Way too many sectors

[zjamespryor]

I think 2.2 is a great update, it's evident that the team really put a lot of effort into it!

But sectors man....

I just played a wide game with a fanatic purifier, and I've got probably 20 different planets in their own sector.
1. This is so hard to look at and manage, and it's really annoying having to put in governors for 20 different sectors
2. AI seems to have a really hard time managing sectors. I gave my sectors PLENTY of resources, probably 10k minerals and 10k credits, yet unemployment always seems to run rampant and the AI doesn't do a very good job of upgrading the different buildings.

I know you guys are still working out the kinks, so please take this post as constructive feedback, not criticism.

 

[FoolishOwl]

I'm not quite sure what the point is of having "sectors" as distinct entity, now. Just have governors for planets.

 

[Xeorm]

Something I found was nice was changing the outliner to not display sectors, just the planets list. Really made things easier once the planet list got big late game.

 

[zjamespryor]

Something I found was nice was changing the outliner to not display sectors, just the planets list. Really made things easier once the planet list got big late game.

That's a good idea, thanks for mentioning something. But, hopefully they'll do something to fix it rather than this being the fix.

 

[Siri]

Ideally I'd like to be able to draw my own sectors, but that it has a size restriction. If I could decide what makes up my own sector by selecting up to, say, ten systems it would feel infinitely better than it does now.

Something I found was nice was changing the outliner to not display sectors, just the planets list. Really made things easier once the planet list got big late game.

I've taken to doing this early, and then in the late game I use the sector view instead and close the drop downs for all the sectors I rarely have a look at. Makes it easier to keep an eye on the planets I am more actively developing.

 

[the glory of plain]

sector are too small most governor end up only buff one planet
and it make scrolling down the list way too boring
but sector also sometime seems to redraw after loading a save
not sure why

 

[peenerz]

Ideally I'd like to be able to draw my own sectors, but that it has a size restriction. If I could decide what makes up my own sector by selecting up to, say, ten systems it would feel infinitely better than it does now.



I've taken to doing this early, and then in the late game I use the sector view instead and close the drop downs for all the sectors I rarely have a look at. Makes it easier to keep an eye on the planets I am more actively developing.

I agree, you should start with a low limit but have tech that increases the sizes

 

[General Retreat]

I agree, you should start with a low limit but have tech that increases the sizes

Maybe you could manually define sectors that include up to 2 jumps from a habitable planet. Techs would then unlock for 3 and 4 jumps, with an end-game repeatable tech as well?

This would also be massively useful for releasing vassals from your sectors, as you'd be able to specifically define what systems they were initially gifted.

 

[evilcat]

I generally can manage most of stuff in 2.2, and even if i cant AI can neither so we are even.
But Sectors do scare me. The amount of 1 planet secotrs is too damm high.
It especially hurts scrolling sector/planet list.

So here is awesome suggestion:
We can manually paint our sectors, but new systems/planets are attached to the closest one at first.

Planet limit per secotr is equal to 3+gov level.
Exceeding Planet cap gives small stability hit. You can take one or two, but having 5 over cap would be bad.
There are various ways to increase sector cap, by civics, traditions, perks, technology.

And as we speak: can we have top bar alert that one planet has unemployment? I do not care much about free buildings slots, or even minor housing issues, but checking constantly for unemplied... that is tidious.

 

[zjamespryor]

I'd also like for the ability for AI to focus on certain things within production or manufacturing, and to use the planet bonuses they have to their advantage.

 

[Achiles]

I can't stand the crazy balkanization of sectors. Most of my sectors contain only one planet. I require 2-3 times as many governors as I should in order to cover every planet. With the maintenance cost of leaders increasing as the empire grows, the cost of governing your empire increases exponentially. I haven't yet built a gigantic empire, but at this rate it seems that an empire spanning most of the galaxy could actually end up spending more on leaders than its navy.

I agree with the suggestion of an earlier reviewer that sectors should be generated at the start of the game, corresponding to specific sectors. I think that would help with turning them into regional, trans-national groupings that could develop their own culture. They should also ensure that when sectors are drawn during galaxy generation that no sector to contains less than at least 2 habitable planets.

 

[Scottbert]

I agree with the suggestion of an earlier reviewer that sectors should be generated at the start of the game, corresponding to specific sectors. I think that would help with turning them into regional, trans-national groupings that could develop their own culture. They should also ensure that when sectors are drawn during galaxy generation that no sector to contains less than at least 2 habitable planets.

It sounds like a good idea, but what if close-by planets are of different climate type? A given empire might be likely to only colonize one of them. I get that we want sectors to become political entities in their own right -- like the good/bad relationships you might have with a vassal duke or count in CK2 -- but CK2 generally doesn't have duchies where one or two counties are completely useless to you.

There must be another solution, that logically groups planets outside of player control, but noone seems to have found it yet.

Hmmm... Perhaps a system that allows players limited, rather than unlimited, modification of sector borders? Sort of like de jure drift but instead of requiring holding territory for 100 years, the player is limited in another way? Whether they have to expend some sort of resource, or are only allowed to add/remove a certain number of systems... I know we all hated spending Influence to modify sectors, but that was when we were forced to use them. Maybe it would be different now?

