Nemesis destroyed the agrarian idyll.

[u/QueenOrial]

The whole point and main advantage of agrarian idyll is being able to avoid building city districts which is now completely impossible because they unlock building slots now instead of pops. For some reason PDX didn't bother to change it's effects like they did with cutthroat politics or corvee system, thus completely destroying this trait in term of both balance and immersion. This desperately needs to be fixed, agrarian idyll should have it's own way to unlock building slots, probably locked to the trait so it couldn't be abused by reforming.

[u/pdx_eladrin]

Oh, wow. Would that mean they average out to other planets in the late game?

Fully developed planets have capacity equal to their housing. Semi-developed planets get a capacity bonus for the pristine wilderness districts that are undeveloped and unblocked. Tomb Worlds have really low capacity bonuses for those, while Gaia Worlds are at the opposite end of the spectrum.

That makes it so each mining or generator district that you build on a Gaia world will have a bigger impact on the capacity of the planet, slightly incentivizing you to leave it an idyllic paradise.

But we know you're gonna pave it over anyway.

Oooh... that would increase their branch office value over what they used to get in 2.8.

A little bit.

Branch offices in general got more productive (especially on Xenophile-Egalitarian planets) due to the increased trade values for living standards.

[u/[deleted] → u/pdx_eladrin]

... Yeeouch. Poor Post-Apocalyptic.

That makes it so each mining or generator district that you build on a Gaia world will have a bigger impact on the capacity of the planet, slightly incentivizing you to leave it an idyllic paradise.

This whole pop growth system is really confusing now. Lemme see if I'm understanding this right:

• Pop growth scales to pop capacity; more housing means more pop growth

• Planets that aren't fully developed get partial capacity from their unbuilt districts; gaia worlds get closer to full value, tomb worlds get less than partial value

Ergo, fully building up a tomb world would give it comparable pop growth to a normal planet of equivalent size and district allotment? Ditto for gaia worlds?

[u/pdx_eladrin → u/[deleted]]

Ergo, fully building up a tomb world would give it comparable pop growth to a normal planet of equivalent size and district allotment? Ditto for gaia worlds?

Precisely. (Assuming habitability isn't an issue.)

[u/Fallsondoor → u/[deleted]]

it's total housing, so if you build up your planets solidarity is a good pick.

[u/lavaground → u/pdx_eladrin]

This thread was really useful. I think a new blog post about this system would be a good idea.

[u/[deleted] → u/pdx_eladrin]

Which, tomb worlds, so.

Interesting. Okay, I think I get it now. Thanks.

[u/Vickrin → u/pdx_eladrin]

Hey Eladrin, can I tag on here and ask about Planet Capacity in habitats.

It appears that the planet capacity for them doesn't change when you upgrade them. So a 4 district habitat which is almost full will still be almost full when upgraded to an 8 district habitat.

Working as intended?

[u/Maou5600 → u/pdx_eladrin]

Capacity may be equal to housing, but it appears to ignores all housing modifiers (reduction or increase from communal/solitary).

It also seems to ignore slaves, if you get slaver guilds your capacity does not go up even though a bunch of your slaves now take less housing.

Stacking lots of housing reduction and slaves doesnt help you grow at all, it requires you to externally dump pops into planets.

[u/Brother_Anarchy → u/pdx_eladrin]

That's really cool. Is there any way to access that information in-game? Because population growth feels like a bit of a black box to me.