Specialization of Planets: How Much Is Optimal?

[Shadowstrike]

I've been wondering if anyone has done any math figuring out to what degree is it optimal to hyperspecialize your planets, given the new change where planetary deficits have to be paid for in trade value. In 3.14, the best choice was clearly to hyperspecialize to milk every last drop out of the planetary designation bonuses, but I'm realizing that doing so in 4.0 means that you're going to be spending a lot of trade value to do so (which itself requires pops to produce, or could be used otherwise). I've been putting some mining districts on alloy worlds (and honestly, I'm not sure what to do about science/unity worlds that eat CGs), but I'm wondering to where the optimal point might be under the current rule set...

 

[Thiend]

I haven't specifically done the math, because the UI display to actually try to see how it works out with bonuses is atrocious, but my experience has been that paying for upkeep via one single basic district and as much output as you can squeeze out of it is basically the optimal point.

The job addition buildings mean the greatest impact per district is at 1 district, which doesn't hurt the primary output very much and doesn't depend on deposit sizes. It covers a notable chunk and the rest can be handled by just using trade.

There's also a significant part of the game where starbases can generate enough trade to get you by without needing to cover local deficits OR use jobs for them, so that's a pretty solid way to handle it as well.

Getting a resort world also renders it largely a moot point. A decently large one will provide enough trade value for living standards to essentially delete the mechanic, although of course you won't actually get much leftover trade to use the market.

 

[snowy801]

End game- one planet, one resource output in main city districts with one sub-district open each to maximize building slots. Earlier, you could have some extra mining/energy/food districts depending on your needs, but those needs will vanish over time.

Don't even build a support district. At no point in the game is it worth it. Basic resources are the easiest thing to come by now.

 

[Shadowstrike]

As a thought experiment, imagine we have a planet that is hyper-focused on producing alloys. It eats a ton of minerals, and a ton of trade to support that shortage. Now imagine I move 100 metallurgists over to miners. I've freed some pops from mining somewhere else in my empire AND some number of pops required to produce trade, and lost the output of some number of metallurgists. That's got to be more efficient than maxing out the metallurgist jobs. At some point of reducing metallurgists, there will be diminishing returns (because specialized mining worlds are more efficient than just piling miners onto an alloy world). The other extreme here is to make worlds that minimize the trade costs in shortages, while maximizing production of one of the outputs (alloys, research, unity) as far as possible. That also seems inefficient, because you'll have lots of low-productivity farmers/miners/technicians/artisans on each planet.

Now I can hear the counterargument being "well, what about trade and minerals that don't require pops to be made?" That's irrelevant here, because you could use those resources for some other purpose (e.g. buying alloys on the market). I think this gets more complicated when we factor in food/energy upkeep, and CG upkeep for science worlds (which themselves also require minerals to make).

 

[Ishyro]

As a thought experiment, imagine we have a planet that is hyper-focused on producing alloys. It eats a ton of minerals, and a ton of trade to support that shortage.

With upkeep reductions, it's sadly not something that's going to happen.
All planets have access to 40% reduction with 1 building and the designation (without ascension).

Forge is not the worst offender because if you mine your minerals, you are only losing the designation bonus. But making the CG on site for your scientists is not a good idea.

