Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => General Discussion => Topic started by: smoelf on May 31, 2020, 10:23:19 AM
-
So far in the time I have played Aurora 4x, I don't think I have ever used orbital habitats for anything. I usually just ship infrastructure and slowly terraform the bodies to increase supported population and it has worked fine so far, but I was wondering if I'm missing out on some strategic advantage.
So, how do you use orbital habitats and what kind of designs you do employ?
-
I've used them extensively. They give 100% of their population towards manufacturing which is nice. They also ignore planet conditions and grow at a separate rate vs the planet.
These features make them useful for when you need extra pop, when a planet has a low pop cap (research anomaly for instance), or when a planet has a venusian like atmo... I've used them on my home world, on asteroids, on small planets and just for fun.
As for design, no armor of course and I cram at least 1m pop into each one. 5m if I can.. Beyond that anything else you add is just flavor. I usually add a commercial damage control, some maint storage and some ciws.
-
Infrastructure is not an option for high colony cost planets though, and those are the majority of planets you will find. Going above 4 it becomes too expensive to have infrastructure for pop, so Orbital Habitats are the way to go.
Venusian worlds were a great example, 25+ cost basically screams FOOL for whoever tries to use it to get pop there. Maybe it's just me but I often find huge number of good minerals on such worlds, and even with my huge terraform capability (0.2 per annum) there is no way I am spending decades if not centuries bringing such cost down. So Habitats are the only solution and they work great for that.
-
Infrastructure is not an option for high colony cost planets though, and those are the majority of planets you will find. Going above 4 it becomes too expensive to have infrastructure for pop, so Orbital Habitats are the way to go.
Venusian worlds were a great example, 25+ cost basically screams FOOL for whoever tries to use it to get pop there. Maybe it's just me but I often find huge number of good minerals on such worlds, and even with my huge terraform capability (0.2 per annum) there is no way I am spending decades if not centuries bringing such cost down. So Habitats are the only solution and they work great for that.
Why not just use automines? They cost twice as much as normal mines, but they don't require population.
At what scale does the cost of building orbital hab plus mines become more efficient than just building automines (even if we assume you always have available population)?
-
I've used them extensively. They give 100% of their population towards manufacturing which is nice. They also ignore planet conditions and grow at a separate rate vs the planet.
That is actually brilliant. I had no idea. That would make them extremely useful on smaller planets with worker shortages because population growth can't keep up with installation production.
I hadn't considered that they increase max population on a body. I can see the use in that, but I suppose it would require a rather extensive production to make a significant impact.
-
Infrastructure is not an option for high colony cost planets though, and those are the majority of planets you will find. Going above 4 it becomes too expensive to have infrastructure for pop, so Orbital Habitats are the way to go.
Venusian worlds were a great example, 25+ cost basically screams FOOL for whoever tries to use it to get pop there. Maybe it's just me but I often find huge number of good minerals on such worlds, and even with my huge terraform capability (0.2 per annum) there is no way I am spending decades if not centuries bringing such cost down. So Habitats are the only solution and they work great for that.
Why not just use automines? They cost twice as much as normal mines, but they don't require population.
At what scale does the cost of building orbital hab plus mines become more efficient than just building automines (even if we assume you always have available population)?
The thing about Automines is, that they are just REALLY convenient. Plop down with or w/o mass driver. Done. Move once done. But as you said, they are twice as expensive. Population is usually not problem past early game (and for players not using default pop practically never). You can use habitat for more things than just mining (you could for example terraform with installations). Also, I have no idea what kind of minerals Habs use but I guess something else than Corundium, which would help tremendously with the crunch (still might cost the same or even more minerals, but different ones so it is better) Also, often people focus too much on minmaxing and everyone plays the same, that is why throwing at least some RP is good, and even here Habs help a lot. Boring to have automines everywhere. Put a single hab with normal mines for some RP :)
-
I like using a 1 million pop Orbital Habitat for Spaceports. They cover the entire pop cost of the spaceport in question, as each one requires 1m pop to function.
-
I like using a 1 million pop Orbital Habitat for Spaceports. They cover the entire pop cost of the spaceport in question, as each one requires 1m pop to function.
How large are your tugs to move that thing? I decided to only build habitats for 'only' 400.000 people as anything larger than that would move way too slow with my current tugs.
-
Infrastructure is not an option for high colony cost planets though, and those are the majority of planets you will find. Going above 4 it becomes too expensive to have infrastructure for pop, so Orbital Habitats are the way to go.
Venusian worlds were a great example, 25+ cost basically screams FOOL for whoever tries to use it to get pop there. Maybe it's just me but I often find huge number of good minerals on such worlds, and even with my huge terraform capability (0.2 per annum) there is no way I am spending decades if not centuries bringing such cost down. So Habitats are the only solution and they work great for that.
Based on Steve's post in regards, the colony cost 6 is the benchmark. So from cost 6 and above Habitats are more cost-effective than the counterparts infrastructure/terraforming in the long and short term.
Also, has to be noted that costs for LG infrastructure it's same as the Habitat per Mpop, therefore, it is viable to use one or the other.
Of course the above is purely numbers. there are many factors that you could put into consideration (logistic in primis) and one of them is also RP.
-
Also, has to be noted that costs for LG infrastructure it's same as the Habitat per Mpop, therefore, it is viable to use one or the other.
Except that population living in LG infrastructure will have smaller proportion available for manufacturing work than same population living in orbital hab.
-
Also, has to be noted that costs for LG infrastructure it's same as the Habitat per Mpop, therefore, it is viable to use one or the other.
Except that population living in LG infrastructure will have smaller proportion available for manufacturing work than same population living in orbital hab.
You have to also note that population living on low G infrastructure planets produce LG infrastructure as a trade goods so will build it for free for itself and once those worlds are built up to their potential they will export it to other worlds for free too.
Since I play most of my games on a 0.33 tolerance to G for humans I can eventually use this to help me colonise new worlds and use the civilian fleets to grow new worlds quite effectively.
Using habitats is still very effective when you want strategically placed colonies. They can help if you are low on Corundium for regular mines rather than auto mines. I would not normally use Habitats for mining efforts unless there is some sort of shortage in Corundium first.
As pointed out Habitats give 100% worker output which is really helpful in some situations. Especially to exploit research bonuses, military colonies and outposts to use maintenance facilities, ordnance factories or just regular factories to produce some local resources. Maybe you want to use some really good administrator to build ships over Venus and place all your Military shipyards there.
There are MANY strategical reasons to use habitats.
-
. . .There are MANY strategical reasons to use habitats.
There are, in fact, so many that OrbHabs should probably be a higher target priority for spoiler races and the more genocidal of regular NPRs.
-
Regarding that, I do really hope that free-floating colonies without planets eventually become a thing. I think they would make sense, there would be a lot of benefits, and it would be a cool thing if you eventually had most of your civilization in space because of said benefits.
-
Regarding that, I do really hope that free-floating colonies without planets eventually become a thing. I think they would make sense, there would be a lot of benefits, and it would be a cool thing if you eventually had most of your civilization in space because of said benefits.
If anyone played Distant Worlds, I loved to plop down a listening station in the middle of nowhere on my borders to always see the traffic. Especially useful in war and hard to find for them!
But I believe this will not happen in Aurora. There is no mechanic present that I am aware of that has go/to command for anything that is not already established position (comet, asteroid, planet, moon, star) and every fleet is either on one of those or going between them. It would most likely be too much work for very little return (if it can be done easily at all!).
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
Actually, I did not know that. That you for improving my mood ;D
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
-
Currently you could put them there but they wouldn't become a colony. Unfortunately. As mentioned I have high hopes that Steve will one day change that.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,
That would cool - a new type of waypoint called a "colony waypoint" or something to that effect. You would have to decide how to handle the deletion of such a way-point though.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
Or to avoid potential bugs, you can't delete the way point until you delete the colony.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,
Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
Comets and asteroids are probably too heavy, even compared to the biggest stations we build in the game. Engines would not be strong enough for that, maybe late end game? Still not sure if 40km/s would be fun to see.
Wouldn't the mass of such objects be way beyond even the biggest stuff people build now? Thus potentially not having engines that could push such a thing under very late endgame (if at all). Having to move one at 20km/s does not sound like much fun.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,
Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.
Asteroids and comets are most likely too big and heavy, quite a lot than even the heaviest stuff we now build. Late endgame tech might be enough in some cases, though not sure if moving at 40km/s is fun to do.
-
I'm not sure why everyone keeps reacting that way. Steve had been mentioning at one point that he liked the idea of doing that and as far as I know was designing in that general direciton with how he was writing the code.
Also, you can drop waypoints to fly to arbitrary locations.
This is genius - Tug an orbital habitat to waypoint placed in one of those "empty" star systems then send colony ships to it. Would that be possible? I want to be able to have deep space colonies. This might necessitate the creation of new station components such as "construction faicilities" or overhaul the existing orbital habitat component to in addition of providing living space provide limited construction space for the standard planet-bound installations to be built. Either way this could mean the old "orbital habitat" designation making a return as such a station would be distinct from a space station with refueling or recreational module.
