We need a better sector....

[Scottbert]

The new system is clearly a step towards sectors being politically important with event chains and such. However, the implementation needs tweaking. Right now, we're being asked to hire a governor for every planet when we're told we should only need one for each group of planets, and so we feel bad at the demand to use resources inefficiently.

 

[Delthor]

Sectors were bad.
What we have now is even worse.

*slow clap*

I disagree. At least now I don't have to lose 25% of my income from most of my planets to be held hostage for influence.

Yes, I'd love to be able to manually draw sectors again, though I recognize that they'd probably put a limit on the number of colonies and/or systems in a sector. I also think that they should add in an option to send resources to the sector each month, so that you don't have to manually do it all the time. Until those two things happen, I'm playing a bit taller and mostly ignoring sectors. At this point, they're pretty much just a way to minimize certain sets of colonies that I'm largely done with, and the rest is ignorable.

 

[Deadbuthappy]

i love to play with machine species ... and the autobuilder funktion for sectors spamms me with food districts and foodbuildings ...

pls help !!!

its very much more micro without the autobuilding, but i cant use them now ... i dont need that much food ^^

and only thats why playing a foodconsumerspecies ? no ...

 

[Kaios26]

I'd like there to be a logic where a system is part of a bigger sector as long as it cannot be in a sector with any other systems. As soon as a planet is colonized that form a sector with the loose planet, they both go into that sector. So the one planet dead-ends that will never be able to join a bigger sector now have a reasonable home, and we don't just have one super sector spanning the galaxy. Also we don't have a vast sector spam, and that could make the planet outliner at least readable.

 

[anamiac]

Sectors do two things, and they do them poorly: Allow governors to maybe sometimes govern multiple planets, and give us a way to automate production (if we trust the AI, which we would be insane to do atm).

But do we really need governors for multiple planets? I don't see why we can't just have a governor for each planet. I also don't think every empire should even have the central government determining the governors. Does the UN tell individual countries who to elect as their president? Of course not. Planets should appoint their own governor. That shouldn't be my job.

As for the AI priorities, that would be better designated on a planet-by-planet basis anyway.

 

[TehJumpingJawa]

There's such a dissonance in design between automatic sectors, governor specialisation, special planet modifiers, and districts.

"Oh cool, I've got a planet with the high quality minerals modifier!"
"Oh, it doesn't have any mining districts...."

"Oh cool, I've got a planet with loads of mining districts!"
"Oh, it's been auto-sectored alongside a planet with lots of farming districts...."

How these systems interlink hasn't been considered at all; PI have just thrown mechanics into the proverbial mixer and hit 'blend', completely extinguishing the potential for player driven empire optimisation.

 

[JangoBunBun]

Sectors do two things, and they do them poorly: Allow governors to maybe sometimes govern multiple planets, and give us a way to automate production (if we trust the AI, which we would be insane to do atm).

But do we really need governors for multiple planets? I don't see why we can't just have a governor for each planet. I also don't think every empire should even have the central government determining the governors. Does the UN tell individual countries who to elect as their president? Of course not. Planets should appoint their own governor. That shouldn't be my job.

As for the AI priorities, that would be better designated on a planet-by-planet basis anyway.

Having one governor per planet would be micro hell. If you're playing wide it's not uncommon to have 30+ planets, and if you want to quickly develop those planets you'd need 30+ governors, but if you had 10 sectors of 3 planets you'd have only 10 governors, which is far more manageable both in upkeep and in micromanagement.

 

[Greenslade]

Your soft borders idea would be fantastic.

I've ranted on this elsewhere, but I think one of the biggest things Stellaris needs is just more mobility on the map. As-is you get so quickly fenced in by three or four neighbors, and then basically the whole game just collapses to that perspective. The rest of the galaxy might as well not be there much of the time.

I'd like to send ships across the galaxy, to intervene in foreign conflicts and build trade routes with other empires (although I know that's not a thing yet). Soft borders that you can move through would do a lot for that.

Thanks, yeah, I think it would be a really good layer.

I will say I *really* like the new planet mechanics and the ideas, but I do think that they need another couple of versions to make them into the best thing they can be. I know a lot of players don't like devs shipping "unfinished software" but I think it's great to see something grow and iterate as you play it.

What I think we're missing, where the "micro" complaints come in, is not having enough ways to oversee things between "the whole empire" and "a planet." Yes, autobuilding is OK, but a decent sector view would enable the management of more planets anyway by letting you make decisions across a group. If you had a mining sector you don't necessarily need to pick the exact planet to build a new mining district in, you just need to say "build a new mining district somewhere" and the computer can use a simple algorithm (free housing, free jobs etc) to pick somewhere for you. If there was a way to make broad decisions like that - these are all mining planets so develop all the mineral resources and built purification hubs on every world that can support it - you wouldn't have to go into the planet view unless you wanted to tweak stuff.

 

[anamiac]

Having one governor per planet would be micro hell.

Hence why I suggested that they should be elected/promoted Automatically by the planet's political entity. How many Governors has President Trump appointed? None.

 

[JangoBunBun]

Hence why I suggested that they should be elected/promoted Automatically by the planet's political entity. How many Governors has President Trump appointed? None.

Having them be promoted automatically, with some way to replace governors for influence/energy (both?) would be mandatory for a system like that. I don't want some machine with the bulldozer trait to pop up on my terraformed research world.

 

[rwolnicki]

I've added following to suggestions thread: "Sectors in 2.2.2 are disappointing. Only automation sector creation, based on the first planet created in the sector, is not good.
I agree that there should be a limit for size of sector, can be 2 hyperlines from sector capital, as probably is now, better (3/4/5) ,but... Let people create shape of sector as they want within capital of sector range (expanding sector in the way known from 2.1). Allow human change sector capital (in similar way as empire capital). Let human move systems between sectors. Allow merge sectors if the limits of range are right.
Give sector capital a special small bonus/building to fell a bit different then other planets. (like government ethics 25%?)

Now sector feel pesky... I am holding myself from colonization to wait for terraform to establish capital in good spot, to optimize sectors a bit . This is not pleasant experience."

 

[Deadbuthappy]

any machine player here ?

what can we do against the forced food produktion ?

 

[Ariphaos]

I made a thread with my own thoughts on this, balancing the rather obvious hope of political goals while still giving player agency over their sectors.