• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I'm pretty sure the primary reason of Districts over Zones is desire to allow respecialization of your hyper developed planets w/o need to build it from zero, as well as desire to link industry/science/unity to planet development rather linking it to a particular type of development.
If this is indeed the goal, then isn't there yet. You still need to manually change rural districts, same with special districts. You also need to demolish all buildings inside the zone before the change.

Not to mention the actual usefulness of such a hot-swap. How often players need to drastically change their unity, research, alloy and CG producing planets? It makes sense when it comes to basic resources. You go synthetic path, you build ring world for food, matter condenser for minerals etc - in these cases you might actually want to quickly swap resource production. It is done once, but can get tedious. But we don't even have that, rural districts didn't get the same treatment as urban ones
 
  • 4Like
  • 1
Reactions:
How hard would it be to fit a second two-zone city district type into the planet UI? Having two designer districts seems like it might solve most flexibility issues - a fully mixed planet might go with Factory/Unity for keeping up with upkeep and Foundry/Research for separately scaling final outputs, while a fully specialized world could have one double-zoned district plus a half and half input/output district, or perhaps a trade/output district for countering a local deficit.
 
  • 8Like
  • 1
Reactions:
Wouldn't it be better for shortages to generate trade, but the cost be added to the deficit itself, instead of penalising trade? For example, if you are short 50 Consumer goods, the actual cost to your production is say 58 consumer goods, but the deficit generates trade value. This way, you get the fun game of balancing trade and deficits. Well, fun for some people.

Just tossing ideas out. Not sure the current implementation of trade feels right to me.
So, how would that be better than it still costing 50 Consumer Goods, and then you have to sell 8 of them on the Market to get enough Trade to pay for the shipment?

On the one hand, your solution is somewhat harder to implement, more calculations and all that. It also means that you'd have to over-produce CGs instead of producing just enough and then having Clerks and Traders to provide the "Trade" as a stand-in for Infrastructure and Logistics. And, by having players sell those CGs for Trade, you add a dynamic cost because instead of it "costing" a flat 8 CGs, how much trade you get depends on the market, which is better realistically and makes for a most interactive game mechanic.
 
  • 1
Reactions:
I have a question about housing - is it supposed to be a redundant game mechanic now?
Current zone system doesn't allow you to balance housing, you get housing from district levels with no regard for your actual need for housing. And since some buildings provide jobs, districts provide more housing compared to what they provide in jobs to compensate.
The end result is that I had around 2k free housing on regular planets, going into +15k for ecus.

So I gotta ask - why even have this system at all? To have space for all civilians to lazy around in the endgame when you already won and can't be bothered with creating another ecumonopolis so these civvies have productive jobs?
The question is why the developers didn't communicate this.
Either they didn't even notice it themselves (which would be really embarrassing), or they deliberately kept it secret.
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
If this is indeed the goal, then isn't there yet. You still need to manually change rural districts, same with special districts. You also need to demolish all buildings inside the zone before the change.
Absolutely. Unless devs will/have confirm(ed) it I can't be certain, but from what i've read they wanted to streamline research/unity into setup similar to Industry, realised that adding 2 more district types is too much clutter, and that's why they went with zones. So the idea was to make specialisation of a planet more streamlined, and I think respecialisation follows.

Not to mention the actual usefulness of such a hot-swap. How often players need to drastically change their unity, research, alloy and CG producing planets? It makes sense when it comes to basic resources. You go synthetic path, you build ring world for food, matter condenser for minerals etc - in these cases you might actually want to quickly swap resource production. It is done once, but can get tedious.
Ehh, so here are a few examples of switching that's quite common.
1. Shortages- as above, sometimes you need to rebuild a fleet, sometimes you need to tech rush, events happen.
2. Excess - as you said, mega structure/idea/tech goes up, and suddenly you don't need all those miners. Or you are finished with ideas, and need to dump unity.
3. Conquest - your enemy planets are rarely well suited for your empires exact needs.
3. Specialist colonies - going from having researchers spread around due to lack of strategics/tech/colonies to grouping them up because issue is solved or relic/ring world is set up.
4. Fortress Spam - for when you really, REALLY need to delay something.
But we don't even have that, rural districts didn't get the same treatment as urban ones
I think currently it's a bit of a mess. In principle it works like this - it takes time to switch specs, this is reasonable, what it shouldn't take is 100 clicks. The current beta system is leagues ahead of standard game when it comes to research/unity but it still has some blind spots and some oddities. The reason I say this is because you used to have to delete 6-10 buildings and rebuild them, and their upgrades, now just 3 + switch zone.

