Specialized Planets

Merlex
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby Merlex » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:27 pm

Teleros wrote: Same, I'm just saying the kind of "complexity" I want WRT buildings etc. Or at least with military buildings :) .


Sorry, what does "WRT" stand for?

Merlex wrote:I get the impression from the "How many iterations of buildings shall we have?" thread, that the devs are going with the abstract colony design. So there won't be multiple Automated Factories, Robo-Miner Plants, Stock Markets, ect. Which is fine with me, i'm not too crazy about the GC2/ MOO3 style of spamming multiples of Enhanced Factories in sectors. Which is why i proposed an additional build to specialize planets.


Teleros wrote: Same WRT military vs non-military buildings, just saying I think I prefer specialising by building more or moving pops than building specialisation buildings.


I can see this work by moving population, but not by the standard buildings. I'm assuming that in your system, the more commercial population you have, the more money the colony makes. But as for buildings, every colony is going to have a Robo-Miner Plant and Stock Markets and Research Labs. Most will be clones of each other, while most should be, some should stand out. The only difference i can see, is how many shipyards a colony can support. Or how many military installations a colony has. That's a very two-dimensional system.

Teleros wrote:... and as for the Goa'uld - well they were melodramatic feudal lords, so ostentatious displays of wealth at the expense of practicality (just think of their rank & file soldiers...) is in keeping with their modus operandi IMHO.


No i was talking about the A'shen (not sure on the spelling). They were a human empire, far more advanced than the Goa'uld. Basically, they befriend less advanced civilizations. Defeat their enemies and give them advanced technology. They had transporters for instance. Then they would cure disease and slip in something extra. That something extra would sterilize most of the female population. I'm assuming they would target by intelligence and aggression. The result was that you got a smaller, more manageable population, in a couple of hundred years. They would then turn these planets, into farming planets to supply their empire, and strip the planet of other resources. They did this to Earth as well. In ten years, they sterilized 95% of the females on the planet. SG1 got together and sent a message into the past, to avoid this. Most of the A'shen worlds did not have stargates, they wanted Earth's database of gate planets, to expand their empire.

As for food production in MORE, i can see eliminating farmer population. But i still believe that planet quality, should be a key factor in determining how much food a colony can produce. When it comes to transport, it takes weeks to ship food across oceans and to market. I don't see a problem with it taking a couple-few weeks to ship food to other solar system. Also by eliminating food as an issue in the game, you take away quite a few strategies. Blockading food transport in or out. Destroying an enemy's key food colonies. Robotic races lose the advantage of not needing food. But are now at a disadvantage of needing energy, while biological races don't have to worry about food. Or races that eat dirt.

Though i almost always pick conquest as my sole victory condition, i like to use different ways to get there. I want more possible strategies not less. I vary from game to game, but i'll use an economic, diplomatic, military strategies, or a combination. I don't want the game to always be: let's just pump out as many large powerful ships as we can, and pound everyone else into submission. That's fun sometimes, very boring after a dozen or so playthroughs.

Merlex wrote:I do like the idea though of starbases being able to be anywhere. These can serve as trading hubs, military staging areas, research facilities researching anomalies, or control major intersections like wormholes.

Teleros wrote: I do too, my concern is really a gameplay one WRT placing them properly.


Merlex wrote: I have the same concerns. As much as i enjoy having starbases in GC2 (i currently have over 200 economic ones), i feel their influence range is much too great. It should be two parsecs at most, not eight.

Teleros wrote: If MORE has starbases in empty space, I'd seriously consider not giving them any influence range at all. Let your systems provide influence range, and either pop starbases in your territory as border guards or way out there as early warning outposts / refuelling stops IMHO. Well, at least for military ones. Civilian ones could be out there because the nebula next door looks pretty for all I know :D .


I agree about the lack of an influence range. I would like to design my starbases. Not have military or civilians ones. But put what i want on it, up to it's space limit.
Gold Digital Supporter

Teleros
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby Teleros » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:17 pm

Merlex wrote:Sorry, what does "WRT" stand for?

Oh, just "with regard to" :) .

Merlex wrote:I can see this work by moving population, but not by the standard buildings. I'm assuming that in your system, the more commercial population you have, the more money the colony makes. But as for buildings, every colony is going to have a Robo-Miner Plant and Stock Markets and Research Labs. Most will be clones of each other, while most should be, some should stand out. The only difference i can see, is how many shipyards a colony can support. Or how many military installations a colony has. That's a very two-dimensional system.

Oh I don't know. It may not be fantastically engaging developing a colony ("right, copy-paste the usual buildings to Nova Terra #114, then do I want 2 or 3 starbases in orbit?"), but it can lead to very interesting decisions on a national scale IMHO.

Merlex wrote:No i was talking about the A'shen (not sure on the spelling). They were a human empire, far more advanced than the Goa'uld. Basically, they befriend less advanced civilizations. Defeat their enemies and give them advanced technology. They had transporters for instance. Then they would cure disease and slip in something extra. That something extra would sterilize most of the female population. I'm assuming they would target by intelligence and aggression. The result was that you got a smaller, more manageable population, in a couple of hundred years. They would then turn these planets, into farming planets to supply their empire, and strip the planet of other resources. They did this to Earth as well. In ten years, they sterilized 95% of the females on the planet. SG1 got together and sent a message into the past, to avoid this. Most of the A'shen worlds did not have stargates, they wanted Earth's database of gate planets, to expand their empire.

Ah yeah, those guys. Sounds like they do it as a means of conquest whilst avoiding too much open bloodshed, which again is different from simply ruling those worlds. Co-opting people on the subject planets by giving them a reason to like the empire (in this case "the empire pays me for the food I produce" etc) is a tried and tested divide-and-conquer tactic.

Merlex wrote:As for food production in MORE, i can see eliminating farmer population. But i still believe that planet quality, should be a key factor in determining how much food a colony can produce.

I don't see why not. To use the two extreme examples, Gaia-class worlds could have farms or hydroponics labs built everywhere for little maintenance cost (because it's not like the crushing atmospheric pressure or metal-munching acidic lava everywhere are problems), whereas Toxic worlds would be horribly expensive due to the maintenance etc (and no organic farms either obviously :P ). A planet like Coruscant may be able to feed its own population and produce more food in an absolute sense, but on a per capita basis I'd expect a less overpopulated Gaia-class world to produce more food.

Merlex wrote:Also by eliminating food as an issue in the game, you take away quite a few strategies.

I dunno, I never thought blockading food worked well in MoO2 personally. "Oh noez my farm-world is blockaded!" *Two clicks on the colony screen later* "Hah, my farmers on Planet Shipyard are now feeding the local population" :P . I'd rather attack the economy directly - either by cutting off revenue / command point sources or blasting industrialised worlds to cinders.

Merlex wrote:Blockading food transport in or out. Destroying an enemy's key food colonies. Robotic races lose the advantage of not needing food. But are now at a disadvantage of needing energy, while biological races don't have to worry about food. Or races that eat dirt.

Robotic races etc could simply be given the advantage of being more productive. Also, I'm talking about removing farmers not food. Your worker pops would produce food (cheaply & easily I admit, but still). So even then, robotic races would get a small bonus in not having any worker pop output required for food.

Merlex wrote:Though i almost always pick conquest as my sole victory condition, i like to use different ways to get there. I want more possible strategies not less. I vary from game to game, but i'll use an economic, diplomatic, military strategies, or a combination. I don't want the game to always be: let's just pump out as many large powerful ships as we can, and pound everyone else into submission. That's fun sometimes, very boring after a dozen or so playthroughs.

Not sure that eliminating farmer pops would be much of a problem for this TBH :P .

Merlex wrote:I agree about the lack of an influence range. I would like to design my starbases. Not have military or civilians ones. But put what i want on it, up to it's space limit.

I dunno about civilian ones (if they even exist beyond perhaps abstracted "orbital city that gives +X pop limit to a planet" or w/e), but I agree on designing military ones. Seeing my Future Physics Tech 22 starbases shoot with mauler devices or w/e was frustrating in MoO2 ("STICK MORE STELLAR CONVERTERS ON DAMNIT!") :P .
Clear ether!

Merlex
Posts: 62
Joined: Thu Nov 29, 2012 3:16 pm

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby Merlex » Wed Jul 03, 2013 4:22 pm

Merlex wrote:Sorry, what does "WRT" stand for?

Teleros wrote: Oh, just "with regard to" :) .


Thanks ;) Yeah, i'm that old.

Merlex wrote:I can see this work by moving population, but not by the standard buildings. I'm assuming that in your system, the more commercial population you have, the more money the colony makes. But as for buildings, every colony is going to have a Robo-Miner Plant and Stock Markets and Research Labs. Most will be clones of each other, while most should be, some should stand out. The only difference i can see, is how many shipyards a colony can support. Or how many military installations a colony has. That's a very two-dimensional system.

Teleros wrote: Oh I don't know. It may not be fantastically engaging developing a colony ("right, copy-paste the usual buildings to Nova Terra #114, then do I want 2 or 3 starbases in orbit?"), but it can lead to very interesting decisions on a national scale IMHO.


How so?

Teleros wrote: Co-opting people on the subject planets by giving them a reason to like the empire (in this case "the empire pays me for the food I produce" etc) is a tried and tested divide-and-conquer tactic.


MOO2 had natives, which could be used as farmers. In my current GC2 game, i've made two minor races major trading partners. I protect them, and they fill my treasury.

Merlex wrote:As for food production in MORE, i can see eliminating farmer population. But i still believe that planet quality, should be a key factor in determining how much food a colony can produce.

Teleros wrote: I don't see why not. To use the two extreme examples, Gaia-class worlds could have farms or hydroponics labs built everywhere for little maintenance cost (because it's not like the crushing atmospheric pressure or metal-munching acidic lava everywhere are problems), whereas Toxic worlds would be horribly expensive due to the maintenance etc (and no organic farms either obviously :P ).


That just changed the conversation. I've been misunderstanding you this whole time. That's been my major point, about more fertile planets producing more food, than the lesser ones. If you have a size 30 ultra rich Toxic world, and a size 12 poor Gaia world; the Gaia world should be providing food for the Toxic one. If the Gaia provide enough food for the Toxic one, then it could become a major manufacturing colony.

Merlex wrote:Also by eliminating food as an issue in the game, you take away quite a few strategies.

Teleros wrote: I dunno, I never thought blockading food worked well in MoO2 personally. "Oh noez my farm-world is blockaded!" *Two clicks on the colony screen later* "Hah, my farmers on Planet Shipyard are now feeding the local population" :P .


Not an ultra rich Toxic world, with 30 population they're not. And i thought you wanted to eliminate farmer pop?

Teleros wrote: I'd rather attack the economy directly - either by cutting off revenue / command point sources or blasting industrialised worlds to cinders.


I'd rather not reduce the game to just: "Let's line up our fleets, and may the best one win!", all of the time. Blockades and embargoes, are just another minor strategy.

Merlex wrote:Blockading food transport in or out. Destroying an enemy's key food colonies. Robotic races lose the advantage of not needing food. But are now at a disadvantage of needing energy, while biological races don't have to worry about food. Or races that eat dirt.

Teleros wrote: Robotic races etc could simply be given the advantage of being more productive. Also, I'm talking about removing farmers not food. Your worker pops would produce food (cheaply & easily I admit, but still). So even then, robotic races would get a small bonus in not having any worker pop output required for food.


Like i said, i misunderstood your position.

Merlex wrote:Though i almost always pick conquest as my sole victory condition, i like to use different ways to get there. I want more possible strategies not less. I vary from game to game, but i'll use an economic, diplomatic, military strategies, or a combination. I don't want the game to always be: let's just pump out as many large powerful ships as we can, and pound everyone else into submission. That's fun sometimes, very boring after a dozen or so playthroughs.

Teleros wrote: Not sure that eliminating farmer pops would be much of a problem for this TBH :P .


It wouldn't be. I stated in my last post, that i can see eliminating the farmer population unit, as long as farming was still in the game. I like the idea of a commercial population unit. I was talking in general terms about specialized colonies and multiple strategies.

Merlex wrote:I agree about the lack of an influence range. I would like to design my starbases. Not have military or civilians ones. But put what i want on it, up to it's space limit.

Teleros wrote: I dunno about civilian ones (if they even exist beyond perhaps abstracted "orbital city that gives +X pop limit to a planet" or w/e), but I agree on designing military ones. Seeing my Future Physics Tech 22 starbases shoot with mauler devices or w/e was frustrating in MoO2 ("STICK MORE STELLAR CONVERTERS ON DAMNIT!") :P .


I'm talking about eliminating designations like "military starbases" or "civilian starbases". I want to be able to mix and match structures on a starbase up to it's size limit. For example: I have a starbase studying some anomaly, in interstellar space somewhere between Sol and Alpha Centauri. The science array installed takes up a lot of space, so i can't fit a stellar converter on it. But i can fit a couple of Maulers. Whereas my production starbase orbiting Europa, has an ore processing plant, a stellar converter, various defenses, and a marine garrison to keep the workers in line. :twisted:
Gold Digital Supporter

Teleros
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 625
Joined: Sat Mar 02, 2013 11:18 pm
Location: United Kingdom

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby Teleros » Thu Jul 04, 2013 12:44 am

Merlex wrote:
Merlex wrote:I can see this work by moving population, but not by the standard buildings. I'm assuming that in your system, the more commercial population you have, the more money the colony makes. But as for buildings, every colony is going to have a Robo-Miner Plant and Stock Markets and Research Labs. Most will be clones of each other, while most should be, some should stand out. The only difference i can see, is how many shipyards a colony can support. Or how many military installations a colony has. That's a very two-dimensional system.

Teleros wrote: Oh I don't know. It may not be fantastically engaging developing a colony ("right, copy-paste the usual buildings to Nova Terra #114, then do I want 2 or 3 starbases in orbit?"), but it can lead to very interesting decisions on a national scale IMHO.


How so?

Because of the cost of building them, and where you build them. Do you have a highly distributed ship construction network, or do you rely on a few key worlds? Do you pay for that new shipyard now, or just buy ships & hope it won't be needed 200 turns down the line?

Merlex wrote:MOO2 had natives, which could be used as farmers. In my current GC2 game, i've made two minor races major trading partners. I protect them, and they fill my treasury.

Yeah, I found those natives annoying (L2readandusemachinesdamnit!) :P .

Merlex wrote:
Merlex wrote:As for food production in MORE, i can see eliminating farmer population. But i still believe that planet quality, should be a key factor in determining how much food a colony can produce.

Teleros wrote: I don't see why not. To use the two extreme examples, Gaia-class worlds could have farms or hydroponics labs built everywhere for little maintenance cost (because it's not like the crushing atmospheric pressure or metal-munching acidic lava everywhere are problems), whereas Toxic worlds would be horribly expensive due to the maintenance etc (and no organic farms either obviously :P ).


That just changed the conversation. I've been misunderstanding you this whole time. That's been my major point, about more fertile planets producing more food, than the lesser ones. If you have a size 30 ultra rich Toxic world, and a size 12 poor Gaia world; the Gaia world should be providing food for the Toxic one. If the Gaia provide enough food for the Toxic one, then it could become a major manufacturing colony.

Well... I agree that I can see farming on a Gaia world being easier than on a Toxic one, I just don't see the need to ship food to the Toxic one assuming you have a decent worker pop and some farm buildings there. Both would thus be self-sufficient, but the Toxic world would require more industrial points to make food than the Gaia world.

Merlex wrote:
Merlex wrote:Also by eliminating food as an issue in the game, you take away quite a few strategies.

Teleros wrote: I dunno, I never thought blockading food worked well in MoO2 personally. "Oh noez my farm-world is blockaded!" *Two clicks on the colony screen later* "Hah, my farmers on Planet Shipyard are now feeding the local population" :P .


Not an ultra rich Toxic world, with 30 population they're not. And i thought you wanted to eliminate farmer pop?

No I meant in MoO2. An ultra-rich toxic world could be self-sufficient with the right buildings & techs though (pretty sure there were +food factories or w/e, although I may be wrong).

Merlex wrote:
Teleros wrote: I'd rather attack the economy directly - either by cutting off revenue / command point sources or blasting industrialised worlds to cinders.


I'd rather not reduce the game to just: "Let's line up our fleets, and may the best one win!", all of the time. Blockades and embargoes, are just another minor strategy.

Mmm. It's very hard though, what with go-anywhere FTL + a whole planet (or even solar system) to supply the blockaded people. Hmm, perhaps we need a new blockade system (I feel a new post coming up :) ).

Merlex wrote:
Merlex wrote:I agree about the lack of an influence range. I would like to design my starbases. Not have military or civilians ones. But put what i want on it, up to it's space limit.

Teleros wrote: I dunno about civilian ones (if they even exist beyond perhaps abstracted "orbital city that gives +X pop limit to a planet" or w/e), but I agree on designing military ones. Seeing my Future Physics Tech 22 starbases shoot with mauler devices or w/e was frustrating in MoO2 ("STICK MORE STELLAR CONVERTERS ON DAMNIT!") :P .


I'm talking about eliminating designations like "military starbases" or "civilian starbases". I want to be able to mix and match structures on a starbase up to it's size limit. For example: I have a starbase studying some anomaly, in interstellar space somewhere between Sol and Alpha Centauri. The science array installed takes up a lot of space, so i can't fit a stellar converter on it. But i can fit a couple of Maulers. Whereas my production starbase orbiting Europa, has an ore processing plant, a stellar converter, various defenses, and a marine garrison to keep the workers in line. :twisted:

Hmm... I don't like the idea of sticking a bunch of civilians in with my naval officers etc ("this is a Royal Star Navy station damnit!"), although I wouldn't say no to your idea if MORE shipped with it.
Clear ether!

knightdt
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 181
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2012 6:11 am

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby knightdt » Sun Jul 07, 2013 5:59 am

Inserting my own opinion into the fray... I don't like the reaction of being able to immediately change your pop to farmer and suddenly get all the food benefit right away. I think there should be some advantage to having them properly sorted to start with --- or more likely, some disadvantage to swapping a large number of population suddenly. Basically I'm saying that it shouldn't be so easy to suddenly take a planet of ship builders and turn them all into master farmers. (Insert counter-arguments about the relative time it would take; expertise required with future technology; blah blah blah, yes, there are counter-arguments but I'm just sharing my opinion. I think there should be some reward for proper planning or a penalty for being required to change previous decisions. It is a decision based game, and if those decisions don't matter because they can be instantly corrected before causing an issue then that takes some of the consequence away - and what is a decision without consequence?)

VenomStorm
Ideas & Texts Creator
Posts: 275
Joined: Sat Nov 03, 2012 4:18 am

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby VenomStorm » Sun Jul 07, 2013 4:03 pm

What kind of penalties are you thinking of? I am all for consequences for your actions, depending on how severe they are.

In MoO2, while there was not a specific penalty for turning a whole planet of shipbuilders into farmers for a turn when your farming world was blockaded, I always thought there was hidden penalty. This hidden penalty was a long term penalty that the player would rarely see the immediate results from until the end of the game. I felt that if you made the wrong choices when setting up your planets (either in buildings, build order, or population distribution) that the consequence was your eventual defeat.

You could lose for so many reasons in MoO2: not enough tech early, too much tech early, not enough planets, not enough military, too much economic tech, too little Econ tech. These are all little decisions that like build order on planets, has a long term effect on your game. I think those penalties were pretty harsh because most times when you realized that your opponent out classed you in some way, you either had to rely completely on diplomacy, or you were done. Most times it was hard if not impossible to come back. It was too late to fix your mistakes. I think adding another penalty (say new farmers work at 50% for one turn, 75% for the second, back to 100% on the third) would be a bit harsh.

I think that does give room for an interesting racial trait. One that penalizes you for drastic planetary changes and maybe rewards you in some other way.

Omena
Posts: 43
Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 8:36 pm

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby Omena » Sun Jul 07, 2013 6:00 pm

I have presented a system, which would automatically and realistically take into account the effect of changing pop allocations.

In short it would go like this:
- Planets have sectors (percentages of total space), which the player has specified for various purposes (farming, mining, industry, research, military).
- Planets build up these sectors and improve them when new technologies appear.
- Pop units are divided evenly to these sector depending on their size (the pop units do not need to be discrete)
- Moving pop from one sector to another is the same as changing sector sizes.

So when you move a big batch of pop units from industry to research, then you get more research immediately, but it will take some time for the planet to build all that new research infrastructure, refit the old industry sector for research. The planet would automatically take care of the refitting process and the cost would be actual cost of refitting all those factories to research labs. Also it would depend on the technologies involved so building highly advanced research labs would take longer.

Also it would a lot easier to manage your planets.

VoodooDog
Posts: 213
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 9:26 am

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby VoodooDog » Thu Aug 01, 2013 5:03 pm

i think Specialized Planets are a bad idea and not logical at all.

ANGLVD3TH
Posts: 81
Joined: Wed Feb 13, 2013 2:31 am

Re: Specialized Planets

Postby ANGLVD3TH » Tue Aug 20, 2013 11:16 pm

VoodooDog wrote:i think Specialized Planets are a bad idea and not logical at all.


I think I agree. Industry thrives on scientific advances as well as large work forces, which means large residential areas, which requires lots of food/recreation etc. The more the game emphasises specialized planets the more it shifts away from reality. If any kind of specialization is used, I think it should provide only very minor benefits when alone, or perhaps even penalties, but gains bonuses based off other colonies in that system.

For example, the 5th planet of the Xin system makes starships. That's about it. So you decide to specialize it into a "star dock" world. This would force it to take a hit in all stats that aren't making ships, food production, research etc etc. But I think it should also take a minor hit to it's ship production at first. Then you designate Xin 2 as a farm world. Now there's more food in the system, and Xin 5 can operate more efficiently, upgrading the ship production. After converting Xin 3 to an industrial world, the food production on the farmworld and ship production on ship world both increase.

I think the fallacy games tend to fall into is that "well large parts of Earth are dedicated to one of these things, bigger scale means whole planets right?" But these disparate specialized areas are also generally very close to what they support or are supported by. If you were to have a planet abandon all food production to focus on trade, you might spend more on importing food than you gain from taxes.


Return to “Galaxies, Planets & Moons”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest