Why aren't trade hubs used to determine sectors?

[MeowBeep]

It seems like such an intuitive connection that I'm sure I must be failing to taking something important into account.

So, is there any good reason that using the gathering areas of trading hubs to also determine the sector outlines would not work?

 

[Sirbab]

It seems like such an intuitive connection that I'm sure I must be failing to taking something important into account.

So, is there any good reason that using the gathering areas of trading hubs to also determine the sector outlines would not work?

Stellar geography for one, and if you had enough trade hubs near eachother then the sector issue could be just as bad as before, if not worse.

 

[MeowBeep]

Stellar geography for one, and if you had enough trade hubs near eachother then the sector issue could be just as bad as before, if not worse.

But wouldn't you be better off with multiple hubs on one station in that situation anyway? And at least the player would effectively have control over it happening either way.

 

[Sirbab]

But wouldn't you be better off with multiple hubs on one station in that situation anyway? And at least the player would effectively have control over it happening either way.

Mh, for example lets take a tall megacorp with embrace void for extra starbases, If they build many trade hubs to create extra trade value with the offworld trading company, then they may have a starbase in pretty much every system.
On the other side of this, is a nation with no trade hubs, what would their sectors look like then? Would they get only 1 sector, and allow them to have one governor manage their entire empire? I think that a predefined system sort of like states from eu4 makes the most sense for sectors.

 

[Foefaller]

Pre-defined sectors from galaxy start ala EU4 states or CK2 de jure duchies was the plan with 2.2. They mentioned it in the dev diaries and stars seem to be even more definitely organized into "clusters" than ever before.

But they had to drop it for the current system, for reasons. Maybe it still needs work and they wanted Megacorp out before the holidays?

They long wanted sectors to be a permanent "thing" since the game start that players have to deal with. Likely because a lot of ideas they have to add more to the internal gameplay requires sectors to be things you can't simply get rid up when they annoy you or expand to one single mega-sector, as before.

 

[MeowBeep]

Mh, for example lets take a tall megacorp with embrace void for extra starbases, If they build many trade hubs to create extra trade value with the offworld trading company, then they may have a starbase in pretty much every system.
On the other side of this, is a nation with no trade hubs, what would their sectors look like then? Would they get only 1 sector, and allow them to have one governor manage their entire empire? I think that a predefined system sort of like states from eu4 makes the most sense for sectors.

Wouldn't that Corp still be much better off with one central hub? Two hubs on one station with an offworld is surely better than two stations with one hub and offworld each. And their trade routes would be a nightmare.

Do any empires not have trade? Every one I've started has then on their initial starbase (at which point there is a perfect overlap between initial sector and trade gathering zone). Even if some empire doesn't have access to hubs it wouldn't be hard to give them an equivalent starbase building to form sectors without also gathering trade.

 

[Typee]

Pre-defined sectors from galaxy start ala EU4 states or CK2 de jure duchies was the plan with 2.2. They mentioned it in the dev diaries and stars seem to be even more definitely organized into "clusters" than ever before.

But they had to drop it for the current system, for reasons. Maybe it still needs work and they wanted Megacorp out before the holidays?

They long wanted sectors to be a permanent "thing" since the game start that players have to deal with. Likely because a lot of ideas they have to add more to the internal gameplay requires sectors to be things you can't simply get rid up when they annoy you or expand to one single mega-sector, as before.

Yeah I hope we're gonna get the fixed sectors eventually. There is so much potential for EU4-style streamlining of the map and features. Like having starbases inhibit FTL for a whole sector, assigning trade protectioni by sector and so on and so forth.

 

[jaredstanko]

how about we go back to preset sectors and rethink how trade is collected, now its collected by a space building instead of space modules. every sector ideally has 1 trade hub(per empire in the sector that needs to collect trade). there could be a synergy between this and any habitats built in the same system as the trade hub. i think if trade were collected that way instead of the current way it would be more intuitive and less micro hell. instead of having to set patrol routes to combat piracy(what is this, 2002????) we could assign fleets to trade hubs instead to protect trade power instead. think more like hoi4.

 

[MeowBeep]

Just to clarify the trade range would determine the sector size. This would mean that as tech improved potential sector size would also increase, which seems reasonable. Also trade routes would be between sectors, which also seems reasonable to me. Finally, sectors would once again be relevant to other game mechanics with such connection.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

What happens with planets that fall outside of the collection areas of your trade bases?
Say early in the game where you've only got a trade range of at most two - and you'll start with a trade range of 0. Do all planets start effectively in the core sector until a trade area spreads over them?

What happens if a colonised planet is in sector A (being 6 jumps from a full trade hub), and you build another trade hub 2 jumps away and then raise the trade range so it overlaps the colony? Does it stay in sector A, or does it move to the trade hub it's now closest to?

Trade routes are nominally trade hub > capital, but you can already designate them to go hub > hub > capital should you wish to, which is close to the sector > sector approach.

What happens if a sector has no planets though? If you've set a trade hub up in an area with a lot of free-floating trade but no colonised planets, how does that work?

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Oh, and machine and hive empires don't have trade at all.

 

[MeowBeep]

Well, it would be a planet that isn't in a sector.. But you're going to want to get that trade value from the planet asap anyway. Not being in a sector just means the planet isn't receiving a bonus from a governor. Which is exactly the same as being in a sector without an assigned governor at the moment, so not the end of the world.

Regarding planetless sectors, I think it will be good if governors applied their bonuses to mining and research stations as well, so I don't see that being a major issue.

 

[MeowBeep]

Regarding overlap, ideally you would be able to choose, with it defaulting to the larger sector. But there is already code determining where the trade value is directed, so the could just use that.

Machines/ hives, either they don't use the sector mechanic either (undivided is their thing right?), or just give them equivalent buildings with trade gathering mechanics removed.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Regarding overlap, ideally you would be able to choose, with it defaulting to the larger sector. But there is already code determining where the trade value is directed, so the could just use that.

Machines/ hives, either they don't use the sector mechanic either (undivided is their thing right?), or just give them equivalent buildings with trade gathering mechanics removed.

So... one suggestion is basically "hives and machines can't use sectors at all"?

What should the trade free buildings for hive and machines do - since *all* that the trade buildings do is collect (and create) trade? There is no "equivalent" that's obvious here.

 

[Bugnr01]

Thats what i suggested:

"Suggestion:
Each planet has a govenor by default. Sectors can be created to have one govenor for multiple systems. The creation of a sector should be determent by a spaceport building (a new one, sector managment or somthing like that) and the sector size be a module (admistrative port) with +1 sector size per building and a 1 energie base cost. The trade hub remains as it is.

Why:
i want to have more control how the sectors are created (dont like the one planet ones for example) and due to the fact that i have about one station per sector with planets to haverest the trade it seems logical to tie sectors to stations rather than planets. With this system you are able to dedicate a spaceport to civilian use with three admin ports + trade hubs to creat a a little bit larger sector than now (three jumps) while beeing able to place the center strategically, or make huge, up to six 6 jumps sectors by "wasting one station" (does not give you anything other than a huge sector) and use multiple trade/shipyard/defense stations on the peripherie."

 

[MeowBeep]

So... one suggestion is basically "hives and machines can't use sectors at all"?

What should the trade free buildings for hive and machines do - since *all* that the trade buildings do is collect (and create) trade? There is no "equivalent" that's obvious here.

Yeah, gestalt already cuts out a bunch of similar mechanics, so it wouldn't be unusual. I'd assume that their entire empire would effectively count as a single sector with a single governor though, rather than simply nothing.

For the building, they would just define the sector. If they went this way I'd expect them to also buff their governors to make those buildings worthwhile.

 

[MeowBeep]

Thats what i suggested:

"Suggestion:
Each planet has a govenor by default. Sectors can be created to have one govenor for multiple systems. The creation of a sector should be determent by a spaceport building (a new one, sector managment or somthing like that) and the sector size be a module (admistrative port) with +1 sector size per building and a 1 energie base cost. The trade hub remains as it is.

Why:
i want to have more control how the sectors are created (dont like the one planet ones for example) and due to the fact that i have about one station per sector with planets to haverest the trade it seems logical to tie sectors to stations rather than planets. With this system you are able to dedicate a spaceport to civilian use with three admin ports + trade hubs to creat a a little bit larger sector than now (three jumps) while beeing able to place the center strategically, or make huge, up to six 6 jumps sectors by "wasting one station" (does not give you anything other than a huge sector) and use multiple trade/shipyard/defense stations on the peripherie."

Yeah, I had thought along similar lines until it clicked that distinguishing them adds needless complexity for no real gain. Just tying them together in a single building seems like the most elegant solution.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Thats what i suggested:

"Suggestion:
Each planet has a govenor by default. Sectors can be created to have one govenor for multiple systems. The creation of a sector should be determent by a spaceport building (a new one, sector managment or somthing like that) and the sector size be a module (admistrative port) with +1 sector size per building and a 1 energie base cost. The trade hub remains as it is.

Why:
i want to have more control how the sectors are created (dont like the one planet ones for example) and due to the fact that i have about one station per sector with planets to haverest the trade it seems logical to tie sectors to stations rather than planets. With this system you are able to dedicate a spaceport to civilian use with three admin ports + trade hubs to creat a a little bit larger sector than now (three jumps) while beeing able to place the center strategically, or make huge, up to six 6 jumps sectors by "wasting one station" (does not give you anything other than a huge sector) and use multiple trade/shipyard/defense stations on the peripherie."

I'm not sure the starbase allowance is big enough to allow this.
You're already using starbases for trade collection, trade protection, anchorages and shipyards. Having just under half devoted to each of trade collection and trade protection, with the remaining few being anchorages and shipyards is already straining my limit. Having to take away another chunk just to build sectors would be painful at best, and devastating at worst.

3 trade and 3 "sector" reach would be inherently much worse for trade than 6 trade is, because of inefficiencies in the trade boosting building, and reduced range for collecting free floating trade.

 

[DreadLindwyrm]

Yeah, gestalt already cuts out a bunch of similar mechanics, so it wouldn't be unusual. I'd assume that their entire empire would effectively count as a single sector with a single governor though, rather than simply nothing.

For the building, they would just define the sector. If they went this way I'd expect them to also buff their governors to make those buildings worthwhile.

Having the whole empire as one sector is both a massive buff (you only need one governor) and a massive weakness (you can't specialise areas of your empire), and depending on playstyle one of these two effects would come to dominate enormously.
If all the building does is define a sector it is *massively* weaker than any other option, and would be a solid nerf to all of the gestalt types.
Buffing the governor is a possibility - but that then complicates matters in a way that doesn't really need to happen, and would be difficult to get right to balance it against "normal* sector management, due to the fact that a 6 sector governor could be handling 2 or 3 inhabited systems, or a dozen, so the effects of boosting the gestalt governors would be enormously variable.

 

[Kent_Lang]

Stellar geography for one, and if you had enough trade hubs near eachother then the sector issue could be just as bad as before, if not worse.

The starbases could both be in the same single sector. If another starbase is in range you then simply add it to the sector and you do this for all starbases that are in range of the first starbase's collection range. Add all the territories they collect from combined into the same sector unless it intersect with another sector, in which case you split that distance.

Preferably the starbase would have a building on them for that though so you wouldn't unintentionally create starbases without planets in them.