C# Aurora Changes Discussion

[Hazard]

That is a very good point

I'll have to add some restrictions on their use or reverse my decision to consume the population.

Impose a wealth production and population growth penalty while making them draw on the available workforce. If you can do it, make the labour camps independent of planetary cost, but impose a -.5% population growth penalty that's multiplied by the Habitability rating of the planet (minimum -.5%), or whatever rating happens at about 80% max population.

This would limit their utility, even on very compatible planets you'll have difficulty hitting the population cap. Add an unrest modifier dependent on how much of the planetary population is subjugated like this to force constant and extensive garrisons for suppressing slave populations. The growth penalty might be linked to population numbers. They also come with an additional potential disadvantage; while the weapons are much lower tech, being makeshift, a planet with a lot of labour camps that rebels might raise very large formations of light infantry with poor weapons and access to a limited number of industrial facilities like mines, construction facilities and infrastructure (if necessary) with a BP cost no greater than 10% the combined labour camp cost.

A rebellion like this will be defeated with even minimal effort. They are still quite dangerous.

[King-Salomon]

That is a very good point

There are a few options here. 

1) Ignore the population limit for Forced Labour Camps.  That isn't too unrealistic as even the small asteroids with a 50k pop limit are still fairly large.  For example, a 20 km diameter asteroid has a 50k limit, yet the surface area is over 1250 square kilometres (about 50% larger than New York City).  The limit is more about what colonists are likely to accept than a limit on physical size.  Slave labour is not going to complain about conditions or overcrowding (at least not very loudly).

2) Have a limit on the number of Forced Labour Camps, based on max pop.  Perhaps 1 camp for every 50k max pop

3) Change to a model where the camp is cheap but you need the workers.  The problem is that manufacturing population can be very limited, especially on high colony costs worlds, so it may not be practical (this is why I consumed the pop to make the camp).

I think 1) is probably fine, while 2) is probably more realistic but require the player to ensure he doesn't waste camps by going over the limit.

I like 2) the best. .  but maybe an alternative 3). .

why not say you need 5-10k population as overseers, guardians etc (inkluding there familys) for a Labour Camp - the 100k "slave workers" are consumed at construction as you said and the 5k "workers" are needed were it is transported to

so you might have 5-10 Camps at a 50k Asteroid (Not unrealistic as you mentioned in 1) but not too many as before), with a ratio of 1:20 or 1:10 workers/overseer including families (or any other ratio) which seems realistic somehow - guess it would be a ratio of 1:40 to 1:20 if you dan't count the families

not sure if that's a good idea but I lke the idea that you need to have guards, overseers etc and there families for a camp instead of dropping them on their own

[Person012345]

I would probably have a preference for making them use workers (although they could perhaps modify the number of people working in different industries - aftr all it won't just be taken from the manufacturing workforce - and maybe not use quite as many people as they do right now) but I'd behappy with #2. #1 just seems like people will exploit it to ridiculous degrees.

[Barkhorn]

Can we combine the forced labor camps with the new fortification mechanics somehow?  In WW2, many beach defenses, both at Normandy and in the Pacific were built with slave labor.  For example, when the Japanese conquered Wake Island, approximately 1000 American civilian contractors working at the airfield were captured.  The military personnel at the airbase were all shipped off to prison camps elsewhere in the empire, but those contractors were kept on the island and forced to build defenses.

[Steve Walmsley]

I like 2) the best. .  but maybe an alternative 3). .

why not say you need 5-10k population as overseers, guardians etc (inkluding there familys) for a Labour Camp - the 100k "slave workers" are consumed at construction as you said and the 5k "workers" are needed were it is transported to

so you might have 5-10 Camps at a 50k Asteroid (Not unrealistic as you mentioned in 1) but not too many as before), with a ratio of 1:20 or 1:10 workers/overseer including families (or any other ratio) which seems realistic somehow - guess it would be a ratio of 1:40 to 1:20 if you dan't count the families

not sure if that's a good idea but I lke the idea that you need to have guards, overseers etc and there families for a camp instead of dropping them on their own

Yes, I like that idea. That neatly solves the planetary space problem while retaining everything else I wanted to include. 5K is probably enough as there will be some population used for  environmental and service sectors. You can still have some production on a small body with minimal infrastructure.

I've edited the original post to reflect that.

[Steve Walmsley]

Can we combine the forced labor camps with the new fortification mechanics somehow?  In WW2, many beach defenses, both at Normandy and in the Pacific were built with slave labor.  For example, when the Japanese conquered Wake Island, approximately 1000 American civilian contractors working at the airfield were captured.  The military personnel at the airbase were all shipped off to prison camps elsewhere in the empire, but those contractors were kept on the island and forced to build defenses.

I'll find some way to have labour camps assist with fortification. In fact, the easiest might be to allow all construction factories to assist as well. That will make large worlds easier to defend, while construction-focused ground units will be needed for military bases and other low-population worlds.

[clement]

For the labor camps, is the 5 point of unrest a one time hit when construction is completed only? Is it applied repeatedly each year wherever the camp is deployed?

You could build camps at a conquered population where your military is deployed and actively dealing with unrest. Then you ship them somewhere else to take advantage of the productivity. It seems odd to me that the population center where the camps are deployed would have no change in unrest.

[TCD]

For the labor camps, is the 5 point of unrest a one time hit when construction is completed only? Is it applied repeatedly each year wherever the camp is deployed?

You could build camps at a conquered population where your military is deployed and actively dealing with unrest. Then you ship them somewhere else to take advantage of the productivity. It seems odd to me that the population center where the camps are deployed would have no change in unrest.

I don't think there's any obvious reason why labour camps should cause unrest in populations they have been brought to. You just have to look at historical slavery to see that the unrest is mainly form the enslaved.

I think a better mechanic would be to keep the 5 points of one-off unrest from the construction, but to add in a very small chance each construction cycle that the labor camp as a whole rebels. If that happens the labor camp is destroyed and a enemy ground force of 100k low tech soldiers are created. (This may be too complex, but it would be great if the presence of rebel ground forces then dramatically increased the chance of other local labour camps rebelling).

If my probability skills are up to it, a 0.01% chance of rebellion every 5 day construction cycle would equal about 0.7% chance per year, or 52% chance over 100 years. I think getting an average of 100 years of work out of each labor camp seems pretty reasonable? I'd suggest that rebel ground forces on the same planet increase the chance to 2% per cycle, which is 11% per year. As in, you need to deal with an uprising pretty quickly but not immediately to prevent all your other labor camps joining in.

That would make small numbers of labor camps fairly safe even with a limited TN garrison. But If you put 100 mining camps on a single world? Yep, you have a high chance every year of a small uprising, and if you don't have enough forces to quickly suppress the small uprising then you have a high chance of a catastrophic cascading uprising and 10 millions rebels on the loose.

[TinkerPox]

Steve, with your limited time available for writing C# Aurora I had a question.  If someone paid you to develop Aurora (As you saw fit) as a full time job with a decent enough salary would you do it? Do you work on computers, with code of some sort for your day job?

[Person012345]

I don't think there's any obvious reason why labour camps should cause unrest in populations they have been brought to. You just have to look at historical slavery to see that the unrest is mainly form the enslaved.

I think a better mechanic would be to keep the 5 points of one-off unrest from the construction, but to add in a very small chance each construction cycle that the labor camp as a whole rebels. If that happens the labor camp is destroyed and a enemy ground force of 100k low tech soldiers are created. (This may be too complex, but it would be great if the presence of rebel ground forces then dramatically increased the chance of other local labour camps rebelling).

If my probability skills are up to it, a 0.01% chance of rebellion every 5 day construction cycle would equal about 0.7% chance per year, or 52% chance over 100 years. I think getting an average of 100 years of work out of each labor camp seems pretty reasonable? I'd suggest that rebel ground forces on the same planet increase the chance to 2% per cycle, which is 11% per year. As in, you need to deal with an uprising pretty quickly but not immediately to prevent all your other labor camps joining in.

That would make small numbers of labor camps fairly safe even with a limited TN garrison. But If you put 100 mining camps on a single world? Yep, you have a high chance every year of a small uprising, and if you don't have enough forces to quickly suppress the small uprising then you have a high chance of a catastrophic cascading uprising and 10 millions rebels on the loose.

Conceptually I like this.

[QuakeIV]

I agree, that sounds highly amusing.  Having anti infantry mechs deployed to keep the slaves under control is awesome.

[Profugo Barbatus]

Ten million bottom-tech rebel infantry vs a thousand superheavy vehicles loaded purely with antipersonnel weapons.  The Dakkahound Rises

[Steve Walmsley]

Steve, with your limited time available for writing C# Aurora I had a question.  If someone paid you to develop Aurora (As you saw fit) as a full time job with a decent enough salary would you do it? Do you work on computers, with code of some sort for your day job?

I'm director of business analytics at PokerStars, which is a large online gaming company. It's a reasonably well-paid job that I really enjoy. Because we are based on an island most of the staff live relatively close together, so there is also a great social life. If I worked full-time on Aurora, I can see several issues:

1) I might get bored if that was my full-time job. I appreciate the time that I do get to spend on Aurora, but that appreciation might disappear with unlimited time.

2) I have had three previous hobbies that turned into jobs and they were never as much fun once they become my day job. That is why I haven't tried to make money from Aurora, to avoid the same situation.

3) It would be a fairly solitary existence, apart from my family. In my current job (almost 7 years now), it is all about personal interactions (well, with some analytics thrown in ), and I would miss that.

[Steve Walmsley]

I don't think there's any obvious reason why labour camps should cause unrest in populations they have been brought to. You just have to look at historical slavery to see that the unrest is mainly form the enslaved.

I think a better mechanic would be to keep the 5 points of one-off unrest from the construction, but to add in a very small chance each construction cycle that the labor camp as a whole rebels. If that happens the labor camp is destroyed and a enemy ground force of 100k low tech soldiers are created. (This may be too complex, but it would be great if the presence of rebel ground forces then dramatically increased the chance of other local labour camps rebelling).

If my probability skills are up to it, a 0.01% chance of rebellion every 5 day construction cycle would equal about 0.7% chance per year, or 52% chance over 100 years. I think getting an average of 100 years of work out of each labor camp seems pretty reasonable? I'd suggest that rebel ground forces on the same planet increase the chance to 2% per cycle, which is 11% per year. As in, you need to deal with an uprising pretty quickly but not immediately to prevent all your other labor camps joining in.

That would make small numbers of labor camps fairly safe even with a limited TN garrison. But If you put 100 mining camps on a single world? Yep, you have a high chance every year of a small uprising, and if you don't have enough forces to quickly suppress the small uprising then you have a high chance of a catastrophic cascading uprising and 10 millions rebels on the loose.

Sounds like fun   I will add something on these lines.

[alex_brunius]

Might also be cool to have some surviving slave rebels spawn if the building is destroyed by combat or collateral damage? Throw a few nukes at a slave colony and have enemy ground forces distracted with uprisings and chaos.