DeadlyShoe

Join Date 03/2006

Planet Specialization

I'm really not a fan of the way you are encouraged to super-specialize planets.

If you have 2 'generic' planets, each with +100% research and manufacturing bonus and 10 base income of each (50% split), you get 40 research and 40 manufacturing total.

But if you have 2 planets with +200% research on one and +200% manufacturing on the other, with 20 base income in research and manufacturing respectively, you get 60 research and 60 manufacturing total. There's a huge (50%+) advantage from specializing right there even before you start taking into account synergy bonuses, planet event bonuses, starbases, capitals, etc. which will make the difference even worse.

This also means that if you have less than 3 earthlike planets (1 income, 1 research, 1 manufacturing) you have an almost insurmountable disadvantage in efficiency. Additionally and somewhat disappointingly it also largely minimizes the effects of the planetary events. Even a rare +50% bonus isn't that significant once an earthlike planet is developed. (80 turns in on my current game and I can get 200%+ bonuses)

This phenomenon is a result of the combination of the 'governance' screen and the percentage based boosts of basic structures. If basic structures provided flat boosts or if the governance screen was disabled, planets could gain advantages from specializing but not to such a dramatic extent.

Honestly I think the ability to change planetary base income into different resources on a totally freeform turn by turn basis causes more harm and micro than it provides gameplay benefit. I know you guys were plugging it in the design phase but IMO it hasn't worked out.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

Addendum:

Another aspect of this is the tedious micro involved across the board for specialized planets. Every time you need to terraform or upgrade structures, you have to either manually change the governance sliders (then change them back after) or manually rush build everything and both are annoying. Even for manufacturing planets you need to do this since they are probably pouring their industry into spaceships.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Larsenex

Join Date 04/2009

+212

I will find that Veiled planet (50% research, 25% economy) and just pile it up iwth a few farms and labs and ONE factory. It becomes my research base for the empire. One or two specialized research and production planets and the rest for cash and off you go 'a conquering'.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Larsenex,

reply 2

The game was designed with specializing planets from the start. You can still create planets that do 'everything' but you get better results by specializing them. Many folks here love that aspect of the game.

I will find that Veiled planet (50% research, 25% economy) and just pile it up iwth a few farms and labs and ONE factory. It becomes my research base for the empire. One or two specialized research and production planets and the rest for cash and off you go 'a conquering'.

Agreed. similar to civ IV, if you have a city surrounded by hills it can be a production powerhouse, or if surrounded by floodplains it can provide for a huge population. Deciding where and if to specialize is part of the strategy.

Successfully updated karma reason!

peregrine23

Join Date 02/2007

+79

It will be interesting to see to what degree the diminishing returns of production make this true. I really like having specialized planets. I think the diversity is more interesting then a bunch of generalized planets and there are real strategic elements, especially for influence and trade planets. Up until this beta, the solution for general planets was to build population. While diminishing returns will make this somewhat less viable, my guess is that building large pop planets and taking advantage of tile bonuses will still yield very productive and flexible planets.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Fair points.

I don't have anything against specialized planets. @Peregrine23, you are correct that all generic planets can be pretty boring. I just feel like the game forces you into it rather than encourages it. It's drastically suboptimal to do anything but total specialization which is totally at odds with the presentation of the grid and the very existence of the 'inherit galactic governance' setting. 90% of what you want to do you could do faster and easier with 'max this' buttons rather than hunting for the exact spot on the graph.

I have only limited experience with influence and trade specialized planets but I don't think they have the problem to the same degree. Influence and trade are not subject to manipulation via the governance chart. Influence in particular seems to favor flat bonuses. Presumably this helps reduce the ability of a tiny mars-type craphole from overwhelming an earth-like.

I don't know how to gauge diminishing returns. I presume they are unimplemented? Will they apply to the structures, or to the governance slider? I don't believe structural diminishing returns will mean much of anything; unless you can construct two nearly maxed-out building arrays on the same world, it won't amount to much. The most significant effect would likely be improving the relative position of non-primary income structures like influence/trade/defence.

Successfully updated karma reason!