![]() If you want to smash face any time soon, minerals. If you already have habitats or are about to unlock them anyway, minerals. Originally posted by Dork:It really depends on what your income is like at the moment, where you are in your game already, what your plans are, and a multitude of things. So unless your science is particularly atrocious or you're playing a peace loving empire that for some reason either can't or don't want to use habitats, just go minerals because that allows for harder snowballing in most cases. Because of this you'll end up putting your mineral generation on actual planets (or ring worlds later on), and energy/science on habitats. ![]() The reason for this is that habitats are good at producing science and energy, but quite bad at producing minerals. You also either need to have enough of a mineral income to support building habitats with all your influence once that becomes relevant, while still generating enough minerals to still do the other things you want to be doing. Really, the only time it shouldn't be minerals is if you don't want to go to war and you're unlikely to have someone else declare on you, or you're just so strong that you'd effortlessly smash any opposition anyway. ![]() It really depends on what your income is like at the moment, where you are in your game already, what your plans are, and a multitude of things.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |