Sector Discussion Thread

[inigma]

Sectors (bad AI, no sharing resources between sectors and empire), and Fleet Building (no easy construction queue GUI and no repeat building queue options) - two of the worst experiences in Stellaris. All else is ok. If Paradox fixes those two, Stellaris will reign as top 4x for a very very very long time.

 

[JaggedyJack]

@Wiz @Everyoneelseinthethread

There are three main questions/problems I have with the current sector AI.

1.Why does the Sec-AI delete happiness buildings I had built before handing over control? This leads to happiness going below 50% on some planets that lead to unhappy pops/factions forming that didn't exist when I had control. This is done also with the options to allow AI to replace buildings turned off. Is it possible to code the AI to make sure planets have a 60%+ happy and construct what is needed to do so?

2. Why is it not possible to have the Sec-AI scripted to enslave only alien pops and not prime species pops when the policy is xeno-slaves only? As it is now the AI still enslaves some of my own if it benefits the tile. This seems to me like a on/off switch, but I'm no programmer so I leave it to you guys.

3. Why can't I as the "Star Alpha" of my glorious Federation tell a Sec-AI controlled world to build my Royal Gardens without taking it out of the sector? For that matter why can't I tell planets what to build and the AI adds it under a "exceptions" list of what not to touch?

In my not so important opinion the sector AI should not be some "thinking" type. It should be scripted to hell and back to take what policies the player has set and go about making sure they are met. That should mean more policy options in the empire tab to decide how the empire is to be run. This is a good thing.... to me at least.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples:
1) A slider the player can set for what they want happiness to be on planets. Player sets slider at a 80% rating then the AI will go about making sure the planets under it's control have at least 80% happiness.

2) The slaving of pops should not be so complicated for the AI depending on the empire policy. As I stated above if the policy says xenos only then only xenos get enslaved, if it says all enslaved then the AI enslaves only for best results on tiles with a heavier weight on xenos being enslaved first over the prime species. This is how I envision it at least. Also allowing the player to emancipate/enslave a pop on a Sec-AI controlled planet should override whatever the AI had set with no going behind the players back and retracting the decision.

3) Let me modify planets under Sec-AI control. Make it cost some energy credits or even like 10 political influence to make an adjustment to a planet.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My 2 cents on the sector discussion.

-JaggedyJack

 

[Constans337]

So the question why have one tedious game mechanic in first place and then obfuscate it with another abstract game mechanic?

I think it was in one of the first dev diaries for HOI4 where they said that they decided to take out any feature that required automation to play because it was too monotonous. Stellaris seems to have a different design philosophy. I wonder if making planet management less monotonous, by perhaps scaling the planet sizes right down to have a lot fewer squares per planet might be an alternative to reduce the tedium.

 

[Almond_Brown]

Well it wold appear that if the Sectors Funds could be pilfered and it cost NO influence to interact with, then Sectors would be pretty much good to go.

P.S. If you have issues with Sector AI not properly enslaving, murdering and generally decimating whole alien planet populations, then that is on you...

 

[icerunner5326]

I still love the idea of sectors both for reducing micro and for the immersive aspect of delegating the management of a huge empire, but so far they seem half-baked. Some thoughts:


- I'd like to be able to intervene when a sector in various ways, but perhaps that should bear a cost (in influence, probably). Maybe that cost varies based on government type.

- I don't want to spend influence to change a sector until I am done making the changes (just add a "submit" button, rather than deducting influence immediately).

- I don't want sectors to interfere with my strategic resources. I realize the recent changes to resources may already address this but I haven't had the chance to try it much yet.

- Weighting of sector production priorities shouldn't be all-or-nothing. Maybe use sliders to define relative priorities.

- Would love to see the possibility for modders to script sector behavior in much more comprehensive ways. Sectors are a fascinating idea that creative people could do some interesting things with.

 

[Tim_Ward]

The current tax mechanism to take resources from a sector is too blunt an instrument. My main issue with sectors is that I do not have enough control over the resources they produce and store. The tax widget only takes from income, and takes from energy income and mineral income in equal proportions. I want to be able to decide the levels separately, and I also want to be able to make transfers from their stores. I have a current game where my sectors are running big energy surpluses while the empire is running a large deficit. This makes me play the very unfun mini-game of trying to balance energy by moving planets in and out of sectors.

