Systems and planets cost 2. Districts cost 1. Small planets are now worth colonizing. And habitats have twice as strong districts so they are well worth it from a admin-cap point of view.
Habitats are nerfed to irrelevance?
- Thread starter Stars_and_Bars
- 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.
Each colony, and presumably habitat, adds a base 2 to against your admin capacity even before generating a district. Given their size are we sure they're more efficient than a planet district? Or are they just more efficient than empty space and/or the admin cap penalties?
Well that may be an interesting niche for some ways to play, but you can't deny that it makes habitats way less versatile and useful. \
A player economy before the update would need food for population growth, minerals for production, energy partly as currency partly as maintenance. Unity for traditions, tech for research, special resources for some bonuses here and there, you also have a few things affecting happiness and all that.
Now obviously, the game has changed, the economy has changed. Food is need for population growth, but now you don't get more growth by having max stockpile of food. Minerals is needed for some production, alloys for other productions. Consumer goods are needed for maintenance but can also be converted via some factories into other goods. tech is still tech, unity is still unity. energy is mostly currency and far less as maintenance. 3 strategic resources are far more essential. You have housing and amenities which are maintenance and can provide happiness.
In the old system, habitats could make food,minerals,energy,tech,and unity. In the new system they can provide energy, consumer goods, unity, tech, housing& amenities and whatever else you can use get your buildings to convert consumer goods into. They can't provide food and they can't provide minerals. Food and minerals are the essential building blocks of everything else in that chain of manufacturing. You have a manufacturing complex without the raw materials. In the real world, what would happen to china (which is a net importer of food and raw materials) if it was unable to feed itself or keep its industrial complex running? Nothing good.
While habitats may be useful for a particular niche, they are definitely way less powerful than they used to be.
No minerals I get, but you can't make food on a habitat?
Why the f... not?
Hell, growing food on a habitat might be more efficient then on a planet RL, since you can deiced how much of it is open to the stars light.
Why the f... not?
Hell, growing food on a habitat might be more efficient then on a planet RL, since you can deiced how much of it is open to the stars light.
I agree, with the current usefulness and cost to benefit ratio it should be demoted to a tech.
I haven't gotten to using habitats yet in 2.2, but if they have superior city districts I could see a place for them as highly specialized manufacturing centers, churning out alloys and other strategic goods. That might make more space on other planets to build more mining districts. Just a theory though, haven't experienced that for myself. I also agree they shouldn't really be a ascension perk, not terribly impressive when compared with other perks like megastructures.
Yeah, lunch time trains where leaving the office, so I had to wrap up and...@GAGA Extrem I love how you accidentally put your reply inside my quote. It confused the heck out of me for a momentAlso, I can't imagine that Habitats have their own deposits.
...see, that's how silly bugs in games happen!
Well, here is the thing: They can't really take their old role as resource producers anymore. But in return, they are more powerful for the new parts of the economy that were added.
It is more like a complete shift of their use - but I don't think it made them weaker. I actually think they are more powerful AND that they work better, since they are a choice now, instead of brain dead spamming.
Also that reminds me of one more use for Habitats: They are great growth-generators for your empire, since it still is on a per-planet base, and they are far cheaper and faster to construct than Ringworlds.
You can build Hydroponic Farms on Habitats, if you really want to.
haven't gotten to the point of unlocking them, but i find it a bit confusing that the loss of food and minerals from habitats is seen as a problem.
did anyone ever use the mineral or food buildings on habitats? i only ever used them for research before. maybe also for energy occasionally, but that was mostly when the energy building was still providing +10 or so base (don't remember exact value) and before the 2.0 update that added the option to have tradehub space stations to cover most energy needs.
did anyone ever use the mineral or food buildings on habitats? i only ever used them for research before. maybe also for energy occasionally, but that was mostly when the energy building was still providing +10 or so base (don't remember exact value) and before the 2.0 update that added the option to have tradehub space stations to cover most energy needs.
Habitats were much too strong before so a nerf is deserved.
And I loath to already call something unbalanced when it is not even 24 hours after the release. Play for a week, then you can make a much more informed call.
And I loath to already call something unbalanced when it is not even 24 hours after the release. Play for a week, then you can make a much more informed call.
I built habitats for minerals. Mind you, mine might have been a kinda specific playstyle as I went from Life-Seeded OPM to colonizing/terraforming/ringworlding the L-Cluster. It's probably gonna be harder to do that without mineral producing habitats but maybe I can leverage their trade value to augment my mineral income. Or maybe with the changes I can make a decent mineral income on the home planet. Or I'll just have to colozine with drones/immigrants.
I dunno, ran in conjunction with something like Thrall Worlds that heavily specialize your planets into raw resource production and they could have their place.
I'm already imagining a mid-game "middle class flight" scenario where all but the super wealthy "leader class" abandon planets in favor of off-world suburbs. Leaving the super wealthy to live lavishly and control the economy via vast plantations of slave labor.
I'm already imagining a mid-game "middle class flight" scenario where all but the super wealthy "leader class" abandon planets in favor of off-world suburbs. Leaving the super wealthy to live lavishly and control the economy via vast plantations of slave labor.
I built habitats for minerals, energy, and tech. It was insanely powerful, so it makes sense that they nerfed it, but it is a definite nerf.
using them for minerals wasn't really worthwhile. the mining building only added 4 minerals with 2 energy upkeep and of course also no tile bonus and no % bonus from planet unique (ore refinery or whatever that was). the labs were superior to planetary labs, so they were really the only worthwhile use for habitats.
Building up Habitat close to your capital is a very solid tactic for very efficient trade since Pirates will not be able to come near them.
Habitat districts are more efficient than regular districts so you get more for each penalty you get which pay off in time.
The fact that you can cluster the Habitats in strategically secure places are very important... so moving the majority of the trade to these places are very useful. You can leave the planets to provide most of the minerals.
Ring Worlds and Habitats are not really the same thing since they have slightly different uses. Ring worlds also use normal districts so are not as efficient per districts as Habitats are.
I also don't think that comparing what you could do before make much sense since the entire mechanic have been changed as have many of the conceptual uses of stuff as well.
Habitat districts are more efficient than regular districts so you get more for each penalty you get which pay off in time.
The fact that you can cluster the Habitats in strategically secure places are very important... so moving the majority of the trade to these places are very useful. You can leave the planets to provide most of the minerals.
Ring Worlds and Habitats are not really the same thing since they have slightly different uses. Ring worlds also use normal districts so are not as efficient per districts as Habitats are.
I also don't think that comparing what you could do before make much sense since the entire mechanic have been changed as have many of the conceptual uses of stuff as well.
I get it. It was a tad past 4am for myself when I made that post. I had lost my ability to properly use a contraction so it was time for bed.
Well, here is the thing: They can't really take their old role as resource producers anymore. But in return, they are more powerful for the new parts of the economy that were added.
It is more like a complete shift of their use - but I don't think it made them weaker. I actually think they are more powerful AND that they work better, since they are a choice now, instead of brain dead spamming.
Also that reminds me of one more use for Habitats: They are great growth-generators for your empire, since it still is on a per-planet base, and they are far cheaper and faster to construct than Ringworlds.
You can build Hydroponic Farms on Habitats, if you really want to.
I remain skeptical; however, you have convinced me to at least give Habitats another chance. I think I will try them with my Life-Seeded empire. I'll use them for TV/Alloy production and my gaia worlds for everything else.
I think Habitats are still great.
Every empire has a use for more building slots - at worst it will allow you to build more utility buildings like resources boosters, clone vaults or forts (for FTL inhibition) on your planets - and thanks to their large housing districts, Habitats provide a lot of building slots per empire size, which is definitely a thing that does matter mid game.
Every empire has a use for more building slots - at worst it will allow you to build more utility buildings like resources boosters, clone vaults or forts (for FTL inhibition) on your planets - and thanks to their large housing districts, Habitats provide a lot of building slots per empire size, which is definitely a thing that does matter mid game.
.png){kind=avatar}
I played a SP game today with habitats, just to try them out.
First things first, each district only adds +1 to the cap, so they are pretty efficient, but they are also a bit unexciting for the price of a full ascension perk.
Each habitat is only effectively a size 4 hab, as I have yet to find a method to make effective use of them with only 1 housing district, as far as I can optimize it you will always need to dedicate 2, the building slots are somewhat alright but in the end it tends to be a pop 26~ effective world, I think the habitat would benefit from either having the hab resource generator districts be self sufficient in housing, or by merging the habitat ascension perk with another ascension perk.
Just my two cents on them really.
The upkeep for them seems perfectly reasonable, and also their build cost isn't prohibitive, so I personally would not seek to balance them over that angle, lest they become "too" cheap and spammable.
As a last note, as Gaga extreme noted earlier, they do have a fringe use in a growth orientated strategy. (Isolationisth, xenophobe +fast breeders) but I expect that that playstyle will receive a nerf, (Or at least it desperately needs one.)
First things first, each district only adds +1 to the cap, so they are pretty efficient, but they are also a bit unexciting for the price of a full ascension perk.
Each habitat is only effectively a size 4 hab, as I have yet to find a method to make effective use of them with only 1 housing district, as far as I can optimize it you will always need to dedicate 2, the building slots are somewhat alright but in the end it tends to be a pop 26~ effective world, I think the habitat would benefit from either having the hab resource generator districts be self sufficient in housing, or by merging the habitat ascension perk with another ascension perk.
Just my two cents on them really.
The upkeep for them seems perfectly reasonable, and also their build cost isn't prohibitive, so I personally would not seek to balance them over that angle, lest they become "too" cheap and spammable.
As a last note, as Gaga extreme noted earlier, they do have a fringe use in a growth orientated strategy. (Isolationisth, xenophobe +fast breeders) but I expect that that playstyle will receive a nerf, (Or at least it desperately needs one.)
Maybe if you choose to play wide perhaps, but for an empire that's trying to play tall and limit tech/tradition cost scaling, they were absolutely useful because before the update, scaling didn't depend on number of planets, but on number of systems that have colonized planets, so if you built a bunch of habitats in systems where you already had planets, that was very good for a unity focused empire. Of course maybe, that was exploitative, but I used it very well with an inward perfection build, because expanding into already claimed space was counterproductive.
I'll have to play a new game trying out Gaga's recommendations for specialization, I know that before the update, they were essential to inward perfection build (until you build ringworlds at least), now I'm not so sure.
Last edited:
I haven't gotten far enough to use the city world yet, so I haven't gotten a good look at one. If my questions seem stupid, that's why.
It is my understanding that turning a planet into a world city clears the resource districts (minerals, food, energy) and replaces them with manufacturing districts that make things like alloys and consumer goods. Once your empire is grabbing plenty of energy, minerals, and food from other sources (either specialized planets or deposits in systems), doesn't it make sense to at turn a large planet into a city world just so you can produce a lot more things like alloys?
Obviously, some empires wouldn't want to spend an ascension perk just to do this, but I've been looking at my planets in my first game, and I'm saying to myself, "Yeah, that planet has some decent energy districts, but who gives a damn? I need more alloys and research. I can get energy credits from trade value and deposits."
Of course, I'm still not good at allocating housing at the moment. I'm either starving for housing, or I have too much and have to bulldoze some apartments to make room for farms and mines. And I have no idea whether to use the unity building as the first building or the robot factory as the first building.
Ringworlds can house *a lot* of pops now - they have to come from somewhere.
An Ecumenopolis is a great way to produce lots of alloys without having to pay the special resource cost from using regular alloy / CG factories.
...however, to get there you have to give up all deposits on a planet. Every M deposit you forfeit is equal to the upkeep cost saved by at least 1 (probably more like 1.5 to 2 in the late game) special Ecumenopolis districts.
If you have a planet with terrible deposits or an infinite M source (Decompressor, Machine Worlds, etc.) - sure, go ahead. Otherwise, it's probably better to retain the deposits and use regular fabrication.
Last edited: