There are usually enough systems without colonizable planets that I doubt you will need to build a Dyson sphere in a system with habitable planets which you can use the energy from the sphere to terraform.
How much do you think a Dyson Sphere should produce ?
- Thread starter Playwars
- 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.
There are usually enough systems without colonizable planets that I doubt you will need to build a Dyson sphere in a system with habitable planets which you can use the energy from the sphere to terraform.
The only problem being that for the same system, if it has already 4 or more planets, you can build a ringworld, on which only two sections would be necessary to produce more than the Dyson Sphere, and the rest can produce research, food, unity and minerals.
4 Gaia class planets of size 25:
100 pops. 140% reserach penalty.
Ringworld is also on a seperate Ascension Perk from Habitats and Galactic Wonders. So not realy a comparision.
Assuming I have, say, ten worlds with 160 Pops already, that means I'll only be increasing my research point requirements by 41% while increasing my population by 62%. So I'll be getting more energy and more minerals while needing to devote a smaller proportion of my new Pops to research than I already have working on it.
I mean, it's not a bad deal, but I do wonder if a dyson sphere and four habitats would be better for your empire when you factor in research and unity production. It really depends on how good the science megastructures are, I guess.
Frozen as in "habitable by certain species" or "Pluto frozen."?
I also have a question:
Assuming a system with a Dyson sphere has planets and/or giant moons, can I also build habitats in a system with a Dyson sphere?
Frozen as in Frozen World as in you can't colonize here. "Rocky world covered in a thick layer of permanently frozen ice. Low temperatures and a very thin atmosphere precludes the existence of life on the surface."
Yup. It's what all Tall players are going to instinctively want to do.
Yup. It's what all Tall players are going to instinctively want to do.
You know, I just came up with a disturbing idea.
"Reverse Dyson sphere terraforming"
Instead of terraforming planets in a system to be useful, or genetically engineering POPs to live in a specific environment, just Dyson sphere the system regardless and build habitats.
You get bonus points for being a xenophobic slaving despot who runs a Dyson sphere in a system with planets inhabited by xenos. They slave away generating minerals... to build a Dyson sphere that kills them all in the end, while your POPs end up living in paradise in their orbital habitats.
Neil Blomkamp is already making the movie about it.
Thinking about it, given you're putting precious ascension perks into this, taken into account the other costs, 1000 energy is for sure the right amount.
Yes, you can!
Normally there is a limit of one megastructure per System. Habitats are excempt for that restriction as "small megastructures".
However it might not be possible to place Energy production on them as they are based on solar light.
Habitats are simply not effective enough for that. A single size 15 planet from the same Hydrosphere Group will propably still be more valuable then a habitat.
I know you can't do so in black hole systems. I don't believe they said the restriction applies in a dyson sphere system, but it makes sense for it to apply as well.
Besides, you'd be putting labs on the hab complexes in a dyson sphere system anyway. You gotta spend that energy somehow!
I kinda like that the megastructures are expensive and impracticable, it seems, from a mineral - to - energy perspective. The natural world is almost by definition the most efficient way to store the materials, energy, food, etc. that exists in the universe. By building a Dyson sphere, Ringworld, etc. you are building something completely unnatural. Furthermore, it goes with the general trend of increasing opportunity costs that is usual with late game things.
A ringworld would be perfect for a civilization that got boxed in by aggressive civilizations (like, one of my more recent games). A Dyson sphere would be awesome for civilizations that don't have that much space for energy anymore. If these megastructures provided increasing returns to scale, then there would be no tradeoff required to build these completely impracticable machines!
A ringworld would be perfect for a civilization that got boxed in by aggressive civilizations (like, one of my more recent games). A Dyson sphere would be awesome for civilizations that don't have that much space for energy anymore. If these megastructures provided increasing returns to scale, then there would be no tradeoff required to build these completely impracticable machines!
-FINAL NUMBERS ARE NOT FINAL-
Though even if they are inefficient, it means that wide empires won't use them, they can just conquer. Though it does give me something to do in the late game when I'm tired of conquering, and feel like using my infinite resource pool to make some ringworlds etc.
Though even if they are inefficient, it means that wide empires won't use them, they can just conquer. Though it does give me something to do in the late game when I'm tired of conquering, and feel like using my infinite resource pool to make some ringworlds etc.
Well the breakpoint for being less mineral-efficient than mining stations is at a bit over 1,300 energy per month at the current numbers, so you have a lot of room to make dyson spheres stronger without making them more mineral-efficient than mining stations.
Diameter of the Sun 1,391,400.
Diameter of Jupiter (The largest planet) 139,822.
While I am not opposed to building a Dyson Sphere making planets uninhabitable as a thematic decision, there is no reason a functional Dyson sphere would need to make planets uninhabitable. The used diameter of the Sun is only 10%, which is how much surface area, I don't feel like calculating right now. But at worst 25% of the energy would be lost to keep the planets habitable. If the sphere could also be built to emit energy, only the specific areas with a planet would need to be used. And planar waves lose almost no power over distance. This would allow over 95% of the stars energy to be kept while still heating the planets.
Diameter of Jupiter (The largest planet) 139,822.
While I am not opposed to building a Dyson Sphere making planets uninhabitable as a thematic decision, there is no reason a functional Dyson sphere would need to make planets uninhabitable. The used diameter of the Sun is only 10%, which is how much surface area, I don't feel like calculating right now. But at worst 25% of the energy would be lost to keep the planets habitable. If the sphere could also be built to emit energy, only the specific areas with a planet would need to be used. And planar waves lose almost no power over distance. This would allow over 95% of the stars energy to be kept while still heating the planets.
I think the idea that only small empires* can or will use megastructures is a bit daft. Everyone is going to get some manner of ascension perks I'm assuming. Small empires getting them slightly earlier won't help much, no one is going to be starting a Dyson sphere in 2230, so the limit is going to be minerals. Who has tons of minerals to spare? Not small empires who have to spam ships to force limit just to stay alive, it's the big empires who profited off enslaving developed enemy home worlds and who can safely sit at 1/3rd of their force limit who can throw minerals willy nilly at things.
The only thing stopping large empires from making Dyson spheres and Ringworlds everywhere is if other Ascension perks turn out to be even better. In which case large empires are are actually becoming more dominant over small empires than before.
*I say small empires because until you actually complete a megastructure you can't really call yourself a tall empire, current Stellaris economics don't really make tall a thing. And if large empires are able to complete megastructures as quickly or faster than small empires due to more disposable mineral income, then small empires aren't tall either, just equal or worse in height.
Personally I'd rather make Dyson Spheres truly game-defining. There's no reason a Dyson sphere can't give huge amounts of energy if the AI is scripted to react properly. Imagine if a Dyson Sphere flat out gave infinite energy gain, effectively making you a post-energy empire, but you also become galactic target #1 and everyone will declare war on you unless you also grant them access to infinite energy. Could be a cool mod idea I guess. Endless galactic super-wars to control the megastructures.
The only thing stopping large empires from making Dyson spheres and Ringworlds everywhere is if other Ascension perks turn out to be even better. In which case large empires are are actually becoming more dominant over small empires than before.
*I say small empires because until you actually complete a megastructure you can't really call yourself a tall empire, current Stellaris economics don't really make tall a thing. And if large empires are able to complete megastructures as quickly or faster than small empires due to more disposable mineral income, then small empires aren't tall either, just equal or worse in height.
Personally I'd rather make Dyson Spheres truly game-defining. There's no reason a Dyson sphere can't give huge amounts of energy if the AI is scripted to react properly. Imagine if a Dyson Sphere flat out gave infinite energy gain, effectively making you a post-energy empire, but you also become galactic target #1 and everyone will declare war on you unless you also grant them access to infinite energy. Could be a cool mod idea I guess. Endless galactic super-wars to control the megastructures.
I wouldn't want dyson spheres to give infinite energy, but I do think that it would be very interesting if instead of getting all of that repeating tech that over the course of the game we researched techs that had fruits with more and more ridiculous energy requirements. At first a player would be forced to make energy worlds, then we'd make swarms of mining installations around every star we could (the game would have to be altered to allow that), then eventually we'd start throwing dyson spheres around and our techs are talking to us about how many billions, trillions, or more units of energy we'd need to use our latest tech.
Think Heavy: "It costs ten seconds of the solar output of a blue supergiant to fire a single shot of this tachyon lance."
Interesting, though not the game Paradox made. Still, there's always a use for more energy. Jevon's Paradox, baby!
Think Heavy: "It costs ten seconds of the solar output of a blue supergiant to fire a single shot of this tachyon lance."
Interesting, though not the game Paradox made. Still, there's always a use for more energy. Jevon's Paradox, baby!
I only read the first page, but the Dyson Sphere is for the late stage of the game when you're running out of prime real estate and still need to build up without conquering a neighbour. Also, it's a prestige project, much like the Three Gorges Dam. It's not really as good as people say it is, it's fucking expensive and it shits on the environment (a solar system, in this case). From an RP perspective I think it's great, and I see this as something that authoritarian empires should favour over pacifist/democratic empires.
It doesn't need to good, per say, on a cost/production ratio. It just needs to provide another alternative to hostile expansion when everyone's borders are touching, everyone and their mother is in a federation, and Awakened Empires are breathing down your neck.
It doesn't need to good, per say, on a cost/production ratio. It just needs to provide another alternative to hostile expansion when everyone's borders are touching, everyone and their mother is in a federation, and Awakened Empires are breathing down your neck.