So, no one said organics don't have maintenance costs, but they are still significantly less than ME. You forgot some very important things in doing your math: The most important thing you forgot though, is trade. You can go through and remove almost all of your energy upkeep and district requirements from your math and add them to spare pops because of trade. And if you switch it to consumer goods production, more than half of your pops assigned to that can be moved elsewhere. To top it off, the mineral/consumer good production ratio is the same ratio as the energy production/upkeep ratio for ME. However, the organic food production line is significantly more effective than the ME energy production line, so you're going to be spending 50-70% more pops on that for ME than for organics. If ME had trade, it might be a closer balance. But they don't, so it's not even close.
And the advantages you listed aren't really advantages- as an organic, your leaders are only going to die at most once, because as the game goes on they will also become nearly immortal with all the +life boosts. Terraforming is also an early game tech these days, and you can start the process within the first 15 years. Not only that, habitability isn't stopping you anymore. It's just increasing your upkeep costs to about ME levels by colonizing a 20% world. So the ME will have a planet advantage only for the first 10 years, assuming you wait for terraforming, because you aren't going to really colonize in the first 5. And if you don't wait, ME has no advantage at all.
Also, the organics will absolutely hit the +10-12 growth almost right away (+3 lol), if they do the same strategy that the ME is forced to do by resettling 5 or to 10 pops just to prevent abysmal growth. An organic empire doing the same will immediately hit max growth and get to drop down their cloning vat, gene clinic, or spawning pool. If you're not outpacing your friend, it's because you're playing poorly. You have literally every advantage.
It also has nothing to do with "complaining about your lot". I play every kind of empire, I don't restrict myself to only playing ME. I didn't even bother playing DA pre 2.2 because it was so broken overpowered there was no point. But now it's painfully obvious how far behind ME are. The issue is we shelled out money for this DLC and right now it's not worth a penny because the civs are ridiculously weak compared to organics. You should actually try playing them before commenting, TBH.
Yep, this exact kind of one-sided argument.
1) The fact that I have trade doesn't mean that my buildings don't cost EC.
Yes, it's an advantage, but doesn't change upkeep rates.
It's the same as it's always been with the extra income from mining stations.
The fact that I can get EC else where doesn't change the fact that having to pay 8 EC more would require me to build one more tech district.
Also fun fact - did you know that -.5 EC for +.25 CGs is only a good deal becasue ECs quickly outpace CGs in +x% production bonuses? Initially it's not to the player's advantage numerically. Also not to the player's advantage strategically as free EC are useful in early game and free CGs are not. But whatever, this has nothing to do with the current discussion.
2)I've given my numbers already. You gave none but expect me to take that as a valid argument.
Wiki claims robots take 1 EC per pop instead of organics' 1 food and vairable cg. But that's 2.1 numbers. Are those invalid now?
Because if those are valid you need to divert less population towards paying those EC and amens costs than organics need to divert to paying their food, cg and amens costs.
It's 110 out of 240 vs 159 out of 240.
And again, I'm comparing that to 100 habitability maintenance. Terraform all you want (since when is that free btw?) but you'll still only be getting 100% habitability for organics after getting all 4 techs for +5 habitability.
Even the basic 80% hab-ty world turns those 159 out of 41 into 191 out of 240.
3)Did you actually TRY ignoring habitability as organics? After I listened to someone talking about it I went for it and tried. You get locked into an economy that's struggling to maintain itself. Basically meaning no income up until you can either gene-mod or terraform your empire up to the usual 80%s.
A 50% hab world would basically stagnate and NOT bring in anything that it doesn't take right back for maintenance. Any world with less that 50% would actually be a drain on your resources, so you either pay the drain, or don't grow people there till you can make it habitable.
4) Is wiki wrong in saying that MEs get 3 alloys per 6 mins? Organics get 2 per 6.
5) Base growth for organic is +3 pop per month per planet (+12-10 riiight, show me how to get that +300% growth speed multiplier on a new colony). On new colonies they get a -50% to that. This IS more than what MEs get on new colonies, AND it's easier to counter without resettlement (because for example a total of +20% growth turns it into 2.1 vs 1.2). BUT (see above) organics can't just rely on every planet in their vicinity from early days. Sure you can take them, but it's more likely to hurt you than to help you.
6) By the time I can drop down cloning vats and gene clinics ME will have long ran out of new (natural) planets to colonise. SURE I can drop them on new planets but by that time both MEs and Organics will have so many OLD planets that the growth on new ones is no longer the deciding factor of empire-wide pop growth.
And It's not just me who he's keeping up with but whatever...
I already said that my 1st-hand knowledge of ME's is non existent. Never claimed otherwise.
The reason I commented about this is because I'm not seeing anyone running detailed comparisons.
All you get from that side of the discussion are "look at me momma I can't produce enough EC *shows poorly managed planet*" posts or posts that only list disadvantages of ME and advantages of organics. MAYBE ME's are in need of a buff, I don't know, I haven't played them yet. What I DO know is that neither the way people are talking about it nor the few practical examples I have observed thus far suggest so.
Maybe there's something I'm missing here, and I'm indeed wrong and will change my tune after I get around to playing one myself. But so far... I'm not even remotely convinced that it's as bad as people are trying (and failing, which is the whole point) to make it sound.
If the only argument you can rely on is "play it and see". Than you cause is doomed. Devs played it already, I'm pretty darn sure of that. You'll need to tell THEM, what kind of organic advantages they are not seeing. And like I said you, people, are not doing a good job at that.
