Recent Posts

Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
91
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by Demetrious on May 14, 2024, 02:59:03 AM »
If I may, I'd like to make a different suggestion: the mechanical problem here is the result of a thematic oversight in that the ratio of colony ships to passenger liners is badly skewed from where it should be. I had to open up my last game and check the ship list to double-check - I'd been under the impression that passenger liners weren't being auto-built by civilians at all. Turns out they are... I have two shipping liners, and some 30+ civilian colony ships.

Now having lots of freighters isn't a big deal because, thematically, you should. That's the core of your economy. The majority of an empire's wealth coming from taxing the civilian economy is how you'd expect things to work. Moreover, if your government commandeers those ships you pay for it twice - first, paying them for the shipping contract, and second by missing out on the tax revenue they would've generated from their ordinary runs. Colony ships, on the other hand, don't have this trade-off. They spend their time happily shuttling colonists to and fro just as freighters move trade goods... and once the nascent colony is all filled up, they go idle.

It makes perfect sense for the government to invest in expensive slack capacity (for emergencies such as rapidly setting up a new colony to enforce a territorial claim or rapidly evacuating one due to hostile encroachment, etc.) but it certainly doesn't make sense for civilian companies to do so. The regular market for mass colonist transport just isn't big enough, in my games, to justify 30+ ships. Why this discrepancy?

Because the way colony ships operate - constantly shuttling people to and fro just as freighters shuttle goods to and fro to keep the interplanetary/interstellar economy humming - is a job that should mostly be done by passenger ships.

There will always be poor young whippersnappers looking to make their fortune in New America, and commercial colonist transport makes sense as the steerage-class passage option for them - from the shipping company's perspective as well, because while they can't pay much per cryogenic berth, if you've got 50,000 of them stacked like sardines you're making pretty good money on every trip. With that said, cryogenics are expensive and the government tends to play merry hell with immigration/emigration permissions to suit their own purposes, so the mass colonist transit industry is a bit boom-or-bust. This puts an upper limit on how many colony ships are economically viable for the economy as a whole to produce once you average out the feasts and famines.

Passenger liners, on the other hand, are ubiquitous. Just like air travel on old Earth, long-distance trips are still expensive, esp. when made on the regular, but they're still within reach of the average consumer and many, many people need to travel on the company dime for work on a regular basis. There's a constant flow of traffic between all the teeming worlds of humanity, as teleconferencing is pretty dodgy at ranges of light-seconds, and between star systems is right out (the government charges an awful lot for use of their warp point commo repeaters!) and most of those people are moving about on two-way tickets. And frankly, none of them are keen on being rendered unconscious and stuffed in a freezer every time they want to pop over to Mars from Luna to meet with new clients. Even if they were, putting someone in cryogenic stasis is no trivial matter and there could be grave medical repercussions for entering and exiting cryo repeatedly in a short timeframe - once every six to eight months is the optimistic assumption - a year or more according to pessimistic doctors.

Naturally, the government makes a good chunk of change off taxing the passenger liner business. And just as naturally, when events prompt the government to either authorize mass immigration to a new colony, or mandate mass evacuation of same, passenger lines are quick to jump at the government contracts.

tl;dr Replace a large percentage of Colony Ships generated with Passenger Liners. As companies make more money and build more ships... they tend to build more passenger liners because, economically, there's just not room for nearly as many colonist transports as there is regular passenger service.
92
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by nuclearslurpee on May 13, 2024, 11:10:27 PM »
I tend to agree with everyone else that just rescaling the profit/loss for shipping lines won't solve the problem, just push it down the road a bit. That being said, I do think some suggestions here are a bit broader than needed to accomplish the stated objective:
So I am considering changing how shipping lines work, so they don't become so overwhelming, while trying to retain the flavour.
emphasis mine.

In my view (and from reading comments here), CSLs become overwhelming when they have too many ships - this unbalances the economy (due to tax income), trivializes new colony growth, causes rapid (de)population of colonies which disincentivizes use of source/destination automation, and causes performance problems (although this was mitigated by the change to use only larger ships).

