Upgrade of Government Building Removes the Planet Count from the Previous Government Building for Syntis

If you upgrade the government building for Syntis, the planet(s) previously included in the prior government building are removed from available planets. This needs to be fixed ASAP @joe to work the same way corruption works for organics or there will be a hell of a mess if someone is at their maximum during an upgrade.


So lose one in a war and you are stuck having to rebuild one before being able to even have a chance to reclaim the planet it was on. But wait losing the planet auto destroyed it anyway…

Kinda feel we should be able to build a backup in a alternative location. Or just put the extra colonies in the tech tree.

1 Like

Does the government building give an empire wide bonus to organics?

Yes, anti-corruption.

It applies empire wide or just to the planet? Because I have been told both now.

Empire wide. I’m very concerned for Syntis having the government building affect the number of planets. What if you get invaded have a building that helps support say 6 more planets. If the HW gets invaded and you lose the government building what happens to those 6 planets??? I’m told by others not to worry, but I think this is a bad idea for Syntis. Corruption just affects happiness for organics, you’re talking actual planets for Syntis.

I saw your comment on Discord. The income bonus is only on the planet it resides on. So the 300% or whatever level it is, applies only to the planet it is on. But the corruption or planet count bonus is empire wide.

1 Like

That’s a good question. Much like employment, we need mechanics that let us prioritize distributions. Designate ahead of time which planets take priority just as we should be able to prioritize which buildings remain functional during labor shortages.

I very much like the idea of the player losing planets same as I like the notion of a wave of corruption that could cause the entire empire to go belly up. Players should be safeguarding their government building.

You might like it, but which planets do you lose? How is it determined, might be useful to have that information. And you certainly shouldn’t lose them just because you are upgrading. Organics get a benefit from upgrading, but Syntis has to lose something…

It’a all solved by being able to build them in more then one location. Just don’t let the bonus stack.

1 Like

Current mechanics behind losses: I don’t know.

Priorities, if implemented, should prove very easily set. #1 is first and #2 is second. If, as in your example, the empire supported x+6 planets, but lost that +6 modifier, then it would retain control only of x beginning at #1 and ascending. Any remainder would either fall to default governors (when mechanics and tech allow) or are simply lost to neutrality or worse.

@WarMongers that’s a big safety net. If there’s reason to fear losing the government building (there should be) then players should consider staying under its capacity boost so as to remain unharmed by its loss.

My simple idea (maybe difficult to implement it) let them be built on every planet and put an on/off switch next to them. Only one can be online at all times. If you turn on building B then building A is automatically turned off.

Edit: If you lose your planet with the active building and you have secondaries then one of them is turns on automatically.

Ah yes, mobile players shouldn’t have full time access to a mechanic that boosts an empire because reasons…

I suppose it begs yet another question about what lore are these mechanics are built on. I assume all countries here on Earth have backup locations for their capital and contingency plans for their officials. That doesn’t mean their unaffected if some destroys, or worse hijacks, their central command.

@WarMongers everyone should and does have access to it, but it is an investment with risks attached to it.

I’d rather have seen something other then an empire wide effect and there were numerous suggestions for a building that gives a control boost over a set distance from where it was built. That would balance better imo over the all the eggs in one basket this gives.

I don’t think that “planet” control belong on the government building given that Syntis have a hard cap, whereas organics have no cap. There’s a big difference between planets and corruption. Either that or there should be an equal cap for organics also on the government building. One or the other, but a hard cap controlled and able to be destroyed with the building where that won’t happen to organics needs to be changed.

Syntis could still use a happiness boost applied to their population of organics. Planet count should be in the tech tree.

Syntis have a hard cap predumably due to both technological understandings and hardware. The tech tree affords them new insights to improve functionality whereas their government building houses one massive lump of hardware bound to and governing their network.

@WarMongers I’m all for adjusting these to be replicated and applied with diminished effect by proximity away from the government building, but only if these require ongoing upkeep such that they cannot conceivably stand on their own. Sure, amplify and extend the empire, but the moment there’s insufficient empire to amplify the government drastically downsizes, implodes or staves off these options until its stores and account reach null.

That’s fine, then leave it to technology. Control their bonus on the government building, but it should have nothing to do with the planets they can have. Too many problems will arise as a result of it.

Losing planets is not too great a problem. Losing planets is a sign that you’re playing a war game.

The structuring of your government should have much to do with how much expansion it supports.