I have always argued for, and would (if it comes up) continue to argue for, a generous flat cap on the number of buildings, with world productivity differentiated by population limits instead. Functional diversity and aesthetic freedom. If the 104 million volume is small enough that it scraps half the population table, that could be a problem, but I can suggest an easy solution.
If the volume limit is necessary for military balance and the servers, why not a simple adjustment: volume for civilian buildings increases in effectiveness, based on world size. I.e., 1m3 on a ringworld gives you more stuff than 1m3 on a small planet. Just call the world volume limit "habitability points" or "world quality points" or something else instead.
The number of habitability points used by a building is a function of volume x world rating. So 34m^3 might provide one office on a "standard" medium homeworld, but it might provide 15on a ringworld. Should be proportional for all designer values, so that buildings balance each other in the same way everywhere. The baseline value should be houses: each world should have enough "habitability points" that 104 million volume is sufficient to house and keep happy half the maximum population as stated in the table.
That way, larger worlds are genuinely more valuable and the pop limit table isn't totally invalidated by this update.
EDIT: based on your moon comment, I suppose it depends on the level of automation. The moon could extract resources and manufacture products very efficiently by leveraging its low gravity and lack of organic/atmospheric decay etc. It would be cheaper to keep robots going and less fuel-intensive to launch products into space etc. You wouldn't get big banks and Tesco getting rich there, though. Perhaps service industries should get a penalty on hostile worlds and industrial industries a bonus. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.
If the volume limit is necessary for military balance and the servers, why not a simple adjustment: volume for civilian buildings increases in effectiveness, based on world size. I.e., 1m3 on a ringworld gives you more stuff than 1m3 on a small planet. Just call the world volume limit "habitability points" or "world quality points" or something else instead.
The number of habitability points used by a building is a function of volume x world rating. So 34m^3 might provide one office on a "standard" medium homeworld, but it might provide 15on a ringworld. Should be proportional for all designer values, so that buildings balance each other in the same way everywhere. The baseline value should be houses: each world should have enough "habitability points" that 104 million volume is sufficient to house and keep happy half the maximum population as stated in the table.
That way, larger worlds are genuinely more valuable and the pop limit table isn't totally invalidated by this update.
EDIT: based on your moon comment, I suppose it depends on the level of automation. The moon could extract resources and manufacture products very efficiently by leveraging its low gravity and lack of organic/atmospheric decay etc. It would be cheaper to keep robots going and less fuel-intensive to launch products into space etc. You wouldn't get big banks and Tesco getting rich there, though. Perhaps service industries should get a penalty on hostile worlds and industrial industries a bonus. Swings and roundabouts, I suppose.