Hello everyone and welcome to another Stellaris development diary. Today's dev diary is going to be a bit of a grab bag, as we're going to talk about features in the 1.5 'Banks' update that weren't quite large enough to get their own dev diary, but are still significant enough that we want to highlight them. All features listed in this dev diary are part of the free Banks update rather than the Utopia expansion. There are of course many other minor features, tweaks and fixes in Banks that did not make the cut for this dev diary but will be covered in the full patch notes once we're closer to release.


Empire-wide Food
Probably one of the most hotly requested features since the release of the game, we've changed food in 1.5 so that it is no longer local to planets. Instead, all food produced by planets goes into a 'global' food stockpile, which is used to feed the entire empire. The maximum size of this stockpile depends on your Food Stockpiling policy, and once your food stockpile is full, any additional food produced is instead converted into faster Pop growth across the empire at a rate relative to the size of the population (so an excess of 5 food/month will produce much more growth in a 10 Pop empire than in a 100 Pop empire). Conversely, if the stockpile runs out and food growth is negative, the empire will suffer starvation, halting all Pop growth and applying increasingly severe happiness penalties for all biological Pops.

Terraforming Candidates
As explained in earlier dev diaries, one of the decisions taken early on when it comes to terraforming in Stellaris is to not have every planet be terraformable. This is both for practical reasons (a Stellaris galaxy can contain thousands upon thousands of planets, and having them all be inhabited would be completely unfeasible from a gameplay perspective) and thematic ones, as we want habitable worlds to feel rare and special. However, this means that one of the great staples of sci-fi - terraforming Mars - isn't possible in Stellaris. To resolve this, we've introduced a new type of anomaly called a 'Terraforming Candidate'. Sometimes when surveying Barren worlds, you will find ones that while they do not support life, could theoretically do so if you possess the right technology. Once you have unlocked the Climate Restoration technology, you will be able to terraform these worlds into habitable planets. Mars will always be a Terraforming Candidate, and you will be able to find randomly generated Terraforming Candidates when exploring the rest of the galaxy.

War Demand Costs
A frequent complaint about the mid and late game in Stellaris is that the warscore costs for taking planets simply do not scale well to the size of lategame wars. You can have a gigantic conflict involving dozens or hundreds of planets that results in only a few planets exchanging hands at the end. To address this, we've rebalanced war demands to still be quite expensive in the early game (when conquering a handful of planets is a significant increase in power) but added numerous ways to reduce the cost as the game progresses in the form of traditions and technologies, allowing for vast swathes of territory to change hands in late-game wars.

Stone Age Primitives
Having Stone Age primitives use a system of modifiers and tile blockers always felt a bit odd, owing to the fact that it is a legacy system designed before pre-sentients and later primitive civilizations were given proper Pops. For 1.5, we've reworked Stone Age civilizations to use the same systems as regular primitives, meaning they have Pops, can be studied and conquered using armies.

Picking Room Backgrounds
Another occasionally requested feature has been the ability to pick your own room background when designing your species, instead of having it automatically generated by your ethics. In 1.5, you will be able to select your room background in the Ruler customization screen. We've also added a new room background in a Hive Mind style.

That's all for today! Next week we'll be talking about the new music and sounds coming in Banks and Utopia, as well as showing off the Music Player that will be included with the free update.

 

[dskod1]

Get back on topic guys and stop trying to act as moderators.

I am getting really annoyed at people posting "I am going to report this" or "this is off topic".

• It doesn't help moderators moderate
• It further derails a thread with discussion of if a post breaks a rules
• It brings unnecessary attention to a potential rule breaking then it would have without the post
• It is off topic

I should not have to say this again, but I have no doubt that I will.

If you think a post/thread/user is breaking the rules, simply report or contact a moderator.

DO NOT call people out in public threads about potential rule breaking. Only forum staff and paradox staff are given powers to decide if a post/thread/user is breaking the rules.

EDIT: I would like to thank those people who reported posts in this thread without publicly acting like a moderator or announcing it to everyone.

Thanks,
Dylan

 

[henzington]

I don't know why there is a hype of "farm worlds". In new mechanism, each world can support its own pops (so has base line growth rate) by three or four food tiles (and one of them is frontier hospital so basically mandatory), just like now. And to achieve any significant higher growth rate, most of worlds would need to be farm worlds. Just one or two farm worlds won't provides enough surplus food to affect growth rate noticeable.

