Yes?
That's why I build more generator districts as a Gestalt, to make up for lack of trade value
Generator districts meaningless for normal factions
- Thread starter Sledjer
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
That's why I build more generator districts as a Gestalt, to make up for lack of trade value
The fact is that Technicians certainly give you more energy than a clerk and as such you get more per POP from technicians.
This means that initially it is a solid tactic to gain energy from generator districts.
BUT... you also want POP to unlock new buildings so you want city districts as well and if you need to sacrifice any districts in a planet to get more POP you will eventually sacrifice your energy districts to get more POP since both food and minerals is a more important resource and clerks produce energy and other stuff anyway.
In my opinion you want to have generator districts as long as they don't restrict you planet to grow POP at least until you have 75 POP there to make the planet as productive as possible.
I don't think this make either job or district type more or less useful since they server different purposes at different stages of development.
This means that initially it is a solid tactic to gain energy from generator districts.
BUT... you also want POP to unlock new buildings so you want city districts as well and if you need to sacrifice any districts in a planet to get more POP you will eventually sacrifice your energy districts to get more POP since both food and minerals is a more important resource and clerks produce energy and other stuff anyway.
In my opinion you want to have generator districts as long as they don't restrict you planet to grow POP at least until you have 75 POP there to make the planet as productive as possible.
I don't think this make either job or district type more or less useful since they server different purposes at different stages of development.
One thing I do like about clerks is that you can make buildings that create 5 clerk jobs, but the buildings don't cost anything to maintain besides energy, nor do the jobs demand resources. They're nice if you're having unemployment problems.
The benefit of clerks is that they produce energy and consumer goods via trade and amenities directly in balanced composition and do not require much building slots. That saves mineral income from converting to consumer goods and allows to sink it into alloys. And, thanks to fairly efficient clerk building AND city districts housing 2 clerk jobs (with prosperity traditions) it is fairly efficient in spending building slots too, so one can spend all minerals on alloys and fleet.
But you don't have to focus on city districts for that. In fact focusing on city districts only make unemployment problems worse (unless ecomonopolis).
They have one place of particualr importance - ringworld sections. There (a vbit like ecumenopolis, actually, I found), the fact you get only sixteen building slots regardless of district can be a problem, both for looming unemployment and crime. So there, once you have the buiidings, you will want tpo be filling the rest with either farms or generator districts (no mines, of course), to try and keep the now unusable population down by providing extra housing just enough for the extra jobs.
(Remember, at the moment, you can only find jobs for 160 pop from buildings if you fill them all with trade buildings.)
Just change them from chattel slavery to domnestic sevitude and any slave that is unemployed becomes a servant.
"Unemployment problems" are not something I thought existed, with so many buildings that can support 5 or 7 or 10 specialists. As someone else said, maybe after your pop gets to 100+ you have to start thinking about it, but my xenophile empire got tons of immigration/refugees in mid-game, and even early on, I had base +10% growth, +10% growth for a well-fed populace through a policy, and +25% growth by spending 1000 food every 10 years. And at no time did I ever have an unemployment problem.
"Yay clerks" is just not something I expected to see anywhere on this forum
.
I'll grant that's an interesting point, re consumer goods, though I would rather my trade go to Unity instead. And I found that I tended to have more building slots than I knew what to do with, anyway, esp by mid/endgame.
I wonder if it would be worth it in an empire with Agrarian Idyll (that gives Generator Districts 3 Housing but still only 2 Technician Jobs) to have one Commercial Zone (5 Clerk Jobs) for every five Generator Districts, or if the building slot would best be used otherwise.
I've tried it both ways, and I'm not entirely sure which is better.
In fact, I'm so unsure of myself on this, I might as well ask some questions.
1) Do enslaved clerks generate more trade like enslaved technicians generate more energy?
2) How do we measure the opportunity cost in terms of resources for guarding your trade routes? Starbase modules aren't free, and patrolling fleets aren't free either.
3) How do we measure the opportunity cost for upgraded trade buildings in terms of special resources (crystals in this case, I think)?
4) Is there any reason not to run the consumer goods version of trade policy once your trade value gets high enough? Are there any consistent situations where the consumer goods are worth less than the energy credits? (I know the market fluctuates; I'm talking about consistent situations.)
In fact, I'm so unsure of myself on this, I might as well ask some questions.
1) Do enslaved clerks generate more trade like enslaved technicians generate more energy?
2) How do we measure the opportunity cost in terms of resources for guarding your trade routes? Starbase modules aren't free, and patrolling fleets aren't free either.
3) How do we measure the opportunity cost for upgraded trade buildings in terms of special resources (crystals in this case, I think)?
4) Is there any reason not to run the consumer goods version of trade policy once your trade value gets high enough? Are there any consistent situations where the consumer goods are worth less than the energy credits? (I know the market fluctuates; I'm talking about consistent situations.)
.png){kind=avatar}
Don't underestimate consumer benefits trade policy. Even without bonuses to trade income (thrifty pops, stock exchange, high stability) the 2 TV a clerk produces are converted to 0.5 CG (+1E). For social welfare that will support the clerk himself and everything below that will even generate a surplus of CG.
Of course it's even better if you have stratified economy or slaves.
Clerks are still not very efficient in a resource / pop basis, but I have come to find them useful basically in 2 cases: a) On resource worlds, that have run out of deposits. Might as well build to planet size with cities and employ those pops as clerks. b) You have empty building slots on a planet. Might as well put down a commercial center and 1-2 luxury housing.
As far as I can tell trade isn't considered a resource like everything else by the game, it's a special (hardcoded) side effect of jobs like amenities. Most boosts don't work on it unless they specifically say they affect trade. Generic worker boosts only boost resource generation.
I don't know how to rate it objectively, but I personally rate it "really damn annoying and expensive" out of 10. Starbases are damn expensive to upgrade, damn expensive in energy maintenance, and even a fully-armed 6-missile base commonly doesn't have enough to fully protect trade lanes.
Probably low to non-existent. The only reason to run a lot of upgraded trade buildings is if you run low on jobs, and clerk jobs are already notably easy to generate compared to others.
I really don't think so. In theory once you get lots of boosts (like from ecumenopolis) you can produce CGs for a relatively lower mineral cost. If we rate 1 mineral as being worth 1 energy you might have an argument for full energy. The problem is that as soon as you reach the mass-production stage of Ecumenopolis or mass habitats, you suddenly don't value 1 energy : 1 mineral any more, you have 100% of mineral districts built and are barely keeping enough minerals to stay afloat before you hit Matter Decompressor.
I can't answer the first one but the others I probably can answer in some way.
2. Since trade is not the only thing we usually get from it but we also increase other production through amenities on planets where we have lots of trade it is important that we maximize this as well and not overdo the trade part too much. This will impact the amount of patrolling and star port we need to control the trade flow. We also need to make sure that we place the most trade as close to our capital as possible. I do agree this is hard to tell how costly it is to bring the trade home.
3. We should try to build planets in such ways as you don't need to use strategic resources at all and concentrate all strategic resources to a select few worlds, perhaps some Ecumonopilies or other city planets. This is why I try to get my rural or outlying worlds to around 75-80 POP and stay there so they then feed POP to the core worlds. The amount of strategic buildings you can maintain to construct resources is dependent on the availability of good planets to build them on and your overall economy.
4. I would say there are almost no reason not to run this from day one. Consumer Goods are pretty much always worth more, the less I need to put resources into Consumer Goods (both POP jobs, buildings and minerals) the more I can use those resources for other things. More or less... Early on I rather have a few POP dedicated as Technicians to pick up the slack from lost energy in trade, later on I can replace some of the Generator Districts with more Clerks anyway.
not sure why you have so many downvotes. maybe your math is wrong.
But your title is legitmate. there is no reason to build energy plants unless your a machine empire or something. trade value is just so spam able youll never run out.
As far as energy credits are concerned, his math ignores average-energy-per-pop. Pops ain't free.
what? like a said i wasnt responded to his math. but his title. already beat this game 6 times and i have never ever built a energy plant unless i playing a empire that didnt have access to trade. you dont need to. ever. fact
Once you have both techs and the civic it only takes about 9 city districts to unlock every building slot, less once you take into account all the resource districts your generator world may have, so I don't think I'd really put extra buildings as a plus of using clerks in the long run.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that a city district plus a clerk building makes more total energy then a generator district because if it did not then clerks would be almost completely pointless
More total energy production at the cost of less efficiency per pop, and the need to dedicate building slots to it (on a generator planet you can easily turn your building slots into like, temples or refineries or something) seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
Also these aren't mutually exclusive, you can set up generator planets early on, and then funnel all the excess population from those to your city worlds.
I think it's perfectly reasonable that a city district plus a clerk building makes more total energy then a generator district because if it did not then clerks would be almost completely pointless
More total energy production at the cost of less efficiency per pop, and the need to dedicate building slots to it (on a generator planet you can easily turn your building slots into like, temples or refineries or something) seems like a reasonable tradeoff.
Also these aren't mutually exclusive, you can set up generator planets early on, and then funnel all the excess population from those to your city worlds.
Well, rah for you, and all, but that doesn't make them 'meaningless'.
I thought your analysis interesting. But one should not compare Techs and Clerks looking just for energy credits.
In my first 2.2.1 run testing the system (Inward perfection in a tiny galaxy 2.0x density colonizable planets, had no wars - but the crisis) I simply could almost ignore building civilian factories.
Much more than half my gross production of civilian goods came via trade (choosing Wealth in the Trade policy has never been taken into consideration by me; I didn't do the math, but taking 0.5 consumer good per 1 trade seemed the obvious choice).
Then I could use the minerals and the building slots basically for alloys since I didn't have the need for allocating minerals and building slots for civilian factories. And could choose more districts going to mining than to generators since I had so much energy via trade.
So clerks produce energy credits, amenities and consumer goods, with a total of 10 jobs in just one building slot in the late game and they are not a specialist job. It seems a very good job IMHO.
In the early game when pops are very scarce clerks can be a not-so-advantageous choice. But in the late game, they are very better because the building slots and districts are the true constraints in developed colonies.