 

[Achiles]

It sounds like a good idea, but what if close-by planets are of different climate type? A given empire might be likely to only colonize one of them. I get that we want sectors to become political entities in their own right -- like the good/bad relationships you might have with a vassal duke or count in CK2 -- but CK2 generally doesn't have duchies where one or two counties are completely useless to you...

That's fine because in this case sectors would be galactic geographic features. They more represent regions and states from EU4 or HOI4. Even though they represent administrative boundries, those boundries are delineated by common affiliation. A sector isn't meant to be a maximally efficient administrative unit for the player's benefit. If you want more populated worlds in that sector, research terraforming technology or build habitats/ringworlds. Honestly, from an administrative perspective there is little need for sectors to determine governor assignments. You have instantaneous communications. A governor could easily have whichever worlds that the rulers wish assigned to his authority (e.g. governor of thrall-worlds). However, internal private commerce is going to focus on the systems within easy reach of one another. Even though it isn't in yet, civilian economy is the other major reason to have static, geographically determined sectors.

Sectors should also represent how the large number of connections of trade and transit that develop between highly interconnected systems create a natural administrative unit. Unpopulated worlds would have no bearing on the culture that develops, because they are unpopulated! Those systems would however be part of the regional trade network of the existing colonies. If another empire took the half of the sector that you hadn't colonized and colonized those worlds then they would form their own culture. Now as long as those two halves remain separated politically and economically (assuming that the two empires don't have commerce or migration treaties with each other) they will develop their own culture. However, if they are ever unified under one empire, the sector will start to meld into a combined culture. You could have events where the populations of the planets have conflicts with each other creating on unrest. This same thing could happen if the two empires sharing a sector do sign commerce/migration treaties. The neighboring worlds might start trading more with their sectoral co-habitants than the distant core.

Maybe instead of trying to manage those worlds under a unified political system it would be better to reduce tension by creating a client state out of the conquered half and mostly maintain the existing relationship between the worlds. Of course maybe the player wants to tax the resources of those worlds directly, even if it means additional administrative headaches. Long term, all of the worlds of that sector may gradually be assimilated into one common culture. Of course this may also result in the sector developing a unique culture that is markedly different from the rest of the empire, potentially fueling independence movements. In the case of federations and cross border trade. maybe eventually they form a cosmopolitan culture that is unique and different from both empires. This way integrating newly conquered worlds or negotiating trade treaties with neighbors is a more strategic and nuanced issue. The rulers now also have to think about how the populations of worlds in close proximity relate to each other, not just to the imperial core.

Everything I described above is much more difficult, if not impossible, to develop in the game with dynamic or drawable sectors that purely represent internal administrative units.

 

[DeathSheep]

Since 2.2 released, I find that after I grab my first two colonies (yes, I play with the Guaranteed Habitables option) I tend to hold back a bit on colonization, and the order in which I colonize tends to be influenced by the question, "If I colonize this world, what kind of sector will it create?" I look for worlds that if they become sector capitals, will maximize the number of worlds in their sector. I've also left some colonizable worlds within my borders empty until I can take the Voidborne AP and build habitats in systems that will put all those worlds into a single sector, instead of two or three.

 

[Achiles]

P.S. I know that it may seem like a contradictory argument to say that we need fixed sectors because of the over-proliferation of one planet sectors while also saying that having fixed sectors include planets with a diverse set of biomes, some of which may be uninhabitable, is fine because sectors aren't meant to be maximally administratively efficient. It's not contradictory. It's an argument for moderation.

A big part of why sectors are such a pain right now is because they are completely unpredictable and uncontrollable. Whereas before they were pointless because they were completely predictable and controllable. We need a system in between. Something predictable, but not totally under the player's control. You would turn on the sectors overlay in the galaxy map and immediately see which of the planets that you have discovered will end up in which sectors, thus allowing you to better plan out the sequence of expansion.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

P.S. I know that it may seem like a contradictory argument to say that we need fixed sectors because of the over-proliferation of one planet sectors while also saying that having fixed sectors include planets with a diverse set of biomes, some of which may be uninhabitable, is fine because sectors aren't meant to be maximally administratively efficient. It's not contradictory. It's an argument for moderation.

A big part of why sectors are such a pain right now is because they are completely unpredictable and uncontrollable. Whereas before they were pointless because they were completely predictable and controllable. We need a system in between. Something predictable, but not totally under the player's control. You would turn on the sectors overlay in the galaxy map and immediately see which of the planets that you have discovered will end up in which sectors, thus allowing you to better plan out the sequence of expansion.

Sectors are *exactly* predictable and you can control which planets fall into a sector (within limits - and to as much extent as any distance based system would work, or a "cluster" based system would work) by being careful what you colonise first in an area.

As an example, using P for a system with a habitable planet, - for a hyperlane, S for a system with no habitable planets. Brackets will indicate sector borders.

-P-S-S-P-S-S-P- can be set up differently depending on which planet is colonised first.

If you colonise left to right, (-P-S-S)-(P-S-S)-(P-)
If you colonise the outer two in either order and then the middle (-P-S-S)-(P)-(S-S-P-)
If you colonise the centre first (-P)-(S-S-P-S-S)-(P-)

A similar principle applies in 2D, although diagramming it out is more complex.

It takes a small amount of looking at the map, and a small amount of thought when picking your initial planets for the "sector capital" to work it out, but it *is* predictable. Having everything fall into clusters wouldn't be intuitively predictable, as a system which is on the border of two clusters wouldn't be immediately obvious as to which it is in unless playing in a specific overlay - and not everything is done from one overlay, with some people hating the sector overlay entirely because of how it spoils the map by placing the internal borders onto the empire as a whole.

 

[Achiles]

Sectors are *exactly* predictable and you can control which planets fall into a sector (within limits - and to as much extent as any distance based system would work, or a "cluster" based system would work) by being careful what you colonise first in an area.

As an example, using P for a system with a habitable planet, - for a hyperlane, S for a system with no habitable planets. Brackets will indicate sector borders.

-P-S-S-P-S-S-P- can be set up differently depending on which planet is colonised first.

If you colonise left to right, (-P-S-S)-(P-S-S)-(P-)
If you colonise the outer two in either order and then the middle (-P-S-S)-(P)-(S-S-P-)
If you colonise the centre first (-P)-(S-S-P-S-S)-(P-)

A similar principle applies in 2D, although diagramming it out is more complex.

It takes a small amount of looking at the map, and a small amount of thought when picking your initial planets for the "sector capital" to work it out, but it *is* predictable. Having everything fall into clusters wouldn't be intuitively predictable, as a system which is on the border of two clusters wouldn't be immediately obvious as to which it is in unless playing in a specific overlay - and not everything is done from one overlay, with some people hating the sector overlay entirely because of how it spoils the map by placing the internal borders onto the empire as a whole.

If one is equipped with that knowledge beforehand, and good at geometry, then yes it is predictable. It is not, however, intuitive and such information is not clearly provided up front by the game. What's more, a system usually has more than the two connections so some measure of guess work is required, which can quite easily result in irreversible error.

On the other hand, if sectors are predetermined then the player only has to turn on the sector overlay, see exactly which systems that he has discovered are in which sectors and then make his colonisation choices accordingly. After acquiring the needed information, if he finds the sight of sectors so visually unappealing, he just turns the overlay off and goes back to playing the game.

 

[Black_Shade]

I also find the small sectors kind of annoying, particularly in the planner. But luckily there are mods for this on the workshop, that increase the hyperlane range from 2 to 4, or 6, or 8, or 10, depending on what you want.

It would be nice if we had the ability to fiddle with sectors like in pre 2.2. Perhaps Paradox could just cap the maximum number of systems per sector to like 10-15 or something. Or maybe have this tied to your administrative capacity- it starts off small, maybe only a few systems (except for your starting core sector which should be larger, say 50%), and gradually gets larger as your administrative capacity goes up.

 

[DeathSheep]

If one is equipped with that knowledge beforehand, and good at geometry, then yes it is predictable. It is not, however, intuitive and such information is not clearly laid out up front by the game. What's more, a system usually has more the two connections so some measure of guess work is required, which can quite easily result in irreversible error.

I would agree that the game doesn't explicitly state that without digging in the code, but if you simply pay attention to how the first sector grows as you build outposts, the "two jumps away from capital" rule is obvious. No guesswork required, just the ability to count to two and trace the hyperlanes out from the system you're thinking of colonizing in non-sectored space.

I've done some experimenting with increasing the sector radius from two jumps to three, and I think I know why Paradox went with two. Going to three jumps opens up the chance that this happens:

            2 - 2*- 2
                |
    1*- 1 - 1 - 1
                |
                2 - 2

Sector 2 is split in half by Sector 1 when the sector jump radius is 3.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

If one is equipped with that knowledge beforehand, and good at geometry, then yes it is predictable. It is not, however, intuitive and such information is not clearly provided up front by the game. What's more, a system usually has more than the two connections so some measure of guess work is required, which can quite easily result in irreversible error.

On the other hand, if sectors are predetermined then the player only has to turn on the sector overlay, see exactly which systems that he has discovered are in which sectors and then make his colonisation choices accordingly. After acquiring the needed information, if he finds the sight of sectors so visually unappealing, he just turns the overlay off and goes back to playing the game.

As I said, it is more complicated in 2D - but the information isn't hard to get or understand when you've seen what your starting planet's sector looks like, and how its influence extends two lanes. Guesswork isn't required just understanding how this (like any game system or game rule) works.
It takes no real skill at geometry, just understanding how it works and being able to count and observe, and it is *far* more intuitive than guessing which cluster a system on the border of two clusters belongs to. (See the point about overlays further down.)

Turning the sector overlay on and off everytime you want to colonise is no easier or simpler than looking at the area around your potential sector *and counting*, and involves less management of the screen. If you're pausing the game that's one thing, but turning the overlay on and off like that slows things down, and requires more interaction with the UI than is necessary to do the job.

I will admit that with larger sectors the amount of effort required to just count jumps would raise - but at 2 it's a trivial matter, and entirely obvious once you've learned the rules.