I think it's 25% from mining designation.
So it's either (25+15)=40% base for workers or (10+15)=25% base for specialists.
Then workers often get more on top of that.
Habitats (Void Dwellers mostly) being left behind?
- Thread starter Drakonn
- 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.
I think it's 25% from mining designation.
So it's either (25+15)=40% base for workers or (10+15)=25% base for specialists.
Then workers often get more on top of that.
Gravity worlds get 25% from mining designation, but habitats only get 10% from the resource designation. With the Void Dweller trait that's 25% for parity, but for anyone else it's substantially lower. Same deal for generator districts. For strategic resource buildings, this means that it's 10% for refineries or resource-miners, so it's just a matter of what else you're using the habitat for.
This is why Habitats are/were fundamentally more about taking your industrial districts off planets. Resource habitats in and of themselves only makes sense in the later game if you aren't expanding borders. As industrial districts they have the same planet designation bonus as gravity worlds, and you make your gravity worlds your resource extractors, and then you let your habitats be the hyper-specialized industrial centers with refineries in the building slots.
Overlord will change that so that Rings mean gravity worlds are both better resource worlds and industiral worlds, but Overlord's tributary system also means you shouldn't be needing resource worlds in general after a point. Add to this the competing alloy/influence demands of rings and hyperrelays, and Habitats are getting a hard nerf. The main role for Habitats will be as science centers, for which they'll remain good, and strategic resource refinieries, which they'll be... not necessarily great, but you're getting the building slots without the district sprawl.
Hmm!
That feels a bit unfortunate. Habitats have a jobs-to-district advantage for mining and generators, but a significant disadvantage for foundry and factory districts, where a habitable planet can use one advanced building to improve absurdly more jobs. (That same scale advantage applies to mining and generator districts on planets, but the associated building's first improvement is "free" in terms of strategic resources, and the advanced building is cheap compared to the advanced foundry & factory buildings.)
From a pop-productivity standpoint, Artisan & Metallurgist habitats would have advantages, but they seem quite expensive when you add in the strategic resources and compare how many planet-side jobs those same resources could have improved instead.
Really wish industrial Hab districts got 3 jobs per.
I guess Hab Researchers are still at an advantage -- hab labs are no more expensive than planet-side labs -- and Trade Districts give cheap Merchants.
- 1
Trading sprawl efficiency for a decrease in pop output? My my, where ever could that fit in the new meta!
(Calling trade builds, calling trade builds, come in please...)
Habitats are growth points first, planetary efficiency maximizers second, and resource producers third, so while shoving more pops in would be nice, it's not really their role.
Honestly, the 2 industrial job/3 housing per district honestly works out pretty well in the housing math of habitats, especially with upgraded habitats and Void Dweller ascension.
8 Industrial districts + Alloy foundry = 18 alloy workers. Add 2 ruler pops for 20 pops.
The 8 districts + the capital building provide 29 housing. 4 Luxury Housing provides another 12, for 41, or double your housing needs for maintain the base 3 growth. The amenities math is 20+, not including politicians.
The building slots is 4 Luxury Housing, 1 capital building, 1 alloy building, and 1 ministry of production for 7 building slots.
The thing is, the building slots can be halved with paradise domes, meaning 2 more building slots- like, say, a pop-assembly (covered by politician amenities) and/or monument, or refinery, etc. Plus there's a few more building slot expansion options.
Habitats like this are really looking to be filled by war-conquests and not grown into, however.
Labs are more expensive, since science designation doesn't give a science job upkeep discount. It is more effective, however, thanks to science-habitats giving an output buff of 10%. This means tier 2 habitats match tier 3 capital science worlds with their science output tech bonuses, though at higher CG upkeep.
Which is fine, because the real value of science habitats is the districts, which don't cost exotic gas. Fill those first, and paradise dome for amenities and to offset any more labs on the building.
Yeah so this is where my play seems to diverge.
When I'm playing Void Dwellers, my planets get filled up with conquered (or raided) pops, but I want to keep my productive habs full of my founder species (for the +15% bonus).
Trade habs don't matter -- it's not hard to genemod Thrifty onto another species -- but when I want to make a productivity hab, it's got to be founder pops which I've grown.
Usually I end up feeling like Intelligent is the best founder trait because I'm filling up my planets with Industrial Districts, and putting slaves or "liber-raided" pops to work on those planets, while my founders stay up in orbit.
In terms of gas efficiency, often I'm aiming to restore a Ring World segment (Cybrex or Shattered), so building a gas-heavy Research Habitat seems like it's not a bad step on the way. When a Ring World research segment comes online, I can disable an advanced lab and move the pops over -- eventually it seems smart to replace the Hab housing districts with Hab research districts (which cost no gas), but in the interim a gas-heavy Hab ensures that I have the gas ready for my target Ring World.
(Which wouldn't make sense if they were still Void Dweller bio-pops but usually I've turned them into Synths somewhere along the line.)
- 2
Hilariously, no.
You can't designate a strategic resource habitat as a mining world, since it doesn't have mining districts, even though it's the only designation which gives the bonus. Afaik, this is an oversight.
(unless the planet it's built around had both a rare resource and minerals)
Habitats been nerfed ever with 3.3 update where it counts as full planet in empire size =( and it will never have as many pops as planet. And now with orbital rings(that available to everybody) planets can be ever more powerful and no buffs to habitats again =(
- 2
The building buffs from Orbital Rings *stack with planetside buildings*. Void Dwellers won't even have access to the defensive nature of Orbital Rings because the planet has to be colonized (unless you use robots or other pops).
Planetary production is going to outstrip Habitats. Which makes sense. Except if you're Void Dwellers who can't even colonize unless you very specifically set up to do so. You will be always behind other empires once these get unlocked by them.
Maybe Void Dwellers could get a trait attached to their origin/trait to where they can build Orbital Rings around habitable (so as not to spam around every habitat), *non colonized* planets. This doesn't solve all the production buffs that Habitats can't get from Orbital Rings but at least enables some use of them.
- 2
1 - Void Dwellers have always wanted access to another species to populate planets, including Relics and Ecus for which there is no habitat equivalent.
2 - I'd like it if regular starbases got access to planet ring buildings, and those starbase buildings applied to all Habitats in the system. That would actually make Void Dwellers interesting -- they'd design *systems* instead of planets -- and would give them a definite niche.
- 2
- 1
#2 would certainly make an economy based starbase builds much more viable and interesting. If given to Void Dwellers it wouldn't necessarily disrupt the balance of all the sudden buffing entire systems for *every* empire. Void Dwellers would certainly be the minority of empires in a galaxy already, and already hampered production wise, so it might not be that bad.
- 1
Yeah, and since #2 would only buff habitats in the system, not planets (which would get the equivalent bonus from a planetary ring), then I think it wouldn't have much effect on other empire types -- unless one decided to go hard into Habitats for some reason, in which case it could be useful but hopefully not more OP than the rings already are.
- 1
- 1
Yeah, I feel that habitat industrial districts are the odd ones out somewhat.
- 1
Yeah.
At first you got +1 or +2 jobs for having an upgraded building, so it was fine when created.
But then that mechanic changed, and the district didn't catch up.