Way too many sectors

[Achiles]

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.

You're absolutely right that a carefully observent person such as yourself would pick up on the pattern and adjust accordingly. Not everyone is like you. Many just want to play the game without having to deduce the nature of fundamental mechanics and then adjust their play around those under-the-hood, non-balance affecting aspects. Some just want to play the game and have the information that they need readily available. Some people never go on the forums, read the wiki, or open a single game file and there is nothing wrong with that.

You're right. Two jumps is probably the best setting in order to avoid split sectors. Of course they could set sectors at galaxy generation and avoid that problem (as well as a host of other problems from previous versions) all together.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

You risk introducing some new problems with the cluster based approach as well - what happens when two (or more) empires have partial control of the cluster - do they all effectively have a sector in the cluster?
What happens then when you conquer the parts of the other empires in that cluster - which one becomes the sector capital?

If your owned/controlled systems in a sector are for some reason split by either an unoccupied or enemy held system, are they treated as one sector or two?

What if you have no access between the two parts of the sector due to closed borders or intervening and uncrossable hostiles?

 

[Achiles]

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.

See my response above about different play styles and mentalities. Also, in what world is clicking a single button or hitting a hotkey more of a hassle than counting hyperlanes? Finally, yes there is guess work because once again not everyone is like you. Some people will get it wrong some of the time. Some people will get it frequently wrong. Those people deserve an enjoyable game experience as well. Why can't this information be immediately available instead of having to be figured out by the player themselves?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

See my response above about different play styles and mentalities. Also, in what world is clicking a single button or hitting a hotkey more of a hassle than counting hyperlanes? Finally, yes there is guess work because once again not everyone is like you. Some people will get it wrong some of the time. Some people will get it frequently wrong. Those people deserve an enjoyable game experience as well. Why can't this information be immediately available instead of having to be figured out by the player themselves?

"Why can't sector size be worked out without having to resort to a map mode I didn't know existed? Why can't this be immediately obvious without having to be figured out by the player themselves?"

2 jumps can be determined at a glance, how in the world is that more of a hassle than having to go all the way down to the bottom of the screen, turn on a map mode, colonise the planet, come back down and turn the map mode back *off* and then come back and do it again when you want to colonise your next sector?

See, it works both ways.

Sectors extending 2 jumps from the original planet is consistent in how much reach a sector has from the core planet (or whatever defines it), whereas sectors being cluster based results in them being inconsistent in size and scope, and would require a consistent and accurate method of determining what is in a particular cluster of stars (in code) that will work and look right in all galaxy generation modes.

 

[DeathSheep]

Sectors extending 2 jumps from the original planet is consistent in how much reach a sector has from the core planet (or whatever defines it), whereas sectors being cluster based results in them being inconsistent in size and scope, and would require a consistent and accurate method of determining what is in a particular cluster of stars (in code) that will work and look right in all galaxy generation modes.

You know, thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the "defined by clusters" idea for sectors broke down over trying to make it work at every possible setting of the hyperlane density slider....

 

[Achiles]

You risk introducing some new problems with the cluster based approach as well - what happens when two (or more) empires have partial control of the cluster - do they all effectively have a sector in the cluster?
What happens then when you conquer the parts of the other empires in that cluster - which one becomes the sector capital?

If your owned/controlled systems in a sector are for some reason split by either an unoccupied or enemy held system, are they treated as one sector or two?

What if you have no access between the two parts of the sector due to closed borders or intervening and uncrossable hostiles?

A sector split between two empires would have their own entries under each empire's "planets and sectors" panel. Each one would also have their own governor for ther part of the sector.

As far as split sectors, that is potentially an issue, or maybe not. The split sector penalty was originally imposed in order to prevent players from placing two planets with no direct connection, on opposite sides of the empire in the same administrative unit. It also was there to insure that sectors cpnstituted geographically contiguous units. On the one hand it prevents player exploits and on the other creates the basis for regional identity.

Neither of those are concerns with foxed sectors. The only concern I see is that split sectors wouldn't be able to send all of theor trade value home and ships might be cut off from certain worlds. Aren't those problems also addressed though in the current version through other mechanics? So once again, why have a split sector penalty at all?

One thing that keeps getting asked is what about systems just outside of a sector? Well, those systems would be allocated to another sector. Every system, inhabitable or not would be assigned to a sector at game start. Every sector would be large enough to contain at least two jabitable systems. Finally, when you turn on the sectors overlay you would immediately see to which sector every discovered system belonged.

I think what some of the confusion of this proposal stems from is an issue of terminology. I guess what I am really arguing for is that clusters be visible and that when you colonize a planet the sector for it always includes every owned system in that cluster.

Lastly, why do sector capitals matter? Tjey don't confer any special bonuses, allow for the construction of any special buildings and the governor isn't actually physically located there (in the sense that he can be killed or captured). Also we've long since been able to rename the sector or remove the initial capital from it. So I'm sure exactly why the sector capital designation matters at all. It seems to be nothing but window dressing.

 

[Stars_and_Bars]

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

This. Reduce the cost of governors and their upkeep and make it per planet. Make governors actually worth the cost. Plus it would be cool if governors pick aside during planetary rebellions.

 

[Achiles]

You know, thinking about it, I wouldn't be surprised if the "defined by clusters" idea for sectors broke down over trying to make it work at every possible setting of the hyperlane density slider....

Yeah, I don't know how Paradox exactly defines a "cluster". Still, clusters do exist. They are defined at start, regardless of the number of hyperlanes. I guess what I'm really arguing for is that 1) clusters be visible on the map 2) a given sector includes all owned systems within the same cluster 3) a cluster always contain at least two habitable planets.

Those all seem doable in the current build, but maybe not. Good discussion. Been fun. Thanks all for responding. Hopefully Paradox finally solves it soon because it's driving me up a ****ing wall. I'm out.

 

[Scottbert]

A sector isn't meant to be a maximally efficient administrative unit for the player's benefit.

I get that! But right now, it's nigh-maximally inefficient.

If you want more populated worlds in that sector, research terraforming technology or build habitats/ringworlds.

I agree that past a point this is how the choice to have lots of sectors or few should manifest -- but it shouldn't be required just to reach two colonies in a sector!

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.

Having to think this way could be cool, but...

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.

This is not good. If the system were working, you could colonize those worlds and add habitats later if you want -- it wouldn't affect how the sector is formed.

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.

This guy gets it!

 

[Scottbert]

Sectors are *exactly* predictable and you can control which planets fall into a sector....

Huh, that's how it works? Then a compromise is immediately obvious to me!
Allow custom sector editing, with the rule that no two systems in a sector can be more than four hyperlanes apart. (Or, alternatively, that there must be at least one system in a sector that is within two hyperlanes of all other systems.) If either calculation is too onerous, then allow the user to designate a 'sector center' system manually.
Sectors would automatically form the way they do now, but when things stop making sense, the user can tweak them.

On the other hand, I'm not actually sure this requirement wouldn't still result in lots of 1-system sectors with typical colonization strategies. Perhaps basing governor upkeep on number of planets is the better solution...

 

[Kain2K]

I, too, am a fan of the idea of precreated sectors. This would not only solve the problems we have now, Paradox could easily extend on that system in expansions.
For example:
If one or more empires have Systems in the same sector, all of them could claim the sector for themselfes. Then they could either exchange systems through diplomacy, or they could ultimatly wage war over them.
There could be an autonomy and rebelion system for sectors. Instead of having a planetwide stability calculation, this could be extended to sectors. One stability is too low, for too long, a sector could rebel and eventually declare itself independend. There could also be certain eventchains that force this.
There could be policies that only allow certain species to settle in a certain sector. The autonomy system could also allow govenors to set their own policies if autonomy is high enough. These policies could be contradictory to those of your empire. If your empire is egalitarian and the govenor is authoritarian, he could allow slavery in his sector. Then you either would have to replace that govenor or you would have do decrease the autonomy of the sector, alternatively you could ignore the govenor. All three possibilities would have a certain possibility too start a civil war, because either the govenor rebels when you try to dispose him, or the other sectors if you let him be.
And these are only the few possibilities I can adhoc think of.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

A sector split between two empires would have their own entries under each empire's "planets and sectors" panel. Each one would also have their own governor for ther part of the sector.

As far as split sectors, that is potentially an issue, or maybe not. The split sector penalty was originally imposed in order to prevent players from placing two planets with no direct connection, on opposite sides of the empire in the same administrative unit. It also was there to insure that sectors cpnstituted geographically contiguous units. On the one hand it prevents player exploits and on the other creates the basis for regional identity.

Neither of those are concerns with foxed sectors. The only concern I see is that split sectors wouldn't be able to send all of theor trade value home and ships might be cut off from certain worlds. Aren't those problems also addressed though in the current version through other mechanics? So once again, why have a split sector penalty at all?

One thing that keeps getting asked is what about systems just outside of a sector? Well, those systems would be allocated to another sector. Every system, inhabitable or not would be assigned to a sector at game start. Every sector would be large enough to contain at least two jabitable systems. Finally, when you turn on the sectors overlay you would immediately see to which sector every discovered system belonged.

I think what some of the confusion of this proposal stems from is an issue of terminology. I guess what I am really arguing for is that clusters be visible and that when you colonize a planet the sector for it always includes every owned system in that cluster.

Lastly, why do sector capitals matter? Tjey don't confer any special bonuses, allow for the construction of any special buildings and the governor isn't actually physically located there (in the sense that he can be killed or captured). Also we've long since been able to rename the sector or remove the initial capital from it. So I'm sure exactly why the sector capital designation matters at all. It seems to be nothing but window dressing.

I'm not saying there should be a split sector penalty.
I'm asking whether in the case that a cluster (for whatever reason) contains two colonies of an empire, but those colonies are not contiguous does this constitute one sector or two?

What happens when a cluster only contains one habitable system? You want all sectors to have at least two habitable systems, but we don't always have two habitable systems in a cluster - or indeed any - so would some sectors actually cover two clusters? If so, so much for it being an intuitive system.


A more general question for anyone who has looked at the code : as for clusters being defined, are they actually defined anywhere in the code as entities that can be defined or scoped to in any way, or are they actually just visual artefacts that have no code presence?

 

[Chieron]

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 then you need to redraw sectors when shuffling governors after replacing a deceased or elected governor?
I prefer the system where the systems are grouped by hyperlane distance.
One would need to be able to shift the sector capital and add other systems manually, though.
Expanding the sector range once or twice would also be nice. Much more often and sectors themselves get too big once more.

 

[Riftwalker]

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

i had a sector cut off with just 2 jumps before. i don't know why it happened, but it was only 2 systems that didn't touch each other.

 

[DeathSheep]

i had a sector cut off with just 2 jumps before. i don't know why it happened, but it was only 2 systems that didn't touch each other.

Took some sketching, but yeah, a separated sector is possible with the two-jump rule, just less probable. I think. I'm not a mathematician.

 

[Spyre2k]

Those talking about how "easy" it is to plan out your sectors if you know the system fail to take into account war. I went to war with another empire and instead of the sector being centered around their Capital like you would expect it was instead centered around the first planet leading into their space that I took. This ended up splitting what would have been a single sector around their core into two sectors instead of the one you would expect.

Also you rarely have the luxury of colonizing in a way to maximize sector size. Either because you don't have the influence to expand out that far yet, simply haven't scouted out the systems yet to know there is a better spot, or can't colonize due to low habitability. Often times you colonize the first good worlds you find, say you find a 80% Hab size 20 planet 3 jumps out which will start a new sector but a better spot to make a sector would be the one 5 jumps out that's 80% and size 16 but you haven't found it yet cause it's kind far out since the further you get from your home the more system you have to scout as they branch into more possible paths.

So instead of two solid size sectors you end up with 3 smaller ones. And this seems to potentially happen a lot since you are kinda limited on their placement. Looking at my current game I have 90 planets in 34 sectors. About a dozen are solo because they are planets not even within 3 jumps of another planet. Others are because of the ways wars played out where I should be able to merge into 1 sector given the sector core and all planets within 2 jumps, but instead am stuck with 2-3 sectors based on how the claims were given after the war even when the whole region was taken at once.

Like I have a (P-P-S)(P)(P-S-P) because the system must have given the outer most ones first when it should be more like a (P-P-S-P)(P-S-P). Heck there is one region of a conquered empire that is FIVE sectors which I could easily merge into TWO sectors give the Capital and 2 jumps surrounding it rule. This is the kind of frustrating stuff with sectors which the current system doesn't account for.

Honestly the game has taken a serious nose dive in terms of fun after this patch, and a fair amount of that is due to sectors and AI management. I really hope they rework sectors to give use some control over them again.

 

[ArmChairAttila]

I am just guessing here but I believe that sectors are created at game start and assuming that P-Dox made them this way for performance issues. The only thing I don't like about the new system is I can not remove "finished" planets from my core list. Previously I could just dump a few planets in a sector to both clean up my core list and forget about them.

 

[roman566]

Set hyperlanes density to 2. It creates much more connections so sectors look much better. Not good by any chance, simply better than with standard settings.

 

[Ilightmaster]

I like the new system, but i'd rather manage my sector and how many planets are in it. Not fully automated -> up to 3 - 4 jumps adjacency areas could be an option or a planet with a gouvernor defines the center of a sector

 

[Retry]

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.

It's quadratic, but yes, leader costs can grow at an increasing rate compared to all other expenses to the point that if you attempt to fully-stock your planets with governors, your highest energy expenses become leader payments if you're wide enough.