Regarding Habitats.

[Arcvalons]

As you may know, as a result of 2.2, the role of Habitats in the game has been drastically changed.

Before, their role was to provide extra tiles once you had colonized and filled all available planets, and as they had energy and mineral buildings, it was a sound investment if you didn't want to conquer or spend enormous amounts of resources on other megastructures.

However, this has changed.

• Habitats cost alloys, which make them much more expensive than before.
  
• While they are more costly to build, they aren't even able to produce basic resources anymore.
  
• They are also very small, which means very limited housing, and very few jobs comparatively. Even the smallest planets are twice as big.
• All their districts have a building equivalent in normal planet types, and since these districts actually make it so you can't build those buildings, these unique district are a net loss.
• It would appear an Habitat's purpose would be advanced resource production, everything from alloys to things like motes and gases, except they don't have any competitive advantage, you can do that much more efficiently on a planet too.

So basically, there is little reason to build habitats right now. Some have found that they make nice biotrophy and organic battery reserves, but that's it.

To fix these issues I think the concept of Habitats has to be rethought. Possible solutions could include:

• Habitats could have no districts, and instead have special Habitat buildings for everything else (including housing, leisure, commercial, and research labs which are districts right now, and even the old Astro Mining Bay ). Habitats are wholly artificial constructions, technically everything in them should be considered buildings. These buildings could be more efficient than their planetary counterparts, providing more jobs each.
• The opposite, habitats could have more districts (housing, leisure, production, industrial, research), and exclusive buildings just for habitats, including maybe a building (Expansion Module) that increases the habitat's site.
• Make them mini-ecumenopoli. Similar districts, just max 6 of them.

 

[Acheron]

What about Habitats not being one single huge building in space, but instead representing how inhospitable places are settled with both spaceborne habitats and domed buildings? I was thinking along the lines of habitats providing generator, mining and research slots based on a systems natural resources (and maybe unsettled planets). The idea would be that you build your habitats in resource-heavy systems, where they will significantly boost the output, because instead of the resources being exploited by automated stations with at best a small stuff, actual cities are dedicated to make these resources flow.

 

[permeakra]

All their districts have a building equivalent in normal planet types, and since these districts actually make it so you can't build those buildings, these unique district are a net loss.

One habitat I build is typically 2 habitaion 6 research districts (amenities are provided by buildings: temple, gene clinic etc) and one prescient house and I have space for a couple of buildings. That's about 30 pops (slight overcrowding is not a problem with high amenities and actually helps, forcing pop growth into emigration) of which 18 are researchers and I have 2-3 free building slots to fill with what I want

One advanced research complex you run costs you production of 1 mining district and a refinery building. Take 3 of them, add a precinct house and a holotheater. this would result in about 24 researchers per about 8 building slots per roughly 8 districts.

So, advantage is about by 1.5 times researchers per district but at expense of building slot deficit and spending of very limited minerals. Since minerals are alloys and consumer good, and total income of minerals is limited, Empire with habitats would be able to field somewhat larger fleets and keep more researchers. The sprawl penalty is negligible at this point.

But wait! Habitats can host several 1-per-planet buildings (temple, clinic, research institute and some more). And now we are talking. Also, habitats are the only way to grow after all planets you could take are taken, and if you do not kick kittens with vanilla it happens.

So, habitats still are a great perk investment and should be taken unless you plan to win by 2300-2350.

 

[romios187]

Habitats are still your little helpers! Somewhat costly, yes, but just look what they are now!

The main reason (for me at least) to build those is to free up food districts on those precious planets of yours since minerals are more important. A 6-district habitat stuffed with hydroponics (about 9-10 buildings or so) can produce amazing amounts of food. Grab Master Builders and you have even more place - build research districts instead of trade one or grow even more food! Ringworlds are better but you need more districts for that. Or waste building slots which otherwise could be put to better use.

Then we have habitats with fortresses. Man, these are awesome too! Not only they stop nasty enemy fleets, preventing their further advancement - such so so space structure is equal or even better then fully upgraded anchorage in terms of fleet cap! Got Citizen Service civic? Get your small unity bonus and even bigger fleets! This way you free up stations for purposes other then anchorage. You might need a steady supply of motes and some extra pops though, so this type works better with ecumenopolis I guess.

Ecumenopolis is a king of alloy and consumer goods production, so here habitats just keep on average. Again, freeing up building slots on planets for research, trade and... well all the usual stuff we do with planets.

Usually each habitat I develop holds around 40-60 pop. As for me, that's not so bad for a 10 admin cap.

So to conclude all this I find habitats a nice addition to your regular planets. They work fine and worth investment, bringing variety or serving for role play purpose. I don't think they need any major changes. A fewer small maybe but no more!

 

[Kryndude]

They need to buff habitat and put limit on how many you can build so that the AI's current behavior of spamming habitats can be justified.

 

[Askorti]

They're useful for securing chokepoints. Build a bastion, then a habitat filled with fortresses and a planetary shield, get some troops there and the enemy will take ages to conquer it. And in the meanwhile you also increase the naval capacity.

 

[Acheron]

Thank you all, this was very illuminating. I was a bit miffed at habitats not being able to make enough housing for 80 POPs, but I take it habitats aren't meant to get this big? Though I am quite worried about overcrowding still.

 

[Greenslade]

What about Habitats not being one single huge building in space, but instead representing how inhospitable places are settled with both spaceborne habitats and domed buildings? I was thinking along the lines of habitats providing generator, mining and research slots based on a systems natural resources (and maybe unsettled planets). The idea would be that you build your habitats in resource-heavy systems, where they will significantly boost the output, because instead of the resources being exploited by automated stations with at best a small stuff, actual cities are dedicated to make these resources flow.

Absolutely this. (see also my oft-linked to the point of being boring thread here https://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/index.php?threads/big-idea-developing-systems.1126341/)

The big hole in Stellaris management at the moment is the fact that systems don't really exist. A starbase and a planet and a habitat can be in the same system and yet not really have much to do with each other.

Rather than habitats being "a different, small kind of planet" they should be things that add on to an existing system. I would also argue that this is true of mining and research stations.

Make all of these things get developed by the starbase and add to a big "system" pool of available mining, habitation, research, solar generation, space trading etc districts.

 

[Bouchart]

Habitats are fantastic with lifestock slavery. Livestock take up very little housing, so you can easily unlock a bunch of building tiles for use with refineries.

A habitat with a bunch of fortresses is good for naval capacity and you can decommission a dedicated anchorage starbase for one, and your starbase cap is hard to increase. Even a single fortress is great since it comes with an FTL inhibitor.

 

[Flame13223]

Habitats are great for resource refinement. You can have multiple research type districts on it AND at the same time have Alloy foundries or Consumer goods factories. Its not meant to harvest resources its meant to refine them. Something they are pretty darn good at.

Habitats are okay. They're not extremely powerful nor are they exteremely weak, they're just fine.

 

[MaP_Prime]

My feeling on habitats is they need to be changed from an ascension perk and made into a rare, late game tech instead along the lines of gates. I also think they should only be built over colonized planets and significantly add to housing, perhaps even adding a few more districts and building slots.

 

[ATX]

Id like to see both variants... like when you build it over colonized planet, you get planet with +6 (+8) districts and +2 more district types, and when over uncolonized - normal habitat as now.

... and maybe slight cost rebalancing. Like 1000-1500 alloys and 10k minerals.

 

[permeakra]

... and maybe slight cost rebalancing. Like 1000-1500 alloys and 10k minerals.

Nah. Alloy costs are OK. Influence cost, on the other hand...

 

[ATX]

Nah. Alloy costs are OK. Influence cost, on the other hand...

Can say same about infuence. ) When you got possibility to build habitat, whith all those rivals and factions, there is so much influence to spend. Alloys on the other hand - if fleet upgrades cost just a li-i-i-ittle less...

 

[Piotrzeci]

I think the habitats should be a great choice as long as you can support them with basic resources, but the one thing that is terrible about them right now is that they don't let you do anything. Habitat's district do not provide housing (unless you build a housing one) and many buildings are locked and one of them is luxury housing. There just always either isn't job for the people living on a habitat or no housing for workers and it can't be well balanced.

The Ecumonopolis also gives the same benefits, but is better in every possible way. It has a lot of housing, very very good districts (too good actually) and is cheaper.

On top of that the population will keep on growing on habitats, even if there are no jobs, no housing and no way of creating more, which is just a pain to deal with.

In one of my games I decided to go for habitats and eventually the ones I created were like 4x housing 4x research and apart from like unity building - all hydroponics, because there just isn't any alternative. If someone told me I would farm habitats so I can specialize my planets in the things habitats do as their districts... I would hope he was wrong.

They are a pain to manage, cost a lot of alloys, are basically impossible to make effective and cost 1 or even 2 Ascension Perks, while Ecumonopolis is just straight up better option.
I don't say they can't be good or that a player can't find a way to make use out of them, but it's just so much work to benefit out of them, that it's just better not to bother.

 

[nome]

If you can sneak a housing building onto the habitat (rogue servitors with organic sanctuaries or that trick with fortresses and slaves) they're AMAZING. All your building slots without building a single district, low low cost of a single system worth of empire sprawl.

 

[Flame13223]

If you can sneak a housing building onto the habitat (rogue servitors with organic sanctuaries or that trick with fortresses and slaves) they're AMAZING. All your building slots without building a single district, low low cost of a single system worth of empire sprawl.

I don't think you need any tricks for them to be good. Just have 1 housing district, rest science districts and tons of alloy production on it and its an okay colony. I mean, building slots are always valuable, as you cannot really get alloys or consumer goods without them.

 

[permeakra]

The Ecumonopolis also gives the same benefits, but is better in every possible way. It has a lot of housing, very very good districts (too good actually) and is cheaper.

Ecu is actually pretty horrible, at least for science. A modest Ecu hosts about 200 pops, but only 16 building slots, so roughly same amount of pops could open 3 full planets of buildings. So, getting Ecu for alloys and industry is worth it, but beyond that you don't actually want it. And if you have access to Adaptability tradition tree, you actually want small planets, so habitats become great.

 

[Acheron]

Looks to me like I do something horribly wrong on all my playthroughs, I lack neither districts nor building slots but simply population to fill everything.

 

[Agamemnic]

I hear the arguments for habitats but they are still far less versatile and more highly situational in 2.2.

More importantly the AI does not know how to use these situations. AI will happily and mindlessly spam habitats, draining their planets of food and minerals. Only to then place pop controls on the habitat.

Essentially, habitats are useful in only limited cases that only the player can use. Not great imo