[Aub]

Originally posted by PvK:
...So, say you have a planet with a constant construction rate of 2000x3, and you want to do intensive development that will maximize production over the next 30 or so turns. Plan A is to build a Minor City and upgrade to Metropolis. Plan B is to build two Minor Cities and then a City...

Indeed, if you have enough facility slots on each planet, the problem of upgrades does not present itself. That's why I posposed to have more facility slots in the first place.

But you will have a bunch of non-breathable worlds, with just a couple of facility slots on each, and you need to devise a development plan for those. What, do I just forget them? Then why have upgrades at all? obviously one does not need them for breathable planets, not for a very very long time!

...So, the standard set tactic of sprawl and conquer still pays off, but the rate of payoff is a couple of orders of magnitude (or more) slower, and there are less efficient alternatives in intensive development, so a small isolationist or neutral can continue to develop as well. Also, of course, a larger empire is more difficult to protect, etc....

I am not trying to get rid of those less efficient ways of development. I'm simply saying they need not be done through upgrades.

If the facility upgrade cost is 100% (that is, you don't win anything by upgrading), and the Metropolis costs 65,000x3, your math still holds.

But now the plan C - "build a Metropolis right away" - will have comparable results, so I *don't have to upgrade if I decide to build a Metropolis*.

As things currently stand, *if* I want to go for a Metropolis, I *have to* upgrade. Your point that building a Metropolis may not be that efficient a strategy is true, but irrelevant

Thanks! -- Aub