Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
You can't manually add or remove systems from existing sectors other than by manipulating borders by dismantling specific outposts.
The community has been asking for this for a long time to deal with megastructures being 'released' to vassal and other stuff that makes no sense.
Why? Why on Earth would you design a system of sectors that doesn't allow you to choose what is in what sector? I mean I just don't even understand the thought process. What idiot...? Is it deliberate? Is there a DLC you can buy that fixes it?
I don't understand the argument about it reducing "micromanagement" either. I mean deciding what to build in which cities is central to this sort of game, if you don't want to do that, you should stick to, you know, space invaders or something. There doesn't seem to be that much micromanagement in it. Have the devs ever played Civilization? And then by the same token the sector system introduces a whole new layer of unnecessary micromanagement in terms of feeding resources through. Deciding what to build in your colonies? Fine, that's what the game is. Designing layers of depots to shuffle resources between overall, sector and planet stores? Can I switch it off please?
Has anyone made a mod that just switched off the whole sectors thing?
It's deliberate. DLCs don't change this.
It's not about reducing micromanagement. Having sectors or not doesn't inherently automatize stuff, so you don't need to be feeding them resources, you can still micro literally everything regardless if you have extra sectors or not.
The only reason for sectors is for your colonies to have governors, to reduce pop sprawl and increase job output + whatever other bonus governors give from their traits.
No the way I remember the whole topic is that the Stellaris team wanted to "force" sector mechanic on us because people were using Sector in unnatural way which had a different set of problem. One mega-sector vs dozens of sector that impose a HUGE drain on your influence to pull resource out of the stockpile which was when sector tax used to be a thing and people hated the sector tax.
So Stellaris team back then tried to change so that sector size was this fixed number of jump from sector homeworld. This feature created a god-awful internal border-gore that shouldn't exists. If you went to war and lose some planet and then went back to re-acquire them. Guess what? Now you have three one size sector and 3 two solar system sector in what is "supposed" to be natural one-sector area.
So Stellaris team gave up and gave us the control to move the sector homeworld and create them. But it doesn't really 100% solve all of the edge cases where you want to release vassal and have the megastructures that you paid for stay inside your empire but you can't because they don't want you to selectively add/remove solar systems from sector (only ringworld and habitat are safe from this because you can create a new sector using them).
You can fix that border gore if it's an issue though, as I mentioned at the start, but it'll cost influence to dismantle and rebuild select starbases, and forming and disbanding sectors.
Should work the same for the megastructure systems, dismantle their base before releasing the vassal and rebuild it.
So in essence, you cannot. A game that forces you to spend lots of resources to fix essentially a sloppy bit of design... loses all its interest really quickly. At that point it becomes grind to fix programmers' laziness.
What it the reason you cannot simply reassign systems between sectors? I just don't understand how you could avoid putting that in. In any real-world situation you can do that. A country can move the borders of its states or counties. If the game has vulnerablities in other mechanics that this one is supposed to fix... maybe fix them instead?
If you're saying the benefit of using sectors is about governors, does that not become hugely uneconomic when half your sectors have one system in them? But yet rebuilding starbases is also presumably expensive, because I imagine when you demolish them you get a small proportion of the cost back? I'm only about 70 hrs in; I haven't got as far as demolishing a starbase to sort out my sectors. I kind of refuse, because you shouldn't @€#£ing have to, just to put things in the sectors you want.
I am trying to illustrate that Stellaris team was trying to fix a problem that didn't exist in the first place which was to remove the sector tax. I was not one of those who want to remove the sector tax.
But it does give the audience some background to where and how the Sector changed over time to what we have now.
Everything you mentioned costs influence which doesn't address the point I was making. There is no real way to selectively add/remove a specific solar system from the sector normally in-game and people have been asking for some form of that ever since the original sector mechanics was removed. Back then we had options to add and remove sector at will and you could add more energy system to sector that was starved of energy and vice versa for mineral.
If you change it so that you can set megastructure as the home hq for sector (useful in case of Dyson Sphere). It would solve so many of the edge cases that exist today. That is a real solution. Not disbanding and re-building outposts which costs influence and we have so many influence sinks that it is not unusual to be starved for influence. Unless you play tall at which point you have lot of influence sitting around in which case the above scenario doesn't apply to them anyway.
Leaders are cheap anyway, even if you find yourself in a situation with a dozen "1 system sectors" you either ignore giving them a governor or you don't, it won't make or break your playthrough if you do or don't. It helps, and unless we're talking of like size 8 planets a governor is most probably worth it, even if they're only buffing one colony, but it's not a crucial aspect, you could just leave them in frontier sector, or disable sector map view.
What's your side of the border gore problem? It's ugly, or waste/ineffective?
Why though? Unless I'm misremembering, sector balance never actually mattered.
And it wasn't always at will, depends on which version of the system you're talking of. At one point removing systems also cost influence.
You don't need to play tall to have spare influence. By the time you really have to deal with "problematic border gore" or (for whatever reason) releasing vassals, you should be earning more than enough influence and past the expansion phase.
I support being able to more easily manipulating sector borders, but it's not a serious issue.
That is not true.
We used to have this feature (whose name escape me right now) where you could manage one or two worlds directly. Sector tax didn't touch those. So it was benefit to keep super-worlds out of the sector at the trade off that you had to manage it directly.
Sector XX% tax was there to ensure that sector had some resource to build/maintenance your building and upgrades (mining build 1 -> mining build 2 etc...). Remember all the whining about endless building upgrades? Sector automation back then took care of that!!! If no one wanted to pay a sector tax then how are automation AI suppose to have resource to work with?
Right now in live version, I don't even waste any time nor resource investing into sector because the AI automation can't even figure what I want it to build in X building and Y district slots.
What are you talking about? I am always starved of influence because there are so many feature tied into spending influence to the point that telling people to spend influence is not helpful as a suggestion. It has been a long problem to the point that I am min-maxing faction happiness and delaying the start of the secondary factions (slaves and robot can't have faction) which sometime can really impact your influence income negatively.
Influence cost sink including but not limited to follow mechanics.
Fabricating claims for war/CB/expansion
Building new starbase
Edicts
Planet decisions (stop robot production and other decisions like that)
Diplomatic Pact monthly upkeep
Integrating subjects
influencing elections
reforming government
faction interaction (encouraging or suppression faction)
Edit: I can't believe I forget Relic costs influence too.
I tried a long time ago to get PDX act together and tweak some of those feature so it was actually possible to plan out your influence sinker but they kept adding in more "lump sum" buttons. That I gave up on changing anything.
You never seen the worse of internal bordergore sector have you? It sinks as much as looking at an ugly HRE border gore that player posts of EU 4 franchise but somehow cranked up to 11 out of 5.
https://i.redd.it/bzrk418we4421.jpg
From https://www.reddit.com/r/Stellaris/comments/a5yfz7/border_gore_no_longer_just_for_empire_borders/
That was before we could destroy the internal sector and reform it.
After all the colonies in the sector were filled and didn't have anything else to build, the sector still kept that 25%, but hey, at least you could spend influence to drain that sector storage (partially IIRC).
Or you could do that like now and give the sector full control and let your colonies' potential be wasted (still not as bad as now I guess because it was limited to what the grid allowed).
Between then and now there was a time I believe, where you were still limited to core systems for full usable output, but could at least manage construction even while the colonies were under sector control.
Most of those influence sinks are situational spendings. Claims are the only really common one.
Having to dismantle starbases and rebuild is not ideal, of course not, but it is a possibility for people bothered by that.
That first screenshot is ridiculous, half of those sectors could only exist if the person skipped systems and created those sectors before uniting the territory. He could unite everything except Moscot in the capital sector if he disbanded those extra sectors and claimed a couple systems.
But anyway, from a "looks" point of view, if that's the problem, untoggle sector view.
Situational? Some of them are not really situational so to speak of.
You have an energy shortfall? *Spend influence to enable extra energy production edict*.
You have an unused edict that you want to get rid to free up one edict capacity on something else? *Spend influence to remove edict. Then spend some more influence to enable a new edict*.
You want to stop growth? *Spend influence on planet decisions that stop growth which scale up with number of worlds you have etc...*.
It just never stop. Almost each other patch/expansion there is something new to spend influence on feature-wise.
I know of 4X games where you can plan your *scarcity* resource cost sink ahead of time and it feel much better having more awareness of what you can spend on or can't if you want to plan for something else.