Are icy/tundra/alpine worlds the best to start with since they have a higher likelihood of having lots of mineral district potential?

[Chuddly]

I used to take continental for the nice background but grew frustrated with loads of farming options which seems largely useless. As long as you're producing at least 1 food, you're fine for growth, no? Minerals on the other hand are needed for almost everything.

[Kauldric]

With extra food you can get growth bonuses, so that’s kinda useful

[Катя Мяу <3]

Are the districts really influenced by the planet type?

Now I know it would make sense for warm planets to have more agricultural districts, but I always figured Stellaris didnt take into account for gameplay reasons.

[mss73055]

Desert planets never disappoint me on the numbers of generator sectors.
Usually my star bases take care of food.

[coolman552]

wait planet types matter for district generation? never knew this

[mss73055]

So I went to have a look:
https://stellaris.paradoxwikis.com/Planetary_features

Frequencies of Planetary featuress differ among planet types.
- cold planets perform worse in food supply
- veggy planets do poor in the energy department. You need to unblock Mountain areas to get the best of cold planets.
- mineral production looks worse on veggy planets.

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Not necessarily. For example, your homeworld has very little variation of districts, regardless of your choice (of course, aberrations like exterminators exist, but that's beyond the point).

While planet types do influence features, game also normalizes them via

DEPOSIT_USED_CATEGORY_WEIGHT = 0.25 # The higher this is, the more randomization will tend to diversify planet deposit types

In other words: the more feature gets selected, the higher penalty it recieves, making for more evenly-spread features overall.

[Chuddly]

Originally posted by Kauldric:

With extra food you can get growth bonuses, so that’s kinda useful

Are those events that pop up giving you an increase to growth percentage for a time?

[Chuddly]

Originally posted by ֺ:

Are the districts really influenced by the planet type?

Now I know it would make sense for warm planets to have more agricultural districts, but I always figured Stellaris didnt take into account for gameplay reasons.

Yes, I asked it in another question and someone confirmed it. I've noticed the pattern too but wasn't sure if it was just a coincidence.

[Chuddly]

Originally posted by HugsAndSnuggles:

Not necessarily. For example, your homeworld has very little variation of districts, regardless of your choice (of course, aberrations like exterminators exist, but that's beyond the point).

While planet types do influence features, game also normalizes them via

DEPOSIT_USED_CATEGORY_WEIGHT = 0.25 # The higher this is, the more randomization will tend to diversify planet deposit types

In other words: the more feature gets selected, the higher penalty it recieves, making for more evenly-spread features overall.

So going with continental or ocean worlds as your "home" type doesn't really screw you over in the mineral and energy potential departments?

[Chuddly]

Originally posted by HugsAndSnuggles:

Not necessarily. For example, your homeworld has very little variation of districts, regardless of your choice (of course, aberrations like exterminators exist, but that's beyond the point).

While planet types do influence features, game also normalizes them via

DEPOSIT_USED_CATEGORY_WEIGHT = 0.25 # The higher this is, the more randomization will tend to diversify planet deposit types

In other words: the more feature gets selected, the higher penalty it recieves, making for more evenly-spread features overall.

Do you think there is a "best" homeworld type? I looks like arctic since minerals are so important especially early on but if it all balances out, then continental looks nicer.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

They were for a while, but energy districts can be more useful too.

That being said you also get different trait options for planets, which I think favor continental and jungle ones. So it's hard to say.

[Chuddly]

Originally posted by Lady Crimson:

They were for a while, but energy districts can be more useful too.

That being said you also get different trait options for planets, which I think favor continental and jungle ones. So it's hard to say.

When you say traits, you mean the circles on the planet screen that give pros or cons to the planet like increase minerals or titanic fauna?

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

Originally posted by Mr CanEHdian:

Originally posted by Lady Crimson:

They were for a while, but energy districts can be more useful too.

That being said you also get different trait options for planets, which I think favor continental and jungle ones. So it's hard to say.

When you say traits, you mean the circles on the planet screen that give pros or cons to the planet like increase minerals or titanic fauna?

Right yeah, there's the Ocean of Conciousness which is +25% habitability, so Ocean ones are less desirable then, but continental and tropical ones are good adjacent ones.

Tropical ones are especially known for 'Lush' I believe and continental.

Other planets may have their own favored traits though, but I always favor Tropical, but certainly benefits in going Savanna or going Alpine if mineral heavy lithoids.

[Lady Crimson (RIP)]

Originally posted by Kauldric:

With extra food you can get growth bonuses, so that’s kinda useful

Not really anymore (less you are talking about Clone Vats), so really food is a poor thing to mass produce if you can't use it.

The only exception is the Tree of Life Origin and Hiveminds in general, which is great with those worlds and food. (although the Tree of Life does spawn more agricultural districts anyways I think).

Overall it is all more theme though, so you should pick ones that you think fit the theme.

[HugsAndSnuggles]

Originally posted by Mr CanEHdian:

Originally posted by HugsAndSnuggles:

Not necessarily. For example, your homeworld has very little variation of districts, regardless of your choice (of course, aberrations like exterminators exist, but that's beyond the point).

While planet types do influence features, game also normalizes them via

DEPOSIT_USED_CATEGORY_WEIGHT = 0.25 # The higher this is, the more randomization will tend to diversify planet deposit types

In other words: the more feature gets selected, the higher penalty it recieves, making for more evenly-spread features overall.

So going with continental or ocean worlds as your "home" type doesn't really screw you over in the mineral and energy potential departments?

Of course not: homeworlds are nearly indentical (no need to believe me - start couple dozen games and take note), their main difference comes with initial size rather than type. Sure, you might an extra useful tile reliably on some climates (never bothered to check actual numbers), but I think it's irrelevant in the grand scheme of things.

Asfor other planets: the higher the amount of districts, the greater chance for planet to have the "even" spread of features. Basically, climate mostly influences smaller planets: as size grows chance of planets getting "non-bonus" features increases - reason why you rarely see lopsided planet of size much greater than 10.

Originally posted by Mr CanEHdian:

Originally posted by HugsAndSnuggles:

Not necessarily. For example, your homeworld has very little variation of districts, regardless of your choice (of course, aberrations like exterminators exist, but that's beyond the point).

While planet types do influence features, game also normalizes them via

DEPOSIT_USED_CATEGORY_WEIGHT = 0.25 # The higher this is, the more randomization will tend to diversify planet deposit types

In other words: the more feature gets selected, the higher penalty it recieves, making for more evenly-spread features overall.

Do you think there is a "best" homeworld type? I looks like arctic since minerals are so important especially early on but if it all balances out, then continental looks nicer.

Something less conventional, like ringworld (provided you know what you're doing). But that's somewhat beyond the scope of this topic, I think.

Back on topic: minerals can be mined from asteroids (usually, more than you'll initially need). Energy could be trickier, but thanks to a certain "eester egg" you can run into with dry climate, IDK if it's worth for energy alone. I'd say: choose what "feels right" for the species - RNG on galaxy generation will screw you much more than you can mitigate by certain climate.