The one missing thing as far as i'm concerned is refinery zone, but they'd have to redisign refinery buildings to make that happen. Also, so far, there far too few buildings to justify three slots for most zones at most times. I honestly like the flat jobs buidings early game to give your planet a bit of a leg up if necessary, but if they are never replaced by anything interesting, then it's better to cut down number of zone building slots so they don't just sit there.

As for implementation - first it's too quick to switch zones, whilst requiring you to manually destroy all buildings and rebuild new ones. The latter can be a safeguard against accidents but it still takes too much clicking and too little in game time compared to switching between mining and energy, for example. However going from mining to urban works the same as going to energy - you need to build the districts (really wish there was easier way to build lots at once).
 
I have a question about housing - is it supposed to be a redundant game mechanic now?
Current zone system doesn't allow you to balance housing, you get housing from district levels with no regard for your actual need for housing. And since some buildings provide jobs, districts provide more housing compared to what they provide in jobs to compensate.
The end result is that I had around 2k free housing on regular planets, going into +15k for ecus.

So I gotta ask - why even have this system at all? To have space for all civilians to lazy around in the endgame when you already won and can't be bothered with creating another ecumonopolis so these civvies have productive jobs?
I believe that the houses should be completely disconnected from the zones and built separately.
No zone that generates a jobs should also provide a housing.

This could greatly increase the importance of the standard of living. Possibility of dense development with a small number of houses for PoP decrese happiness
or increase happines with the cost of materials obtained from the planet.
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1
Reactions:
How hard would it be to fit a second two-zone city district type into the planet UI? Having two designer districts seems like it might solve most flexibility issues - a fully mixed planet might go with Factory/Unity for keeping up with upkeep and Foundry/Research for separately scaling final outputs, while a fully specialized world could have one double-zoned district plus a half and half input/output district, or perhaps a trade/output district for countering a local deficit.
That's... actually a really, really good idea.

Having two distinct city districts with two distinct sets of zones applying to them isn't just double the fine economic control, it's not taking it from 1 to 2. It's taking it from 0 to 1. It's going from no control at all to enough control over what jobs are added to essentially never be that bothered by it.

This combined with my earlier suggestion of prioritize/deprioritize for jobs would give back roughly as much control as we had in 3.14, if not actually more.

You'd need a change in limit to 4 zones, but it would take them from an atrocious QoL loss to no real loss at all. If I had two different city districts customized to my liking, a scenario in which that was a problem would be extremely fringe.
 
  • 6Like
Reactions:
at least untill 5.0,
I don't know about you guys but I'm just thrilled to picture the games third planetary rework in the late 2020s. Wait.... It's not possible that all of this is a massive waste of time, is it?

(We should not be planning for or ever expecting that!)

Since zones don't work, PDX should discard the idea. I really don't think the community should sit here actively encouraging a half measure in the expectance of even more turbulence down the road.

And don't you see? Zones today in 4.0 are exactly as absurd as a potential 5.0 because the current planetary management already works very well. Both ideas have very very little merit.

PDX - you can give us cool new building and district tweaks that achieve everything you want to accomplish already in the current model. Let's save ourselves the headache.
 
Last edited:
  • 10
  • 1Haha
  • 1
Reactions:
That's... actually a really, really good idea.

Having two distinct city districts with two distinct sets of zones applying to them isn't just double the fine economic control, it's not taking it from 1 to 2. It's taking it from 0 to 1. It's going from no control at all to enough control over what jobs are added to essentially never be that bothered by it.

This combined with my earlier suggestion of prioritize/deprioritize for jobs would give back roughly as much control as we had in 3.14, if not actually more.