True! Stockpiled energy is almost worthless for sectors, because there's almost nothing for them to spend it on.

So you've got a situation where you need to keep their taxes relatively low so they have enough minerals to continue building stuff, meanwhile vast stockpiles of energy are being thrown into the energy bin while the empire as a whole is struggling for energy because it's at war and maintenance costs for large fleets are very high.

 

[Urza1234]

I suspect the reason you cant tax a sector at 100% is that it would require a smarter AI than they currently have. If you look through the files they include an Icon for a sector to be taxed at 100% similarly to their icons for 25%, 50% etc.

Their AI is required, supposedly, to try to maintain an energy surplus of at least 3, both enemy empire and sectors work this way. If a sector was taxed at 100% it could not maintain an energy surplus of 3, and in their testing the sectors probably started building nothing but power plants.

That being said, holy crap their sector AI is dumb as space bricks.

 

[Tobasco da Gama]

It seems to me like the core problem with sectors is that we as players have more options to say what they can't do than what they should do. The only way we can express intent is with the "Balanced"/Energy/Minerals/Research/Military focus.

Maybe what we need is to replace the are "Sector Directives" that, like Planetary Edicts, only affect that sector and last for a fixed period of time. So, for example, I can set a "Wonders" directive that tells them to spend the next five years constructing planetary uniques. Or an "Expansion" directive that tells them to do more colonisation. Each directive would have a token influence cost as well as an energy/minerals cost that the sector will earmark toward the new construction. This could mostly replace the current checkbox of allowed/permitted actions, in that sectors wouldn't do any of this stuff unless told to via directive.

 

[Constans337]

I suspect the reason you cant tax a sector at 100% is that it would require a smarter AI than they currently have. If you look through the files they include an Icon for a sector to be taxed at 100% similarly to their icons for 25%, 50% etc.

Their AI is required, supposedly, to try to maintain an energy surplus of at least 3, both enemy empire and sectors work this way. If a sector was taxed at 100% it could not maintain an energy surplus of 3, and in their testing the sectors probably started building nothing but power plants.

If that's the case, the surplus of 3 rule is also a blunt instrument. It needs to take into account stockpiles and players decision to run high tax rates on occasion.

 

[Melabranche]

Maybe "Orders for Sector"?
In my curent gameplay, sector build spaceport (and one station in system), but moduls choice are something... stiupid. Hydro farm on planet that have +10 food, mind control on planet, where is -30 ED, or yards, but they not building any ship. And this is in every spaceport.
In that case, I want option - "Do not touch ANYTHING you stupid AI!"

 

[milesfromordnry]

I would like to see the sector system developed into something more like a empire-wide senate where each sector has a leader and would have their views and votes represented when making changes to empire policies. They could also be more of an influence during elections in the 'oligarch'-type governments where the elections are not by suffrage.

And of course AI sector governance could be improved.

 

[GauHelldragon]

Do computer controlled empires use the same AI as the sector AI on their core worlds?

 

[pgt1027]

Is "Build Robots" allowed for your sectors?

Yes.

Everything is allowed in my sectors aside from purging, colonization and the redevelopment of tiles.

 

[Silent.Night]

I'd be fine with 75% tax as long as resources above a certain cap flowed back into the empire's treasury. Otherwise, as others have stated, the sector system is essentially just a 25% tax on E and M income, on top of the lesser efficiency of AI controlled construction.

Sectors are a great idea, for the same general reasons that vassals are great in CK2:
1. You can't control it all yourself, you need to delegate.
2. As potential political entities you interact with, giving internal interest when not much else is happening. I assume more work will be done on this.
3. Auto-build, allowing easier management of larger empires. I wonder if the system would be better if all resources flowed back to the empire's treasury and therefore the empire paying for construction and upkeep. This would be similar to how a state may receive it's share of tax revenue from a federal government, rather than directly from the population.

