Tl;Dr
Ranches are a food-producing DLC-only building that require no technologies to research, and the in-dome variant outclass hydroponics farms so severely in almost every category (notably including water efficiency and food output) that they make hydroponics farms completely useless for food production if you have the DLC. For my next trick I want to compare outside ranches with fungal farms, and then compare in-dome ranches with normal farms.
Note, I use the abbreviation 'HF' for Hydroponics Farms, because I say that a lot.
Overview
So if you have the Project Laika DLC, you can make ranches, which come in two flavours: a 10-tile inside variant, and an outside variant which I haven't tested or ran the numbers on (although the outside variant could be compared quite nicely with the Fungal Farm in the future). Neither variant has any tech requirement, and the inside variant has 4 options to choose which animals you want to breed and eat. I built one when running my second game, and found that the ranch was really, really good. Then I ran the numbers and found that HFs are almost always worse than ranches. Note that since the inside variant of the ranch is 10 tiles in size, I have compared 1 ranch with 3 HFs. For my first comparison, I compare 3 leaf crop HFs (highest output, longest growth time time, and highest resource consumption) with 1 turkey ranch (highest output, longest growth time, and one of the highest resource consumptions). I have listed the HF upgrades, but not the ranch upgrades (if applicable), because I don't know what the ranch upgrades are. However, even with this handicap, HFs come up way short.
HF Pros
Ranches Pros
Other comparisons between ranches and HFs
The only other difference between the two are that 3 HFs cost 12 metal and 6 polymers, but 1 Ranch costs 10 concrete, 5 metal, and 1 machine part. It is very difficult to compare those two costs and determine which is better, but IMO they are about the same. As you can see ranches produce more food cheaper and with less labour (and unskilled labour to boot!), making them superior.
What's even worse is that in the Steam page, ranches are described as "consum[ing] more water than crops". But lets compare the most water-efficent HF crop (micro-greens) with the least water-efficent ranch animal (geese). This is the only situation in which 3 HFs consume less water per sol than a single ranch, and what's worse is that not only do geese produce 11.25 food per sol (compared to 7.5 food per sol for micro-greens), geese are still better at converting water to food (Geese produce 0.39 food per unit of water consumed, while micro-greens produce 0.347 food per unit of water consumed.)
Conclusion
Obviously something is funky with balance. I still need to compare outdoor pastures with fungal farms, and in-dome pastures with farms, but at a bare minimum, ranches should not simply be a more efficient HF. I have a few ideas (maybe increase water consumption significantly, or add a new 'animal feed' resource that is easy to grow in large quantities for cheap, and can be turned into 'people food' in ranches, or maybe make ranches a 'hybrid food producer / service building' (if that is possible with modding), that also boosts 'luxury' for non-vegans?), but first I need to see if I am overlooking something obvious, which is where you come in. Also, if someone could run the comparisons that I didn't do while I sleep, that would be great.
Ranches are a food-producing DLC-only building that require no technologies to research, and the in-dome variant outclass hydroponics farms so severely in almost every category (notably including water efficiency and food output) that they make hydroponics farms completely useless for food production if you have the DLC. For my next trick I want to compare outside ranches with fungal farms, and then compare in-dome ranches with normal farms.
Note, I use the abbreviation 'HF' for Hydroponics Farms, because I say that a lot.
Overview
So if you have the Project Laika DLC, you can make ranches, which come in two flavours: a 10-tile inside variant, and an outside variant which I haven't tested or ran the numbers on (although the outside variant could be compared quite nicely with the Fungal Farm in the future). Neither variant has any tech requirement, and the inside variant has 4 options to choose which animals you want to breed and eat. I built one when running my second game, and found that the ranch was really, really good. Then I ran the numbers and found that HFs are almost always worse than ranches. Note that since the inside variant of the ranch is 10 tiles in size, I have compared 1 ranch with 3 HFs. For my first comparison, I compare 3 leaf crop HFs (highest output, longest growth time time, and highest resource consumption) with 1 turkey ranch (highest output, longest growth time, and one of the highest resource consumptions). I have listed the HF upgrades, but not the ranch upgrades (if applicable), because I don't know what the ranch upgrades are. However, even with this handicap, HFs come up way short.
HF Pros
- Consumes 1.3 less oxygen (-0.3 per hour instead of 1)
- Harvests 1 sol earlier (4 instead of 5)
- Uses one less tile, so they can be split into multiple big tiles, or put in the little 3 tile triangles in the Barrel Dome (which IMO is the best dome to start with)
- Can be upgraded to produce algae, which is the best oxygen producer in the game
- Can be upgraded to produce rice, which produces 50% more food per sol, at the price of 50% more water consumed per sol.
- Can be upgraded with automation, which negates one of the Ranches pro below
Ranches Pros
- Produces 33% more food (12 per sol instead of 9 per sol)
- Uses unskilled labour instead of Botanists
- Uses 33% less labour (6 people instead of 9). This is negated once you automate the HF.
- Consumes 50% less water (0.9 instead of 1.8).
- Consumes 66% less energy (5 instead of 15)
- Uses 66% less maintenance (1 metal instead of 3 metal)
- Church of the New Ark does not have the crippling 50% output penalty for Ranches, but does for HFs.
Other comparisons between ranches and HFs
The only other difference between the two are that 3 HFs cost 12 metal and 6 polymers, but 1 Ranch costs 10 concrete, 5 metal, and 1 machine part. It is very difficult to compare those two costs and determine which is better, but IMO they are about the same. As you can see ranches produce more food cheaper and with less labour (and unskilled labour to boot!), making them superior.
What's even worse is that in the Steam page, ranches are described as "consum[ing] more water than crops". But lets compare the most water-efficent HF crop (micro-greens) with the least water-efficent ranch animal (geese). This is the only situation in which 3 HFs consume less water per sol than a single ranch, and what's worse is that not only do geese produce 11.25 food per sol (compared to 7.5 food per sol for micro-greens), geese are still better at converting water to food (Geese produce 0.39 food per unit of water consumed, while micro-greens produce 0.347 food per unit of water consumed.)
Conclusion
Obviously something is funky with balance. I still need to compare outdoor pastures with fungal farms, and in-dome pastures with farms, but at a bare minimum, ranches should not simply be a more efficient HF. I have a few ideas (maybe increase water consumption significantly, or add a new 'animal feed' resource that is easy to grow in large quantities for cheap, and can be turned into 'people food' in ranches, or maybe make ranches a 'hybrid food producer / service building' (if that is possible with modding), that also boosts 'luxury' for non-vegans?), but first I need to see if I am overlooking something obvious, which is where you come in. Also, if someone could run the comparisons that I didn't do while I sleep, that would be great.
