[PLANET ECONOMY]  Reimagining districts and buildings.

[PLANET ECONOMY] Reimagining districts and buildings.

  • Crusader Kings III Available Now!

    The realm rejoices as Paradox Interactive announces the launch of Crusader Kings III, the latest entry in the publisher’s grand strategy role-playing game franchise. Advisors may now jockey for positions of influence and adversaries should save their schemes for another day, because on this day Crusader Kings III can be purchased on Steam, the Paradox Store, and other major online retailers.


    Real Strategy Requires Cunning

MichaelJanuary

Colonel
43 Badges
Jul 8, 2012
1.190
1.180
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
The challenges:
  • There is no clear distinction between districts, buildings, urban, rural.
  • There is no orbital infrastructure (except for head canon)
  • All planets get 16 building slots regardless of planet size.
  • There is no direct correlation between buildings and urban, um, like where are the buildings really?

TLDR
Planet size is 16 to 30 districts only, 0 buildings.
1 urban district unlocks 2 buildings (no clerks, no housing).
No limits to urban districts.
New district type .... launch pad.
1 launch pad = 2 orbital building slots.
Introduce orbital infrastructure.
No limit on district allocation, player can decide on balance of rural v urban v orbital.


LONG WINDED PROPOSAL

Districts represent the space on the planet, and some of those regions lend themselves to farming, mining or energy production. This makes sense. Where it falls apart for me is urban districts and buildings.

It would have made sense if Urban districts produced *nothing*, except to lay the infrastructure for urban development. I.e, converting a district to 'Urban Development' would open up 2 building slots. You would start each planet with one urban slot developed, with the first building slot being your capital, and the second slot being housing.

Each planet district you converted to Urban, would give you 2 more building slots. To get to 16 building slots, you would have to allocate 8 districts to urban. However, since urban districts themselves produce nothing, this means you would have to use some of those building slots for housing and entertainment, rather than getting free clerks and housing.

Therefore, I would not limit the building space at all. I would adjust the planet size to allow for this. So planet sizes in the range 16 to 30 probably. This way, your building slots would be subtracted directly from your planet size at a rate of 2 buildings per district, and you would have more freedom to specialise your planets.

Do you want all 30 districts as urban (60 building slots), be my guest. There's your ecu. It developed naturally by urban spread.

Do you want all 30 (-housing etc) for mining and farming. Be my guest.

As for planet specialization modifiers, theyvcan kick in naturally. If 50% of your planet is mining districts, you get a mining bonus (and malus to other resources). If 50% of your planet is agriculture you get an agriculture bonus (and malus to other resources). Similar could apply to alloys, CG or research. This would represent legislation and/or policy that would reflect the needs of the dominant industry on the planet.

ORBITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

And if you really want your mind blown, I would introduce orbital infrastructure. How? Allocate 1 district to a 'starbase', and you gain 2 orbital.slotss for specialist orbital industry (black site, trade docks, solar panels, weather monitoring, orbital broadcast centre, police surveillance satellites, ornital refineries, zero g industrial complex, zero g entertainment complex, housing, whatever).

Or do something like ....

1 district = landing pad, 2 orbital slots
2 districts = starbase, 5 orbital slots
3 districts = elevator, 8 orbital slots

Depending in how you developed your planets (and with appropriate graphical additions) you would have planets with orbital infrastructure (satellites, elevator, multiple elevators, industrial ring). We would finally have planets that looked like they belong to an inter stellar empire.

The numbers used are purely for illustration purpose. Balancing may be required. This is a concept only, and you are free to use it in whole or in part or adapt it as deemed suitable.


EXAMPLE PLANET
Given a size 24 planet, you may develop it like this.
8 urban districts, gives 16 building slots.
4 launch pads, gives 8 orbital slots.
12 rural districts (energy, farming, mining).

When you research starbases or space elevators, you might decide to replace the 4 launchpad with 2 starbases (10 orbital slots), or 1 elevator (8 orbital slots).