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

Haven't done the math but specializing worlds > JOAT planets. Reason why is due to Ascending Planets. Not only do you reduce their Empire Sprawl by 50% but the Designation is buffed by 250%(floor). Harmony, Ascensionist and Holy Covenant add 25%/25%/20% multiplier or an additional 62.5%/62.5%/50% respectively(12.5%/12.5%/10% to Empire Size reduction too). So, Harmony + Holy Covenant yields a 362.5%(4.625 multiplier) to any Designation. For Forge/Factory designations, that's 20 x 4.625 = 92.5% upkeep reduction or beyond the 90% cap. Meaning who needs Logistics when you're importing 1/10th of what you ultimately need on any specialized colony? Ascensionist, btw, is -105% in that scenario and was the cause of 0 upkeep back in the day. Kind of makes the -20% Industrial Upkeep Buildings useless no? The -20% Upkeep Building only matters with Unity(since Designation is 10%, resulting in 46.5%, hence Upkeep building has an impact), Tech(which has upkeep debuffs) and Trade(Designation has no upkeep reduction). In Tech's case, there's a total of 45% in Job upkeep debuffs: 20% from Science Ambition, 10% from Administrative/Positronic AI Techs, 10% from Nanite Edict and 5% from Curator Support. Meaning Discovery Tradition + Prosperity Tradition + Upkeep Building can counter all potential debuffs. Then Ascending the Tech World Designation to the max yields -90% upkeep cap.

TLDR: If you're utilizing 1/10th of what you need for a specific Job, Logistics is going to be minimized considerably and hence is largely irrelevant compared to a Planet that tries to have 0 Deficit. The only scenario where a Planet can cover everything is in a Worker Cooperative where thanks to the Trade Policy, all Energy/Minerals/Food is accounted for in an Organic Syndacate, leaving just CG + Strategics in a general sense. Yet for Industrial Worlds, Strategics can be produced on site via Refining and on Factory Worlds, be completely self-sufficient.

 

[snowy801]

As a thought experiment, imagine we have a planet that is hyper-focused on producing alloys. It eats a ton of minerals, and a ton of trade to support that shortage. Now imagine I move 100 metallurgists over to miners. I've freed some pops from mining somewhere else in my empire AND some number of pops required to produce trade, and lost the output of some number of metallurgists. That's got to be more efficient than maxing out the metallurgist jobs. At some point of reducing metallurgists, there will be diminishing returns (because specialized mining worlds are more efficient than just piling miners onto an alloy world). The other extreme here is to make worlds that minimize the trade costs in shortages, while maximizing production of one of the outputs (alloys, research, unity) as far as possible. That also seems inefficient, because you'll have lots of low-productivity farmers/miners/technicians/artisans on each planet.

Now I can hear the counterargument being "well, what about trade and minerals that don't require pops to be made?" That's irrelevant here, because you could use those resources for some other purpose (e.g. buying alloys on the market). I think this gets more complicated when we factor in food/energy upkeep, and CG upkeep for science worlds (which themselves also require minerals to make).

You forget that ascending planets reduce mineral upkeep from alloy jobs. Eventually every planet reaches -90% upkeep from jobs and mineral needs become trivial (well, relative to the size of your overall economy).

 

[Danny5072]

That's got to be more efficient than maxing out the metallurgist jobs.

No, not really. If you have a properly maxed out alloys world, with all specialized buildings and buffs, its metallurgists are much more efficient at... being metallurgists, than miners would be being miners on the same planet (because they don't get designation bonuses, 'mining support' urban zone bonuses, governor bonuses if any, and yeah you can give them specialized buildings within their zone, but these ultimately need a lot of pops to make sense). In other words, if you add miners to factory world, it moves people from the most productive job (from the perspective of that particular world) to a mediocre job.
It's better to have 100 metallurgists on forge world and 100 miners on mining world, as opposed to 50 of each on each planet.
Trade upkeep is the only thing you're hypothetically saving here, and from my experience it's not a big deal at all. I've had runs in the new patch where I never build a single trade related thing at all, and also never enter deficit let alone be in danger of shortage.

I'll propose a different experiment: take 3 worlds. In one scenario, max out one of each for trade, alloys and minerals. In another, build a net zero trade alloys-minerals configuration on each one. Then record the difference in alloys. My guess is that the second scenario will maybe even produce slightly more alloys, but the excess trade from the first scenario will allow you to maintain like 20 more hyperspecialized worlds.

 

[Danny5072]

No, not really. If you have a properly maxed out alloys world, with all specialized buildings and buffs, its metallurgists are much more efficient at... being metallurgists, than miners would be being miners on the same planet (because they don't get designation bonuses, 'mining support' urban zone bonuses, governor bonuses if any, and yeah you can give them specialized buildings within their zone, but these ultimately need a lot of pops to make sense). In other words, if you add miners to factory world, it moves people from the most productive job (from the perspective of that particular world) to a mediocre job.
It's better to have 100 metallurgists on forge world and 100 miners on mining world, as opposed to 50 of each on each planet.
Trade upkeep is the only thing you're hypothetically saving here, and from my experience it's not a big deal at all. I've had runs in the new patch where I never build a single trade related thing at all, and also never enter deficit let alone be in danger of shortage.

I'll propose a different experiment: take 3 worlds. In one scenario, max out one of each for trade, alloys and minerals. In another, build a net zero trade alloys-minerals configuration on each one. Then record the difference in alloys. My guess is that the second scenario will maybe even produce slightly more alloys, but the excess trade from the first scenario will allow you to maintain like 20 more hyperspecialized worlds.

I.e. I believe that trade upkeep is a complete red herring meant to throw you off, and it is still the best to hyperspecialize every single planet.

 

[aadf97799c]

specialization are still more effective

trade upkeep require 1 specialized trade planet

 

[DarkHelmet110985]

The upkeep necessary to import resources to a given planet is peanuts. Furthermore, you're better off utilizing Ecumenopolis for Industrial(including Strategics)/Tech/Unity/Soldier jobs and leave your Rural Gaia Worlds for Energy/Mining/Food. This is due to the Zone multiplier in that City Center Zones on Ecumenopolis produce 3 times as many Jobs as they would on Gaia Worlds. Using a secondary City Center District on an Ecumenopolis for Job, Pop and Building upkeep(Food, Energy, Consumer Goods and/or Minerals(if Industrial)) is simply not practical. You lose out on 300 Industrial jobs from the Zone PLUS w/e amount of jobs you could have placed in the Build slots(ex: 3 Civilian Industries). That results in a net loss of 2100 Industrial jobs to get 200 Energy, Food and Mineral Jobs from an Urban Zone.

As for the Gaia World, you start with at least one City District so specializing it for Factory production to generate some CG is certainly possible but *WHY* would you do that? You'd only get 100 Factory jobs, 200 if you dedicate both Zones to it and get just 12 CG before production boosts. Most Rural Colonies consume upwards of 100 CG(especially if you have Utopian Abundance). You could use the Zones for Refining, hence you can generate some Strategics to offset Building upkeep costs(especially if the Mining Worlds lacks natural Deposits) but again why would you do that? Your Refining Efforts are not being reduced as efficiently as your Industrial Worlds and consequently drains Minerals from your overall output. To save what... 2-3 Trade Value?

The only instance where Planets being self-sufficient without having to do anything differently is in a Worker Cooperative and especially with the Purity Corporate Authority. The amount of Trade your Pops generate effectively covers Pop and Building upkeep with ease and on Industrial Worlds can potentially cover Mineral upkeep. Factory Worlds in particular are virtually self-sufficient w/ Refineries present. Outside of that, you're just better off having a Trade(aka Logistics) World and calling it a day.

 

[malakhglitch]

Don't even build a support district. At no point in the game is it worth it. Basic resources are the easiest thing to come by now.

Why not? In my current game I got the C.A.R.E. system and finished the Ferrophage special project. Generator World (+25%) + Interactive Interface modifier (+10%) + 1 Generator Support Zone (+20%).

 

[Thiend]

Why not? In my current game I got the C.A.R.E. system and finished the Ferrophage special project. Generator World (+25%) + Interactive Interface modifier (+10%) + 1 Generator Support Zone (+20%).

Support districts are actually really good, ESPECIALLY for empires using livestock because you can stack an incredibly high bonus and not care about the few actual jobs you have as a result.

I've found that using them appropriately allows me to minimize the number of basic resource planets I'm using at all, by substantially inflating output. You just have to figure out how many to use, and the answer is almost never just one if you're going to use any at all.

They're also awful on ringworlds, because their modifier doesn't increase and they take away more jobs per district from the basic resources.

The ones that DO seem to have no use-case are the research support districts. I've yet to encounter a scenario where their bonus is going to be higher than just getting more researchers.

 

[stargazersatnight]

I always do one of each resource district and put in storage depots on the ones I don't use. Then build all the same district for whatever resource I want and my economy blows up very quickly. I am however not impressed by the support districts I don't think they are strong enough to justify unless the planet has other modifiers on it for them ti stack with.

 

[Dr Pippy]

The ones that DO seem to have no use-case are the research support districts. I've yet to encounter a scenario where their bonus is going to be higher than just getting more researchers.

I like these for the building slots more than the bonuses. Reseach has a lot of buildings: one to boost each of the three branches, the +15% efficiency one, the -20% upkeep one, the planetary super computer, and the astral siphons, so 7 in all. You can put the boost building in the corresponding support district, plus energy research support will also take the astral siphons building. So that makes room for four more science lab buildings, for a total of 2160 scientist jobs.

If you'd built three more nexus (city?) districts, you'd be looking at a max of 200 scientist jobs per district, or 600 total. So you should come out well ahead using the support districts to carry the buildings that they can.

 

[Thiend]

I like these for the building slots more than the bonuses. Reseach has a lot of buildings: one to boost each of the three branches, the +15% efficiency one, the -20% upkeep one, the planetary super computer, and the astral siphons, so 7 in all. You can put the boost building in the corresponding support district, plus energy research support will also take the astral siphons building. So that makes room for four more science lab buildings, for a total of 2160 scientist jobs.

If you'd built three more nexus (city?) districts, you'd be looking at a max of 200 scientist jobs per district, or 600 total. So you should come out well ahead using the support districts to carry the buildings that they can.

That doesn't seem like the intended use for them, but I stand corrected. That's a good reason to use them.

 

[malakhglitch]

That doesn't seem like the intended use for them, but I stand corrected. That's a good reason to use them.

He just made me realize that I could have done that while moving basic resources production off a Remnants homeworld.

 

[snowy801]

Why not? In my current game I got the C.A.R.E. system and finished the Ferrophage special project. Generator World (+25%) + Interactive Interface modifier (+10%) + 1 Generator Support Zone (+20%).

You waste the potential for an entire planet's worth of specialized goods just to overproduce something you won't need anyway.

They just didn't make support zones strong enough to be worth the opportunity cost.

 

[Thiend]

You waste the potential for an entire planet's worth of specialized goods just to overproduce something you won't need anyway.

They just didn't make support zones strong enough to be worth the opportunity cost.

They definitely did, but it depends on the size of the planet and how much you actually need the resource.

If you don't need the resource, sure, they're bad because they're literally pointless. If you do, taking a dozen basic districts and throwing on top as many support districts as possible inflates the output dramatically. That means if you would need two energy worlds, you can instead have one with support districts and the other planet doing literally anything else, fully specialized with no energy districts.

 

[snowy801]

They definitely did, but it depends on the size of the planet and how much you actually need the resource.

If you don't need the resource, sure, they're bad because they're literally pointless. If you do, taking a dozen basic districts and throwing on top as many support districts as possible inflates the output dramatically. That means if you would need two energy worlds, you can instead have one with support districts and the other planet doing literally anything else, fully specialized with no energy districts.

The flaw in this entire argument is the notion that you need any energy worlds, less two.

You don't. Basic resources is so absurdly abundant in the current patch that a single district automated on each planet will give you nearly all the basic resources you need until you're literally filling ecumenopoli.

There might be a small dip at that point, but on the other hand you should be ascending those planets to not require any resources anyway, and then you're back to "well at what point in this game did I actually need a supporting district?"

Never.