Spiritualist Post Apocalyptic species (OP)

[AGenericAccount]

I think pretty much everyone knows that Post Apocalyptic is OP, but add in the extremely adaptable trait with repugnant, and you can colonize literally EVERY planet without the repugnant trait causing any problems.

Spiritual buildings like temples negate the increased amenity cost, and if you have byzantine bureaucracy you get the bureaucracy building which gives amenities and even more unity.

What happens is a very rapid snowball effect where the ai is unable to keep pace with your economy, provided you stay clear of conflicts for the early game.

 

[Cronos988]

I don't quite see what the point is in combining extremely adaptable and repugnant?

To me the reason to take repugnant is because amenity penalties are less relevant during early expansion, and you can then genemod it out. Extremely adaptable basically just reverses that (yeah it reduces pop upkeep, but that is also not very relevant).

 

[AGenericAccount]

I don't quite see what the point is in combining extremely adaptable and repugnant?

To me the reason to take repugnant is because amenity penalties are less relevant during early expansion, and you can then genemod it out. Extremely adaptable basically just reverses that (yeah it reduces pop upkeep, but that is also not very relevant).

Don't forget we took spiritualist and byzantine bureaucracy, which means we can build temples and bureaucracy buildings.

They give both amenities and unity, which is not to be understated and keeps our pops happy while getting all that unity. Being a spiritualist basically negates all the amenity penalties.

 

[beckermt]

Why not just take adaptable?

 

[Cronos988]

Don't forget we took spiritualist and byzantine bureaucracy, which means we can build temples and bureaucracy buildings.

They give both amenities and unity, which is not to be understated and keeps our pops happy while getting all that unity. Being a spiritualist basically negates all the amenity penalties.

Yeah, but in that case why take any adaptable trait at all?

 

[HandicapdHippo]

You talking about the fact you get tomb world habitabitlity trait in addition to the surviour trait? Pretty sure that's a bug, you are meant to get a base habitabitlity trait e.g. continental + the surviour one to give you a tomb world bonus.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

What happens is a very rapid snowball effect where the ai is unable to keep pace with your economy, provided you stay clear of conflicts for the early game.

And how does that differ from any other trait/ethics/civic combination?

The AI being left in the dust as the player rapidly snowballs is standard operating procedure in Stellaris.

 

[beckermt]

Yeah, but in that case why take any adaptable trait at all?

Hypothetically you'll be colonizing a lot of planets and doing little terrforming. 60% on all planets is good, but 70% is better. With techs, you'll rapidly be getting high hab on all planets instead of just the ones in your category. Basically, since you're doing more planets, adaptable applies more often.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Hypothetically you'll be colonizing a lot of planets and doing little terrforming. 60% on all planets is good, but 70% is better. With techs, you'll rapidly be getting high hab on all planets instead of just the ones in your category. Basically, since you're doing more planets, adaptable applies more often.

You appear to assume that players stick primarily with one species and one climate preference due to dominant initial race preferences, but outside of a wish to roleplay a single race empire, why would that apply?

 

[AGenericAccount]

I think extremely adaptable beats out regular adaptable, cause it means that every single planet will pretty much be at least 80% habitability, with the exception of specific planet modifiers. Repugnant is a gimme trait with spiritual, since priests give amenities.

But maybe getting tomb world habitability right off the bat with survivor is a bug... I dunno, maybe being able to land colonies on any planet is too OP.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But maybe getting tomb world habitability right off the bat with survivor is a bug... I dunno, maybe being able to land colonies on any planet is too OP.

It is. The bug was introduced with 2.2 and was confirmed as a bug in a developer response in the latest dev diary- you're supposed to get the habitability of whatever your base planet prior to taking Post Apocalyptic is, with a bonus to Tomb World habitability thanks to "Survivor".

 

[beckermt]

You appear to assume that players stick primarily with one species and one climate preference due to dominant initial race preferences, but outside of a wish to roleplay a single race empire, why would that apply?

Certainly the initial ~100 Pops are going to be your own species. With Tomb World that may be even more, since more planets are available for colonizing.

As @BlackUmbrellas has pointed out, however, my whole argument is pretty tenuous, since Survivor is not an intended trait of the Post-Apoc civic. Once that's fixed, which it sounds like it is, it'll all be moot.

 

[Peter Ebbesen]

Certainly the initial ~100 Pops are going to be your own species. With Tomb World that may be even more, since more planets are available for colonizing.

As @BlackUmbrellas has pointed out, however, my whole argument is pretty tenuous, since Survivor is not an intended trait of the Post-Apoc civic. Once that's fixed, which it sounds like it is, it'll all be moot.

I understand that in many games the first many POPs will be of your own species, but there is no certainty this will be the case. This is a common feature of pacifist playstyles (player mentality, not limited to ethics) that do not engage in migration treaties, but a rarity for conquest or migration oriented playstyles that just overrun the universe with whatever POPs they can lay their hands on.

For very conquest oriented players like yours truly it will never, ever, be the case that the first hundred POPs are my own species unless I am deliberately role-playing isolationists or genocidal xenophobes: Primitives will be conquered if available, migration treaties will be signed where possible, weak neighbours overrun, and all worlds no matter how marginal colonized. All started long before I have a hundred POPs of my own species.

Nothing in this detracts from tomb world habitability being a very, very strong civic currently. I just don't see your preferred combination as being all that much of a killer, that's all.

You spend your trait points on what I consider a very marginal benefit. I mean, if you are planning on your first hundred+ POPs being own species and jumping through hoops with civics to alleviate your self-caused inflated amenities demand, why not just run the Agrarian trait and gain the food advantages without the fuss? Or conservationist + something useful, if you are worried about consumer goods costs and that's why you wanted increased habitability? Or charismatic, for that matter, and use civics to address other issues?

The only good excuse mathematically speaking for running extreme adaptability is that it will allow you to colonize worlds you can't already, and even then it is a dubious proposition as the much cheaper adaptability is sufficient to colonize the vast majority of troublesome worlds, but given that you are using the bugged post-apocalyptic civic, even that excuse fails.

So it is a bit of a conundrum to me why you consider this particular combination so good, that's all. I just don't get it.

 

[strangebloke]

The real story with Tomb world preference is that you can use "orbital bombardment terraforming" to get 80% habitable worlds on the cheap.

Great for a single race empire, but then, there's no real need for that.