Skip to content

Launch Sectors

A concrete starter set of buildable sectors small enough to implement first. This page explores which specific sectors should exist at launch and how they behave.

It does not describe final game behavior. It captures the current direction and unresolved design choices.

Goal

Pick the smallest set of sectors that forms a complete, working economy on its own. Every sector in the launch set should do real work — produce or convert something a player actually uses — rather than stand in for a system that does not exist yet. A set built from sectors whose supporting systems are unbuilt would be full of inert pieces, which is exactly what the launch set should avoid.

Working Directions

A sector per launch resource

The cleanest starting point is one sector for each launch resource, split across the two production chains. Extraction sectors pull the raw resources out of an object; processing sectors turn those raw resources into their refined counterparts.

That gives four sectors as the proposed starting set:

  • Mine — extraction; yields structural materials.
  • Well — extraction; yields volatiles.
  • Foundry — processing; turns structural materials into industrial alloys.
  • Refinery — processing; turns volatiles into fuel.

Each is named for the installation that does the work rather than carrying a "Sector" suffix — since everything here is a sector, the suffix would only add noise.

Four is a comfortable first number — enough that a holding has real choices about what to build, few enough that the whole set can be balanced and tested by hand.

This mapping keeps each sector legible. A player never has to ask what a sector is for; its name is its output. It also means the launch set grows naturally later — a new resource chain simply adds its own extraction and processing sectors without reworking the existing ones.

Naming sectors concretely instead of generically

An alternative is to ship two generic sectors — an extraction sector and a processing sector — that each pick which resource they handle when built. Fewer types, more configuration per sector.

The concrete naming feels stronger for a first pass. A "mining sector" and a "gas harvesting sector" read as different decisions even though they share a shape underneath, and that distinctness is most of what makes a holding feel built rather than configured. The generic approach can always be reintroduced later if the number of resources grows large enough that distinct sectors become noise.

Extraction tied to what the object actually holds

An extraction sector only makes sense where its resource exists. A mining sector on an object with no structural materials would produce nothing, so a stronger direction is to treat the object's composition as a gate on placement, not only a multiplier on output. If an object has no occurrence for a resource, the sector that extracts it cannot be built there at all.

This makes the act of scouting an object meaningful before a player commits one of its scarce sites. It also reinforces object asymmetry: a barren object simply offers fewer sector choices than a rich one, before any numbers are compared.

Processing that travels

Where extraction is bound to the object, processing does not have to be. A foundry or refinery converts whatever raw input it is fed, so its value comes from supply, not from the rock it sits on. This opens a natural early decision: place a processor next to its own extraction sector and run a self-contained chain on one object, or place it apart and feed it from elsewhere.

Even without a real logistics system, the self-contained version works on day one, which keeps the launch set playable. The more interesting separated version becomes compelling later as movement and supply gain cost — the design does not have to solve that now to leave room for it.

Flat development for the first set

The long branching development paths can wait. For a launch set, a sector that simply has a level and produces more as it rises is enough to give a holding a sense of growth. Depth — branches, specializations, irreversible choices — is a layer that can be added on top of these same four sectors later without renaming or removing any of them.

The risk is that flat levels feel like a progress bar with no decisions. That may be acceptable for a first pass, or it may need some early pressure — rising cost, upkeep, or input demand — so that pushing a sector higher is a real commitment rather than an inevitability.

Holding the set to production only

Keeping the launch set to extraction and processing is itself a direction worth stating, because it is tempting to add a defensive or population sector "for flavor." The argument against is consistency: if every other launch sector does real work and one does nothing, the inert one defines the player's first impression of what sectors are. Better to ship a small honest set and add support sectors when the systems behind them arrive.

Open Questions

  • Should a single object be allowed to host a whole chain — extraction plus its matching processor — or is co-location something the design wants to discourage in favor of trade between objects?
  • Is a flat level curve enough to feel like progression, or does the first set already need a cost, upkeep, or input-demand curve to make depth a real decision?
  • How much should an object's composition shape the menu of buildable sectors — only gating extraction, or also nudging which processors are worth placing there?
  • Do the two processing sectors share any constraint with each other, or is each chain fully independent at launch?
  • Is four the right launch number, or is there a fifth production-relevant sector that earns its place without depending on an unbuilt system?