There needs to be something more you can spend Consumer Goods on

[thedarkendstar]

Atm it feels like you vastly overproduce consumer goods once you start improving your alloy production because industrial districts produce both in an effort to ramp up alloy production for instance my consumer goods is also 500 plus and capped out atm the only thing you can spend it up is upkeep and selling it on the market I feel it needs another income sink you can spend it on.

 

[Ryika]

Use the appropriate Colony Specialization to shift jobs between Alloy and Consumer Good production.

 

[jwk4heels]

Yep, colony specializations are the way to go. They’ll shift all industrial district jobs to the respective job type. You can also shift to militarized economy to boost alloy production at the cost of some CG production. In some case it might also be beneficial to increase living standards if you have that much of a surplus.

 

[DeanTheDull]

Atm it feels like you vastly overproduce consumer goods once you start improving your alloy production because industrial districts produce both in an effort to ramp up alloy production for instance my consumer goods is also 500 plus and capped out atm the only thing you can spend it up is upkeep and selling it on the market I feel it needs another income sink you can spend it on.

Trade it with diplomatic friends. At cordial relations, CG can trade for 2-3 basic resources (energy/minerals/food). Given that CG are produced at base 6, this makes them incredibly pop-efficient ways to cover your basic resource costs.

 

[klopkr]

I wish I could sink extra consumer goods into some kind of global ether that improves the lives of my pops.

Distribute luxury goods on a galactic scale. When I have extra I just want to sink it all somewhere.

You know what else would be a great sink? Intergalactic aid. I'd love to be able to sink my extra resources into the galactic community if it meant better relation and actual help for the AI I like.

 

[Starfury]

Consumer Goods are in the same spot Food is in. It's not really a resource, it's more like upkeep. You just need "enough", not more.

That's alright but it would probably be more interesting if there was something to spend a surplus on. (At least you can distribute luxuries)

 

[blahmaster6k]

This is a min-maxing thing. If you are overproducing consumer goods, move the pops into other jobs so that you're not overproducing consumer goods.

 

[Dragatus]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I'd personally prefer to not have Consumer Goods in the game in the first place and that living standards would instead modify Food upkeep and Amenities usage. And the jobs with CG upkeep would just have Minerals/Energy/both as their upkeep instead.

 

[DeanTheDull]

This will probably be an unpopular opinion, but I'd personally prefer to not have Consumer Goods in the game in the first place and that living standards would instead modify Food upkeep and Amenities usage. And the jobs with CG upkeep would just have Minerals/Energy/both as their upkeep instead.

I wouldn't say that's an unpopular opinion, but that's basically how hiveminds play, and while it's not the worst gameplay it's also not the best. When amenities is your primary economic limiter for employment (because let's face it- everything else is just a balance of more workers), planet management mainly becomes the micro of amenity jobs.

I'd personally disagree on a thematic and mechanical level, though.

On a thematic level, amenities vs consumer goods have a reasonable difference between local services and stuff that can't/wouldn't necessarily be explortable, and more tangible goods that would found a core part of international trade on an international level. Bulk trade is absolutely a valid part of sci-fi tropes, which warrants its inclusion in the game, and it makes a reasonable distinguishing feature between the sci-fi models of free willed organics and the gestalts, for whom that sort of consumer good concept isn't really valid. The very fact that CG can combo with things like good relations for economically advantageous trading at high relations (at cordial+ relations, you can trade a CG for net 1-2 more basic resources than it took minerals to create) is a nice thematic role for the sort of sci-fi trope builds of interstellar trade orgnaizations or economic export models.


Mechanically, CG are interesting as a balance-over-time mechanical function that helps not only distinguish gestalts from normal organics, but between organics themselves. The way living standards affect political weight, for example, has significant implications for how Authoritarian vs Egalitarians handle unhappiness on a planet function. (Authoritarians just have a few more specialists for major political weight advantages; Egalitarians have a more foundational amenities issue.) There's also early-vs-later strategies that wouldn't come with just a mineral/amenities change, such as the merits of science rushing on CG savings from a stratified economy vis-a-vis CG efficiency of something like shared burdens.

But on a truly mechanical level, there's the way that CG are a mechanical means to build value from minerals. What starts as an early-game burden gradually becomes a much more potent power boost. At game start, CG's are less efficient than just using minerals for science directly like a hive mind. It's a representation of the civilian economic dynamics of an organic, and it's part of the gameplay division between organic and gestalt when normal organics have to spend more pops making raw materials a more useful thing.

But over time, that inefficient process becomes a more efficient way to make science out of minerals. A gestalt has 2 world designations that make their science pop-efficiency more efficient: resource world designation (25% resource boost) and science world designation (20% science job reduction). But the CG step adds a third- the factory world for 20% reduction on the minerals for CG- which is to say another 20% reduction on the actual minerals needed to reach the science workers. Start factoring in resource booster buildings, and in time each mineral mined goes further to support more scientists.

Then add in the consideration of trade policies- which seem a fair enough distinction from gestalts gated by CG-upkeep- which turns upkeep into energy, unity, and/or CG, and CG serve a game-long balance and catalyst role that'd be a shame to throw away for the worst part of the current gestalt gameplay.

 

[Dragatus]

I think the fundamental difference we have is that I don't enjoy economic management and so as far as I'm concerned simpler is better. Ultimately the two end products of your economy are alloys/fleet and research and the rest is fiddling about for the people who enjoy the fiddling, which I don't. My favorite way to model economy in a space strategy is the original Master of Orion game where the player used sliders to divide the output of a planet between building up the economy even further, ship construction, research, defensive bases, and waste management/terraforming/pop growth.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I think the fundamental difference we have is that I don't enjoy economic management and so as far as I'm concerned simpler is better. Ultimately the two end products of your economy are alloys/fleet and research and the rest is fiddling about for the people who enjoy the fiddling, which I don't. My favorite way to model economy in a space strategy is the original Master of Orion game where the player used sliders to divide the output of a planet between building up the economy even further, ship construction, research, defensive bases, and waste management/terraforming/pop growth.

Well, I'd agree that's a fair description of the fundamental difference, but Stellaris is fundamentally an economy management game. It's far more an economic strategy with grand strategy elements more than a grand strategy game with economic elements. Nearly every mechanic involved in running and building an empire- from pop traits and employment to planetary habitability and designations to amenities and stability to tech and tradition modifiers to civics and ascension perks are fundamentally about your economy. Military strength is the output of economy more than the other way around, and even then the primary role of the military in this game is... to expand or protect your economy.

That isn't to say your preferences are wrong or should be booed, but for as fundamental as they are, Stellaris is not a game that's trying to meet them.

 

[Franton]

Atm it feels like you vastly overproduce consumer goods once you start improving your alloy production because industrial districts produce both in an effort to ramp up alloy production for instance my consumer goods is also 500 plus and capped out atm the only thing you can spend it up is upkeep and selling it on the market I feel it needs another income sink you can spend it on.

1. In case you haven't known, you can set the Planet Designation of your industrial worlds to "Forge World", and that will "shift one job from Consumer Goods to Alloy production" for each district, eliminating all CG jobs. It's already been mentioned above, but the post didn't spell out exactly what you need to do. In the screenshot below, you can see one of my "Factory World"s, that I have built for CG production (see item 2 below). I've outlined the planet production, only showing CG output, not alloys, and below the sector name you can see the Planetary Designation set to "Factory World". Clicking on the icon in that designation pops up the "Colony Designations" list, and there you can pick a different designation. As you can see in the tooltip for "Forge World", this designation will, for each Industrial District, shift one job from CG to alloy production, i. e. all CG jobs that there are.

2. As also suggested above, if you have "Wary" or better relations with another empire, then they may be interested to directly trade with you, and CGs, like Food are valued highly as a trade good. In my current empire, I am producing 600 CGs and 6 alloys per month from jobs, But I'm trading 72 CGs and 1075 food in exchange for 300 alloys and 400 energy with several friendly AIs.

3. Once my ECUs are up and running I'll probably switch back to militarized economy and producing alloys myself, but until the Civilian Economy policy is serving me very well. See screenshot below:

 

[MathyM]

Distribute luxury goods on a galactic scale.

This is exactly how it should be. And being an extra CG sink is just a minor benefit. The current Distribute Luxury Goods decision is such a micro hell. You have to check which planets have it and which don’t at all times, and click the button every 10 years or something. It should just be a decision from some sort of Macro Builder that you enable once and then it constantly drains X CGs every month for upkeep.

 

[jwk4heels]

1. In case you haven't known, you can set the Planet Designation of your industrial worlds to "Forge World", and that will "shift one job from Consumer Goods to Alloy production" for each district, eliminating all CG jobs. It's already been mentioned above, but the post didn't spell out exactly what you need to do. In the screenshot below, you can see one of my "Factory World"s, that I have built for CG production (see item 2 below). I've outlined the planet production, only showing CG output, not alloys, and below the sector name you can see the Planetary Designation set to "Factory World". Clicking on the icon in that designation pops up the "Colony Designations" list, and there you can pick a different designation. As you can see in the tooltip for "Forge World", this designation will, for each Industrial District, shift one job from CG to alloy production, i. e. all CG jobs that there are.View attachment 794393

2. As also suggested above, if you have "Wary" or better relations with another empire, then they may be interested to directly trade with you, and CGs, like Food are valued highly as a trade good. In my current empire, I am producing 600 CGs and 6 alloys per month from jobs, But I'm trading 72 CGs and 1075 food in exchange for 300 alloys and 400 energy with several friendly AIs.

3. Once my ECUs are up and running I'll probably switch back to militarized economy and producing alloys myself, but until the Civilian Economy policy is serving me very well. See screenshot below:
View attachment 794396

This is a great explanation of how to handle CG and alloy related decisions and the screenshots I’m sure are super helpful for those not as familiar with the system, so thanks for the elaboration. I’m curious, though, what’s your thought process behind such a huge CG surplus while only producing a few alloys? I don’t see any benefit. The alloys are more valuable on the market and are more useful to invest in infrastructure, i.e. habitats and megastructures. I would have switched to militarized economy pretty much immediately after I was sure to avoid a CG deficit, if not slightly before. Just wondering.

 

[MathyM]

This is a great explanation of how to handle CG and alloy related decisions and the screenshots I’m sure are super helpful for those not as familiar with the system, so thanks for the elaboration. I’m curious, though, what’s your thought process behind such a huge CG surplus while only producing a few alloys? I don’t see any benefit. The alloys are more valuable on the market and are more useful to invest in infrastructure, i.e. habitats and megastructures. I would have switched to militarized economy pretty much immediately after I was sure to avoid a CG deficit, if not slightly before. Just wondering.

I think it’s there for mismanaged empires that end up in a severe CG deficit. But I personally never use it. Any averagely experienced Stellaris player will not mess up that bad. +25% CGs are NOT worth -25% Alloys. Either these numbers should be adjusted, or this Policy should be removed IMO. It’s just one more thing to click on at the start of the game.

 

[GOLANX]

I think it’s there for mismanaged empires that end up in a severe CG deficit. But I personally never use it. Any averagely experienced Stellaris player will not mess up that bad. +25% CGs are NOT worth -25% Alloys. Either these numbers should be adjusted, or this Policy should be removed IMO. It’s just one more thing to click on at the start of the game.

I think that policy really needs an overhaul, for 1 Excess Alloys are always useful while excess CGs are never useful, short of blowing the numbers out of proportion so that you can buy more Alloys for the Value of the CGs your putting out. For 2 raw buffs to output have the effect of "now I don't have to worry about this as much anymore", I'd rather militarized economy encourage the player to develop their military economy and ignore the Civilian economy, and vice versa. I also think there should be more sinks for CGs in general.

 

[DeanTheDull]

I think it’s there for mismanaged empires that end up in a severe CG deficit. But I personally never use it. Any averagely experienced Stellaris player will not mess up that bad. +25% CGs are NOT worth -25% Alloys. Either these numbers should be adjusted, or this Policy should be removed IMO. It’s just one more thing to click on at the start of the game.

The policy's really there for early-game science rushing when your homeworld is the primary industrial center. 25% of 6 is 1.5 more CG per artisan, which is to say an extra scientist every 2 homeworld industrial districts. IE, at 4 industrial districts, you can afford one extra science lab for 3 less alloys a month, at a point in the game where you realistically may be unable to afford that 5th industrial district and 12 mineral upkeep due to mineral shortage. Once you have more than enough CG, it's easy to flip it the other way for the alloy bonus and only look back if a major conquest throws your CG economy out of which, in which case you spend a decade rebalancing.

It's a policy whose value changes over time, much like the Gestalt Extraction-vs-Manufacturing policy. You rarely want +20% menial drone/-20% specialist drone past your first decade, but it's mighty useful in that decade to afford more science faster in the second.

 

[fourteenfour]

I just feel they are an obsolete resource.

I would much prefer a game where all empire types used the same resources. As it stands now the system they have in place breaks too often, is hard to balance, and requires far more micromanagement than should be required.

Got to love conquering with an empire which does not use Consume Goods one that does and suddenly finding you have resources you cannot trade because the code says they are worthless to your empire type. You can try to work around it by keeping one of the conquered systems CG production buildings until you sell off all you have but that is a bit of silly requirement.

Amenities can pretty much head canon replace consumer goods.... just change the definition to fit each empire type and suddenly we have one less resource to have to manage and the game becomes easier to balance as well

 

[Franton]

This is a great explanation of how to handle CG and alloy related decisions and the screenshots I’m sure are super helpful for those not as familiar with the system, so thanks for the elaboration. I’m curious, though, what’s your thought process behind such a huge CG surplus while only producing a few alloys? I don’t see any benefit. The alloys are more valuable on the market and are more useful to invest in infrastructure, i.e. habitats and megastructures. I would have switched to militarized economy pretty much immediately after I was sure to avoid a CG deficit, if not slightly before. Just wondering.

Simple explanation: I got much better trade deals for CGs than for alloys. I could trade 3-4 energy per CG (180% of market value) but only about 5 per alloy (125% market value). Since there were enough AI empires to trade with, I decided to focus all industrial production to CGs.

At the moment I get enough alloys, but it won't be long before I will unlock Megastructures, and then I'll need to produce more alloys, and then I'll probably switch back to militarized economy.

 

[Franton]

I think it’s there for mismanaged empires that end up in a severe CG deficit. But I personally never use it. Any averagely experienced Stellaris player will not mess up that bad. +25% CGs are NOT worth -25% Alloys. Either these numbers should be adjusted, or this Policy should be removed IMO. It’s just one more thing to click on at the start of the game.

That's not quite correct: the +/-25% are applied to the base output, so if you have 3 alloys base output, -25% only means -0.75 alloys, whereas with a base of 6 CGs , the 25% bonus gives you +1.5 CGs. The market value is the same, except later, when you get the Galactic marekt, and alloy prices go through the roof.

The problem is not the +--25%, its the boost to base production from the CG and alloy buildings: +1 CG output means a +16.7% boost, whereas +1 alloy output means a +33% boost! So the alloy boost buildings are double as much efficient compared to the CH boost buildings.