Author Topic: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions  (Read 351426 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1890 on: January 31, 2020, 12:49:49 AM »
Any thoughts on Tech to extend leader/species lifespans? It would push the age of retirement up higher. 

Unless the new story function makes them immortal, only dying in battle and accidents.

 ;D

Biology/Genetics needs some love. A tech that increases the lifespan of a species as a whole should also boost the population growth rate since you have fewer people dying per year. Since the only real late-game limitation is population, this would be a huge boon, if properly balanced, in the mid-to-late parts of the game.

On a side note, can it be made possible to control or stop population growth in certain colonies (military facilities, research outposts or mining complexes on high colony cost worlds, which typically have small populations that grow rapidly) where you don't need or want the extra population? Shipping people out gets really annoying when you have scores of these colonies. Or maybe a conditional order to "Pickup N colonists from Planet X when population exceeds Y." I know you can always set a colony's population to 'stable', but that requires a population of ten million in C#, and it's not always very effective, at least in VB6.

If it does happen, could there also be a method to control population growth by species for those xenophobic empires that prefer their core species to be the most populous? And since we have ground armies now, some way to eradicate the civilian population of a certain species of a world without using orbital weapons would be nice, too. Of course, it would need to be a long, arduous process that would demand significantly more resources than just nuking everything.

I think, right now, it can be gamed by shipping the entire population to some random colony cost 20+ hellhole with no infrastructure, but that takes a long, long time for large populations. It's not very satisfying, and a bit gimmicky.
 
The following users thanked this post: Alsadius

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1891 on: January 31, 2020, 01:31:51 AM »
I mean, its true that the ship crew rating pretty much stays top notch after you train them up and then stays there forever, which is deeply unrealistic compared to navies that regularly have to do drills to stay reasonably sharp.

Unless you could automate training exercises though, I dont think its a fun thing to add to the game.  In reality training is actually an exceedingly costly endeavour for most militaries and choosing to not keep up with training requirements is a pretty common budget decision when times are hard, that could later lead to that military getting its ass kicked.  It could be a pretty fun tradeoff (in my opinion) to cut off the training due to a sorium shortage and to then actually feel the negative effects of less well prepared crews.  However it would not be particularly fun (in my opinion) to constantly be having to manually re-schedule training exercises lest your fleets become useless.

I'm not sure how much of an issue that would be. If I understand correctly, fleet training can happen at any time while a ship is within the radius of its parent admin command, even while it is executing a movement order, but it needs to be assigned to the training admin command, so theoretically, it would just be a matter of copy-pasting the fleet to the training command whenever you want it on the move, or when it is garrisoned somewhere.

Maybe reassigning command could be an order of some sort? Like, "move to planet X, reassign to TRN Command, start fleet training. If hostile fleet detected, reassign to NAV Command, abandon training." or something similar.

To mitigate the effects, fleet training could decay over time, at a slow rate inversely proportional to the existent fleet training and crew grade. So it might take a year to go from 100% to 99%, another year to 95%, another year to 75%, and then it would rapidly decrease to zero, so a small amount of this decay could be acceptable.

Remembering to assign fleet to fleet training every three or four years is not that big of a chore, unless you somehow have hundreds of fleets.

Yes... it would be a matter of moving the fleet into a training admin after a long deployment or several as you would for the most part not lose that much fleet training. Individual ship experience is completely automated so you don't need to do anything.

If the ship stay at port with a population it would not loose fleet training or individual ship training at all as the ship only swap out crew once in a while. You could just argue that the ships or the fleet will do the occasional exercises and drills to keep the crew up to speed. So this would only impact when large part of the crew have to be replaced after the fleet have been on really long deployments. You would only loose a very small amount of crew points every 5 day cycle, much smaller than you otherwise would. Just like paying supplies for maintenance... you just don't need to have the academy at the local base but anywhere in your empire, we just assume that crew can travel to where they are needed using civilian means.
The reason why it wold work like this is the fact that it certainly is no fun to have to retrain ships just because, just like maintenance. You should only have to care about this if you actually use the ships and need to replace a considerable amount of crew at once.

So I don't think this would need huge amount of micromanagement, especially not with the new fleet training mechanic in the game.

It would impact your willingness to have ships stationed at really long deployments though and building ships that have deployment for 10 or more years will cost you allot of crew points so you will only afford to have a very few such ships... say a few survey ship... you also would not like to loose those ships as the crew is worth allot more to you as they should be with that amount of training they would need for such long deployments..

You could also have a system where you pay slightly less crew point the less part of the ship crew you need to replace after a mission. So a ship that need to replace 50% of the crew pay X amount, a ship that replace 25% only pays 0.3X for example. Which sort of reflect the training that the crew on board the ship can give the new crew. This would make the crew resource something you actually would care about in a different way as your away mission time will impact the cost of replacing crew.

So.... let's say that your empire have a four year crew service length. You might still want to give your science vessel double or triple that while the ships themselves have deployments of perhaps 24-36 months. When they replace crew after a deployment they don't have to pay too much crew points as the initial cost generally is much higher.

Think of crew points more as the cost for you to train and educate new people and not an exact number of crew you have access to. In the "real" world you would have a much better understanding for the exact need of new crew in a way it is difficult to have in a game, so the exact number of crew you have available is not that interesting.. it rather is the capacity to educate them to a certain standard that is.
We also should understand that in today's military ships the cost if its crew generally is the most costly part in money of a modern ship in terms of on going costs in peace time.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 01:46:55 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Father Tim

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 2162
  • Thanked: 531 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1892 on: January 31, 2020, 01:52:40 AM »
On a side note, can it be made possible to control or stop population growth in certain colonies (military facilities, research outposts or mining complexes on high colony cost worlds, which typically have small populations that grow rapidly) where you don't need or want the extra population?

The "Flag as Military Restricted" option http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg117794#msg117794 should do so.  With no immigration pop growth should drop to zero at the Infrastructure limit.
 

Offline Bremen

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 744
  • Thanked: 151 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1893 on: January 31, 2020, 06:23:40 AM »
Biology/Genetics needs some love. A tech that increases the lifespan of a species as a whole should also boost the population growth rate since you have fewer people dying per year. Since the only real late-game limitation is population, this would be a huge boon, if properly balanced, in the mid-to-late parts of the game.

If we did get a tech to increase population growth, I think the boost should be very small; instead of 20% a tier like most techs probably something like 2% (so 10% ->10.2%). Population growth is exponential by nature so even small boosts will add up fast.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover, Vizzy, BigBacon

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1894 on: January 31, 2020, 07:42:07 AM »
I mean, its true that the ship crew rating pretty much stays top notch after you train them up and then stays there forever, which is deeply unrealistic compared to navies that regularly have to do drills to stay reasonably sharp.

Unless you could automate training exercises though, I dont think its a fun thing to add to the game.  In reality training is actually an exceedingly costly endeavour for most militaries and choosing to not keep up with training requirements is a pretty common budget decision when times are hard, that could later lead to that military getting its ass kicked.  It could be a pretty fun tradeoff (in my opinion) to cut off the training due to a sorium shortage and to then actually feel the negative effects of less well prepared crews.  However it would not be particularly fun (in my opinion) to constantly be having to manually re-schedule training exercises lest your fleets become useless.

For some people you would absolutely be correct but I'm something of a simulationist in outlook and I would have GREAT fun trying to figure out the supply chain of minerals to a shipyard, scheduling new construction to be delivered by a specific date, bringing certain ships back for overhauls and timing their release, and then putting it all together for a a series of fleet exercises to get folks up to a level of proficiency I think appropriate and then off to the front lines the fleet goes - truth in lending, I enjoy Factorio also!  It would create interesting decisions because as wars progress, I would have to consider how 'trained' I want my forces to be before sending them off to the front - an emergency situation would dictate you go straight from yard to the fight.  It would add additional pressures onto my overhaul schedules.  We already have to watch maintenance timers on all our ships and make decisions about when to bring them in for overhaul vs. having them suffer maintenance failures which I imagine for some is hugely tedious - it is why it is an option to be switched on/off for those that rather not deal with it.  This could/would be another option for those who want that kind of detail.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 08:30:07 AM by Kristover »
 

Offline Hazard

  • Commodore
  • **********
  • H
  • Posts: 643
  • Thanked: 73 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1895 on: January 31, 2020, 07:56:56 AM »
Biology/Genetics needs some love. A tech that increases the lifespan of a species as a whole should also boost the population growth rate since you have fewer people dying per year. Since the only real late-game limitation is population, this would be a huge boon, if properly balanced, in the mid-to-late parts of the game.

No it doesn't. Greater longevity may actually slow down population growth as people wait longer to have children, stretching the distance between generations even while numbers per generation remain the same.

Population growth limitation is largely cultural in modern society, it would be entirely possible for a woman to produce a child every 4 years or even faster strictly biologically speaking and they don't for a variety of reasons. While the death rate would slow down a little, it would not actually speed population growth unless either it encourages the birth of more children per person or shortens the timespan between generations.

It would temporarily help by limiting deaths, that's true, but it won't affect the chances of survival in the long term. Even those that have been treated with such a longevity booster will eventually die. Even if humans become immortal in the sense that they won't die of old age it has been calculated that the average lifespan of people is going to be around 700 years due to accidents, misadventure and disease. That doesn't mean that there won't be eventually extremely old people far older than 700 years, but there's going to be plenty of people who end up dead before they're even 200 years old for any number of reasons.
 
The following users thanked this post: Vizzy

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1896 on: January 31, 2020, 08:33:51 AM »
Biology/Genetics needs some love. A tech that increases the lifespan of a species as a whole should also boost the population growth rate since you have fewer people dying per year. Since the only real late-game limitation is population, this would be a huge boon, if properly balanced, in the mid-to-late parts of the game.

No it doesn't. Greater longevity may actually slow down population growth as people wait longer to have children, stretching the distance between generations even while numbers per generation remain the same.

Population growth limitation is largely cultural in modern society, it would be entirely possible for a woman to produce a child every 4 years or even faster strictly biologically speaking and they don't for a variety of reasons. While the death rate would slow down a little, it would not actually speed population growth unless either it encourages the birth of more children per person or shortens the timespan between generations.

It would temporarily help by limiting deaths, that's true, but it won't affect the chances of survival in the long term. Even those that have been treated with such a longevity booster will eventually die. Even if humans become immortal in the sense that they won't die of old age it has been calculated that the average lifespan of people is going to be around 700 years due to accidents, misadventure and disease. That doesn't mean that there won't be eventually extremely old people far older than 700 years, but there's going to be plenty of people who end up dead before they're even 200 years old for any number of reasons.

I think that the problem often is that the "player" see population as a means to economic growth while the society where the population exist don't see it that way. Realistically if we look at the technologically advancement today and in the future then industrial growth can reasonably be decoupled from population quite drastically if you have the need for it, such as in a war. Population is only useful for keeping the consumer based economy going and for general research progress.

I could see many cultural reason for why population growth would become allot slower with technological advancement.. even if you could effectively clone or artificially create people without parents directly involved. Population might at that point just be an industrial commodity just as anything else with only ethics setting the limits.

So you could potentially have a society that produce POP at astounding rates or societies where the POP have more or less completely stagnated. Artificial AI could definitely make future societies completely independent for industrial growth in terms of population... but then again why would you produce stuff if no one consumes it and round you go.

In terms of warships such a society could probably multiply its warship production capacity exponentially as long as there are resources and energy to exploit as their actually biological population don't really need to be involved except on the very top level.

Now... Aurora is not that game with that type of societies... at least not mechanically as population IS an important resource. Population makes for an interesting finite resource that you need to manage carefully and there is a reason why you wan't to expand as colonies makes you exploit a greater percentage of the population and increase the overall growth of your population.
« Last Edit: January 31, 2020, 08:39:58 AM by Jorgen_CAB »
 

Offline Saros

  • Able Ordinary Rate
  • S
  • Posts: 2
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1897 on: January 31, 2020, 09:36:04 AM »
Hi Steve, is there any plan for greater ability to manipulate ruins, and the various spoiler spawns? It would be a great tool to have for 'Lets play' or forum run games to be able to spawn/edit ruins and precusrors from spacemaster mode.

