Could we...*sips some absinthe*...change habitats dramatically?

[Bezborg]

Hi all.

Ok, my reason for rethinking habitats is because I have a problem with spamming them. I don't like it, and I hate when the AI does it. I also have minor issues with the concept of habitats in Stellaris, and the relative ease by which they are made, and the ease by which they are maintained and "kept alive".

It's my opinion that habitats should be more scarce, more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to maintain.

I won't share my ideas of what they actually should be in a sci fi setting... I'll simply share my ideas that I consider serviceable for Stellaris in its current state.

Ok, so... I have 2 ideas for habitats, or rather 2 types of habitats. One of them I find optional, one I find essential:

1) Orbital habitats (optional change/addition to the current situation)
- These can ONLY be built on habitable planets, and are an EXTENSION of the planet's economy. They live and die by the planet's population and ecnomy. It can have specializations, and can serve as a sort of "upgrade" to the planet's district capacity. I.E. it can have access to some limited number of districts that are not available on the planet. Such as research and trade districts. It can have leisure or military districts. The capital planet (or empire and system capitals) can have admin districts. Refinery districts maybe, if the planet has special deposits. Etc, you get the general idea.
- the main idea here is for them to be relatively easier to access by technology, and most importantly: they are *extensions* of the planet.
- I think this idea, especially special refinery districts if the planet has special deposits, would serve to make planets more valuable and special.
- This can be an extra tab on the planet UI, much like the corporate tab. It doesn't have to be a separate buildable habitable entity. Some graphical rendering on the galaxy map, of course.

2) System Habitats (necessary change to the current situation)
- This idea I find necessary to the current iteration of the habitats
- Essentially, I want habitats to become an upgrade to Citadels of some sort.
- They would have shipyard capacity, same as now. They would have defenses, same as now. They would require an invasion to take, so an upgrade to the Citadel defensive capabilities.
- IMPORTANT: this would make them more scarce and more special. One per system, not multiple.
- Districts etc: open for ideas, either same as now, or some new interesting options.

This would help with AI spam, and I find it more interesting to be honest, strategically and conceptually. I also don't think a major rework is needed for these things. Of course, some work is needed, yes, as for all things.

Thank you for your time, ideas and criticisms welcome.

 

[InvisibleBison]

It's my opinion that habitats should be more scarce, more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to maintain.

Do you have some reason for this opinion, or is it just an aesthetic preference?

 

[Bezborg]

Do you have some reason for this opinion, or is it just an aesthetic preference?

Thank you for asking, but I don't find it too relevant, outside of what I already wrote in my OP, in my second sentence.

Well, I find habitat spam to be a source of woes for the game engine, calculations and overall the AI's variable levels of incompetence to play the game. This part I covered in my OP.

Another reason is I find the galaxy full of empty and mostly meaningless space, so I'd like to limit the habitats somehow to make habitable space more meaningful and not spammable to the extent it is now.
I also think making habitats a bit more special and less mundane would be to the benefit of gameplay and the game in general, not to it's detriment.

Another reason is my own personal preferences that stem from extensive sci-fi interest and knowledge, but this part is subjective, so I don't find it too relevant, and I endeavored to keep my OP free of this part.

 

[oreopirate]

I actually wouldn't mind if the devs did something like this. I don't notice the AI spamming habitat as much as they used to, but this might still be pretty cool to see. That said, I think it might be best to save this for stellaris 2. Maybe, if the AI could handle it. But I suspect that managing the planetary extension habitats might just euqal more opportunity for the AI to ruin it's economy.

 

[Bezborg]

I actually wouldn't mind if the devs did something like this. I don't notice the AI spamming habitat as much as they used to, but this might still be pretty cool to see. That said, I think it might be best to save this for stellaris 2. Maybe, if the AI could handle it. But I suspect that managing the planetary extension habitats might just euqal more opportunity for the AI to ruin it's economy.

I'm inclined to agree, but a simple solution is to streamline the planetary habitats and make its options limited. Treat it as a bonus that you invest in and tech up to, not a free-form habitable mini-planet like it is now.

That said, my focus is still on the system habitats, with this planetary idea being just a cute little simple idea of making planetary management a bit more interesting.

 

[Dirk_Slamchest]

I would be happy to see habs limited to one per system, but I don't feel that it's a necessary change. I just personally hate microing my army to more places.

So I guess I would be even happier about an "Invade All Colonies In System" army command.

