ships become.
These resources are predominantly generated by Pops who work in Jobs. Jobs are created by districts and buildings, and there is upkeep associated with these Jobs. So, to create and operate Jobs you need minerals, energy, food, and consumer goods. These resources are themselves generally created by Pops in Jobs.
(As a brief aside, you do also receive resources from mining stations in systems, but these are a comparatively limited source of resources in comparison with jobs, so for simplicity I am treating them as insignificant)
The above observations lead us to a pretty basic conclusion: to increase your Alloys and Research to get the most, best ships, you need Pops and you need Jobs. But where do we get Pops and Jobs? We get them on colonies. Every colony has available spots for districts and building, enabling us to pay to create jobs. Every colony also has Pop growth, which is the other important resource we need. We can see immediately that settling new colonies will grow the economy.
Now, there are other sources of economic growth. There are Pop traits, Ethics, Civics, Traditions, and Tech which increase output. However, these are not dynamic sources of growth. You generally will either start with productive traits, ethics, and civics or perhaps increase them once during the game. Tradition increases to output have the same issue where they will give you a percentage output bonus once or twice, but then once you've taken the tradition, that's it, you have the bonus. Tech has multiple instances of productivity boosting in the form of unlocking building or directly modifying job output, but also generally once you have the whatever % bonus from a tech, that's it, no additional growth after that.
All of this is to say that settling additional colonies is more reliable and can occur more repeatedly. It is the best path to making a large economy, and a large economy means you achieve your objective of having the most, best ships. When it comes to growing the economy, no other choice the player can make during the game is as reliable or repeatable as settling more colonies. Currently, there are no negative returns on expansion.
The Other Resources
Other than Research and Alloys, nearly all other resources in Stellaris are incidental to acquiring more Research and Alloys (until they let us make ships out of Consumer Goods). Minerals and Energy are needed to buy and upkeep buildings and Jobs. Consumer Goods are needed to upkeep Pops and Jobs. Food is needed to upkeep Pops. Unity is used to buy traditions, leaders, edicts, and planetary ascensions. Trade value is incidental to acquiring Energy, Consumer Goods, and Unity. Amenities are a local only resource which help make Pops happier, which raises Colony Stability and provides output bonuses. None of these things directly helps us have the most, best ships. These resources just enable us to produce more Alloys and more Research to get what we want.
The pattern of economic development
Where we end up is that there's a pretty consistent pattern to developing an empire's economy. We want to have as many Pops working in Jobs that produce Alloys and Research, and we employ just enough Pops in Jobs that produce The Other Resources to maximize the output of the Pops in the good Jobs. Regardless of the specific mix of Jobs you choose, it's still the case that that we grow the economy by having as many colonies and pops as possible. That means settling the planets under our control and taking the Colonies from other empires as often as possible. To grow Big, you are best served by growing Wide.
Sprawl: A counterbalance to Wide? Or a nerf to Big?
In the 3.3 Beta, Empires which exceed 50 administrative cap experience sprawl, which causes technology cost to increase on a percentage basis. The presumed goal of this system is to disfavor the wide play-style. In effect, we are trying to slow down the snow-ball effect where Empires with stronger economies are better positioned to become even stronger. I view this as a basically reasonable goal, but I think the system as implemented suffers from some limitations. My issue is not with the penalties, which I think could actually be harsher. My issue lies with the way sprawl is calculated. Currently, the base contribution to sprawl from each Colony is 10, from each System and District is 0.5, and from each Pop is 1.
Anyone who has played the Beta can tell you that by the midgame, sprawl from Pops easily outpaces all other factors. This isn't necessarily bad, but as I have described above, Pops in Jobs are your primary source of economy. The sprawl system does not penalize a Wide development path so much as it penalizes a Big economy. Even a Tall development path will be hit by sprawl, and nearly as much as a Wide empire.
It is true that a Big economy can outproduce the sprawl penalties it faces, whether it is Wide or Tall, but there have been several complaints that people don't like facing a penalty that cannot be mitigated. Currently, the only way to have less sprawl is to make your economy smaller by giving up Pops and Colonies, which runs against the goal of making the most, best ships. It also impacts some people's enjoyment of map control, as you have less direct control over a vassal state.
It is also my personal opinion that one of the problems the current sprawl calculation experiences, is that it is not dynamic. Unless you release a vassal or lose Pops, it doesn't really go down (other than the adoption of a few traditions which will drop it; but after those drops, the player experience from that point on is only sprawl growth). This means the sprawl system is not particularly interactive, which is never much fun in a video game.
Making Sprawl better: Make Colonies matter
Well, if you've made it this far, I admire and appreciate your patience. My proposal for calculating sprawl is simple, but will feature several benefits from a gameplay experience. Disclaimer: the specific numbers can be tweaked, but the relationship between the variables is what matters. I would also suggest adjusting the actual sprawl cap (probably to 100) and boosting sprawl penalties., but these are not essential features of the formula.
First, every Colony has its Colony Sprawl calculated. Then, the sum of of Colony Sprawl is the Empire Sprawl. Empire Sprawl determines tech, tradition, and edict cost penalties.
The basic formula for Colony Sprawl would be
(1+p)[Number of Pops] x ((1+s)[100-Colony Stability]/20)
where p=Pop sprawl modifiers (such as unruly/docile/psionic)
and s=Colony Sprawl Modifiers (would include ethics, civics, traditions, and location-based modifiers).
Now, there's an opportunity with the s variable to add some interesting things which could impact tall and wide.
Some possibilities for Colony Sprawl Modifiers
+0.1 for not being in the Empire Capitol System
+0.1 for being in a sector that does not contain the Empire Capitol
-0.1 for being a sector capitol
+0.3 for not being in a sector
Here is a basic case for a starting capitol:
28 Pops times ((100- 68 starting stability) times (1+0)) divide by 20= 28 x 32/20= 44.8 sprawl from starting empire
Now, let's settle another colony, and let's assume it's in the same sector as the capitol but not in the starting system.
1 Pop times (100% -60% stability) times (1+0.1) divide by 20 = 1 x 44/20 = 2.2 sprawl from additional colony, and each additional pop (assuming all else equal)
Our total Empire Sprawl would now be 47.
Let's pretend we settle a colony on the frontier (ie, outside the home sector). Its planetary sprawl modifier is 1.4, due to +0.1 for not being in Capitol system and +0.3 for being a frontier planet.
1 Pop times (100% -60% stability) times (1+0.4) divide by 20 = 1 x 56/20 = 2.8 sprawl from new 1-pop colony and each additional pop (assuming all else equal)
What if we turned this frontier planet into a new sector? For Planetary Sprawl modifier, we'd lose the 0.3 from frontier planet, and then also deduct 0.1 because it's a sector capitol but also add 0.1 because it's not in the capitol sector for a total Planetary Sprawl Modifier of 1.1 . Sprawl would be equivalent to the colony located within the home sector. Additional planets settled within this new sector would have a sprawl modifier of 1.2 as the would get +0.1 from not being in the Capitol System and +0.1 for being in a sector that doesn't contain the Empire Capitol)
28 Pops times ((100- 68 starting stability) times (1+0)) divide by 20= 28 x 32/20= 44.8 sprawl from starting empire
Now, let's settle another colony, and let's assume it's in the same sector as the capitol but not in the starting system.
1 Pop times (100% -60% stability) times (1+0.1) divide by 20 = 1 x 44/20 = 2.2 sprawl from additional colony, and each additional pop (assuming all else equal)
Our total Empire Sprawl would now be 47.
Let's pretend we settle a colony on the frontier (ie, outside the home sector). Its planetary sprawl modifier is 1.4, due to +0.1 for not being in Capitol system and +0.3 for being a frontier planet.
1 Pop times (100% -60% stability) times (1+0.4) divide by 20 = 1 x 56/20 = 2.8 sprawl from new 1-pop colony and each additional pop (assuming all else equal)
What if we turned this frontier planet into a new sector? For Planetary Sprawl modifier, we'd lose the 0.3 from frontier planet, and then also deduct 0.1 because it's a sector capitol but also add 0.1 because it's not in the capitol sector for a total Planetary Sprawl Modifier of 1.1 . Sprawl would be equivalent to the colony located within the home sector. Additional planets settled within this new sector would have a sprawl modifier of 1.2 as the would get +0.1 from not being in the Capitol System and +0.1 for being in a sector that doesn't contain the Empire Capitol)
Features of the proposed formula
- Sprawl would be dynamic because you could reduce your empire sprawl by making your planets more stable, or moving Pops to planets which are more stable, or a combination of the two. In the above system, a Pop has a different contribution to sprawl depending on their local conditions.
- Tall strategy benefits because it easier to promote high stability on a few planets using amenities and distributed luxuries. Tall empires will most likely have less sprawl than wide empires.
- Sprawl is not inherently tied to being Big, but it would be a bigger challenge to minimize. Planets that are well managed, even in a wide empire, would have reduced sprawl.
- Colonies matter! If you are dissatisfied with your Empire Sprawl, you will need to look at your Colonies and figure out why they are unhappy
- Newly settled colonies tend to have stability a bit lower than older colonies because newly settled colonies tend to not have enough Pops to work amenity producing jobs. The consequence is that spamming out colonies will be sprawl inefficient. Some additional balancing may be needed though (perhaps new colonies should have their starting bonus stability and amenities reduced?)
- Galactic geography matters again. Colony Sprawl Modifiers can be adjusted based on whether the Colony is located in a sector. I'd also say that number of jumps away from Capitol would be another option.
- Because stability matters more, pop happiness matters more. Colony development that makes pops happier becomes a way to increase research and tradition efficiency. This has the additional effect of making ethics attraction more important, because factions impact happiness.
- Authoritarians have an alternative path, in that they have ways to increase stability directly via edicts and policies. It's another play-style that can accomplish the same goal.
- The system creates a soft nerf to conquest. Newly conquered worlds tend to struggle with happiness and stability. Empires which expand by conquest will need to spend time and resources on managing unhappy pops who will contribute more to sprawl. Players would then be rewarded for taking a pause between wars to actually manage their Pops.
- Late game colony types, such as the Ecumenopolis and Ring World become more valuable because it easier to concentrate very large numbers of Pops on these worlds, creating another way that Tall development can become more efficient.
- Removing systems from the sprawl calculation eliminates any incentive to expand in a swiss-cheese pattern. Because systems do not contribute to sprawl in the above proposal, you don't leave systems open.
- I consider Void Dwellers and Habitats to be a Wide economic approach, but my proposed system still would give them some sprawl efficiency benefit to keeping a small galactic footprint because settling colonies near the capitol would be rewarded in this system.
- The location of the Empire Capitol becomes more important, creating a reason to actually consider moving it.
- Creating vassal states remains a viable strategy for dealing with sprawl
So far, I have mostly been addressing my ideas towards regular, organic empires. What do I suggest when it comes to gestalts?
First, I think it should be acknowledged that by avoiding Consumer Goods, Gestalts already have a large economic efficiency advantage because they do not need Pops to generate Consumer Goods. This efficiency lets them make Alloys and Research more easily.
Second, my suggestion for how both fit into this system is fairly simple: remove the extra bonuses and penalties they get to sprawl cost. Instead, Gestalt consciousness have to contend with the implication that they have fewer tools available to raise planetary stability. Gestalts would inherently have to deal with more sprawl because it would be harder for them to reach 90%+ stability.
This would also create a niche role for Rogue Servitors because they CAN get stability higher compared to other Gestalts.
What about Mega-Corporations?
Mega-Corporations in 3.3 also face additional sprawl issues, as this empire type is meant to be played Tall. My suggestion for Mega-Corporations would simply be to amplify their location-based Colony Sprawl Modifiers to reward them for staying geographically compact.
But shouldn't Systems add to Sprawl directly?
I have seen others mention this in the Feedback and Discussion threads, and my answer is: No, systems should not be included in the Sprawl
- Systems are not an important source of economic resource after the early game. Pops dominate production. Wide empires are not better because they hold more systems, it is because they acquire more Pops and Jobs.
- Sprawl works better as a consideration of how people are governed and live; in this sense, why should a sprawl system factor in barely habited space?
- When systems are included in sprawl calculations, it incentivizes Swiss-Cheese borders where systems with 1 or 2 resource deposits are not worth claiming. This is not aesthetically pleasing
- The game is better when borders expand because it makes it easier to meet other Empires, which is a necessary development in the game towards conducting diplomacy and war with other Empires
- The proposed system above still makes Empire geography matter. A compact Empire would have fewer sprawl penalties. The location of colonies being settled matters.
I really admire the work going into Stellaris right now. In general, I have enjoyed my games on the 3.3 Beta. But I do understand some of the player frustration, and once this other approach to calculating Sprawl got into my head, I couldn't just leave it there. I hope that whatever the developers do, they take some time to consider making the system more dynamic than it currently is and put some consideration into what incentives that they are giving players for how they develop their empires.
- 13
- 5
- 2
- 2
- 2
