Author Topic: City Sites  (Read 1983 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Shipright (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • S
  • Posts: 52
  • Thanked: 13 times
City Sites
« on: September 05, 2013, 09:43:06 PM »
City Sites:

So this idea is based on my desire (that I have for nearly every 4x game) to have some goal or function besides just building the biggest/baddest warships by expanding as fast as possible and killing/conquering everything I see. Right now that is really the only game play goal based on actual game functions, all others goals are basically just player imagination RP currently.

In an effort to bring more in game RPG flavor as well as relevance to planetary management besides strip mining and facility stacking I am proposing that planets have dedicated and separate city sites. These can act as cities as the name implies but can also serve as any other geographic division as the player sees fit to name them (continents, countries, hemispheres, etc.).  Similar things have been attempted in games like GALCIV, but they were generally just cosmetic.

Some thoughts

-          A city site is a separate and distinct location on a planet in which population, facilities, ground units, and PDCs are actually located.

-          The number of city sites is dictated by population, a new one being available for every 250 million people (this value could be anything and should be modable in game setup), with every colony having one by default (undestroyable). You have to physically build a new city site via construction factories before it is available to you once the population level allows for it. Once it is built is available even if the population justifying its normal construction declines, but you can’t build more if the allowed by population value is equal or less than the currently present value.

-          Facilities will be divided into two classes, site specific and global. Pretty much all current facilities will become site specific and located in a specific city site. The new class of global facilities will include things like “planetary transport network,” “planetary power grid,” “planetary weather control” that provide planet wide values and can be built to a level corresponding to the number of city sites. Their values can be improved by research.

-          Each city site has can have population, facilities and ground units transferred between them freely at a speed relative to the global transport value (or instantaneously, this could create a lot of micro management). PDCs remain permanent to the city site they were build/assembled in similar to the current game and bodies.

-          There will be a population limit to each city site after which there is a moral hit. This limit can be raised via a research option such as “urban planning and management” or some such. This also provides an overcrowding mechanism where you need to spend time to build new city sites or push for more colonists to head for the stars.

-          To make the allocation of facilities between city sites meaningful in a gameplay sense there will be a bonus for concentrations of various classes of facilities in a single site.  Every 100 construction factories gets a 5% bonus to construction points for example. The city site population limit will avoid abuse of this mechanic. 

-          Certain things like shipyard construction and the like will still utilize the total of whatever the planet wide values are for population for instance (it will take a certain number of city site workers available off the top of every site). Some other things, like the planetary construction facility queue, will be limited to simultaneous projects equal to the city sites with construction factories (maybe each site should have its own construction queue instead of the planet itself?).

-          Along the vein of making planetary management a goal of gameplay in and of itself, I propose the introduction of values such as education, health, culture and others. These will have facilities that correspond to each and have effects on gameplay such as your planetary education value having a positive or negative correlation to academy performance. Or an uneducated workforce meaning you can’t produce certain kinds of components on that planet.  Or they can simply be values used for RP only. The corresponding facilities could either be global or city site in scale, so you could have varying values of education between different city sites (this is probably too much micromanagement).

Intended game effects

-          For RP purposes you can now have named functional cities on a planet. Or if you fancy yourself a federation of earth nations individual countries under one player’s control.

-           If you don’t like using your population as cover you can leave a site empty and put your PDC’s there, naming it “Global Defense Region 1” for instance.

-          We could have the density of city cites linked to ecology (based on my biosphere ayatem) so that having every city site packed solid has a stiff penalty on planetary health and moral. Having completely empty city sites act as nature reserves and have a large positive bonus to biosphere health (think “Antarctic Planetary Reserve” or “Olympus Mons Geopreserve” or “Europa Glacial Conservatory”)

-          For more RP fun combined with my proposed academy mechanic, you could now have Star Fleet Academy in San Francisco or Cambridge in the UK, or both at the same time (assuming academies are site specific facilities).

-          When engaging in planetary combat you will have to target individual city sites, which means you can vaporize the city with the fighter factories but leave the one with the construction factories intact. You can’t just launch an alpha strike of doom against a planet, as at one point the targeted city site is destroyed and all further missile hits are just hitting a crater (though the hits still effect planet wide enviromentals.)

-          When a city site is destroyed, so is everything in it. Durability of city sites would be a research improved thing, and their repair would be take place over time based on certain planetary values, not player control (ie your populous rebuilds after a devastating war house by house). If your city site barely survives one strike you could attempt to start relocating population and facilities to another better defended intact one before the next strike hits. Will your refugees make it in time (one reason not to have transfers instantaneous)?

-          For ground combat purposes each city site acts as a sort of auto PDC in that it can accommodate a certain number of ground units automatically and gives a defense bonus simulating using the city itself as a bunker (you can have more units at a site, but not with the bunker effect). You can decide to fight in the cities or in the field using a dedicated unpopulated city site, with the corresponding damage to the city if you decide to locate yourself there. Population 0 city sites will not have the bunker effect, so a listening post PDC on an asteroid can still have ground units present as it is a “colony” but won’t be cheating.

