- You need 1 population to operate 1 building. If you have less population then all your people have to work too much which decreases overall efficiency (produced output) by a factor of (pop present / pop needed) ^ 2. If you have too much pop then there is unemployment which decreases efficiency also by a factor of (pop needed / pop present) ^2. Other morale effects like rebellion could happen also more easily.
- Higher tier buildings may need more pop to operate effectively.
I can buy this, even though I'm not 100% on board with solely using pop to allow for improvement constructions. However, pop requirement should ONLY be for the "base" improvement types (Production/Research/Wealth and maybe Influence), and never for anything like specialty buildings or Tourism/Food/Approval or the like.
Also, a big NO to requiring more pop for higher tier buildings. They already require more tech, so that's the cost for them. In addition, it makes neither logical sense nor game sense - increasing tech means better productivity (in all senses) for the same amount of population, and requiring more pop for a better improvement virtually nullifies the whole point of researching the higher tech.
Low tier Research, Production, Approval, Food, and Influence buildings should have low maintenance (say 0.5), and each tier should double this. This makes more sense than increasing population requirements, as high tech is expensive, but not pop-intensive. Wealth and Tourism improvements should NOT charge maintenance, for what should be obvious reasons.
Approval still needs to matter significantly. I'd not do a linear one (e.g. NOT Approval/Pop), but maybe a step function, like every full 10% below 100% knocks off 10% of total production. This is easier to understand - full production should be at 100% approval, and being less happy should lower production, rather than the bifurcated "about 50% gives bonus, below gives penalty" current model. It's far easier to balance my way.
- Hub buildings may give higher adjacency bonuses.
Certainly, though I'd be careful about what the base value and per-level bonus of the hub building it. Hub buildings' PRIMARY benefit should be through adjacencies, and they themselves should provide low-level bonuses even when surrounded by 6 other improvements. For example, something like a Power Plant should maybe give +3 adjacency, but itself only give +1 Production as a base, NO per-level bonus. More powerful versions of this improvement should up the adjacency bonus, but not the bonuses on the building itself.
I'd also never charge maintenance for either Hub or one-per-planet/civ/galaxy buildings.
- Tile bonuses still exist, but only for the tile itself, not for adjacent tiles (since I find it kind of frustrating nearly never to be able to use tile bonuses efficiently because placing buildings because of tile ajdacency bonuses usually throws away building type adjacencies).
Absolutely not. This would remove one of the key fun things of the game, and the fact that it's not easy to make it work well is one of the major challenges. You have to accept that you can't always optimize the layout, but when you do, it can be VERY beneficial. If you remove this feature, then why should any improvement give adjacency bonuses to more than one type? It's the same concept.
- Special buildings may give more than one kind of output (like research + wealth).
Of course. I would also add that one-per-civ/one-per galaxy improvements are the things that give % bonuses, rather than flat ones. One-per-planet buildings tend to be Hubs, and thus should be treated as above - if they're not Hubs, then the % rule applies. But the others should be the thing to really ramp up a single planet's value, so they're the things that absolutely should affect the planet as a whole. Base bonuses in the +50-200% range, and per/level bonuses themselves in the +10-25%/level range. They should themselves give fairly small adjacency (+1 typically or even none), since their value is to the planet as a whole, rather than as a Hub.
- Population is housed in the colony capital and cities. Cities have no adjacency bonuses as such, but if built on a tile with a bonus spreads this exact bonus to all adjacent tiles (example: building a city on a +2 production tile gives all production buildings around the city a +2 production adjacency bonus).
Sorta. Cities absolutely should have adjacency bonuses, but only for fewer things than they do now. They should retain Population as their type, and receive modest per-level bonuses from both adjacent pop and tiles (say +0.25/level or less). Honestly, Approval absolutely should be one of the big things they give adjacency to, and it should be a MINIMUM of +2. Tourism as well (bare minimum of +1, and I'd even vote for up to +3). No bonus for wealth, research, production, food, or influence though. Cities themselves should give a small influence bonus (say +0.5).
And, of course, we should have a series of City-like improvements, in the same way we have series of Factory, et al. ones. City, Metropolis, Megopolis, mostly with higher pop cap, but few, if any, other improved bonuses. And cities should NEVER cost maintenance, if we're balancing with the new paradigm - their function is to provide a resource (pop), and charging for that resource seems hideously unfair.
- Special resources like Snuggler Colony and the like are classified according to their adjacency bonus. You mine them by putting a building of the correct type on the tile with the resource, what also produces its normal output. So no tiles are lost due to resources being present on a planet, but you need double pop to operate such a tile effectively (that's 2 pop instead of 1 for a tier 1 building). Higher tier buildings multiply the special resource output by their tier.
I don't see the need for this - the current model works better, and a resource is treated similar to a Hub building - it provides some base bonus (the resource in this case), no per/level bonus, and it's other benefit is via improved adjacency. In this case, we're not charging pop, since it's a resource (and we shouldn't be charging pop for a planet-bound resource if we don't for asteroid-based ones, and I don't think either are a good idea). Improvements to the resource mine continue with improved tech, and we stick to the current model. Of all the things here, this is the thing NOT currently broken.
You don't "lose" a tile for the resource, any more than you "lose" a tile for the Capital or any other improvement. You get the resource, and it's a Hub.
- There is no distinction between social and military production buildings. Instead bring back a slider per planet that determines how much of the overall production of a planet goes into social (building things on the planet and paying for projects) and military (building ships in a sponsored shipyard) production. If there is no sponsored shipyard everything goes into social production.
Absolutely not. That brings back micromanaging in a REALLY bad way. The current method of using Missions (for Shipyards) and Projects for Social production is both far more flexible, and far less micro, not to mention that it's easy to see on the Colony summary page what a planet is set to be doing. The slider should remain in the graveyard where it belongs. If you're not sponsoring a shipyard, then that's "wasted" (really, just unused) production. I have no problem with that, and it's far easier to balance (and less micro) than something like a slider.