Also is it possible to be able to have a toggle to make the game 'locked' without the spacemaster password.  i. e.  you can't advance time without entering it.  Would help greatly with said forum games by being able to provide the save to players without worrying about them zooming forward in time.
 

Offline SevenOfCarina

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 170
  • Thanked: 95 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1898 on: January 31, 2020, 12:02:38 PM »

No it doesn't. Greater longevity may actually slow down population growth as people wait longer to have children, stretching the distance between generations even while numbers per generation remain the same.

Population growth limitation is largely cultural in modern society, it would be entirely possible for a woman to produce a child every 4 years or even faster strictly biologically speaking and they don't for a variety of reasons. While the death rate would slow down a little, it would not actually speed population growth unless either it encourages the birth of more children per person or shortens the timespan between generations.

It would temporarily help by limiting deaths, that's true, but it won't affect the chances of survival in the long term. Even those that have been treated with such a longevity booster will eventually die. Even if humans become immortal in the sense that they won't die of old age it has been calculated that the average lifespan of people is going to be around 700 years due to accidents, misadventure and disease. That doesn't mean that there won't be eventually extremely old people far older than 700 years, but there's going to be plenty of people who end up dead before they're even 200 years old for any number of reasons.

I understand that the effects of longevity with regards to population growth are strongly dependant on how well people retain fertility with advancing age, assuming we don't automate the process of procreation at some point. Current trends indicate that demographic ageing and increasing lifespans are strongly associated with declining fertility, but I would be cautious about applying these to futuristic societies where people retain their health and virility well into their hundreds.

While it is probable that people would delay child-rearing significantly to sustain focus on their education or career, I seriously doubt that the time taken for a child to mature and achieve independence will increase beyond twenty or thirty years. The reproductive age in humans is typically considered to be 16-50, which is insufficient time to conceive more than a single generation of children. If that were to be 16-100, or 16-200, though? Certainly most people would opt not to have children well into their fifties or sixties, but it is also possible that those exact same people would choose to have children again in their eighties or nineties, and then again in their one-twenties, as their earlier children age and separate from them. The size of each subsequent generation will still repeatedly increase as the population grows, since almost the entire population is both capable of reproducing and might be willing to do so.

It's probably incorrect to attribute any such increase in the growth rate to a decline in death rate, it's a decline in death rate and an assumption that sufficiently long lifespans will prompt people to have multiple children spaced several decades apart. Which, granted, may very well be proven to be false.

 

Offline Garfunkel

  • Registered
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • Posts: 2791
  • Thanked: 1053 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1899 on: January 31, 2020, 12:22:43 PM »
Hi Steve, is there any plan for greater ability to manipulate ruins, and the various spoiler spawns? It would be a great tool to have for 'Lets play' or forum run games to be able to spawn/edit ruins and precusrors from spacemaster mode.
You can already use SM mode to place random ruins on a body. You cannot determine its size or tech level but you can place it. AFAIK, SM mode does not allow spawning spoilers, only new player races or new NPRs - conventional and TN.

Also is it possible to be able to have a toggle to make the game 'locked' without the spacemaster password.  i. e.  you can't advance time without entering it.  Would help greatly with said forum games by being able to provide the save to players without worrying about them zooming forward in time.
That would indeed be useful if you use the style where the save gets passed around for people to issue orders and so on, and then you as the Space-Game-Master advances time.

 

Offline Jorgen_CAB

  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • ***********
  • J
  • Posts: 2837
  • Thanked: 673 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1900 on: February 01, 2020, 05:08:51 AM »

No it doesn't. Greater longevity may actually slow down population growth as people wait longer to have children, stretching the distance between generations even while numbers per generation remain the same.

Population growth limitation is largely cultural in modern society, it would be entirely possible for a woman to produce a child every 4 years or even faster strictly biologically speaking and they don't for a variety of reasons. While the death rate would slow down a little, it would not actually speed population growth unless either it encourages the birth of more children per person or shortens the timespan between generations.

It would temporarily help by limiting deaths, that's true, but it won't affect the chances of survival in the long term. Even those that have been treated with such a longevity booster will eventually die. Even if humans become immortal in the sense that they won't die of old age it has been calculated that the average lifespan of people is going to be around 700 years due to accidents, misadventure and disease. That doesn't mean that there won't be eventually extremely old people far older than 700 years, but there's going to be plenty of people who end up dead before they're even 200 years old for any number of reasons.

I understand that the effects of longevity with regards to population growth are strongly dependant on how well people retain fertility with advancing age, assuming we don't automate the process of procreation at some point. Current trends indicate that demographic ageing and increasing lifespans are strongly associated with declining fertility, but I would be cautious about applying these to futuristic societies where people retain their health and virility well into their hundreds.

While it is probable that people would delay child-rearing significantly to sustain focus on their education or career, I seriously doubt that the time taken for a child to mature and achieve independence will increase beyond twenty or thirty years. The reproductive age in humans is typically considered to be 16-50, which is insufficient time to conceive more than a single generation of children. If that were to be 16-100, or 16-200, though? Certainly most people would opt not to have children well into their fifties or sixties, but it is also possible that those exact same people would choose to have children again in their eighties or nineties, and then again in their one-twenties, as their earlier children age and separate from them. The size of each subsequent generation will still repeatedly increase as the population grows, since almost the entire population is both capable of reproducing and might be willing to do so.

It's probably incorrect to attribute any such increase in the growth rate to a decline in death rate, it's a decline in death rate and an assumption that sufficiently long lifespans will prompt people to have multiple children spaced several decades apart. Which, granted, may very well be proven to be false.

The general problem in the game is that is mostly is a cultural thing. In the future population growth rate can probably be anything you want as you can artificially grow people in a lab is you wish. It will become more of an ethical and cultural thing.

In game terms you will ALWAYS want more population (as a player) as it is one of the most restraining resources you have, so it will put severe restrictions on how you expand. You have to be very careful with how this is balanced, that is my opinion.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover

Offline Akhillis

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • A
  • Posts: 46
  • Thanked: 5 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1901 on: February 02, 2020, 12:00:32 AM »
Demographics is a complicated science and while we understand how it works fairly well in past conditions, Aurora doesn't take place in those conditions. For that matter A4X doesn't really pretend to be realistic in this respect. Population growth is way too fast.

I'd say a tech that increases longevity of your officers and increases pop growth slightly would be good from a game play standpoint
The Sorium must flow
 
The following users thanked this post: papent

Offline Kristover

  • Gold Supporter
  • Lt. Commander
  • *****
  • K
  • Posts: 259
  • Thanked: 135 times
  • Gold Supporter Gold Supporter : Support the forums with a Gold subscription
    2021 Supporter 2021 Supporter : Donate for 2021
    2022 Supporter 2022 Supporter : Donate for 2022
    2023 Supporter 2023 Supporter : Donate for 2023
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1902 on: February 02, 2020, 08:48:17 AM »
Steve, thanks for the update on independence. 

If I can make a small suggestion(s), first the newly independent colony starts in communication with their former parent empire....they're kin after all.

Additionally, the diplomatic status reflect the mode of independence - if you grant it to them, they have a neutral and perhaps even a friendlier disposition (it was a peaceful break after all).  If the colony broke away due to unrest, perhaps their diplomatic stance is less friendly to hostile given they had to physically break away.

REALLY looking forward to C# now - the new ground and diplomatic game when combined with the improvements to naval, economic, and exploration game really are going to make this THE true space 4x. 
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1903 on: February 02, 2020, 08:56:47 AM »
If I can make a small suggestion(s), first the newly independent colony starts in communication with their former parent empire....they're kin after all.

Yes, that is already coded :)
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Star Marshal
  • *****
  • S
  • Posts: 11669
  • Thanked: 20441 times
Re: C# Aurora v0.x Suggestions
« Reply #1904 on: February 02, 2020, 08:57:49 AM »
Additionally, the diplomatic status reflect the mode of independence - if you grant it to them, they have a neutral and perhaps even a friendlier disposition (it was a peaceful break after all).  If the colony broke away due to unrest, perhaps their diplomatic stance is less friendly to hostile given they had to physically break away.

The default is neutral. I'll handle the starting relations differently depending on how the independence is achieved.
 
The following users thanked this post: Kristover, DIT_grue, BigBacon