I would tend to use orbital slots for buildings that provide global modifiers (replacing the current set iof planetary uniques, and probably repalcing some decisions with a satellite).
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions:

Tree of Life

Private
Nov 2, 2020
13
13
Sorry I only checked the post just now.

since urban districts themselves produce nothing, this means you would have to use some of those building slots for housing and entertainment, rather than getting free clerks and housing.

Didn't see this on the original post/comment, and yeah if urban district doesn't provide housing I agree that it's relatively balanced for it to unlock 2 building slots. This might bring more civics into the meta, with agrarian idyll giving resource districts extra housing which reduces the housing upkeep for rural planets, or shared burden with it's special housing buildings. Though with normal housing buildings only providing +3 housing, there may be problems with urbanization late game. Perhaps traditions/tech should increase the amount of housing given per building?

As for planet specialization modifiers, they can kick in naturally.

I don't trust the AI with anything, leaving anything to the AI is just inviting problems. I'd rather have it be a manual designation or a building effect.

As for something unrelated, how would building slots work in Ecus, Hive worlds, Machine worlds, or Ring worlds. Currently their building slots are unlocked by populations, just like every other planet, but in the dev diary they stated that advanced worlds would start with all building slots unlocked. How do you think it should work in your suggestion? Should they start with 15 building slots unlocked and have each district add extra building slot (say +5 per city segment, +3 per residential arcology, and have hive and nexus district produce the usual 2?)
 

MichaelJanuary

Colonel
43 Badges
Jul 8, 2012
1.190
1.180
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
As for something unrelated, how would building slots work in Ecus, Hive worlds, Machine worlds, or Ring worlds. Currently their building slots are unlocked by populations, just like every other planet, but in the dev diary they stated that advanced worlds would start with all building slots unlocked. How do you think it should work in your suggestion? Should they start with 15 building slots unlocked and have each district add extra building slot (say +5 per city segment, +3 per residential arcology, and have hive and nexus district produce the usual 2?)

I actually think current ecus, ringworlds, habitats are fine. I like their district types in general. It's just arbitrary though that a ringworldncsnt have industrial districts and an ecu cant have research districts.

As for building slots and orbital infrastructure.

Ecus can still have orbital infrastructure added. Habitats and ringworld is already orbital infrastructure. I would probably still tie their building slots to the urban allocation, though at a different ratio. Doesnt have to be 1:2. Can be 1:4 or even 1:8.

I dont like arbitrary limits on players though. If you want to use 50/80% of your districts for urbanisation to maximize building slots. Go for it.

As for planetary bonuses .... Stellaris mixes up two things ..... goernor focus and planet bonuses. I feel governor focus (what to build next) should be separated from bonuses derived from what you have already built. If I built 50% of my districts as mines, that should give me a mining bonus regardless if I tell my governor to now focus on research. If the majority of my building space is research, then i should get a research bonus. There is no reason why i shouldnt get a mining bonus and a research bonus if thatsbhowni specialized my planet. Telling my governor to focus on admin cap next should not affect what I have already built.
 

Tamwin5

General
18 Badges
Dec 3, 2017
1.878
1.509
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
Just as a btw, have you checked out the recent dev diaries? Building slots are being changed so that cities are the primary way of unlocking them, pops are no longer a factor.
 

Tree of Life

Private
Nov 2, 2020
13
13
Just as a btw, have you checked out the recent dev diaries? Building slots are being changed so that cities are the primary way of unlocking them, pops are no longer a factor.

This post is based on that, only this post suggests perhaps industrial districts are not needed at all for the change (since it will cause an identity crisis on what districts should be) and if possible also adds extra flavor in the form of orbital infrastructure.
 

