Cost multiplier for habitats in galaxies with non-1.0 habitable worlds multiplier

[Tannhäuser Cake]

The fact that the habitable worlds multiplier does not affect habitats is contrary to the purposes of the setting.
If someone picks a habitable worlds multiplier of 0.25, they want to keep down the number of colonies - be it for the sake of the gameplay, or for the sake of keeping down the CPU load.
Similarly, if the number of habitable worlds is greatly increased, that reduces the value of habitats, the Voidborne civic and the Void Dwellers origin.

One way this could be addressed, would be to apply a cost multiplier to building new habitats.
This multiplier could be an entirely separate setting, or it could be the inverse of the habitable worlds multiplier.
In the latter case, a habitable worlds multiplier of 0.25 would mean a habitat cost multiplier of 1/0.25=4; if habitats cost 4 times as much, an empire can only afford 1/4 (0.25) as many habitats as before.

Of course, other cost multiplier values may be more appropriate - it is not just a matter of how many habitats one can afford, but also how profitable a single habitat is relative to other investments of the resources involved. However, whether the cost multiplier would be calculated or set by the player, the basic idea is worth considering as it offers a very simple and easily balanced solution to a frequently mentioned issue.

 

[nat.hol]

I personally wouldn't want the costs of habitats to automatically change with the habitable worlds setting (I do not put planets and habitats under the same "colony" category for gameplay reasons).
However I like the idea of a separate setting for that. Perhaps when the slider reaches its maximum cost multiplier, it would instead disallow habitats entirely.