Why do some people not like Administrative Capacity?

[Ryika]

The reason given of being afraid of wide empires having a lot of research compared to a small (tall) empire is a bad reason as I've said before if an Empire is going wide alloys spent on fleets and war is alloys not spent on Science Habitats. That reason is only a reason if you do not understand how to play tall.

You keep saying this, but it's just not true.

Any resources you spend on expansion are a 1-time expense that is made back very quickly in the scope of Stellaris. That's especially true if that wide empire gets its expansion by taking already developed worlds from other countries.

The way a wide empire on a conquest sprees can scale up compared to a more peaceful empire is absurd.

 

[unmerged(350868)]

Expand or die?

I remember Civ4 had a mechanic to stop rapud expansion. That was not much fun either. You could have corruption reducing efficiency. Maybe based on a certain number of sectors, or a capital building.

Perhaps the way to reduce growth is to simulate resource management movements, instead of having materials teleport to wherever they are needed.

Either way, I like things how they are.

 

[wodzu_93]

No need to get out of the calculator and it's not the only system in play that isn't linear.
And we can always add a system in play to say how much administrative capacity you would need to reduce the current administrative inefficiency one level.

If the formula has this form, it is also to avoid an exponential growth of penalties to allow big empires to exist, even if they will suffer big penalties and will need a large bureaucracy to avoid collapsing on themselves.

Since Stellaris can house large empires, an exponentially growing system can quickly become problematic.
For example, with your "idea" of double the previous pop, that makes: 1, 2, 4, 8, 16, 32, 64, 128, 256, 512, 1024, 2048, and I don't even have added the addition of the pops.
Even doing with x1.01 instead of x2, the 500th pop is 144.77 and the 600th is 391.58. I avoid cumulating. XD
Obviously you have to factor in the modifiers, but yeah, it ends up exploding "pretty quickly".

For example, in my example at 2000 empire sprawl (with equivalent administrative capacity), we are at level 8 of administrative inefficiency, at 10,000, we are at level 13 "only" (13,68). Certainly, at this level, the empire would already collapse no doubt. And it would undoubtedly be difficult to have an administration efficient enough to go down to at least level 10 (but that would depend on the impact of technologies, traditions and other modifiers), at this level (and before), it would undoubtedly be essential to have dependencies to remain viable.

It is not a "loophole", I speak about it precisely so that this loophole does not exist by creating a system which prevents this abuse. Note that currently you can well activate massive bureaucrats to unlock technologies and traditions and then deactivate them. This flaw already exists today.

Personally, I don't think this would be a bad thing - having this level of inefficiency would be a good incentive to look at creating vassal empires, thus creating "internal politics", as now you will have vassals to care about. In fact, pre-2.0 this is exactly what game was doing - you had a cap on how many planets you could control directly, and going over the cap made your empire less efficient.

 

[currylambchop]

They should remove bureaucrats and make culture workers more important by making unity be used to generate admin capacity. Or make bureaucrats use unity upkeep alternatively.

 

[Jirass]

Because it can be ignored.
Without any consequences.

 

[Everstill]

The only problem with Admin buildings is how Sprawl don't increase faster for bigger empires.

They need to scale where the bigger you are the more admin you need, instead of a flat rate.

 

[Deshiba]

Previously: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 20% more scientists to keep up.
Currently: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 2 administrators to keep up.

The conversion rates of administrators just gave larger empires a way out of penalties. This effectively removes all the advantages of staying small.
The only other deficit to growing right now is "do I want to micro manage every single thing"....

---

I'd much prefer a system where we'd have more control over how big our sectors are where:

• Sectors span 2 systems wide by default
• Capitals gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase module gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase building gave +1 sector range
• Contested systems could be swapped between sectors
• Admin cap would work per sector (i.e. each sector requires as many administrators per sector range or risk getting rebellions and decreased output)
• Empire sprawl would be based of the amount of sectors (i.e. 2 sectors max, anything over that gives severe penalties. Traditions to increase the max to 3)

A system like this would give the player more control over how big their sectors are, while also giving them a drain on existing sectors and incentives to make vassals out of sectors.

I concede that I have been playing CK3 a lot, and this system would represent a ruler only holding 2 duchies within a kingdom/empire and giving the rest away to vassals. It would be fairly similar to that system, but then with player defined sectors instead of game defined duchies.

 

[Echo Candor One]

Previously: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 20% more scientists to keep up.
Currently: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 2 administrators to keep up.

The conversion rates of administrators just gave larger empires a way out of penalties. This effectively removes all the advantages of staying small.
The only other deficit to growing right now is "do I want to micro manage every single thing"....

---

I'd much prefer a system where we'd have more control over how big our sectors are where:

• Sectors span 2 systems wide by default
• Capitals gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase module gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase building gave +1 sector range
• Contested systems could be swapped between sectors
• Admin cap would work per sector (i.e. each sector requires as many administrators per sector range or risk getting rebellions and decreased output)
• Empire sprawl would be based of the amount of sectors (i.e. 2 sectors max, anything over that gives severe penalties. Traditions to increase the max to 3)

A system like this would give the player more control over how big their sectors are, while also giving them a drain on existing sectors and incentives to make vassals out of sectors.

I concede that I have been playing CK3 a lot, and this system would represent a ruler only holding 2 duchies within a kingdom/empire and giving the rest away to vassals. It would be fairly similar to that system, but then with player defined sectors instead of game defined duchies.

Clarification: Did you mean Administrators (the ruler) or Beaurocrats (the specialist that mitigates sprawl)?

 

[sillyrobot]

And you think not having to manage that recourse is not too simple?

I think it's quite stupid to remove a feature because it only half finished.
Larger empires should have penalties based on internal strife (actual civil wars and pirates that scale with your fleet power) and the bureaucracy could be linked to the deeper internal gameplay. Removing game content by taking away bureaucrats does not make any sense to me.

They took a system where getting larger would always incur growing penalties (not growing sufficiently perhaps -- larger still got more done than smaller) and replaced it with a system where the penalties can be completely avoided at a lower cost in unity/research than the original system. That is not an improvement.

Additionally, how many years / versions can go by and have people still claim with a straight face that "it is not done". If it was that uncooked to begin with, it shouldn't have been released into the game until it was closer to done.

 

[sillyrobot]

Because penalising playstyles for no reason is very bad!

Also I am going to explain why the worry of a larger empire having the same efficiency as a small empire should not be a problem.

If there is a large empires and a small empire if they are both good at the game the smaller empire will have more science than the larger empire..
Every time you build a battleship or a space station that is alloys that is not going to build a science habitat.
So an entire fleet being built and maintained is going to be the same cost as a whole fleet of habitats.

This worry from being out teched by a larger empire is only a worry if you are bad at the game.

Larger Empires should not have penalties coming from nowhere the penalties should be from reworked pirates and internal strife (civil wars etc). This is something that actually makes thematic sense. Penalties from nowhere does not make thematic sense and is just penalising playing wide for no reason. The only reason I can think of is if you are bad at the game.

Lord no. my current playthrough, I'm on yeat 2310ish. I have 150 colonies, maybe 30 habitats, and 5 fleets that break 150 fleet power each. I've eaten two Fallen Empires and and busily removing a large Fanatic Purifier that annoyed me.
I'm selling alloys on the market because I've hit cap. I've hit high-teens in repeatables in useful research. My research has hit 15K per category per month. I have all traditions and have activated all intresting unity ambitions.

The only resource constraining my empire is Influence -- I have another dozen or so research habitats to make (that I know of... no doubt I'll find more) and I could start a 3rd megastructure, but I can't scrape together enough influence more than once every couple of years.

I was able to do all this because the empire is large and the penalties are ignorable.

 

[Deshiba]

Clarification: Did you mean Administrators (the ruler) or Beaurocrats (the specialist that mitigates sprawl)?

The latter

 

[grommile]

Every time you build a battleship or a space station that is alloys that is not going to build a science habitat.

If your habitat construction is limited by Alloys, rather than Influence, you aren't producing enough Alloys.

 

[Casko]

Previously: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 20% more scientists to keep up.
Currently: Sprawl gives -20% science, better build 2 administrators to keep up.

The conversion rates of administrators just gave larger empires a way out of penalties. This effectively removes all the advantages of staying small.
The only other deficit to growing right now is "do I want to micro manage every single thing"....

---

I'd much prefer a system where we'd have more control over how big our sectors are where:

• Sectors span 2 systems wide by default
• Capitals gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase module gave +1 sector range
• A Starbase building gave +1 sector range
• Contested systems could be swapped between sectors
• Admin cap would work per sector (i.e. each sector requires as many administrators per sector range or risk getting rebellions and decreased output)
• Empire sprawl would be based of the amount of sectors (i.e. 2 sectors max, anything over that gives severe penalties. Traditions to increase the max to 3)

A system like this would give the player more control over how big their sectors are, while also giving them a drain on existing sectors and incentives to make vassals out of sectors.

I concede that I have been playing CK3 a lot, and this system would represent a ruler only holding 2 duchies within a kingdom/empire and giving the rest away to vassals. It would be fairly similar to that system, but then with player defined sectors instead of game defined duchies.

This reminds me the fact that Stellaris still lacks Internal politics and happenings within an Empire.
And that Factions require a desperate rework as they currently are merely miniscule influence givers that don't even actively do anything. I bet some of you even forgot that there are, in fact, political factions in the game.

We'd really need factions do something, and something akin to sectors working together or against each other, and even against you the player, like vassals in a CK game where you can still build in their lands but at the same time having a decree of independence and small private fleets hidden under the hood to fight crime and piracy. Or profligate crime in your empire if you're Criminal Syndicate or your Sector Governor dislikes the current ruler.



Also Vassal Megacorps still can't do trade in their overlord unless you're in a federation, which if I may say, is real dumb as well.

 

[drawar]

Personally, I don't think this would be a bad thing - having this level of inefficiency would be a good incentive to look at creating vassal empires, thus creating "internal politics", as now you will have vassals to care about. In fact, pre-2.0 this is exactly what game was doing - you had a cap on how many planets you could control directly, and going over the cap made your empire less efficient.

Except that I already hear the complaints about stupid AI vassals (well, AIs in general). I don't think that's what will make people like my idea more. XD

Afterwards, yes, offering a flexible system with multiple solutions to a problem is more interesting than simply setting arbitrary limits that you suffer without really being able to react.

If you want to avoid using vassals, you can try to maximize the bonuses limiting the sprawl empire and increasing the efficiency of the bureaucrats: technology, tradition, perk rise, genetic trait and etc; and obviously invest in a more imposing administrative apparatus. Obviously, if you put on too much weight, it could become insufficient.
For example, for an Administration tradition

Unlock : Ruler job +5 Administrative Capacity

   *Local Administration*                                             *Administration Academy*                    
    +1 Bureaucrat job per                                           Bureaucrat and Administrator
     level of planetary                                                +1 Unity and +1 Society
      capital building                                                           |
(after Reassembled Ship Shelter )                                                |
          |                                                             *Budget restriction*
          |                                                            -20% Bureaucrat Upkeep
    *Federated state*                                                            |
-33% of the Empire Sprawl contribution                                           |
   for autonomous sectors                                            *Bureaucratic hierarchy*
                                                                      +1 Administrator job per
                                                                       Administrative Offices
                                                       
Finished : -1 level of administrative inefficiency

 

[Deshiba]

This reminds me the fact that Stellaris still lacks Internal politics and happenings within an Empire.
And that Factions require a desperate rework as they currently are merely miniscule influence givers that don't even actively do anything. I bet some of you even forgot that there are, in fact, political factions in the game.

We'd really need factions do something, and something akin to sectors working together or against each other, and even against you the player, like vassals in a CK game where you can still build in their lands but at the same time having a decree of independence and small private fleets hidden under the hood to fight crime and piracy. Or profligate crime in your empire if you're Criminal Syndicate or your Sector Governor dislikes the current ruler.



Also Vassal Megacorps still can't do trade in their overlord unless you're in a federation, which if I may say, is real dumb as well.

I don't even want to try to wrap my head around faction mechanics. I can sympathise with the devs for not touching that nightimare in waiting...

Except that I already hear the complaints about stupid AI vassals (well, AIs in general). I don't think that's what will make people like my idea more. XD

Afterwards, yes, offering a flexible system with multiple solutions to a problem is more interesting than simply setting arbitrary limits that you suffer without really being able to react.

If you want to avoid using vassals, you can try to maximize the bonuses limiting the sprawl empire and increasing the efficiency of the bureaucrats: technology, tradition, perk rise, genetic trait and etc; and obviously invest in a more imposing administrative apparatus. Obviously, if you put on too much weight, it could become insufficient.
For example, for an Administration tradition

Unlock : Ruler job +5 Administrative Capacity

   *Local Administration*                                             *Administration Academy*                   
    +1 Bureaucrat job per                                           Bureaucrat and Administrator
     level of planetary                                                +1 Unity and +1 Society
      capital building                                                           |
(after Reassembled Ship Shelter )                                                |
          |                                                             *Budget restriction*
          |                                                            -20% Bureaucrat Upkeep
    *Federated state*                                                            |
-33% of the Empire Sprawl contribution                                           |
   for autonomous sectors                                            *Bureaucratic hierarchy*
                                                                      +1 Administrator job per
                                                                       Administrative Offices
                                                      
Finished : -1 level of administrative inefficiency

Can't really wrap my mind around this one. I don't think that the AI sucking arse is a reason to not improve a system though.
A system around administrators seems valid as long as administrators get more interactions then they currently do.

 

[drawar]

I agree, I was saying that as a joke, but I'm sure it would be a real complaint from some players, if such a system was implemented.

 

[StellarXe]

I like the idea, but I don't like it only being numbers.

 

[ThePangaean]

You keep saying this, but it's just not true.

Any resources you spend on expansion are a 1-time expense that is made back very quickly in the scope of Stellaris. That's especially true if that wide empire gets its expansion by taking already developed worlds from other countries.

The way a wide empire on a conquest sprees can scale up compared to a more peaceful empire is absurd.

Wrong.

If what you were saying were true then no one would do any tech in a mp games and would just spam corvettes with red lasers to try to win the game. This strategy doesn't win every time and not everyone does it because even if they are successful on rushing down 1 empire the extra pops is not a sufficient advantage to defeat everyone else investing in tech because they will get cruisers.

 

[drawar]

I like the idea, but I don't like it only being numbers.

I don't know if you're talking about my idea.

Afterwards, we can add events according to the level of administrative inefficiency and also planetary decisions (or decree and others) that could help to face the penalties, but in exchange for consequences and other costs, so it would be necessary to judge whether this would be useful in the short, medium or long term.

Kind of like the “Launch Anti-Crime Campaign”, “Negotiate with Crime Lords” and “Declare Martial Law”.
It could offer other possibilities, depending on the nature of the empire and the planets, to face the consequences of administrative inefficiency.

Maybe I should think about it a bit soon and update my other topic.

 

[Critical Ethics]

How is this not penalising to have an unmitigable malus there for playing wide?

It's no more "penalising" or "unmitigateable" than starbase or district or ship upkeep. You mitigate the energy upkeep by increasing your produced energy, you mitigate the alloy upkeep by increasing your produced alloys, and the game should have you mitigate the science and unity "upkeep" by increasing your produced science and unity. The last is represented as an increase in tech/tradition requirements rather than a per-pop/district/system cost but it's all just the price of doing business.