-          Missiles can only target city sites, not individual ground units or PDCs. Beam weapons can target anything (with their atmosphere penatly of course). This will mean that while you can glass a planets cities at range, if you want to actually take over the planet intact you need to close to beam range to hit actual PDCs and ground units and then invade. This will make planetary defenses of valuable planets more effective as if you are closing to beam range you are going to have to engage said defenses.


Again, my overall goal with this is to enhance the planetary/colonization management part of game instead of limiting it to the generally space military focus it and other 4x games have. Planets would not be just warship factories. At its heart this is sort of like treating each planet like a little system with its own planets, but I think we can preserve the planetary flavor and add gameplay depth in a new layer without just repeating the current layer. Micromanagement is always a problem, especially with Aurora, so let me know have to streamline it!
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #1 on: September 25, 2013, 03:48:02 PM »
Another option is to have the maximum number of city sites be dependent on the size of the planet itself, which would provide a limit to the size of a planet's population rather than have the end result of a sufficiently long time of play be a planet with a population well into the quintillions, a ludicrous number on an Earth sized planet. Hydrosphere, habitability and other factors might also impact it, including a 'city size population maximum' handled not unlike per capita income.

City sites might also be classified in three ways: Assigned, Unassigned and Uninhabited (if biospheres are a thing, these would be Reserves). Assigned sites would concentrate a majority of the assigned type of constructions in them with only a few of the unassigned industries present, while Unassigned sites spread the remainder roughly equally between themselves. Uninhabited/Reserve sites have no industry of any kind in them and only a tiny fraction of the planetary population, if they have any.

A planet that is being colonised starts with all sites Unassigned and assignments are checked every construction cycle. If an assignment is changed any industry in the city site will slowly shift as appropriate, although construction points can be spend on moving facilities more quickly on planet. Population is generally considered as the aggregrate of the entire planet to man facilities with a population share equal to the part of the population a given city site requires to run its facilities. Shipyards don't count for this distribution and draw their personnel from the entire planet instead.

Uninhabited sites are simply just that, uninhabited and irrelevant except possibly as a possible site for military bases away from populated areas, but Reserves would help prevent biosphere degredation by keeping the worst polution effects away from them.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #2 on: September 26, 2013, 06:52:21 AM »
I don't think it's necessary to go into the details of actual cities or population/industry distribution within bodies. This opens a big can of worms since it's bound to be very different for alien races and even other cultures.

I'm also not convinced it's a natural good model of how the Sci-Fi world would look like.

If we assume energy output and artificial gravity is possible in aurora levels, why do we have a need to concentrate production/population at all? Since shipping even across bodies bigger then Earth it's virtually free and close to instant thanks to TN materials and tech... Why bother with all the problems and complexities and extra infrastructure associated with trying to live and work so close together?

Population would probably be fairly evenly distributed (if the concept of a home is even present). Why bother having a home if travelling everywhere and having your daily needs met is also almost free?


I instead think we should focus on actual capacity (physical space that can be used without major infrastructure investments) of a body.


Here is my suggestion from the big thread a few months back:

Suggestion:
Add a new value called something like Natural Population Capacity for planets, based on how close they are to optimal race conditions and actual available area size of the body. Geological activity and % water would subtract from the available area effecting this negatively. This could also effect terraforming so that even if average temperature is 30 deg too high/low outside the acceptable interval there will still be a few areas (perhaps 2% max area going up with terraforming progress) that can be settled with colony cost 0, so the actual colony cost is set to 0 but with a very low population capacity until average temperature is closer to race optimal. Everything above the cap is treated as normal requiring infrastructure.

This value is supposed to model how many people can comfortably live on a body without major infrastructure investments (modelling "normal" buildings fairly close to ground level and fairly spread out with a good percentage left for farming and industry/jobs for everyone).

For Earth it would probably be a 2000-6000 million (we have infrastructure today and are not living sustainable with food for everyone), but for bodies not perfectly terraformed or smaller, for example Mars (0.28 of earths area) or even smaller inhabitable moons it would be much lower.

If we say 4000 million for Earth it would be less then 1000 million for all Jovian moons as an example (once terraformed to perfect human needs).

Growth % could also be a function of how far from this cap you are.

Basically the mechanic means there is a cap on how big population can enjoy col cost 0 without infrastructure, but you can still always use infrastructure (at say cost one or two) to go above it if you want.

I'm not sure if odd gravity should influence how many that maximum can live on a body, perhaps high gravity should at least influence it negatively, what do you think?
« Last Edit: September 26, 2013, 06:56:02 AM by alex_brunius »
 

Offline Karma Chip

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • K
  • Posts: 9
Re: City Sites
« Reply #3 on: September 27, 2013, 01:21:06 PM »
Actually I'm a fan on how Aurora doesn't enforce a population cap.  Call me an optimist, but I don't really believe in one, because I believe technology will be able to keep up.  I did some research into theoretical population limits for Earth, but I found them disappointing because none of them take into account technological advancements, assuming farming, resource use, and city design will be as it is now.  We can come up with more effective ways to create food.  Advanced recycling techniques and alternative resources should fend back a resource struggle (for resources I sort of mean "civilian resources", not the metals your empire mines).  Earth's density model currently favors sprawl over urban.  We have a lot of untapped potential for building denser, higher, and even underground if need be (eg residential on surface, service buildings underground).  Exploratory Engineering could even break into Citysteading - cities built out at sea.

Tiny asteroid colonies on the other hand, I could see there being a population cap there.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #4 on: September 27, 2013, 02:26:19 PM »
But allot of what you describe still need technology and infrastructure to provide that population density on the planet. In Aurora that would be represented by building infrastructure to make more people able to live on the planet.

The population cap would be it's natural limit, not the limit given by high tech infrastructure added to it.
 

Offline Karma Chip

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • K
  • Posts: 9
Re: City Sites
« Reply #5 on: September 27, 2013, 05:05:31 PM »
But low-tech infrastructure like a mud hut would be a technology, technically.  What would natural limit be. . . ? A technology-free population? Living in caves and eating off the land?

The way I see it, Aurora's mentality is that in a world with TN technology, population limitations aren't a big enough concern that warrant's the players attention, in that the civilian sector and local government can handle themselves.  Though I will restate that I can still see there being a population for asteroids, just due to the massive difference in available land available.  Though Aurora doesn't really support colonies below a certain body size anyway other than orbital habitation.
 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #6 on: September 27, 2013, 05:25:10 PM »
For me it is quite simple... there is a low cap that basically represent the population any body can support without infrastructure. This is a level of technology equal to anything before the industrialization on Earth. Any technology level before the industrialization would support the same number of population (more or less). Anything above this require more and more infrastructure.

You could then have a technology that modify the growth rate in planets that go above this cap (Biology) which is a health oriented technology. The denser a population is the better your technology has to be or you will get negative growth with too high population density.

Infrastructure just give you more space for your population to grow.
 

Offline alex_brunius

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1240
  • Thanked: 153 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #7 on: September 30, 2013, 10:19:48 AM »
Since Aurora starts with the TN revolution, it's easier I think to use that as a baseline, rather then the industrial revolution, mud, caves or any other arbitrary level.

If we assume energy is so cheap that we easily can make any of the Newtonian materials used for simple houses today around ground level on the site as needed. I think that is a good baseline.

Fancy high-rises and other city infrastructure I assume should use some TN technology (duranium infrastructure).
 

Offline Stardust

  • Warrant Officer, Class 1
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 84
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #8 on: September 30, 2013, 11:48:45 AM »
Actually I'm a fan on how Aurora doesn't enforce a population cap.  Call me an optimist, but I don't really believe in one, because I believe technology will be able to keep up.  I did some research into theoretical population limits for Earth, but I found them disappointing because none of them take into account technological advancements, assuming farming, resource use, and city design will be as it is now.  We can come up with more effective ways to create food.  Advanced recycling techniques and alternative resources should fend back a resource struggle (for resources I sort of mean "civilian resources", not the metals your empire mines).  Earth's density model currently favors sprawl over urban.  We have a lot of untapped potential for building denser, higher, and even underground if need be (eg residential on surface, service buildings underground).  Exploratory Engineering could even break into Citysteading - cities built out at sea.

Tiny asteroid colonies on the other hand, I could see there being a population cap there.

Maybe change Biology techs to Natural science techs that will include research to increase a population cap, which is also effected by planetary variables.
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • U
  • Posts: 1108
  • Thanked: 1 times
Re: City Sites
« Reply #9 on: October 07, 2013, 12:38:49 PM »
As for the population limit discussion:
We'll never find out, because in the high tech environments we can theoretically create nowadays, population growth dwindles below necessary upkeep, bar any religion to push the other direction;
Current earth population growth is largely in rather underdeveloped areas, and falling;
Can we create modern habitation for them?
Sure. Will we? Nope. That costs money.
History, including economic migration and the attempts to prevent it, have repeatedly shown that it's cheaper, and generally accepted, to let outside population starve, kill each other, or just do it yourself, in favour of transferring wealth that way.
Aside, building sprawling metropolitan hives with kilometre-high towers and deep underground living spaces is bound to result in psychological problems;
Even nowadays, most people who can afford it live by the sun, whether that be in a cities outskirts or high up in a penthouse, and a classed society in this game amounts to just ignoring the "unproductive" part, as it isn't doing much.
So a conservative estimate on the population limit is probably not that far off. It's not the limit of space, it's how much we're willing to spend to use that space.