Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 78 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

Verification:
What color is the sky?:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: Yesterday at 04:16:27 PM »

On the other hand, part of the lore of Aurora is that TN materials gather in gravity wells and that deeper gravity wells both draw in more TN materials and are harder to get to, so you might well need and have the room to place more mines on larger bodies than you do on smaller ones in a manner that's greater than linear.

Make sense too I suppose...
Posted by: Hazard
« on: Yesterday at 08:53:11 AM »

On the other hand, part of the lore of Aurora is that TN materials gather in gravity wells and that deeper gravity wells both draw in more TN materials and are harder to get to, so you might well need and have the room to place more mines on larger bodies than you do on smaller ones in a manner that's greater than linear.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: Yesterday at 06:54:22 AM »

I still think that having a diminishing return of mining efforts make sense from a realistic perspective. You can only have that many mines on a surface in order to access the easy deposits, adding more should not be that effective.

Okay, but now we're arguing 'how many' is "that many".

Given that Aurora mines are fixed in size, "ten Aurora mine installations" can be defined as "one mine that is ten times bigger than that one over there."  If we define one Aurora automine as one hydraulic excavator plus two trucks plus one ore processor, it suddenly seems perfectly reasonable to have tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of them on Earth.  Given that a basic Aurora mine produces only ten tons of refined TNE per year (per mineral, yes, but I'm going to ignore that for now) it can't be that big.

- - -

Okay, sure, this implies that manned Aurora mines are insanely inefficient, but we already had that problem.  Fifty thousand people is larger than the population of Fort MacMurray, the city at the heart of Canada's oilsands mining region, and the source of over one-third of all of Canada's oil production.

I always thought of it that a "mine" is not just the bits that dig into the ground, but includes a significant chunk of supporting facilities like farms to feed the miners, schools, truck factories, workshops, entertainment and whatever else you need to have a minimally self-sufficient mining town. Low production can simply be explained by TN minerals being an absolute bugger to extract, perhaps only occurring in relatively trace amounts or whatever.

Yes... I think that ground facilities in Aurora are abstracts "units" rather than fixed buildings and trucks. A mine is simply the infrastructure, machinery and administration needed to produce a certain amount of goods and services. Not even necessarily all located in the same physical location either.

It would not be hard to come up with some rough estimation of proper number of mines, factories etc... that are suitable for each world as the optimal number and after this there is a diminishing return on their effectiveness.

You probably could use more mines on an asteroid for example in proportion to size than on say the moon or earth. So it would be way more easy to strip mine an asteroid than the moon and way more easy to strip mine the moon than earth for example.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: Yesterday at 06:48:25 AM »

The game already have allot of automation such as auto mines, maintenance facilities etc.. so many of these things can be run without any population what so ever.

There could be some technology though that reduce the reliance of population on facilities over time down to relatively low levels at increased production costs though.

I'm pretty sure that most people in a mine are maintenance and office workers. I presume most actual labour is made by robotic machines anyway in this era. So the people are just about anyone from a clerk, engineer to a cook.

In very modern production industries most people already work with servicing the factories functions rather than working with the actual production line. Administration jobs are one of the biggest employers today in what used to be hard labour places. The actual "hard working" people tend to be highly educated engineers who oversee the machinery.

On the other hand you want to use the population for something in the game, even if realistically you don't need that man actual people to produce stuff in the future. It is more fun if the world are a bit more dystopian.  ;)
Posted by: Hazard
« on: Yesterday at 05:31:45 AM »

It's entirely possible that the reason it takes 50 000 people to run a mine is because you aren't dealing with just a bunch of digging machines and the logistics of moving vast amounts of materials around. Rather, due to TN shenanigans, the facilities that are needed to reach into the aether and draw in and refine even minute quantities of TN materials are huge and require a lot of upkeep, and the industry necessary for that upkeep is included in the 50 000 population support figure.

I mean, at the early game 10 tons per year production that's less than 30 kilograms per day per mine. It's a tiny supply by any measure.
Posted by: vorpal+5
« on: Yesterday at 05:15:11 AM »

Is that not 'artificial'? Do we really think that workers, as 'biological beings' will be the main limiting constraints in the future?

I can understand you have this limitation primarily as a gameplay feature perhaps? But if not, how about being able to produce robotics workers, as it will happen soon enough in our world? Alternatively or in addition, some techs reducing the manpower need of various industries would be simple to do and realistic?

In the grand scheme of things, being productive is a matter of logistic and industrial muscles, but the bottleneck is probably not on meatbags amounts.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: Yesterday at 04:41:40 AM »

Available workers has been a consistent problem in my current campaign. That solution to that is creating new colonies, as smaller colonies have faster growth and a larger manufacturing sector.

In fact, I am already spreading mines, construction factories and even shipyards to those colonies within 15 years of campaign start. Also, with the maintenance changes, it is a LOT easier to setup naval bases at new colonies
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: Yesterday at 03:11:27 AM »

There is approximately 25 (short) tons of gold in one cubic mile of seawater -- or 22 tonnes in 4 cubic kilometers.  I assume TNE are likewise diffuse.
Posted by: Rabid_Cog
« on: Yesterday at 03:05:06 AM »

I always thought of it that a "mine" is not just the bits that dig into the ground, but includes a significant chunk of supporting facilities like farms to feed the miners, schools, truck factories, workshops, entertainment and whatever else you need to have a minimally self-sufficient mining town. Low production can simply be explained by TN minerals being an absolute bugger to extract, perhaps only occurring in relatively trace amounts or whatever.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: November 17, 2019, 09:33:51 PM »

I always kindof assumed that was just to create a mental image of millions of slaves laboring away in the mines, since some people like that aesthetic.  I also would also note that automines are almost always preferable however.
Posted by: Father Tim
« on: November 17, 2019, 08:25:43 PM »

I still think that having a diminishing return of mining efforts make sense from a realistic perspective. You can only have that many mines on a surface in order to access the easy deposits, adding more should not be that effective.

Okay, but now we're arguing 'how many' is "that many".

Given that Aurora mines are fixed in size, "ten Aurora mine installations" can be defined as "one mine that is ten times bigger than that one over there."  If we define one Aurora automine as one hydraulic excavator plus two trucks plus one ore processor, it suddenly seems perfectly reasonable to have tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of them on Earth.  Given that a basic Aurora mine produces only ten tons of refined TNE per year (per mineral, yes, but I'm going to ignore that for now) it can't be that big.

- - -

Okay, sure, this implies that manned Aurora mines are insanely inefficient, but we already had that problem.  Fifty thousand people is larger than the population of Fort MacMurray, the city at the heart of Canada's oilsands mining region, and the source of over one-third of all of Canada's oil production.
Posted by: Nori
« on: November 17, 2019, 07:37:25 PM »

I'm not sure how it'll play out in C#, but in the VB version, I only used population for mines early on, or with colonies that didn't have dire need for the populations.

Quite curious to see how the C# changes makes that all play out. From Steve's comments it seems like Automines will be even more important.
Posted by: Jorgen_CAB
« on: November 17, 2019, 07:19:22 PM »

This has already been addressed; planets now have a maximum population, which largely and linearly depends on surface area of the planet, with Earth having a max of 12 billion people.

I still think that having a diminishing return of mining efforts make sense from a realistic perspective. You can only have that many mines on a surface in order to access the easy deposits, adding more should not be that effective.

It would also insentience to spread out a bit more for more reasons than role-play. Sure, strip mining can lead to over consumption and sudden dips in the stream of important minerals which can become really problematic, but in general you want to strip mine every place before going to the next one unless you are pressured by other factors to start mining them or at least control them.

For the most part it probably also are very little incentive to use population for mining in the game anyway as population is too important for other tasks.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: November 17, 2019, 10:52:10 AM »

This has already been addressed; planets now have a maximum population, which largely and linearly depends on surface area of the planet, with Earth having a max of 12 billion people.
Posted by: SevenOfCarina
« on: November 17, 2019, 10:13:01 AM »

Outside of population growth or worker shenanigans, Aurora appears to strongly incentivise having a single large colony over multiple smaller colonies, both to take advantage of strong leader bonuses and to minimise micro. Smaller colonies only really make sense to boost population growth or to act as forward bases, since having a large number of small industrial centres makes any ind of industrial growth an utter pain. Even with regards to resources, it's often best to dump all your mining complexes on that one world with ridiculous deposits at outrageous accessibilities.

As a way to make smaller colonies more viable (so we can all get a slice of that nice, thematic SPACE RACE!), I'd like to suggest that mineral accessibility on system bodies scale with the number of mines present on them, with a larger number of mines giving diminishing results on smaller bodies.

You might be able to accommodate, say, 1,000 mines on Earth without running into diminishing returns, but 10,000 mines may produce only twice as many minerals, so it would be better to spread this across ten Earth-sized bodies. For a system body with a smaller surface area, the limit might be hit much, much sooner. I'd anticipate that to balance this, accesibilities in general might need to be revised upwards.
Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55