I always dread finding a large world early with few food tiles as it will barely grow with 2 food from the capital and 1 food from basic farms. Galactic food makes this not an issue as I can just have a few more farms on my capital.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

I don't know why there is a hype of "farm worlds". In new mechanism, each world can support its own pops (so has base line growth rate) by three or four food tiles (and one of them is frontier hospital so basically mandatory), just like now. And to achieve any significant higher growth rate, most of worlds would need to be farm worlds. Just one or two farm worlds won't provides enough surplus food to affect growth rate noticeable.

Okay, I'll try to explain. Empire wide food and from it "farm worlds" makes me happy.

The short version is multiplicative food bonuses and race limited food bonuses are effective in a manner that is directly proportional to the number of tiles on a planet producing food. The longer version below.

Agrarian Upbringing is a Governor trait which reduces the upgrade and construction cost of hydroponic farms by 20% and increases food production by 10% Currently that Governor is next to useless on a fully populated world, and only moderately useful on a freshly colonized world. Plant him on a farm world though and he has reduced the cost of developing structures on that entire planet by 20% instead of just the cost of 2 to 3 structures. Also, his 10% food bonus will apply to EVERY building on that planet, and not just 3 to 4 of them.

Agrarian is a trait that increases food production by 15%. Under the current system it will be applied to maybe 1/5th of the tiles on that planet. Meanwhile research, energy and minerals are either splitting the other 4/5ths OR you're specializing that world and only one of those is getting all 4/5ths. Either way you'd be 4 times better off if that species were strong, thrifty, or intelligent. However, if that species were on a farm world, then 5/5ths of the available tiles they work would benefit from their racial trait.

Livestock is a slavery mechanism that turns an entire race into a source of food. They produce a flat amount of food and so do not require any structures to be built. But slave species start their existence on the planet where you conquered them and cost 50 influence to transfer off. Which means to put a herd of livestock on a planet could easily cost you 100 influence in total, 50 to make room and 50 to transfer them in. Whether that's punitively expensive and makes livestock utterly useless or just highly inefficient I do not know. If, however, you simply turn the planet where you found them into a farm world' you get all the benefits of all of that livestock without having to spend a point of influence, plus they're probably underdeveloped medieval primitives who would be affected by stellar culture shock if it weren't for livestock's flat bonus, so you maximize savings on forcing them to continue living in their mud hovels.

Delicious is a gene modification available to biological ascendants that doubles the food output of livestock slaves. It is only useful if Livestock is useful, but if Livestock is useful it's suddenly become twice as useful. As discussed above, Livestock is most useful, possibly only useful, on a farm world.

Any planet with a governor overproduces between .2 and 5 food, and if they don't now they will the next time your governor gets a level. Any planet without a governor can be made to produce the perfect amount of food via carefully only upgrading your hydroponics farms at need, but if you're like most people once you hit end game you just upgrade all buildings and maybe come back to see if you have enough of a food surplus to reclaim a farm for something useful. Currently that food is wasted on each world individually and based on the number of planets you have in your empire the amount of food that's wasted will easily get into the double digits. With farm worlds though you can run every other planet at a food deficit, or with no food production at all. You can limit food waste down to being in the single digits and though this isn't about farm worlds, EVERY bit of extra food eventually goes into increasing population growth, effectively none is wasted.

Hope that helps.

 

[Beagá]

The problem I see with the new food system is making an Empire crumble by Mass blockade.

So please make the AI fortify such systems well, and maybe review blockade. One Corvette SHOULDN'T be able to blockade huge planets.

Finally - when we will get an option to customize starports, or ar least upgrade their weapons? 200 minerals (per level of upgrade) sounds reasonable to advance. I want my starports to fire Gamma lasers, FFS.

 

[Heretic Saint]

What..? Taking all their food away is just another form of purging. Slaves still require food to function, otherwise they are not slaves anymore—they are dead. At least in Stellaris, slaves will always have enough to eat in any healthy empire, so I am comfortable abstracting gourmet or high quality foods under "consumer goods." After all, to eat well and above what is necessary requires resources beyond that of just food (i.e., expert labor).

