this question has been bothering me for awhile: what relation do banking centers, trade centers etc. play in making more money vs. building farming centers? Would covering a planet in banking centers or stock markets etc. provide more income then a mix of farms and income centers?
Yes, absolutely. Farms don't increase income in any way, they increase max population which leads to more income. However, they also hurt morale, making it harder to have high tax rates, and so economic buildings are always better, for adding money, then farms. Except on very high PQ planets there is no reason ever to have more then one farm, at least in my experience.
This has been analyzed in depths multiple times (at least the comparison farm + 2 morale buildings versus 3 econ buildings) and from what I remember indeed in most circumstances it's better to go for econ buildings.
Exceptions may be if you want to stock up on troops before launching a large invasion, if you need a lot of population for colony ships or if you need the additional population for influence purposes. But that's outside of the economy context you were asking for
Just to clarify, there is no relation with the population of a planet and the revenue generated by Markets, Banks, Stock Markets et al? So a planet which caps out at 8 billion will produce the same revenue as your capital at 16 billion, assuming both have the exact same number of Stock Markets?
So would I be better off using the PQ 29 world to make a Manufacturing capital planet which can produce Massive hulled warships every other turn instead of turning it into a 24 billion population Economic capital planet? (Which is what I've been doing to this point.)
<McCoy> "Damnit, Jim! I'm a doctor, not an economist! </McCoy>
The larger the population, the more your tax income, so there is a relation although I'm not the person to ask exactly what it is, having not done much analysis myself. The catch with farms is that the larger the population the worse your morale, meaning that you'll also have to have to take up space with morale buildings. So it's generally easier just to build markets et al.
A very high PQ planet is the only place to really consider trying to get a large population for economic purposes (for me, anyway) but I can't think of any circumstance where I'd ever want 24 billion people on one planet.
From what I've read, taxes increase with the square root of your population. So double the population means 41% more income.
The advantage of high PQ planets is that they receive a morale bonus.However a lot of players fill up low PQ planets with economic buildings, keeping the high PQ planets for research or production. Let's not forget that to get the maximum out of your manufacturing/tech capital, forges, power plants, etc. you should try to get high PQ planets dedicated solely to either production or research. So yes, if your economy can support it, I would recommend using that PQ29 planet for production.
Thank you qrtxian, and also to you Noctilucus, for your answers.
My last game I did have 20 billion on a PQ 29 planet which eventually became PQ 34 and was my Econ capital. Still, even using a custom race (used Altarian tech tree) that had extra points in Morale, stolen Arenas of Agony, and the Shrine of the Mithlar, it was a challenge keeping that planet happy. Mind, I was running taxes at 66% for most of the game, so that probably had more than a little to do with it!
Using the smaller planets to generate income does make sense, since otherwise there's too much redundancy needed in basic infrastructure and then there's no room left on the planet for specialization. I'll give it a go after I finish my current game.
Esp. early on pop is far more important than any econ-buildings because of the inefficiency econ-buildings do have to face when build upon lowpop planets. Further, pop itself does bring additional bonuses which are not to underestimate in any warfought game.
The (isolated) bonus pop brings to econ fades more and more once 9b people have been reached - the issue is very complex due to alot of changing factors - but generally it is to say that if your pop is below 9b it is always a good idea to let it grow.
I cannot see the problem most people have with the bad moral a highpop (econ) planet do occasionally face: Because, why even try to sustain an approval rate where people are happy? If you have 10 planets with 45% approval, but one highpop with 20% - and circumstances change and moral will drop to 12% (whatever). Who cares at all? Press turn one time - maybe 2b people die off this planet (reducing the income slightly) and moral will be restored. Economically this is much better than to lower your taxes civ-wide to just make this one planet happy.
Speaking for myself, because I consider lowering taxes right before an election to be "gamey" and unrealistic. The electorate might have a short memory but not that short. Also I role-play my race enough that I never want the population to actually die off from high taxes; not even Drengin kill off their own species regularly. It might impair my gameplay a little but if I actually needed to push taxes enough that I had planets that unhappy, there'd be a good chance I was done for anyway. I assume (but could be wrong) that you don't actually need taxes that high in order to win, but are doing it for score.
In reality politicians will do alot to gain their votes right before an election - and, if they are going to carry out a decision which isn't generally accepted by the public, they will wait with its announcement/execution right after the election has passed. So, lowering/raising taxes to win an election actually has its counterpart in reality. Although I really can't say if this game bears any resemblance to be "realistic" at all....
One day maybe you'll try to win a warfighting suicidal game, maybe one of the tournament scenarios where the player finds himself in a difficult starting position. Then, you might find it necessary to refer to such strategies in order to survive.
And you can always ship out some "excess population" on a troop transport. I'm sure there are AI planets out there that will welcome them with open arms (waving a white flag if you're doing it right)Or ship them over to one of your planets that needs more population.
This is actually why I won't play on Suicidal; I don't like the fact that it's necessary to engage in "gamey" strategies in order to compete with the AI. I'm certainly not trying to complain about anyone else's playstyle, but speaking solely for myself, if I ever reach the point that it's either Suicidal or a walkover, I'll probably just abandon the game for a while.
I will note that in my current game on Tough, it has been possible to sustain overall approval in the 70s with a tax rate of 79%. I do have two fully maximized morale resources. Income is about 200 bcs/turn factoring in huge leases from a fleet-wide upgrade and an enormous espionage budget that I don't actually need, but am operating with now as I'm at peace with everyone. So good approval and (by my standards) a strong economy aren't incompatible.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
