Thaaaat is just false. Even given that you're saying "for a given number of pops" - that is, holding constant the by-far largest sprawl contributor, when there's not much good reason to do so - districts are just not a very meaningfully controllable factor here. Pop sprawl can be countered by governor levels (assign the highest-level ones over the sectors with the most pops), planetary ascensions, civics, two different traditions, ethics if you must, and a trait if you really must. That is a lot of levers, most of which you can "actively manage" to a VASTLY greater extent than you can "actively manage" district counts.
Besides, if you want efficient districts, you don't want habitats anyhow; ecus are better, and rings are much better. The marginal improvement in district counts from using habitats is going to be swallowed up in the sprawl from trying to create them anyhow; even with the tradition and an entire ascension perk spent reducing sprawl-from-planets, a pair of max-size habitats will give you 29 sprawl (or 26.6 counting tech) before pops or system factors in, for 48 district housing and jobs. A size 23 planet (plus Expansion finisher) will give you exactly many jobs, actually less sprawl (28 or 25.7 with tech), but cost 100% less alloys in upkeep, 50% less in colony ships, and an extraordinary amount less in alloy and influence costs to build. The only advantages the habitats will actually give is researcher districts if you have the deposits, building slots if none of the planet districts are cities, and doubled base pop growth (but heavily penalized logistic pop growth whereas the planet will enjoy a long period of +50%). Or, if you take a much smaller planet - size 9, nearly as small as they come - and turn it into an ecu, you'll get 60 district jobs (25% more), for a mere 14 (or 13.1 sprawl - less than half as much as the habitats - for a comparable amount of resources (paid in minerals rather than alloys), less influence, and more building slots (unless you took voidborn, which admittedly you would if doing habitats)! Admittedly higher upkeep on the ecu, but still, WAY more efficient.
If you don't take Imperial Prerogative, the math is even more against you; habitats become outright sprawl monsters compared to planets. Same if you don't fully upgrade your habitats. Seriously, the best case for habitats - which requires taking one bad tradition tree, one bad ascension perk, and one marginal ascension perk - makes them sort-of-kind-of competitive with planets if you don't take one of the best ascension perks in the game.
... and that's before you factor in any of planetary designations (better with normal planets, and MUCH better with ecus), planetary ascensions (vastly more efficient to do it to one large planet than two tiny habitats), the enormous output bonus of ecus (or even the much smaller one for gaia/hive/machine worlds), or that thing the whoooole thread is ostensibly about: planetary rings.
Seriously, habitats suck right now.
- 2
- 1
- 1