To be honest, I am not sure how a food shortage ought to affect interstellar food distribution... and consequently, I do not think that the current planned system should be changed. Throughout the history of colonialism and imperialism, food (and other resources) is typically exported to the capital / locations of power / foreign trade partners regardless of famine. There are plenty of terrestrial examples, but is this even possible for a galaxy-spanning polity to sustain during a food shortage? Furthermore, can we not say that this oppressive economic model is *already* at work in any polity which supports slavery or species segregation? Why do we need this option?

I am not so sure that empires should be able to satisfy only core worlds, or even just the capital, at the expense of others during a food shortage. Not firmly opposed to the idea, but I have yet to see any compelling reason or solution for this. If any empire is starving for food, especially one that *already* employs enslavement, clearly that empire just lacks adequate infrastructure. Perhaps it should consider displacing and culling some pops. Food shortages *should* make core world pops unhappier, although it is probably easier to placate them than those second-class citizens, political malcontents, and slaves who were discontent already.

It's not just a question of infrastructure, but also wanton discrimination or emergency measures during wartime. Even assuming that an empire actually wants to usually keep its slaves or second-class citizens well fed (which is by no means guaranteed), it stands to reason that during a shortage (due to, say, blockades), these are the first that would suffer from it. And it's not about taking all their Food away, but rather just enough that they remain hungry. The main effect of starvation in Stellaris is Unhappiness, after all, not death.

Also, don't even Pops slated for culling or displacement still consume Food for as long as they exist? If so, it's pretty crazy that your rich elite in the core worlds gets Unhappy over lean dinner because their empire is still delivering meals to death camps.

I don't think anyone truly believe we "need" this option, but it certainly would nice to have to further differentiate between egalitarian and authoritarian empires, or to explore those cruel shades of gray where a government may have to weigh the greater good (keeping the war machine running) versus its very core ideals (interplanetary unity and equal treatment of all citizens).

Ultimately, we also don't "need" an option that Pops can be eaten, or different forms of slavery, or hive minds, or Civics, but they all add something to the game. Just like this one would.

I don't know why there is a hype of "farm worlds". In new mechanism, each world can support its own pops (so has base line growth rate) by three or four food tiles (and one of them is frontier hospital so basically mandatory), just like now. And to achieve any significant higher growth rate, most of worlds would need to be farm worlds. Just one or two farm worlds won't provides enough surplus food to affect growth rate noticeable.

Do we even know if Growth bonuses will be calculated based on the exact amount of surplus, or whether it's just a flat +X once you go above a threshold? Because if it's the latter, you only need to have 1 Food more than is consumed. Everything after this is just a matter of time and the Food Storage policy of your empire, meaning the number of years until you hit the cap and the bonus goes into effect.

And it's not even just about Growth alone, but the ability to specialize planets. Sometimes, you may stumble across worlds that have very few or no Food tiles at all (tomb worlds) or which have a penalty on Food production (bleak, irradiated, ...). By having other planets with lots of Food specialize on exporting it, you may now double down on other resources there. And I could easily picture a single colony with the Lush modifier to make up for 20+ tiles elsewhere.

But like most things in Stellaris, it's more about the fantasy rather than efficiency, I think. Planetary specialization is a fairly common theme in sci-fi, after all.

 

[Risa]

Sigh. Of course I know planetary specialization. @Sheriff Godwin Law, it seems to me that your strategy is to aim food production to as close as +0 on global level while improving its efficiency. Well, if that is the aim, global food sure helps. However, that also means all your growing world will grow at the lowest base speed of +1.0 / month. If you ever want your growing worlds have growth speed of 2.0 / month or more (which is easily achievable in 1.4), you'll discover you are wasting hundreds of food on pops on full-grown worlds. Your efficiency suddenly becomes horribly bad.

In short, what you gained by specialization will never meet the waste caused by non-growing pops.

 

[Dwarfking]

Can we choose which species gets food priority from stockpile?

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

Sigh. Of course I know planetary specialization. @Sheriff Godwin Law, it seems to me that your strategy is to aim food production to as close as +0 on global level while improving its efficiency. Well, if that is the aim, global food sure helps. However, that also means all your growing world will grow at the lowest base speed of +1.0 / month. If you ever want your growing worlds have growth speed of 2.0 / month or more (which is easily achievable in 1.4), you'll discover you are wasting hundreds of food on pops on full-grown worlds. Your efficiency suddenly becomes horribly bad.

I'm sorry if the literal response is boring or frustrating to you. If you don't wish to have things explained, maybe abandon the rhetorical device where you feign ignorance as a lead in to the point you're trying to make.

