Can Someone Explain Trade and Planetary Deficits?

[Hastet]

Looking at the databanks, it seems that each resource deficit on a colony will require some upkeep in trade. For example, a forge world's mineral deficits will cost a certain amount of trade to maintain. This means I will need to dedicate some pops to trade (e.g. clerks, traders) otherwise the resulting 'strain on logistics' will result in a trade penalty

Am I getting this right or am I missing something here?

 

[prismaticmarcus]

Sounds right to me...

 

[The Founder]

You usually get decent trade passively from the starting Capital. Pops, Civilians, Clerks.

And you could always start producing Minerals locally, as far as the Planet Features and size allow.

 

[Bergest]

Yeah, you'll either need to make your planets less specialized or have dedicated trade worlds/habitats to counter the deficit. Right now, the deficits feel a bit too harsh, so I hope that they will tweak them before release, but fundamentally this decision will remain.

 

[A2ch0n]

And you could always start producing Minerals locally, as far as the Planet Features and size allow

For my "standard" empire build would this be problematic. Basic resources are delivered by spacebound infrastructure and vassals. My Planets focus on Unity, Science, Consumer Goods and Alloys. Especially because in the end most planets are Ecumenopoly.

So i guess my solution is to live with a trade deficit on each Planet. It's not that bad actually if the costs don't increase too much but i would prefer those trade costs only if the resource stockpile is low or something.

 

[The Founder]

For my "standard" empire build would this be problematic. Basic resources are delivered by spacebound infrastructure and vassals. My Planets focus on Unity, Science, Consumer Goods and Alloys. Especially because in the end most planets are Ecumenopoly.

So i guess my solution is to live with a trade deficit on each Planet. It's not that bad actually if the costs don't increase too much but i would prefer those trade costs only if the resource stockpile is low or something.

Your builds are probably exactly what this is trying to nerf/adress.
You would probably compensate with a trade focussed planet, rather then trying to set up local production.

 

[SirBlackAxe]

I do wish something in the game told you how the trade cost of deficits was calculated, so that you could plan for it in your budget.

 

[Newbee53]

For my "standard" empire build would this be problematic. Basic resources are delivered by spacebound infrastructure and vassals. My Planets focus on Unity, Science, Consumer Goods and Alloys. Especially because in the end most planets are Ecumenopoly.

So i guess my solution is to live with a trade deficit on each Planet. It's not that bad actually if the costs don't increase too much but i would prefer those trade costs only if the resource stockpile is low or something.

another mid term answer is to build local infrastructure, and only get red of it as you have the trade/resources to do so and more slowly build up your Euc numbers. given the times involved in just upgrading, I doubt it will be all that 'slower.' most of your basic resources--except food--can be covered with swarms and furnceses. But argi-habitats are quite powerful.

A trade focused planet or two--as someone else mentioned--will definitely help.

 

[A2ch0n]

You would probably compensate with a trade focussed planet, rather then trying to set up local production

Exactly what i would do, yes. But we will see how this plays out. I'm not planing to break the game or something, it just fits in the vision of my empire.

 

[The Founder]

Exactly what i would do, yes. But we will see how this plays out. I'm not planing to break the game or something, it just fits in the vision of my empire.

They actually had a bug that the Traded Deficit is adding TV instead of costing it. Only the latest beta fixed that.

 

[-Marauder-]

Your builds are probably exactly what this is trying to nerf/adress.
You would probably compensate with a trade focussed planet, rather then trying to set up local production.

Which feels like a solution that's looking for a problem more than anything.

 

[tappi]

Looking at the databanks, it seems that each resource deficit on a colony will require some upkeep in trade. For example, a forge world's mineral deficits will cost a certain amount of trade to maintain. This means I will need to dedicate some pops to trade (e.g. clerks, traders) otherwise the resulting 'strain on logistics' will result in a trade penalty

Am I getting this right or am I missing something here?

Pretty much, though I will note that the clerks don't have to be on the forge world, any trade production negates the trade deficit, which at least in the current versions is low enough that it's kind of a non issue.

 

[Ryika]

Which feels like a solution that's looking for a problem more than anything.

Personally I've thought for a long time that hyperspecialization as the dominant economic option is the most boring thing about planet management. It makes all planets of the same type look the same, completely ignores so many aspects of each planet, and takes all of the "skill" out of the system the moment you understand what a planet that produces a certain resource should look like.

 

[The Founder]

Pretty much, though I will note that the clerks don't have to be on the forge world, any trade production negates the trade deficit, which at least in the current versions is low enough that it's kind of a non issue.

Note that until .5, the Trade Upkeep was flipped and worked as income.
Only .5 properly shows the ffect.

 

[tappi]

Note that until .5, the Trade Upkeep was flipped and worked as income.
Only .5 properly shows the ffect.

I know, I've kept that in mind in previous versions and that comment was from my experience with .5

 

[-Marauder-]

Personally I've thought for a long time that hyperspecialization as the dominant economic option is the most boring thing about planet management. It makes all planets of the same type look the same, completely ignores so many aspects of each planet, and takes all of the "skill" out of the system the moment you understand what a planet that produces a certain resource should look like.

And I completely disagree. New players are the ones building generalist planets for a reason. What you are doing here is basically taking out player choice and optimization, forcing the lowest common denominator at gun point. This stuff has been tried to death in various games, and it always just removes the ability of people to optimize, beat Ai bonuses, and stand out in favor of a singular "you'll do this approach and you like it".

You could build generalist planets right now, you don't. Not because they don't work, but because they are inefficient and don't properly utilize the given resources and options. It's a choice you are making right now. All this change does is to force you do do generalist planets instead at lower efficiency.

 

[Ryika]

And I completely disagree. New players are the ones building generalist planets for a reason. What you are doing here is basically taking out player choice and optimization, forcing the lowest common denominator at gun point. This stuff has been tried to death in various games, and it always just removes the ability of people to optimize, beat Ai bonuses, and stand out in favor of a singular "you'll do this approach and you like it".

You could build generalist planets right now, you don't. Not because they don't work, but because they are inefficient and don't properly utilize the given resources and options. It's a choice you are making right now. All this change does is to force you do do generalist planets instead at lower efficiency.

Do you really only see the two options of having "hyperspecialized" planets and having "generalist planets"? If so, you should perhaps take a step back from arguing and consider all the middle ground that exists between the two extremes, before you dismiss all of it because you only looked at the extreme. Nowhere did I say that every planet should produce all resources, and the new system in no way suggests that every planet should do that either. If it did, that'd be just as boring as hyperspecializing everything.

Ideally, I'd want specialized planets to be the baseline, but then there should be incentives that make you consider whether maybe it's worth producing some resources directly on the planet as well. If your Forge planet has a bonus modifier to mineral production, why not have some mining districts to make it fuel its own industry? Or if you need some food, but not enough to build a fully specialized Agriworld yet, why not place it on a planet that's currently in a deficit instead of stacking them all in one place?

 

[The Founder]

Darth -Marauder-, because only a Sith thinks in nothing but extremes

 

[A2ch0n]

Darth -Marauder-, because only a Sith thinks in nothing but extremes

Yes, but don't you see how much power the dark side offers?

Joke aside, at least from my point of view i will see how this plays out. I would like to stick to my planet build as usual. And if it has a cost, i'll pay it. Even if it is not that optimal. For me it is not about "having the best build" but more about fitting the trope.

And giving two examples here, a feudal society or a wh40k style empire would have mostly very specialised planets. The first will leave the "worker and production" part to the vassals while focusing on military and government. And the second has every type of planet, but each one for a sole purpose where every non-basic production planet relies on the imports of others.

So i think too, that internal trade costs are justified even from a lore perspective. But hopefully they are moderate.

 

[-Marauder-]

Do you really only see the two options of having "hyperspecialized" planets and having "generalist planets"? If so, you should perhaps take a step back from arguing and consider all the middle ground that exists between the two extremes, before you dismiss all of it because you only looked at the extreme. Nowhere did I say that every planet should produce all resources, and the new system in no way suggests that every planet should do that either. If it did, that'd be just as boring as hyperspecializing everything.

Ideally, I'd want specialized planets to be the baseline, but then there should be incentives that make you consider whether maybe it's worth producing some resources directly on the planet as well. If your Forge planet has a bonus modifier to mineral production, why not have some mining districts to make it fuel its own industry? Or if you need some food, but not enough to build a fully specialized Agriworld yet, why not place it on a planet that's currently in a deficit instead of stacking them all in one place?

You can either specialize your planets, or have them produce a bit of everything but do nothing well. There's no "middle ground" for this. At best it's a gradient but at the end of the day they'll very much be somewhere on it and trending towards one of these two. And since generalist planets are inefficient you need outright punishment and heavy handed developer influence to force anyone who halfway understands the economy to use them.

Hell, even the people who proclaim to love them aren't using them. And that's for a reason. You could use them right now. But that's not enough. They need to be forced, at gun point. Lowest common denominator.

"why not place it on a planet that's currently in a deficit".

Because that's a terrible approach. Not only is that planet already producing something, and has a focus on it. You would need to build up an entire second infrastructure on that planet including the bonuses. Then you'd have to massively shift workers away from what the planet is currently producing all to produce a small amount of food and solve a problem short term. Rather than create a proper long term solution with future growth.

Ignoring that the workers to work those jobs don't magically come out of nowhere. You're taking them out of jobs currently being worked, while also reducing the growth of the planets main production over time as those new workers generated are now split between these two.



Honestly, this approach is so incredibly flawed and has so many issues on so many levels. It entirely misses the problems at hand, it ignores that you can have at most three zones in the new system, that work force is usually a limiting factor, that you'd have to retool what the planet is currently doing to create inferior production and hurt yourself long term, all to create a stopgap solution.

Sometimes talking to people on this forum makes me wonder if they're actually playing this game. And if so, at which difficulty and to what year. Because some of the things people come up with makes it seem as if folks lose interest super early into the game.

Darth -Marauder-, because only a Sith thinks in nothing but extremes

Do you mean "Only Sith deal in absolutes"? Which is itself an absolute statement. Not an argument though.