Why do CSLs build too many ships? Simply put, because they keep making money and have no other way to use that money - there are no other money sinks for CSLs. This brings us back to:
Quote
Another option is replacing dividends with a percentage maintenance payment, which is modified by an admin overhead that increases as the number of ships increases - effectively limiting the rate at which a shipping line can increase in size.
I think this is probably the best starting point - as the saying goes, the bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy, so too goes the shipping company.

I would suggest implementing a civilian maintenance fee with superlinear scaling per ship. If N is the number of ships, something like N^(3/2) or maybe even N^2 (maybe this is too much) should work. If the rate of profits depends roughly on N but the rate of maintenance depends on N^(3/2), for instance, then there will eventually be a hard limit on the number of ships a CSL can buy and operate. This also means they will grow more slowly as they come closer to this point.

I would also suggest that CSL income is affected by the wealth generation tech level of their associated race (while the maintenance fee scaling remains the same throughout the game). This would mean the limit on number of ships is initially lower but increases with tech level, which is a rough analogue for the growth of the player empire.

I think this is the simplest and best approach as it is more or less completely under the hood (except for tying to research, which is only a positive change IMO). The essential flavor and interaction with CSLs otherwise remains the same, they just become more manageable. I don't like, for example, ideas about tying CSL growth to number and sizes of populations, I feel like this creates a danger of trying to micromanage populations to manipulate CSL growth (whether to speed up or slow down), which is not a style of gameplay I think fits Aurora.

----

There are a few other suggestions in this thread which I think merit consideration. They do not address the issue raised in the OP, at least IMO, but they are good ideas anyways:

Consider that civilians just use 50% power reduced engines and keep the higher speeds of those ships.
Agree as this makes the minimum engine power tech more attractive and will contribute to limiting CSL growth rates due to higher costs per ship.

--- Perhaps give them a sort of fluff base? Like CMCs, they'll spring up on eligible worlds, but would serve as mock "supply bases".
This would probably be too much work, but I would highly approve of CSLs having to build/expand their own shipyards for example. Being able to pop a 200,000-ton freighter into miraculous existence with no orbital infrastructure is a little silly.

At the very least can we get the oft requested reserve/target min/max settings for population, similar to whats already in place for minerals and installations, so that our source colonies aren't perpetually evacuated if left unattended.
It is oft-requested, but I would like to add my support here. In games with multiple player races, trying to keep track of all source/destination populations across multiple races is tedious at best and impossible at worst, for a single player race maybe it is "more immersive" not to have this automation option but for multiple player race games I think it is essential. As it is, I turn off civilian shipping in multiple player race games to avoid these problems. Implementation could be simple: have a trigger population value set for a source or destination colony, and when it is reached set that colony as stable - no or minimal changes to the civilian AI are needed.

This being said, these suggestions mean potentially significant mechanical changes and a lot more work on the coding side, so while I like them I wouldn't say they are necessary to solve the problem.
93
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by Nightstar on May 13, 2024, 09:19:55 PM »
I can't say I know the civilian mechanics in great detail. And I don't tend to play the long games that are necessary to reach these sorts of issues. But...

Changing the growth rate/profit alone seems like not a great fix. That just means it will take longer for civilians to get out of hand. Unless you make them grow slower than your empire, in which case they'll stay permanently irrelevant.

So civilian shipping lines need to be limited. This limit needs to be with reference to the size of your empire, else civilians will be too good for small empires and too weak for large empires. The problem, such as it is, is that civilians are an exponential snowball of something for nothing. They do stuff you want, give you money rather than cost anything, and grow based on how awesome they were for you already. I think that instead of capping the "something", you should cap the "for nothing".

I think you already have the tool you need. IIRC colonies produce a finite amount of trade goods, based on their size. With tweaking amounts + profits, this provides a natural cap on the profit that can be made by shipping trade goods.

Cap luxury transport desire the same way--a finite amount desired for a population of a given size.

Cap colonist transport the same way. Maybe some tiny fraction of a colony's population wants to move to a different world (badly enough to pay for it) in a given year. Optionally, let the empire pay to have civilian ships move colonists beyond this limit. A simple checkbox for "subsidize colonist transport" would seem to be good enough.

Finally, cap shipping line size based on the profit the line earned in the last time period. (or add maintenance costs, or retire civ ships every 20 years or whatever for a similar effect) (are dividends this mechanic already?)

This way civilians will naturally expand to a certain size relative to your empire. Freighters without any trade goods to move won't earn anything, and so won't expand the cap. Ditto colonist transports. They'll grow enough to move around whatever fraction of your population in a given year. Transport beyond that limit will expand to whatever level you're paying for. If that's a lot of colonist transport, that's fine; you're paying for it! Similarly freight capacity can be expanded beyond the natural level by paying them to move installations around, but that's not an actual problem either as long as it costs enough.

Maybe also keep civs from making new ships when they have unused idle ships, even if they have money.

Might want to separate out ship types into different lines, so that a line making lots of money on goods transport doesn't mean lots of colony ships popping up, or vice versa.
94
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by pedter on May 13, 2024, 08:05:36 PM »
I would like to see some deviation from the 1:1 freighter:colonist transport. I like civilians moving around doing stuff but what normally happens is I start marking colonies as "stable" to keep the growing fleets from draining the population sources and then the colonist fleet sits largely idle somewhere while the freighters keep moving trade goods, but the shipping company keeps manufacturing colonist ships (just in case?). That just makes the problem worse later when I open up a destination and suddenly millions and millions of colonist capacity gets directed to a single location.
I would personally be content with just a different set ratio, such as 2:1 or 3:1, but there are probably better solutions that would make everybody happy. Maybe the company occasionally checks for idle vessels and scraps one, and then at the same time launches a vessel of the other type. Or when it's time to construct a new vessel the company checks how much money it made in the last year on colonist vs freight transport and builds whichever type made more money (with some chance to build the other type anyway, lest the system run away fully to one type or another).

Also I think colonist transport shouldn't generate tax money for the player. It doesn't make sense that I accidentally tell 50 million people to move to Mars, getting paid the whole time, and then when I realize my mistake and have them move back to Ganymede to work in the mines I get paid again.

To expand on some of your ideas:

Rather than simple source/destination/stable options and the heavy-handed colonist movement that occurs as a result of the massive colony fleets, allowing numeric configuration of a target would be useful, i.e. "source until x mil" and "destination until y mil" options.

Leveraging your idle vessel idea (I agree that nearly lockstep 1:1 should be deviated from):
- Idle vessels could also inform the company's decision of which hull to build as well as scrap so that they never over-build in the first place.
- In a relative sense, if colony ships have a lower percent utilization than freighters, the company could be more likely to build a freighter than a colony ship and more likely to scrap a colony ship than a freighter to balance the two utilizations. No sense building or maintaining ships in a market that's already saturated; better to expand where there's availability.
- In an absolute sense, a low percent utilization could lead to less construction and more scraping while a high percent utilization could lead to more construction and less scraping in an effort to more effectively use the existing tonnage. No need for the company to waste wealth building or maintaining vessels that aren't used.

On an entirely different note, while civilian gas harvesting can be disabled, there are no options to specifically disable civilian mining, civilian cargo, and civilian colony transport. Allowing a finer-grained disabling structure might eliminate some of the issues by removing the cause entirely.
95
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by kyonkundenwa on May 13, 2024, 07:41:05 PM »
I would like to see some deviation from the 1:1 freighter:colonist transport. I like civilians moving around doing stuff but what normally happens is I start marking colonies as "stable" to keep the growing fleets from draining the population sources and then the colonist fleet sits largely idle somewhere while the freighters keep moving trade goods, but the shipping company keeps manufacturing colonist ships (just in case?). That just makes the problem worse later when I open up a destination and suddenly millions and millions of colonist capacity gets directed to a single location.
I would personally be content with just a different set ratio, such as 2:1 or 3:1, but there are probably better solutions that would make everybody happy. Maybe the company occasionally checks for idle vessels and scraps one, and then at the same time launches a vessel of the other type. Or when it's time to construct a new vessel the company checks how much money it made in the last year on colonist vs freight transport and builds whichever type made more money (with some chance to build the other type anyway, lest the system run away fully to one type or another).

Also I think colonist transport shouldn't generate tax money for the player. It doesn't make sense that I accidentally tell 50 million people to move to Mars, getting paid the whole time, and then when I realize my mistake and have them move back to Ganymede to work in the mines I get paid again.
96
C# Bug Reports / Re: v2.5.1 Bugs Thread
« Last post by pedter on May 13, 2024, 06:53:12 PM »
When toggling the Lifepods checkbox on in the Naval Organization view, an error pops up and must be cleared in triplicate. I suspect it is attached to a couple of maybe-broken 0-crew lifepods in the same system as the fleet is trying to view (the two lifepods do not show up on the list of contacts, left-hand column, despite Lifepods being checked on). I generated these two lifepods unintentionally when I deleted a test (SM) fleet that contained one carrier and two hangared parasites; while the carrier was deleted, both parasites left a lifepod and a wreck instead of being properly removed.

Edit: the error no longer generates after those two lifepods expired. My money's still on something wrong with those two in particular.

Info dump:
- "2.5.1 Function #773: Object reference not set to an instance of an object."
- Generates from the Naval Organization window in triplicate when checking Lifepods on
- Possibly connected to a pair of empty life pods; see above description and below attached screenshot
- Conventional start
- Real stars
- US decimal and time formats (I have not reconfigured for UK standards)
- Approximately 83 years into the campaign
- Campaign started and running on v2.5.1
97
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by KriegsMeister on May 13, 2024, 06:29:09 PM »
The number of huge colony ships means that the civs will build up a new colony very quickly and also eat into source populations fairly quickly too.

At the very least can we get the oft requested reserve/target min/max settings for population, similar to whats already in place for minerals and installations, so that our source colonies aren't perpetually evacuated if left unattended.

Quote from: Steve Walmsley
A more dramatic change would be altering transport for all ships, not just civilians, so less can be transported. That means fewer cargo points and less colonist capacity per ton.
This would only delay the problem but as the game continues and the shipping lines continue to grow they will inevitably reach a point were they are too good at their jobs again.



I do like the idea of a cap on the number of lines and their ships, but I disagree slightly than what others have suggested on what the cap should be based on. Id like to see it based on # of colonies and their population. Every colony with a minimum of 10mil population can generate a single shipping line company per 1Bil population. So if a line had 50mil it would have have 1 shipping line, 999mil would also have 1 line, but 1,000,000,001 population would get a second and so on. Each Line would get a fixed size and number of ships based on overlapping population increments as well. Some example numbers could be as such: 1 small ship per 10mil pop, 1 medium per 50mil pop, 1 large per 100mil pop, and 1 huge per 200mil pop. Each line would therefor have a maximum cap of 5 huge, 10 large, 20 medium, and 100 small ships, so if an example colony has 567mil pop, it would have 2 huge, 5 large, 11 medium, and 56 small ships. Again, just example numbers and would need to be adjusted based on play testing in determining what # of ships are needed to make the game function, but the neat part is that it continues to grow in direct proportion to your empire so it "shouldn't" lead to an underwhelming civilian sector in the early game nor overbearing civilian sector needing DB culling. There could also be an additional factor taken into account how much the player actually uses its civilian sector. If there's an X number of contracts ordered by the player than the individual lines of the source and destination colonies may increase their number of ships, conversely if the player has few to no contracts than the lines reduce in size.

Decommissioning and replacements could be based on tech levels or probably easier to do strictly age. If I ship reaches X number of years it WILL complete its current shipment, then scrap itself, prompting the line to begin construction of a new one. As well if a population shrinks then so does its shipping line, scrapping the oldest ship at each population increment (which would also help negate source colony exodus).



As a fun additional change, if we were to have a game setting to remove mass drivers, CMC's could also produce shipping lines restricted to small ships in order to export their minerals. It's a fairly common house rule people use, and it would tie in greatly with raiders giving them even more targets of opportunity.
98
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by AlStar on May 13, 2024, 06:10:18 PM »
I definitely feel that some kind of rebalancing needs to take place - in year 88 of my game, the civilian sector makes up a staggering 81.8% of my economy. (38.8% Shipping Colonists, 25.1% Shipping Trade Goods, 12.1% Passenger Liners, 5.8% Exports.)

It's basically nullified the entire wealth-as-a-resource aspect of the game, since I've got an income 7x as great as my expenditures.
99
C# Suggestions / Re: Financial Centers
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on May 13, 2024, 05:14:02 PM »
The problem is that manufacturing, services, and agriculture are already accounted for in the population.

As has been mentioned, wealth is a rather peculiar concept in Aurora and to some extent merely serves as another means to impose limitations when constructing things.

As a result, it became necessary to somehow generate wealth, especially in VB6 where bankruptcy could occur quite rapidly.

While I would appreciate wealth playing a more significant role in the game, I believe we are approaching the point where it could be considered obsolete.

Moving on to the naming issue, when placed in context, there isn't much remaining to rename these buildings. Many games utilize tax collection centres to emphasize their function in collecting revenue; others associate this with administrative roles, meaning more administration buildings lead to more efficient tax collection and reduced corruption.
100
C# Mechanics / Re: Potential Changes to Shipping Lines
« Last post by Froggiest1982 on May 13, 2024, 04:56:28 PM »
In my current campaign, I am 32 years into a conventional start and I have four shipping lines for the player race. The largest has forty-eight huge colony ships and forty-nine huge freighters, plus numerous smaller ones,  and seems to be building a new huge ship every few weeks. The other three shipping lines are considerably smaller.

The number of huge colony ships means that the civs will build up a new colony very quickly and also eat into source populations fairly quickly too.

So I am considering changing how shipping lines work, so they don't become so overwhelming, while trying to retain the flavour. I have a few ideas, such as halving the money received by civilian shipping, changing civilian designs so they are slower, significantly reducing the money for in-system transport, or maybe paying by distance travelled in km rather than transits made or limiting how often new ships can be built.

Another option is replacing dividends with a percentage maintenance payment, which is modified by an admin overhead that increases as the number of ships increases - effectively limiting the rate at which a shipping line can increase in size.

A more dramatic change would be altering transport for all ships, not just civilians, so less can be transported. That means fewer cargo points and less colonist capacity per ton.

However, I would like to hear other opinions and ideas before deciding how to tackle it.

The problem with all of the above is the snowball effect. At some point, system breaks.

Instead of reducing the growth rate of shipping lines, I'd impose a cap on their size and number. Be it a soft or hard cap. I've made the experience in long games that civilian shipping can grow to massive proportions and obsolete the player economy with the wealth generated via taxes.

Suggestion: Lines pay a minimal amount of dividends/maintenance until they make up 10% of yearly income, and then the maintenance increases exponentially. Say they give up half their income in maintenance and only pay half their taxes if shipping line income makes up 30% of your yearly income, halving again if it reaches 50% etc.

In this scheme all lines would have the same maintenance rate. I don't really see much point in multiple lines (besides flavor), and have also observed that there ends up being a few massive lines and a lot of tiny ones. So I'd just impose a hard cap on the number of lines per race.

That doesn't solve the issue that planet-moon shipping lines are obscenely profitable. Tying the income to distance traveled sounds good. Perhaps with a small fixed component, say 10% of current income, so that these kinds of lines also don't become worthless. Maybe tie it to travel time instead, including loading and unloading?

I'm in agreement with Zap0 on this matter, and have been for a long time. Both he and I engage in lengthy campaigns with multiple factions, and civilian fleets tend to grow excessively, leading to culling as the only solution. However, dealing with 20 or 30 new ships popping up each year adds unwanted micromanagement.

As Zap0 mentioned, I believe there must be a way to limit civilian fleets to a set number of ships, which could even be customizable. I admire the system used to manage population and immigration in Songs of Syx; perhaps you could take a quick look at it.

Regarding the number of shipping lines, once again, I side with Zap0. However, instead of being customizable, I agree that there should be a hard cap. In my opinion, anything between 3 and 5 should suffice.

If the above measures are implemented, wealth becomes irrelevant except for balancing purposes. It will then be necessary to conduct test games to determine the sweet spot for a dividend cap, tax, or any other required balance adjustments.

In conclusion, I believe the proposed solution won't affect players who are content with the current state of civilian management, as they can leave it at 0 (the standard setting for Aurora) and continue enjoying the game as it is. Meanwhile, players engaged in larger campaigns or less interested in civilian aspects can decide how effective they want their civilian navy to be.
Pages: 1 ... 8 9 [10]
SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk