It's mostly that the penalties for low habitability are easy to ignore. Habitability is largely a non-issue and I'd say that's less to do with terraforming and gene modding. Also goo for dealing with resort planets or habitats since that's freeing up buildings to hold jobs, rather than provide housing. There are few options to decrease housing needs and 5% adds up to be a ton in the late game, which can mean less districts spend on housing and more spent on something like minerals or being able to fully load up a specialized would with specialize buildings. I'd argue outside of rp, there really isn't a choice here. Theme - the overall trump.if you feel your species should have one of these like a bug race with social pheromones or a reptile race with regen, that’s always the “best” choice!! If there is a lack of your preferred world type, in particular if you play like myself and turn off guaranteed planets, green is the way to go. If you have a bunch of small planets in your starting area including a 16/17 home world, red may be your man. Situational - a brief extension of the above as min/max all depends on the species traits, but this is more referring to your current position. If this approach is taken, Habitability or Housing usage is going to have the best overall effect in most situations as this can translate to hundreds if not thousands of monthly income in the late game through lesser upkeeps and what have you. Min/Max - whether countering a weakness like non-adapatable or fleeting or further promoting a strength like communal, what’s best is a matter of what traits you already have and long term planning. There are three main approaches when making a decision like this: The army damage is attached to the lifespan buff, so it’s just icing on the cake.
0 kommentar(er)