Tamwin5

General
18 Badges
Dec 3, 2017
1.878
1.509
  • Age of Wonders III
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Shadowrun Returns
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Crusader Kings II: Horse Lords
  • Cities: Skylines
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
This post is based on that, only this post suggests perhaps industrial districts are not needed at all for the change (since it will cause an identity crisis on what districts should be) and if possible also adds extra flavor in the form of orbital infrastructure.

...I really don't think so, considering the fact that they mention 16 building slots (it got reduced, iirc) and said "a [ringworld can't] have industrial districts" when they very much can with the upcoming changes.
 

MichaelJanuary

Colonel
43 Badges
Jul 8, 2012
1.190
1.180
  • For the Motherland
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Naval War: Arctic Circle
  • Semper Fi
  • Sword of the Stars II
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Crusader Kings II
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Surviving Mars: Digital Deluxe Edition
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife
  • Cities: Skylines - Parklife Pre-Order
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Surviving Mars
  • Cities: Skylines Industries
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Imperator: Rome Deluxe Edition
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Surviving Mars: First Colony Edition
  • Stellaris: Lithoids
  • Hearts of Iron IV: La Resistance
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Imperator: Rome - Magna Graecia
  • Hearts of Iron IV Sign-up
  • Europa Universalis IV
  • 500k Club
  • Stellaris
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Cadet
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Together for Victory
  • Cities: Skylines - Mass Transit
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Death or Dishonor
  • Hearts of Iron IV: Expansion Pass
  • Imperator: Rome
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Cities: Skylines
I did bear in mind the proposed changes, but also decided i would prefer more 'clear' rules. i.e.,
- a strong relationship between Urban Districts and buildings. No limits.
- research and industrial sectors to have the same rules (both limited to artificial environments), ie. (ecu, habitat, ringworld).
- I do not like the 'unified' industrial sectors: I would prefer specific sectors (research v alloy v CG v commercial).

Also, I don't see the need to limit the building number to arbitrary values like 12 or 16. If you're sacrificing districts to get buildings, then it has an opportunity cost, and leave it to the player to set their own limits.

Lastly, for flavor/immersion (and potential expansion) i would prefer distinguishing between "urban buildings" and "orbital infrastructure', with rules like:
- global (planet-scale) modifiers to be orbital infrastructure.
- inter-stellar related modifiers (trade, transit, etc) can be orbital infrastructure.
- possibly even some "decisions" can be replaced by orbital infrastructure (surveillance satellites, etc).

One more point. The planet size should not be too generous. So rather than going for a size 40 planet (24+16), I would rather go for size 32 (8 extra 'districts' ... or 16 buildings). Orbital would also deduct rom this. So there is a strong opportunity cost between selecting rural, urban or orbital development. If you were to add 16 districts (size 40 planet), this could lead to really extreme energy/farming/mining planets.
 
  • 2
  • 1Like
Reactions:

WeeBigTerd101

Second Lieutenant
Nov 16, 2020
158
106
The challenges:
  • There is no clear distinction between districts, buildings, urban, rural.
  • There is no orbital infrastructure (except for head canon)
  • All planets get 16 building slots regardless of planet size.
  • There is no direct correlation between buildings and urban, um, like where are the buildings really?

TLDR
Planet size is 16 to 30 districts only, 0 buildings.
1 urban district unlocks 2 buildings (no clerks, no housing).
No limits to urban districts.
New district type .... launch pad.
1 launch pad = 2 orbital building slots.
Introduce orbital infrastructure.
No limit on district allocation, player can decide on balance of rural v urban v orbital.


LONG WINDED PROPOSAL

Districts represent the space on the planet, and some of those regions lend themselves to farming, mining or energy production. This makes sense. Where it falls apart for me is urban districts and buildings.

It would have made sense if Urban districts produced *nothing*, except to lay the infrastructure for urban development. I.e, converting a district to 'Urban Development' would open up 2 building slots. You would start each planet with one urban slot developed, with the first building slot being your capital, and the second slot being housing.