And no, while having food as close to +0 in the CURRENT system is optimal both for growing planets and ones at maximum population, that wasn't actually my point regarding "empire wide food." Also, when you say "global food" I'm not sure if you mean "global" in game design terminology to mean "empire wide" or if you mean "global" in the more literal sense to mean "planet wide." Context indicates the former, a literal reading indicates the later.

But in regards to the argument you've presented.

1. Most worlds grow at the rate of +0/month for the majority of the game. Population growth is not as long a term investment as a capable fleet or another colony.

2. You're only assuming that growth rate increases are applied to planets that have full populations and that the developers are not play testing this expansion to make sure that food surplus has the effect they promised. If your counter point depends on developer incompetence, it can be corrected via a bit of developer competence later and so isn't a compelling argument against the change.

3. Your entire objection is based around an edge case of forced growth that you may find 'easily achievable' but is in fact highly inefficient. If we assume the planet has at least 5 food resources available immediately, you need to spend around 530 minerals to get to the point where you've got a 10 food surplus, and while you're doing this, the planet is adding nothing back to your empire in terms of energy or minerals.

If you're wondering that's 5 population with a Planetary Administration (350 minerals), 2 basic farms (60 minerals) and 2 tier 1 hydroponics farms (120 minerals). This with not having to clear any tiles. Now, you do need the Planetary Administration because once you run out of food resource tiles to exploit, basic farms only break you even and never add to a surplus. I also ran the numbers with a starbase and an on board hydroponics module, but those numbers came out even worse.

Now, for 530 minerals we could have had a second colony ship, which is an immediate increase in one population, and with two colonies growing at even the rate of 1.1, you pull ahead of the 10 food surplus world while still giving back minerals and energy.

 

[Had a dad]

Numerous posts erased / infractions handed out / person banned from the thread

Read the below before you post

Get back on topic guys....

Thanks,
Dylan

 

[Brent15]

Can we get an abandon planet option? If someone colonizes a planet it takes away my option to terraform it. Currently, the game won't let you eliminate the last pop on a planet.

I did find a tricky work around by making the last pop robotic but that was after about forty years experimenting with bombardment.

The only issue I see is with heavily colonized planets but surely there's a way to make this work.

 

[Risa]

I'm sorry if the literal response is boring or frustrating to you. If you don't wish to have things explained, maybe abandon the rhetorical device where you feign ignorance as a lead in to the point you're trying to make.

And no, while having food as close to +0 in the CURRENT system is optimal both for growing planets and ones at maximum population, that wasn't actually my point regarding "empire wide food." Also, when you say "global food" I'm not sure if you mean "global" in game design terminology to mean "empire wide" or if you mean "global" in the more literal sense to mean "planet wide." Context indicates the former, a literal reading indicates the later.

But in regards to the argument you've presented.

1. Most worlds grow at the rate of +0/month for the majority of the game. Population growth is not as long a term investment as a capable fleet or another colony.

2. You're only assuming that growth rate increases are applied to planets that have full populations and that the developers are not play testing this expansion to make sure that food surplus has the effect they promised. If your counter point depends on developer incompetence, it can be corrected via a bit of developer competence later and so isn't a compelling argument against the change.

3. Your entire objection is based around an edge case of forced growth that you may find 'easily achievable' but is in fact highly inefficient. If we assume the planet has at least 5 food resources available immediately, you need to spend around 530 minerals to get to the point where you've got a 10 food surplus, and while you're doing this, the planet is adding nothing back to your empire in terms of energy or minerals.

If you're wondering that's 5 population with a Planetary Administration (350 minerals), 2 basic farms (60 minerals) and 2 tier 1 hydroponics farms (120 minerals). This with not having to clear any tiles. Now, you do need the Planetary Administration because once you run out of food resource tiles to exploit, basic farms only break you even and never add to a surplus. I also ran the numbers with a starbase and an on board hydroponics module, but those numbers came out even worse.

Now, for 530 minerals we could have had a second colony ship, which is an immediate increase in one population, and with two colonies growing at even the rate of 1.1, you pull ahead of the 10 food surplus world while still giving back minerals and energy.

Sorry if I sounded rude. "Global" is intended to mean "empire wide".

It seems our strategies differ from each other. (That is perfectly normal.) At early game, I agree, getting another colony up is much more important. But once you have to deal with sector, I'd rather develop a world a bit more before hand it to sector AI so as to clear a core world slot for new colony. It is not uncommon to settle on a +2 food tile, build a frontier clinic in another +2 food tile, and an orbital farm in spaceport. That's 11 food for 2 pops. With any kind of food bonus (governor or racial trait or strategic resource), it is +10 food surplus. When reaching 5 pops and upgraded to planetary administration, build a tier 1 farm (or paradise dome if pacifist) in another +1 food tile, or adjacent to p.a., that gives 14 food for 5 pop. Again, close to +10 food surplus. The goal is to get to 10 pops and upgrade to planetary capital as soon as possible, to unlock tier 2 special buildings (energy hub / mineral process plant), as well as +2 adjacency bonus of p.c. Please note all food building used here will probably stay when planet is full, so no waste investment. And quicker growth makes catch-up of energy/mineral/research production pretty easy, unless it's in very early game where snowball is most important.

As for my "assumption", please tell me how can you get any other interpretation from this quote: (so an excess of 5 food/month will produce much more growth in a 10 Pop empire than in a 100 Pop empire) .

 

[terrycloth]

I'm sorry if the literal response is boring or frustrating to you. If you don't wish to have things explained, maybe abandon the rhetorical device where you feign ignorance as a lead in to the point you're trying to make.

And no, while having food as close to +0 in the CURRENT system is optimal both for growing planets and ones at maximum population, that wasn't actually my point regarding "empire wide food." Also, when you say "global food" I'm not sure if you mean "global" in game design terminology to mean "empire wide" or if you mean "global" in the more literal sense to mean "planet wide." Context indicates the former, a literal reading indicates the later.

But in regards to the argument you've presented.

1. Most worlds grow at the rate of +0/month for the majority of the game. Population growth is not as long a term investment as a capable fleet or another colony.

2. You're only assuming that growth rate increases are applied to planets that have full populations and that the developers are not play testing this expansion to make sure that food surplus has the effect they promised. If your counter point depends on developer incompetence, it can be corrected via a bit of developer competence later and so isn't a compelling argument against the change.

3. Your entire objection is based around an edge case of forced growth that you may find 'easily achievable' but is in fact highly inefficient. If we assume the planet has at least 5 food resources available immediately, you need to spend around 530 minerals to get to the point where you've got a 10 food surplus, and while you're doing this, the planet is adding nothing back to your empire in terms of energy or minerals.

If you're wondering that's 5 population with a Planetary Administration (350 minerals), 2 basic farms (60 minerals) and 2 tier 1 hydroponics farms (120 minerals). This with not having to clear any tiles. Now, you do need the Planetary Administration because once you run out of food resource tiles to exploit, basic farms only break you even and never add to a surplus. I also ran the numbers with a starbase and an on board hydroponics module, but those numbers came out even worse.

Now, for 530 minerals we could have had a second colony ship, which is an immediate increase in one population, and with two colonies growing at even the rate of 1.1, you pull ahead of the 10 food surplus world while still giving back minerals and energy.

Charging for the planetary administration? Really? Because if you didn't need food you'd never build one of those. 9.9

The number of colonies available has first priority, but the capacity to add things to sectors, the influence cost of colonization, and how quickly you find new worlds to conquer is the limiting factor there except in the very very early game when your mineral income is something like 20.

After that, a food surplus speeds things up *immensely*. You want to quickly build to the capacity your planet will eventually need, which usually gives you a +5- +10 surplus for much of the planet's existence. No minerals are wasted because you'll still need the farms (maybe 'except for one' once you have all the upgrades) once the planet is full, and in the meantime it grows up to twice as fast.

That's also another advantage of building robots. They speed up the planet's growth, even if your species is just as good at producing minerals once the planet is full.

 

[Ex Mudder]

Empire-wide Food
Probably one of the most hotly requested features since the release of the game, we've changed food in 1.5 so that it is no longer local to planets. Instead, all food produced by planets goes into a 'global' food stockpile, which is used to feed the entire empire. The maximum size of this stockpile depends on your Food Stockpiling policy, and once your food stockpile is full, any additional food produced is instead converted into faster Pop growth across the empire at a rate relative to the size of the population (so an excess of 5 food/month will produce much more growth in a 10 Pop empire than in a 100 Pop empire). Conversely, if the stockpile runs out and food growth is negative, the empire will suffer starvation, halting all Pop growth and applying increasingly severe happiness penalties for all biological Pops.

I was not impressed by this at first... until I went back to my most recent game. Now I can't wait for it. I am so sick of my newly settled planets running out of food because I allowed Xeno Immigration, or having to wander around a settled planet deciding which farm to replace when all tiles are filled and there is a food surplus.

 

[Setho]

So, can we rename genetically modified species yet, or does the long nightmare of "human human human human human human" continue?

This is a good idea, especially for having things organized. Example: renaming agrarian modded humans "Farmer Humans," renaming very strong humans "Soldier Humans," renaming starfish people modded to be delicious to "Sushi," etc. I can imagine having loads of species with the same name being a nightmare for biologically ascended empires.

Also, @Wiz I don't like how the Species menu has no hotkey, yet is important for gene modding. Perhaps give people with wide computer monitors to have more menu buttons appear in the top left? My 23ish inch screen has plenty of room for more buttons at the top of my screen, even with resource displays for Food and Unity added up there.

And about to choose the traits of the initial ruler?

This would be great too. I tend to start new games over and over until the RNG gives me ruler/leaders traits, homeworld planet and place in the galaxy that I like. Being able to decide these things before the game starts rather than spinning the RNG wheel over and over would get rid of that hassle. Of course, it could be possible that picking traits of your leaders and (possibly) planet could incur some cost like starting with fewer minerals, energy credits or influence.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

It seems our strategies differ from each other. (That is perfectly normal.) At early game, I agree, getting another colony up is much more important. But once you have to deal with sector, I'd rather develop a world a bit more before hand it to sector AI so as to clear a core world slot for new colony. It is not uncommon to settle on a +2 food tile, build a frontier clinic in another +2 food tile, and an orbital farm in spaceport. That's 11 food for 2 pops.

Yeah, that's a fair point to consider. Bad sector AI is hard to quantify mathematically, the deflating value of minerals as you develop, and player attention are all variables that are trickier to play with. You have a strategy where you curate a system, develop it, and hand it off to a sector AI. I have a strategy where I throw out a few nice worlds, then rush to colonize a bunch of crap planets that I throw into a sector with the only support given beyond that being a low tax rate and an occasional gift of minerals if I have nothing better to do with them. I can easily see the care and attention in your strategy getting your sectors to a stage where they contribute significantly faster. I just can't be driven to care, once I reach a certain point in the game, I'm managing an empire so I no longer care about managing a planet.

Which is probably also why stacking bonuses and turning a planet into a giant farm, or human-ranch, appeals to me.

As for my "assumption", please tell me how can you get any other interpretation from this quote: (so an excess of 5 food/month will produce much more growth in a 10 Pop empire than in a 100 Pop empire) .

My interpretation of that quote is, "We are adjusting the population growth mechanics dramatically so that it creates an overall effect based on the total population in an empire. A surplus of 5 food/month will be significant in a 10 pop empire, but significantly less so in a 100 pop empire. So maybe it will be viable to leave food surpluses on developed worlds during expansion phases but during static phases you'll want to optimize down to minimize your food output. The most cost effective way to do so will be by heavily specializing your frontier and effectively allowing your population to catch up to your surplus. This will leave your newer frontier colonies increasingly vulnerable to starvation during wars, but won't allow an early war siege to tank the happiness and production of your more developed core worlds. So, I guess sucks to be them."

Past that, I don't know what to expect because I don't have finalized numbers and so I'm not sure what kind of effect increased food production will have. On the one hand, it's easy to believe that food will be trivialized even further. On the other hand, a lot of the fun new toys in Utopia are based around food development and it seems strange to put so much work into something that will just become less essential or rewarding for play.

Charging for the planetary administration? Really? Because if you didn't need food you'd never build one of those. 9.9

Someone suggested getting a 10 food surplus was rather simple. I determined the most mineral efficient way to do so with the smallest number of people if you assume a planet that has 5 bonus food available upon landing. The planetary administration was essential to the cheapest course, so yes, I charged for it. As it turns out you would have too because you reached the exact same conclusion I did.

The number of colonies available has first priority, but the capacity to add things to sectors, the influence cost of colonization, and how quickly you find new worlds to conquer is the limiting factor there except in the very very early game when your mineral income is something like 20.

Yes, that one, I just showed the calculations that explained what you already knew in your heart to be true.

Now, once early expansion is no longer your drive, I can see optimizing rapid growth as a means of growing the economy quickly. Or as a means to avoid damage caused by a sub-par sector AI. In my experience, once expansion stops the best next move is building up a fleet and exerting power on your neighbors, either to continue expansion, or to assemble a group of vassals and tributaries or likeminded neighbors for a possible Federation. But different strokes.

 

[terrycloth]

Yeah, that's a fair point to consider. Bad sector AI is hard to quantify mathematically, the deflating value of minerals as you develop, and player attention are all variables that are trickier to play with. You have a strategy where you curate a system, develop it, and hand it off to a sector AI. I have a strategy where I throw out a few nice worlds, then rush to colonize a bunch of crap planets that I throw into a sector with the only support given beyond that being a low tax rate and an occasional gift of minerals if I have nothing better to do with them. I can easily see the care and attention in your strategy getting your sectors to a stage where they contribute significantly faster. I just can't be driven to care, once I reach a certain point in the game, I'm managing an empire so I no longer care about managing a planet.

Which is probably also why stacking bonuses and turning a planet into a giant farm, or human-ranch, appeals to me.



My interpretation of that quote is, "We are adjusting the population growth mechanics dramatically so that it creates an overall effect based on the total population in an empire. A surplus of 5 food/month will be significant in a 10 pop empire, but significantly less so in a 100 pop empire. So maybe it will be viable to leave food surpluses on developed worlds during expansion phases but during static phases you'll want to optimize down to minimize your food output. The most cost effective way to do so will be by heavily specializing your frontier and effectively allowing your population to catch up to your surplus. This will leave your newer frontier colonies increasingly vulnerable to starvation during wars, but won't allow an early war siege to tank the happiness and production of your more developed core worlds. So, I guess sucks to be them."

Past that, I don't know what to expect because I don't have finalized numbers and so I'm not sure what kind of effect increased food production will have. On the one hand, it's easy to believe that food will be trivialized even further. On the other hand, a lot of the fun new toys in Utopia are based around food development and it seems strange to put so much work into something that will just become less essential or rewarding for play.



Someone suggested getting a 10 food surplus was rather simple. I determined the most mineral efficient way to do so with the smallest number of people if you assume a planet that has 5 bonus food available upon landing. The planetary administration was essential to the cheapest course, so yes, I charged for it. As it turns out you would have too because you reached the exact same conclusion I did.



Yes, that one, I just showed the calculations that explained what you already knew in your heart to be true.

Now, once early expansion is no longer your drive, I can see optimizing rapid growth as a means of growing the economy quickly. Or as a means to avoid damage caused by a sub-par sector AI. In my experience, once expansion stops the best next move is building up a fleet and exerting power on your neighbors, either to continue expansion, or to assemble a group of vassals and tributaries or likeminded neighbors for a possible Federation. But different strokes.

Yeah, I tend not be very aggressive about warfare. My priority is usually to have enough of a fleet not to be attacked (which can be 'no fleet' with the right defensive pacts) and then focus on colonizing and developing everything to out-grow the opponents, so that by the time I actually have to fight them I can win without really trying.

My mid-game empire is usually a big swatch of contiguous territory and then a bunch of little enclaves with 5-6 planets each scattered across the galaxy, whereever I can find someplace the AI didn't go yet.

On Normal this is a convenience thing since close wars are tricky. On Hard it's almost a requirement since I start with such a disadvantage and it takes a lot of growing before I can start taking people out.

 

[Mouthwash]

May I suggest 'granary' buildings that boost growth on their planet as well as increase the overall food cap? I think that's a good compromise between global and local growth rates.

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

A building that boosts planet wide food production by a percentage would be in line with the current game design and would also buff growth on an empire wide level.

Also give you a reason to drop a population of your own race on livestock planets. Create a real cowboy effect.

 

[Risa]

Frontier clinic / hospital are already "growth boost" special buildings. They provide a good amount of food, as well as percentage bonus to grow speed (by increasing habitability rating). Now that planetary growth is going to be nerfed, I think it may be a good idea to give them further boost of growth speed, such as -5% / -10% to growing point requirement, in addition to habitability boost they now have.

 

[Risa]

About blockade and starvation, I lean to think it doesn't matter. If blockade's condition is unchanged (that is, hostile fleet in orbit), being blockaded is pretty much equal to being bombarded in most cases. And as long as it's not light bombardment, all pops are going unemployed. If they cannot work, who care whether they starve or not?