i really wish this was a thing, it would be so cool. even a relic world! basically my relic world would BE atlantis lol
- 10
- 3
-
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.
Would also be neat for Aquatic Species Remnants to start on a flooded Relic World. Because, right now, it is a miserable combo.
- 5
- 2
You can Deluge ecus.
You can't deluge ring worlds because the content for "what does a ring world covered with water act like" doesn't exist (and, narratively, flooding a ringworld would cost much, much more water than flooding a planet). And you can't deluge habitats because they accidentally missed making it possible when they added the Flooded Habitat modifier. It would probably just destroy the habitat, though: the water would get inside, but "a regular habitat filled with water" and "a habitat with functioning underwater interior" are two very different things.
If by "flood" you mean "make into a ocean-ecu"... ecus, gaias, and rings are already ideal worlds. They already perfectly meet the needs of aquatic pops; it's just that those aquatic pops are no better off than anyone else (who are also getting their needs perfectly met). If you were to add more water, it would just be a regular ocean planet.
Aquatic pops don't get an extra +10% to worker output because they're already getting the +10% to all output (or 20%, for ecus) that everyone else gets too. Though that symmetry broke a bit with 4.0, when the pop bonus became efficiency, while the planet bonus stayed as output.
Though I do wish you could do Angler things on a Gaia/Ring World. It would make more sense, and it's kinda silly that you can't.
You can't deluge ring worlds because the content for "what does a ring world covered with water act like" doesn't exist (and, narratively, flooding a ringworld would cost much, much more water than flooding a planet). And you can't deluge habitats because they accidentally missed making it possible when they added the Flooded Habitat modifier. It would probably just destroy the habitat, though: the water would get inside, but "a regular habitat filled with water" and "a habitat with functioning underwater interior" are two very different things.
If by "flood" you mean "make into a ocean-ecu"... ecus, gaias, and rings are already ideal worlds. They already perfectly meet the needs of aquatic pops; it's just that those aquatic pops are no better off than anyone else (who are also getting their needs perfectly met). If you were to add more water, it would just be a regular ocean planet.
Aquatic pops don't get an extra +10% to worker output because they're already getting the +10% to all output (or 20%, for ecus) that everyone else gets too. Though that symmetry broke a bit with 4.0, when the pop bonus became efficiency, while the planet bonus stayed as output.
Though I do wish you could do Angler things on a Gaia/Ring World. It would make more sense, and it's kinda silly that you can't.
- 9
- 1
- 1
I agree. Ocean ring would be like the biggest continuous waterslide ever, who wouldn't want that?
- 3
- 3
- 1
I'd be happy just being able to flood Gaia worlds (or have them count for Aquatic bonuses)
- 2
- 1
- 1
oh you CAN flood ecus? cool, good to know. what makes you say you can't flood habitats? i just flooded three.
- 3
It would be flavoursome for Aquatics to turn worlds that are ideal for everyone into something even better (Ideal + Aquatic bonuses), but only suitable for them.
Last edited:
- 1
One of the big name Stellaris mods has an "ocean ecumenopolis" subclass, which I think is a neat idea.
In general, I wish there was more to ocean worlds given how distinct they are from the other habitable planet types. Wish Aquatics did a little more with them.
In general, I wish there was more to ocean worlds given how distinct they are from the other habitable planet types. Wish Aquatics did a little more with them.
- 1
tbh more planet variety would be good overall, along with more special bonuses based on species type for some planets like Lithoids getting bonus on alpine worlds
Aquatic pops take up more housing on ringworlds, ecus and gaias, especially if you took the hydrocentric ascension perk.
- 3
- 1
I once read a sci fy story where they build an ecu over a ocean world - it doomed everything below the concrete/steel sheets to eternal winter and froze the ocean.
Deluging a finished ecu is like allowing a tsunami to sweep a city. Massive destruction.
Letting the water rise slowly currently is not possible in stellaris lore - and just plastering the ocean bottom with cities does not suffice to count as ecu. As it leaves all that ocean surface area empty. And a ecu leaves no space empty - even caves get filled with cityscape.
Deluging a finished ecu is like allowing a tsunami to sweep a city. Massive destruction.
Letting the water rise slowly currently is not possible in stellaris lore - and just plastering the ocean bottom with cities does not suffice to count as ecu. As it leaves all that ocean surface area empty. And a ecu leaves no space empty - even caves get filled with cityscape.
Isn't that exactly the lore for the Hydrocentric Ocean World "increase planet size" decisions?
You're slowly raising the water level to flood land and that makes more space for your aquatic pops.
- 2
And by turning this into an ecu later on u still plaster the now increased ocean surface with metal sheets to not leave behind unused space.
Ecus use absolutely everything - maybe inside that now frozen ocean there are even cities still.
Flood an ecu and u gonna get a new ocean to plaster over. All u do is creating more and more layers without ever reaching the fully flooded ecu.
He lives in a city under the sea.
Life there is better
down where it's wetter
Take it from me
What matters in any situation is the ratio of housing used vs. housing provided, or pops vs. planet capacity. With the exception of civilian or livestock stacking shenanigans, Aquatic (and non-Aquatic) pops get a better version of the same bonus in all practical situations, on most of those planet types.
For direct housing usage (which only matters if you're using more than you have):
- Only jobs from buildings, civilians, and livestock consume housing without coming from a district which also gives housing.
- There are a few event/scaling jobs which are exceptions.
- Normal/gaia planets get 0 excess housing per rural district, and 800 excess housing per city.
- Ring Worlds get 1500 excess housing per rural/secondary district and 2500 excess housing per city (though they have lower district counts, this only buys half as much excess housing as the numbers imply compared to a typical planet).
- Ecus get 900 excess housing per specialized arcology, and 1000 per primary arcology.
- Gaias have worse housing usage than ocean worlds, but ecus/ring worlds are much better (for actual jobs). Only once you start trying to stack arbitrary numbers of pops does that -10% (or -15%) become more valuable than just having tons of excess housing.
Planet capacity is much more likely to matter, but it benefits from housing usage reductions only indirectly: capacity adds the number of pops and the amount of unused housing, so e.g. -10% housing usage boosts planet capacity by 0.1 per pop. And that, in turn, boosts growth. But planet capacity only matters when you're below 5.0 due to logistic growth, so in the 100-3000 (ish) pop range. You will likely not have fully developed the world at that point, so the majority of your planet capacity will be coming from undeveloped districts.
With 3000 Aquatic pops:
- A size 25 ocean world with (say) 10 cities and 15 unused districts will be using 3000/(800*10+3000*0.1+15*400)=20.9% of the planet's capacity.
- A size 25 gaia/ecu/ringworld will be using 3000/(800*10+15*600)=17.6% of the planet's capacity. This means faster growth.
If it didn't make things complicated for no practical benefit, I could see the devs shrinking the amount of housing granted and giving ringworlds/ecus a -10% housing usage reduction modifier instead. They've already got lots of other modifiers.
But it would only affect the infinite pop stacking strategies, which doesn't seem like something they're particularly eager to facilitate (even if I like them).
There would be many advantages to an ocean euconopolis, one of the biggest is that it's going to be easier to cool the immense heat generated. You'd want good water flow for cooling though and a way to vent the heat into space.
- 1
Nothing says that an ecu can't be UNDER the ocean, even if your favourite scifi had it OVER the ocean. the ocean floor could be the lowest level, and the arcologies could reach the water level. between, you could swim between buildings and float in your flooded apartments. concerts would take place in the open water between the arcologies and buildings, just floating there. it just seems like a really nice roleplay flavour thing to have. could even require three ice mining stations to complete.
- 2