Each planet district you converted to Urban, would give you 2 more building slots. To get to 16 building slots, you would have to allocate 8 districts to urban. However, since urban districts themselves produce nothing, this means you would have to use some of those building slots for housing and entertainment, rather than getting free clerks and housing.

Therefore, I would not limit the building space at all. I would adjust the planet size to allow for this. So planet sizes in the range 16 to 30 probably. This way, your building slots would be subtracted directly from your planet size at a rate of 2 buildings per district, and you would have more freedom to specialise your planets.

Do you want all 30 districts as urban (60 building slots), be my guest. There's your ecu. It developed naturally by urban spread.

Do you want all 30 (-housing etc) for mining and farming. Be my guest.

As for planet specialization modifiers, theyvcan kick in naturally. If 50% of your planet is mining districts, you get a mining bonus (and malus to other resources). If 50% of your planet is agriculture you get an agriculture bonus (and malus to other resources). Similar could apply to alloys, CG or research. This would represent legislation and/or policy that would reflect the needs of the dominant industry on the planet.

ORBITAL INFRASTRUCTURE

And if you really want your mind blown, I would introduce orbital infrastructure. How? Allocate 1 district to a 'starbase', and you gain 2 orbital.slotss for specialist orbital industry (black site, trade docks, solar panels, weather monitoring, orbital broadcast centre, police surveillance satellites, ornital refineries, zero g industrial complex, zero g entertainment complex, housing, whatever).

Or do something like ....

1 district = landing pad, 2 orbital slots
2 districts = starbase, 5 orbital slots
3 districts = elevator, 8 orbital slots

Depending in how you developed your planets (and with appropriate graphical additions) you would have planets with orbital infrastructure (satellites, elevator, multiple elevators, industrial ring). We would finally have planets that looked like they belong to an inter stellar empire.

The numbers used are purely for illustration purpose. Balancing may be required. This is a concept only, and you are free to use it in whole or in part or adapt it as deemed suitable.


EXAMPLE PLANET
Given a size 24 planet, you may develop it like this.
8 urban districts, gives 16 building slots.
4 launch pads, gives 8 orbital slots.
12 rural districts (energy, farming, mining).

When you research starbases or space elevators, you might decide to replace the 4 launchpad with 2 starbases (10 orbital slots), or 1 elevator (8 orbital slots).

I would tend to use orbital slots for buildings that provide global modifiers (replacing the current set iof planetary uniques, and probably repalcing some decisions with a satellite).
orbital infrastructure would be cool. maybe like tethers, space elevators space factories, or what is most penalty missing is asteroid and barren world infastructure.
 

Coconut_Cookie

Captain
24 Badges
Apr 30, 2015
307
445
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris: Federations
  • Stellaris: Ancient Relics
  • Stellaris: Megacorp
  • Stellaris: Distant Stars
  • Stellaris: Humanoids Species Pack
  • Knights of Honor
  • Stellaris - Path to Destruction bundle
  • Stellaris: Leviathans Story Pack
  • Stellaris: Digital Anniversary Edition
  • Stellaris: Galaxy Edition
  • Stellaris
  • Victoria 2
  • Darkest Hour
  • Victoria 2: Heart of Darkness
  • Victoria 2: A House Divided
  • Semper Fi
  • Stellaris: Synthetic Dawn
  • Victoria: Revolutions
  • Stellaris: Apocalypse
  • Hearts of Iron III Collection
  • Hearts of Iron III: Their Finest Hour
  • Hearts of Iron III
  • For the Motherland
I like the idea of planets having economic ties to the system they are in. I think that if any change would be made to the economy it should provide the ability for jobs and housing to grow and decline on their own. The player should be the one setting the policy or general direction of growth and not build everything themselves. If star systems themselves had near infinite growth potential over the course of a game and if wide had actual distance penalties then there would also no longer be a real need to artificially enhance these kinds of play styles. It could add more variaty and flavor to the game and possible strategies.