You'd need a change in limit to 4 zones, but it would take them from an atrocious QoL loss to no real loss at all. If I had two different city districts customized to my liking, a scenario in which that was a problem would be extremely fringe.
1743608603338.png


Earlier in this topic I did this quick test of what it could look like.
Of course, this would require additional modifications such as removing the second government zone and changing the number of districts to 2 instead of 3.
However, if you look at the appearance itself, it doesn't look bad in the UI
 
  • 1Like
Reactions:
Just finished playing a bit of 3.99.6. Last week I played all the way into 250 years of a game and was really, really liking all the changes thus far. Now I'm about 60 years into the new version and I gotta say, I do like the addition of 3 more building slots into the planets from start, but do not like that we're down some jobs due to missing a whole zone now for each planet. I'd like to see the job numbers buffed 50% for each zone to make up for the missing zone or maybe even automatically considering the city districts as having an "Urban Zone" perse and provide the clerk jobs, maybe after a colony does the first capital upgrade. In my 3.99.5 run, I was pretty much adding an automatic urban zone to all my planets as I enjoyed the amenities the clerks provided and 3 building slots was no where near enough slots needed for me especially since I started as a mechanist. Now I'm finding myself short on amenities more often and find myself needing to build holo-theaters much earlier then I would in 3.99.5, even with a medical building already on all my planets and now that zones are only 2, an urban zone seems wasteful, especially in the early game. Also it's nice to not have so many building slots blocked now due to needing those researches that unlocked zones. If you got unlucky and didn't roll well on research choices for a long time and miss out on those, it was quite punishing missing out on those building slots and job potential in the early game.

The rural job increase also is a welcome addition. In 3.99.5, I felt hard pressed to go really hard into only focusing my resource planets into only rural districts, but now with the job buff, have an easier time now allowing those planets to also have a few city districts, allowing for faster industrialization and research building production. I think this makes up a little bit for the job loss from missing a zone in the city district.

I also wonder if reintroducing the amenities zone in some form would be a good idea. Maybe a zone that doesn't provide just a ton of amenities in that single planet, but also exports some or buffs amenity production in nearby planets or all in a sector. I'm not 100% sold on the idea just yet, but I do feel this would be helpful with my last point of being short on amenities now with my missing clerk jobs from my auto urban zone from 3.99.5.

I'm also still seeing pops jump around jobs at times when I don't have enough pops for all the jobs, a bug that's been present since 3.99.1. Tends to be at the worker strata more often, but not always. Sometimes I see some specialists doing it too. Would like to see this bug squashed.

Also would like if ground combat can be fixed on the last beta update. I often find myself needing to annex some planets from neighbors but can't when they're types that dont surrender like gestalts and devourers/purifiers. Not a high priority thing, but would be nice to have.

I'm also loving the addition of the pop increase data point on management, but would like to see how the growth is being affected like with traits or buildings when you hover over the numbers with your cursor. Would like to see how much migration is affecting growth, the fast breeders trait or even the medical buildings. Also would be nice to see if bio assembly acutally works, I dont think it is but have never been 100% sure on these beta releases.

Also I had an issue with robot assembly last beta build in my long running game. I at some point got the awoken and settled those guys on one of my planets but noticed I had no way of having them reproduce as my robot assemblers were only assemblying my regular robot pops. Would like to have robot assembly make more than 1 robot type so I don't have this situation again where I will never assemble more than 300 awoken, or any other robot types I might aquire. I'm sure this is still present in the current patch build too.

Overall, I'm totally liking the zone gameplay the more I play it. It didn't feel right on 3.99.1, but now that we have these different zone types like the mixed types, it feels a lot better.
 
  • 2
  • 1
Reactions:
How impactful do the trade and logistics changes feel in your gameplay?
How does the new trade and logistics system compare to the previous version?
How do the new piracy mechanics compare to the previous version?

I've only had time for one playthough, which should be enough time to encounter most changes and things.
The new trade isn't impactful at all. It just folds into the game money and stays part of the distant background. The new trade doesn't compare to the old version, and it's not noticeable. It's no longer part of the game board, and is part of the background empire production after all.
I only encountered pirates as part of a surprise event thing. The patrol function is missing from fleets, isn't it? So it's all the same.
The planet menus are still a big downgrade from what it once had. The new line of building slots is good, I guess. They're workable, but why bother with all the trash changes? Why rearrange everything? Just to look busy? This civillians stuff had better lessen the program data-grinding by a hell of a lot, or it's not worth it. Players should not have to re learn an entire game and it's menus every damn time they start up a program.

I'd like to be able to buy Mega engineering from the Curator guild. Just getting 5% or something so as to gain the option in research.
This time it took until the mid 24somethings out of a 2500 time game.
 
I feel something’s been lost with most buildings now giving jobs and being spam able. Zones do feel more superfluous when they do the same thing as buildings. I think it would be better to have buildings add scaling jobs when attached to a zone and have more buildings that buff those jobs.

Again buildings addind jobs...? When we changed to district system we had the buildings giving scaling jobs, which ended with planets full of jobs wait for pops.

It changed to buildings increasing the efficiency of the jobs because its much better than more jobs.

For me, Zones make the game worse when I have <8 planets, and slightly worse when I have 8+ planets and can mostly ignore zones.

Zones could be used to make the generic districts feel special*
Zones instead merge districts to make City Districts more generic**

*Special: better, greater, or otherwise different from what is usual.
**Generic: Not Specific.

If I want more minerals I build a mining district,
If I want more food I build an agriculture district,
If I want more energy I build a generator district,
If I want more housing I build a City District,
If I want more research I build a research district,
If I want more trade I build a trade district,
If I want more unity I build a unity district,
If I want more CG I build a factory or industry district,
If I want more Alloys I build a forge or industry district,

If I want more of: (Research+Unity)+(CG+Alloys)/Soldiers/Trade+Housing... I build a City District,
with a job ratio of (20:20:20:40) : (50:50)
(amusingly it's 90 jobs total and not 100 for research zones, probably as 100 doesn't divide neatly by 3 so 10% of jobs are just missing)

That's far, far too much to try to squeeze into a single general-purpose district.

This is an hilarious way to show how its working right now.

I admit that the current system with 2 zones feels much better, because it create 200 jobs and it matches the 200 jobs of the basic resource district. But, in the end, it just turned into a "new district type with extra steps" where the zones are 2 new district slots. And new district slots are good!
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
How hard would it be to fit a second two-zone city district type into the planet UI? Having two designer districts seems like it might solve most flexibility issues - a fully mixed planet might go with Factory/Unity for keeping up with upkeep and Foundry/Research for separately scaling final outputs, while a fully specialized world could have one double-zoned district plus a half and half input/output district, or perhaps a trade/output district for countering a local deficit.
If the goal it to have only 1 district and tie everything to it's level, then this idea doesn't fit, period.

If you want to give players more control - two separate districts with 2 zones each are better in this regard, sure. But then why not 4 districts with only one zone each, it is basically the same UI wise but gives even more control.
Wait a second, were are we? Suddenly we arrived at the same place we started - old district system, with zones on top
 
  • 3
  • 2
Reactions:
Again buildings addind jobs...? When we changed to district system we had the buildings giving scaling jobs, which ended with planets full of jobs wait for pops.

It changed to buildings increasing the efficiency of the jobs because its much better than more jobs.



This is an hilarious way to show how its working right now.

I admit that the current system with 2 zones feels much better, because it create 200 jobs and it matches the 200 jobs of the basic resource district. But, in the end, it just turned into a "new district type with extra steps" where the zones are 2 new district slots. And new district slots are good!
Yeah, so the problem is switching to the Zones system made Hyper-Focussed planet builds way more effective, instead of less. By building 2x Foundry Zones and a planet filled with City Districts, the bonuses you got to output and upkeep vastly outweighed the costs in Trade for operating at a high planet deficit for resources. Then you just build a bunch of Mining Planets, and a Trade-Focussed world world to compensate. Instead of making mono-build's less optimal, it made them more. Plus, when you have 3 Zones, making a single City District created 540 new jobs, and often led to lots of stata jumping for Pops.

And when you did use mixed-zone planets, every time you built a zone you'd get all those jobs. Meaning if you wanted to make more of a single-resource like CGs, you can't really do it by making Districts. So the solution they made was to switch Buildings back to giving +X Jobs, as a way to allow players to make fine-tuning adjustments to production, and to prevent the crazy [City Districts] * [Zones] * [Buildings] = Output numbers people were getting. (Example: I had a size 20 tech world that put out more Research than a Science Nexus, and a Foundry World that was making 1150 Alloys)
 
On the whole, while the zone system is still flawed, it feels playable enough. I can understand what problems it's trying to solve, and I think I understand the goal.

I think that adding more buildings and balancing the numbers is probably more important at this point, as well as polishing the UI. With only a month left before the update goes live, a bare-bones skeletal beta that doesn't support most of the DLC is not promising.
 
The current design doesn't fully reflect the influence of planet size on district size. Simply adjusting development levels isn't intuitive enough. Giving players more creative freedom would increase their sense of achievement and engagement. Therefore, I believe building sites should be closely correlated with planet size.

View attachment 1275020
Do it this way! It's a logical and functional concept!

Edit: Everyone is always against good ideas. sheeeeit
 
Last edited:
  • 5
  • 1Like
Reactions: