Less empire sprawl from colony-less systems.

[HyperKnight]

How much bureaucrates does it takes to run a hauler to mining or research outpost?

[Malaficus Shaikan]

It depends?
How corrupt is your goverment?
Anywhere from none to as many as we need to give jobs to waste taxpayer money.

[HyperKnight]

And here you mention a whole new game mechanic!
My point is, for example Great Britain managed a LOT of colonies around the globe just fine because of low population count therein.
Thus, empire sprawl penalty from small outposts in outlying systems is disproportionally large. Should be 0.5 or something.

[HyperKnight]

And to balance it, a new variable - empire sprawl from upgraded stations - could be added.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

It's supposed to have more seperation between 'wide' and 'tall'. Being a small carefully built up empire will likely benefit from more administrators than a sprawling one of loose connected systems with very little governance.

It's actually just as you said.. they're small outposts and a bunch of low colonies.. that doesn't really support itself for an efficient society towards unity or science.

Also the new mechanic they already have is admin costs from pops.. so.. they are already doing what you said in a way.

[Red Earth]

It already has less sprawl for empty systems.
Each system adds 2. Each colony adds 2.
So a system without a colony costs 2, while a system with a colony adds 4.

EDIT: Also 1 for each disyrict on those planets.

[HyperKnight]

My point exactly. Why outpost adds the same 2 cost as a colony when outpost does not haves an administrative building and the colony does? If we are to be sensible here, cost should go up from the level of administration.

Speaking of wide vs tall,

Originally posted by Lady Crimson:

It's supposed to have more seperation between 'wide' and 'tall'. Being a small carefully built up empire will likely benefit from more administrators than a sprawling one of loose connected systems with very little governance.

this is kinda nonsense. Because more administrators are unlocked by tech, unity and civics, not the empire size.
Also, from what i know about Stellaris lategame, you either capture half the map or lose anyway because AI federations are rubbish vs endgame threats.

[GeneralVeers]

Here's the deal, guys. You're trying to make sense of something that DOES NOT make sense.

Empire sprawl and administrative capacity have exactly one purpose: to slow down your expansion and prevent one empire from locking up half the map and becoming a "runaway". Sprawl makes absolutely NO sense within the game universe. You have to break the fourth wall, and view the concept from OUTSIDE the game. As the PLAYER.


Anyone here ever heard of Master Of Orion? Hopefully everybody has. :) Anyway, that game had a much better rule for reducing the chance of a runaway: your ships had limited operational range. The game called it "fuel cell technology". At the start of the game, your ships had a range of (if I remember correctly) four light-years--and it was impossible for your ships to move further than four light-years away from one of your colonies. So you had to colonize stuff in order to get further out into space. And colony ships were expensive. There was technology to give your ships bigger fuel cells, but it took a LONG time to get to where you could travel anywhere on the map.

Old-school for the win, eh?

[HyperKnight]

Hmm? These forums are full of screenshots with player owning half the galaxy so this mechanic doesn't seem to work.

Also, MoOII had a LOT more colonizable planets, so the reference is not quite relevant to the discussion.

What i am trying to communicate is that administrative capacity should be affected less by claimed systems and more by meaningful power-wise objects.

If an empire claims a lot of systems it would cost alloys meaning lesser fleet, it would be cut down to size by more powerful rivals who would be infuriated by the border friction, so this is already covered.

On the topic of a "runaway" there are already end-game threats to deal with...

[HyperKnight]

It just dawned on me that the issue i started this thread about is caused by that i play with 5x habitable planets and on default settings it is the number of outposts that needs penalizing.

So the administrative capacity cost could be adjusted based on the number of habitable planets settings, leaving default as is but shifting on higher numbers towards less costs from systems and more from colonies.

[GeneralVeers]

Originally posted by Longfellow:

Hmm? These forums are full of screenshots with player owning half the galaxy so this mechanic doesn't seem to work.

Oh, it definitely doesn't work.

Originally posted by Longfellow:

Also, MoOII had a LOT more colonizable planets

Not in the early game. A lot of the planets CANNOT be colonized (at all) until the proper technology is researched. With some of the harsher planets, that takes a LONG time.

It would definitely be a better answer. Sprawl is annoying and immersion-breaking.

[HyperKnight]

Sphere of influence concept of early Stellaris was MoOII-like but then they reworked it...