 

[nrader]

if you want sectors to get better, what we need from you is not 100 separate posts all saying 'sectors are dumb', but rather bug reporting and specific critique. For example, 'sectors are stupid and don't know how to build' is 100% unhelpful and a waste of both our and your time. 'Sectors almost never build robots, see attached screenshot of a size 25 sector world with only 1 robot' is helpful (made-up example). 'Sectors almost never build robots, see attached screenshot and also save of the game in progress' is super-helpful.

OK. So here is my five cents:
1) First problem is un-efficient resource and time consuption. I have noticed that sectors prioritize building upgrages over building new ones. That's totally logical, if all the planet population placed in tiles with buildings. But that's not the case, sectors often decide to upgrade some energy plant while ignoring populated tiles without buildings. Since basic and level 1 buildings more efficient, sectors should prioritize them, and doing upgrades only after they run out of empty tiles with POPs.
2) Second is many times mentioned slavery; and effective population use as the whole. Basically, sector should find most happy pops to fill the energy and science tiles, while enslaving all the others working for food&minerals, most unhappy ones should go to food tiles to minimize the penalties.
3) All the maintenance cost should be taken from sector bank, including military stations.
4) After planet fully grown it should remove unneeded farms with something more useful
5) And if happiness is less than 50%, sectors should try to compensate it with happiness buildings.

 

[Abiezer]

I have been playing since release, and I have only once had a problem with sectors, and that was due to my own inattention. NEVER permit a sector to colonise if a Holy World lies within their borders.... even though it was my springboard to victory, it was a major problem at the time. Otherwise I agree with Wiz, WAD, and the design is pretty good.

 

[Narr666]

Hi folks,

I have no real problem with sectors, honestly, I am very lucky about this threat since the whole issue hurt the enjoyment of me reading the forums. It´s shattered retreat and Conclave all over again: an issue, I have no trouble with (and even like for the most part) but keep stumbling over and over again. Currently, my human brain gives me such a great advantage over the AI that I have no real problem with my sectors being inefficent. And they´ve gotten really better this past months.

But aside my personal opinion, I "listened" and I think the issues many people have could be addressed with some minor and not game changing tweaks.

1) Of course, you can spend 25 Influence, putting a planet out of a sector, manage it and put it back again. I almost never use it, because it feels "wrong". So how about we make it feel right without changing anything. Simply give the option to spend 10-25 Influence to give orders for a month or so. Or 2-5 Influence per order.
2) Give the sector setting (checkbox) that the sectors always build the right building on a fitting tile, i.e. always build Power Plants on Power tile. The AI can then figure out what to do with empty tiles according to it´s setting.
3) Seperate taxes on minerals and Energy.
4) Taking slavery and purging out of the sectors hands. An AI can never handle this. Maybe the players want to purge or enslave only specific races, there´s no way you can tell a computer these mostly illogical, and often emotional decisions.

I could imagine that this would help to ease the issue.

Keep on gaming,

Dennis

 

[SadeRat]

So many times I've just wanted to help a planet out by clearing all its tile blockers myself using the empire's coffers but- nope- it's in a sector.

My understanding of sectors was that they were a clever idea to reduce the need for micromanagement. I actually think they serve that purpose rather well. But there is no reason to totally lock out those of us who on occasion have a need to micromanage this or that. Sector AI should help us, not replace us. By this I mean we should be able to directly control a planet whether it is in a sector or not; the sector AI would continue to improve and manage the planet while our focus is elsewhere.

 

[Space Chicken]

I like the sectors and they work generally speaking quite ok nowadays.

If sectors would just take care of all costs that happen in their area, it would be great. So when they have too much resources, they could spend them on fortifications, upgrade their spaceports to maximum and not takes resources from me.

 

[shadowclasper]

I feel like having some way to spend influence to do things in a sector would be useful. Otherwise I have no really strong feelings on sectors.

edit: oh sorry, one thing is infuriating. Can you make is so that adding/removing planets from sectors can be experimented with without spending influence? So you choose what you're adding or removing and then hit 'approve sector changes' before any influence is used up. Lag sometimes tricks me into thinking I screwed up where I clicked.