 

[Bezborg]

So I guess I would be even happier about an "Invade All Colonies In System" army command.

Aye to that

 

[oreopirate]

That said, my focus is still on the system habitats, with this planetary idea being just a cute little simple idea of making planetary management a bit more interesting.

Understandable. That does bring up the worry of the AI and armies, though. But if the devs could patch that, I'd be down with it.

 

[Nebbie Zebbie]

Both of these things completely betray the idea of Habitats as they are now, which is a colony in space using a planet as an anchor, and I think they'd make the game generally less interesting.

You're looking at the problem wrong. It's not that Habitats need to be an extension of the things we have without them, it's that each Habitat becomes unimportant while we still want to build as many as possible (since they provide really important resources: pops and building slots).

What Habitats really need is for them to be a bad idea to slap down on a random planet. They need much higher upkeep...but also probably a few more district/building slots, so the fewer we have still make a big difference.

 

[Bezborg]

Both of these things completely betray the idea of Habitats as they are now, which is a colony in space using a planet as an anchor, and I think they'd make the game generally less interesting.

You're looking at the problem wrong. It's not that Habitats need to be an extension of the things we have without them, it's that each Habitat becomes unimportant while we still want to build as many as possible (since they provide really important resources: pops and building slots).

What Habitats really need is for them to be a bad idea to slap down on a random planet. They need much higher upkeep...but also probably a few more district/building slots, so the fewer we have still make a big difference.

I'm not overly concerned about betraying the idea of *current* habitats, as that's precisely my motivation for suggesting a change haha.

But I agree with your ideas of making habitats a more unique choice, and making their placement more meaningful.


You have a good idea. I'd like to add my "one per system" restriction though, as I cannot stand the AI making 2 or 3 of them and not colonizing them.

Arguably, this could be avoided by improving the AI, but I sooner place my trust in the devs changing the concept of habitats itself, than improving the AI.

Tbh if they slap the "1 per system" restriction on the AI only, I think t would produce a big improvement.

Anyway, back to your idea... I like it. Habitat placement should absolutely be *very* important and impactful.

 

[Olterin]

So I guess I would be even happier about an "Invade All Colonies In System" army command.

Just set your invasion doomstack to aggressive stance and leave it be for a while. That'll invade all the planets in a system, provided your fleets don't move in/out.

Armies (in space) set to aggressive follow fleets around on their own (not 100% sure on the logic of which fleet gets followed if multiple are present), and once the fleet is stationary in a hostile system with habitables, invade all the planets they can take.

With that out of the way ...


Why? Why do you want to gut habitats? Because the AI doesn't colonize them? This can be fixed. Because they provide infinite living space and thus trash performance? Nyeehh... I feel like that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't get me wrong, though - I would love to see habitats get more options - provided that an empire actually specializes in them. Empires without the Voidborne AP or Voiddwellers Origin are the ones that can get penalized - but if your empire actively chooses to live in space, habitats should become your primary means of expanding living space and economy - before you get ringworld(s) that is, if you choose to.

I'd be absolutely fine with any and all restrictions on habitats for empires that do not specialize in them. But please, at least make them more interesting and a viable alternative to planets for empires that do choose to specialize in them. (And yes, as things currently are, I feel there's not enough of a distinction here)

 

[Bezborg]

Why? Why do you want to gut habitats? Because the AI doesn't colonize them? This can be fixed. Because they provide infinite living space and thus trash performance? Nyeehh... I feel like that's throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Don't get me wrong, though - I would love to see habitats get more options - provided that an empire actually specializes in them. Empires without the Voidborne AP or Voiddwellers Origin are the ones that can get penalized - but if your empire actively chooses to live in space, habitats should become your primary means of expanding living space and economy - before you get ringworld(s) that is, if you choose to.

I'd be absolutely fine with any and all restrictions on habitats for empires that do not specialize in them. But please, at least make them more interesting and a viable alternative to planets for empires that do choose to specialize in them. (And yes, as things currently are, I feel there's not enough of a distinction here)

You're saying the same thing I am, to make habitats more interesting and specialized.

But where's this "gutting" in my suggestion?

 

[Zagreb 887]

I would be happy to see habs limited to one per system, but I don't feel that it's a necessary change. I just personally hate microing my army to more places.

So I guess I would be even happier about an "Invade All Colonies In System" army command.

When you set your transport ships to agressive, they will automatically invade every planets/habitats in the system once the starbase is under control

 

[Olterin]

But where's this "gutting" in my suggestion?

In the part where presently, habitats can be used to make up for a lack of habitable planets, whereas in your proposed changes, this is very much no longer the case to a significant extent, at least at first glance.

Now, one can always ask - should regular empires be able to do that without having to specialize into habitats? And that's a fair question to ask, and I probably would say "no". But as your original proposal stands, it would also not permit any differentiation between habitat specialists and everyone else.

 

[Bezborg]

But as your original proposal stands, it would also not permit any differentiation between habitat specialists and everyone else.

Sooo... same as now?
I mean even with my proposal, you could take voidborne or void dwellers, and these things can give bonuses to hanitats of any sort. What’s the difference?

 

[TrotBot]

Hi all.

Ok, my reason for rethinking habitats is because I have a problem with spamming them. I don't like it, and I hate when the AI does it. I also have minor issues with the concept of habitats in Stellaris, and the relative ease by which they are made, and the ease by which they are maintained and "kept alive".

It's my opinion that habitats should be more scarce, more difficult to achieve, and more difficult to maintain.

I won't share my ideas of what they actually should be in a sci fi setting... I'll simply share my ideas that I consider serviceable for Stellaris in its current state.

Ok, so... I have 2 ideas for habitats, or rather 2 types of habitats. One of them I find optional, one I find essential:

1) Orbital habitats (optional change/addition to the current situation)
- These can ONLY be built on habitable planets, and are an EXTENSION of the planet's economy. They live and die by the planet's population and ecnomy. It can have specializations, and can serve as a sort of "upgrade" to the planet's district capacity. I.E. it can have access to some limited number of districts that are not available on the planet. Such as research and trade districts. It can have leisure or military districts. The capital planet (or empire and system capitals) can have admin districts. Refinery districts maybe, if the planet has special deposits. Etc, you get the general idea.
- the main idea here is for them to be relatively easier to access by technology, and most importantly: they are *extensions* of the planet.
- I think this idea, especially special refinery districts if the planet has special deposits, would serve to make planets more valuable and special.
- This can be an extra tab on the planet UI, much like the corporate tab. It doesn't have to be a separate buildable habitable entity. Some graphical rendering on the galaxy map, of course.

2) System Habitats (necessary change to the current situation)
- This idea I find necessary to the current iteration of the habitats
- Essentially, I want habitats to become an upgrade to Citadels of some sort.
- They would have shipyard capacity, same as now. They would have defenses, same as now. They would require an invasion to take, so an upgrade to the Citadel defensive capabilities.
- IMPORTANT: this would make them more scarce and more special. One per system, not multiple.
- Districts etc: open for ideas, either same as now, or some new interesting options.

This would help with AI spam, and I find it more interesting to be honest, strategically and conceptually. I also don't think a major rework is needed for these things. Of course, some work is needed, yes, as for all things.

Thank you for your time, ideas and criticisms welcome.

I didn't think I would like this, but I do. Do both. Let's have planetary habitats and system habitats. Make system habitats possible to really build up into a megastructure level habitable world. Add a few levels past level 3. Let us build "The Citadel" from Mass Effect

 

[Bezborg]

I didn't think I would like this, but I do. Do both. Let's have planetary habitats and system habitats. Make system habitats possible to really build up into a megastructure level habitable world. Add a few levels past level 3. Let us build "The Citadel" from Mass Effect

Finally some megalomania up in here

 

[SirBlackAxe]

Habitat spam should hopefully be dealt with whenever the admin cap rework comes through. I think the core problem here isn't habitats themselves, but how it's always correct to make as many colonies as possible. Once we have diminishing returns on going wide, as long as habitats are usually worse than planets for empires who aren't specializing in them that problem should take care of itself.

Habitats as extensions of planetary colonies is an interesting thought; I'd make them function more like branch offices and get a tab instead of being a whole other colony.

 

[zZander56]

I actually really enjoy both of your ideas.

I will say though, I don't believe that system habitats should require citadel starbases, but rather be its own tech as it is now. I do think that it should be tied to starbases though.

 

[TrotBot]

I actually really enjoy both of your ideas.

I will say though, I don't believe that system habitats should require citadel starbases, but rather be its own tech as it is now. I do think that it should be tied to starbases though.

maybe the citadel tech can be required for making them go past level 3 habitat, and then it can be megastructure techs for levels 4, 5, 6.