Unfortunately no. Orbital habitats currently require a colony to actually do anything. This method works to place a forward supply station in such a system, but habitats won't help with that.
What I probably could do easily is allow you to place a tiny rock in space (using the waypoint mechanics). That is all you need for the orbital habitat. You can do that manually already,
Have you considered the ability of tuging small bodies like comets or asteroids? Perhaps even moving them beetween systems, for those systems without any body.
If not for this specific purpose this would be helpful in order to tow asteroid listening posts. You could also include a tech line not too dissimilar from the orbital mining tech line that influences the maximum size of asteroid that your tugs can tug on.
On a tangential note, it would be nice if there is some way to allow multiple tugs to tug the same object, whether that be system body, space station or ships.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site? Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site? Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.
I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.
As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.
Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.
You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.
In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.
This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.
You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.
If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site? Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.
I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.
As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.
Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.
You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.
In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.
This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.
You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.
If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).
There is a general problem with habitats that removing one causes overpopulation and unrest on the (former) host colony the following production cycle.
My point is that a deep-space station, which is what this hack is meant to represent, should not be able to use ground facilites or be vulnerable to ground assaults. 'Just role-play it' is not sufficient because the NPRs need to be subject to the same rules.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site? Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.
I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.
As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.
Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.
You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.
In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.
This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.
You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.
If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).
There is a general problem with habitats that removing one causes overpopulation and unrest on the (former) host colony the following production cycle.
My point is that a deep-space station, which is what this hack is meant to represent, should not be able to use ground facilites or be vulnerable to ground assaults. 'Just role-play it' is not sufficient because the NPRs need to be subject to the same rules.
If we actually follow the special "colony waypoint" method none of this really matters (with the exception of moving orbital habitats that would still be an issue):
1st - You can still allow the normal ground installations, there already is a soft cap based on the no. of workers the stations at that waypoint can house
2nd - Attacking such a colony with ships means that you attack the habitats like you normally would - a destroyed habitat kills all population housed inside and a % of installations at that waypoint
based on the proportion of civies that were housed in that habitat.
3rd - Boarding combat is now the new ground combat - Still need some special rules for this case. Boarding in habitats may or may not allow lighter vehicles to participate (up to Steve) and the
amount of ground units available to defend will depend on the crew and the amount of troops waiting in the troop transport bays on the station (if any). Also in the case of conquest the
attacker gets a copy of the waypoint (if they don't have the same colony waypoint at the same position already) with their newly conquered station and surviving population (also with the %
of installations corresponding to that station.
Of course this is a much fuller implementation as opposed to treating the waypoint as a pseudo-asteroid that doesn't actually exist. IMO for it to make sense deep space colonies would need special treatment.
As for the overpopulation problem isn't really and issue. Yes when you move out a habitat its going to result in overpopulation in the other habitats. So move people out. Or Steve could tie population to habitats making them move with the station. The former is how it would work if this was implemented today so its probably simpler.
-
If there was just a way to delete it with a confirmation prompt or something I presume that would work fine. I for one am actually pretty enthusiastic about that solution. Its somewhat hacky but it would do the job.
If you delete the way point it should also delete any colony there as well... but not necessarily the Habitat as you can move that.
If you want to move Habitats you basically need to delete the colony and create it again in the new spot as you can't move the Habitat with the people inside.
That is one major concern: What happens to the people when you want to move a habitat somewhere else or abandon the site? Also, this temporary colony shouldn't allow ground forces or installations of any kind, including infrastructure.
I don't see the problem with this as it is only you the player that decide how the rules should apply.
As to moving the habitat there are two ways... either YOU decide that you can move the habitat with the people inside it. You simply delete the people on the colony with SM, move the habitat and add the people back.
Or... you build a new habitat and move the population with colony ships and then move the old habitat.
You will also still face the issue with factories and other structures... are they on the ground or in space... If in space the NPR will still treat it as ground and can invade it.
In my opinion you should just treat this way-point as if there IS a small asteroid there and it just happen to be there all the time OR you simply towed the asteroid there using all of your tugs or something.
This would purely be a role-play thing so that is who you should treat it. You do with what you will.
You already can use SM to place a rock anyplace anyway and then put a habitat there, this would just make that process easier.
If you are after a proper mechanic for building a full habitat in space with factories and all that is a different matter and would need to be handled very differently, for now I think we need to mainly treat it as if the habitat actually is orbiting some sort of body (in most cases).
There is a general problem with habitats that removing one causes overpopulation and unrest on the (former) host colony the following production cycle.
My point is that a deep-space station, which is what this hack is meant to represent, should not be able to use ground facilites or be vulnerable to ground assaults. 'Just role-play it' is not sufficient because the NPRs need to be subject to the same rules.
My point was that you would use SM to "delete" population in one place... move them and the "create" them in the new place and you effectively moved them with the habitat.
This would produce the least work for Steve at this point and would be fine for now until he want to do some more proper mechanics for it.
In my opinion there are other more important things to do long before any such mechanics are fleshed out.
-
I would just want to go for a very basic implementation now, and to then improve on it over time in specific ways. Boarding seems like the way to handle the ground combat in that case.
-
I would just want to go for a very basic implementation now, and to then improve on it over time in specific ways. Boarding seems like the way to handle the ground combat in that case.
This is a strong argument but its nice to throw out ideas now rather than later gets everyone thinking.
-
@OP:
Orbital habitats are extremely useful when combined with terraforming installations as the orbital population can work the terraformers even with zero ground infrastructure.
@Others regarding deep space habitats:
I would argue in favor of a deep space colony ship module rather than a special waypoint. Something similar in scale to the refueling or ordnance hubs in terms of size. The colony module would allow for the use of ground installations within the ship's cargo bays (or something similar). Then the population would be tied to a ship/station instead of a planet or waypoint which would eliminate the need to constantly copy/delete the population whenever you move the ship/station. It would be neat also if you could assign a civilian administrator to a colony module in order to have a true fully functional colony.
-
What would these deep space colonies do? Why would one build them?
I mean, we can already do deep space maintenance using maintenance modules. We can do deep space shore leave using recreation modules. We can do deep space supply, fuel, and ammunition caches using tankers, colliers, and supply ships. We can do sensor stations with big buoys. What other purposes could a deep space colony serve?
Being a big Isaac Arthur fan, I understand the RP desire to build deep space habitats, but would they actually serve a purpose?
-
Trade Goods.
Deep Space Colonies don't exist in Aurora, at least not yet, but if they did they would probably function like any other colony and would thus generate Trade Goods and Wealth.
-
What would these deep space colonies do? Why would one build them?
I mean, we can already do deep space maintenance using maintenance modules. We can do deep space shore leave using recreation modules. We can do deep space supply, fuel, and ammunition caches using tankers, colliers, and supply ships. We can do sensor stations with big buoys. What other purposes could a deep space colony serve?
Being a big Isaac Arthur fan, I understand the RP desire to build deep space habitats, but would they actually serve a purpose?
Based on the suggestions in this thread, I see a purpose beyond RP if you find a planet far away, where the gravity is too large to allow habitation with infrastructure and it has either an anomaly that you want to utilize or enough minerals that you would want to build mines for instead of automines. There are probably other specific uses, but basically any time you have an installation that requires population, and the gravity does not allow for any kind of infrastructure.
Eventually we will be able to use genetical engineering to circumvent that, but even then it might only be a supplement to exploiting every possible ressource.
-
That's not a deep space habitat though. It'd be in orbit of a body. That makes sense to me. Having a habitat float around in deep space millions of km away from a body doesn't seem useful.
Trade goods doesn't make sense either. Why move the habitats to deep space? They can make trade goods in orbit right where they were built, there's no benefit to putting them in deep space. In fact there's only downsides, increased fuel usage, and decreased trade throughput to name two.
-
That's not a deep space habitat though. It'd be in orbit of a body. That makes sense to me. Having a habitat float around in deep space millions of km away from a body doesn't seem useful.
Trade goods doesn't make sense either. Why move the habitats to deep space? They can make trade goods in orbit right where they were built, there's no benefit to putting them in deep space. In fact there's only downsides, increased fuel usage, and decreased trade throughput to name two.
I already expressed some concerns and posted on the suggestion area what I think of Orbital Habitats. To dont repeat myself I leave a link here http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11771.msg139082#msg139082
-
Locality to jump points, the potential for them to later have mobility to some extent (even if its very very slow), the potential to put them in very remote locations that aren't planets.
-
Locality to jump points, the potential for them to later have mobility to some extent (even if its very very slow), the potential to put them in very remote locations that aren't planets.
But what is the point of putting a population in these places?
What worthwhile thing do you get from a population that you can't already get from a station/ship?
-
@skroomit
Trade Goods and Wealth. Deep Space Colonies would produce both. Not sure how they'd handle Infrastructure though, maybe have it so they produced both types?
-
Industry at a good location is what I would gain from it...
You cant repair armor damage, produce ships, do research, or build things in general without a colony. A good spot for one is rather important from both a strategic and economic perspective to make it both easier to defend and also easier to deliver minerals to.
-
That's not a deep space habitat though. It'd be in orbit of a body. That makes sense to me. Having a habitat float around in deep space millions of km away from a body doesn't seem useful.
That's fair. Yeah, in that case I fail to see cases where they are useful in a way that can't be accomplished by other means.
-
Wealth generation is tied to industry in C# so to gain the benefit of wealth generation you need to be able to ship industry to the habitat, which you currently can't do. While it would be an interesting feature, I've not seen any indication that Steve is looking at adding this.
-
While it would be an interesting feature, I've not seen any indication that Steve is looking at adding this.
You might want to read Steves replies near the beginning of this thread. I would argue that he has definitely considered it.
-
Random Habitat question. With the new limitations on how many people a planet can support. (Earth is 12b for example). Do orbital habitats let the player exceed this amount, say in a "sun heating/cooling" scenario, where people would abandon an uninhabitable earth for spaceborne colonies?
-
Yeah, the orbital habitats population limit is counted separately to the planet itself. Although excess population from the habitats will still move to the planet, if they can, and they'll also create and use infrastructure too.
-
Regarding that, I do really hope that free-floating colonies without planets eventually become a thing. I think they would make sense, there would be a lot of benefits, and it would be a cool thing if you eventually had most of your civilization in space because of said benefits.
I'd love that for when I have 'dead' systems with no planets in them. I'd setup a 'complex' which is really just a fleet with different stations acting as 'modules'.
It would have a habitation section, sensor section, hangar section, and a gas station. They'd be great to act as mid-points for AI traders to generate some commerce in-between actual systems.
-
First time I am using Orbital habitat. I want to use it for mining Venus. So I built an OH with only habitat modules pop cap 600,000. Towed it to Venus. Now I have no colony at Venus. So I create a colony. Then my civilian ships bring pop over to Venus and put them on the ground and they die. No one goes into the Orbital Habitat. What is going on? In the colony summary display it shows orbital pop capacity . 6 million. But no one goes up there they all go to the surface and die. How do I set this up so they live on the orbital not on the surface?
-
First time I am using Orbital habitat. I want to use it for mining Venus. So I built an OH with only habitat modules pop cap 600,000. Towed it to Venus. Now I have no colony at Venus. So I create a colony. Then my civilian ships bring pop over to Venus and put them on the ground and they die. No one goes into the Orbital Habitat. What is going on? In the colony summary display it shows orbital pop capacity . 6 million. But no one goes up there they all go to the surface and die. How do I set this up so they live on the orbital not on the surface?
When designing the habitat did you check the "no armor" checkbox?
-
I dont think that checkbox is actually required for it to work
-
I dont think that checkbox is actually required for it to work
Maybe it's a bug or maybe it's wai.
I always built OH on stations as once you tug them on site it's done, no need to them to move by themselves.
-
Yes I built it with no armor and conscript crew box checked.
-
Try towing it to Venus again, now that you have a colony there. There have been bugs related to ships not associating themselves with colonies correctly before.
-
Ok It is working now. Not sure what fixed it. I did remove the colony and created a new colony on Venus after I sent a second Orbital habitat to Venus. So the pop cap is now 1. 2 million at Venus.
And now it is all working. Perhaps pop caps under 1 million caused my issue? Or it was just bugged and a reset fixed it.
I was thinking I did miss something when I set it up the first time. I thought perhaps the Orbital habitat needed to be anchored to the colony somehow. That was why I asked how this is supposed to work. Guess I was over thinking it.
-
Ok It is working now. Not sure what fixed it. I did remove the colony and created a new colony on Venus after I sent a second Orbital habitat to Venus. So the pop cap is now 1. 2 million at Venus.
And now it is all working. Perhaps pop caps under 1 million caused my issue? Or it was just bugged and a reset fixed it.
I was thinking I did miss something when I set it up the first time. I thought perhaps the Orbital habitat needed to be anchored to the colony somehow. That was why I asked how this is supposed to work. Guess I was over thinking it.
Probably you must create the colony before towing the modules.
-
Sub 1 million populations are entirely supposed to be possible. It was most likely a bug, if you see it again you should post the save so Steve can investigate.
-
It's clearly in response to hammer58 who said:
Perhaps pop caps under 1 million caused my issue?
-
It's clearly in response to hammer58 who said:
Perhaps pop caps under 1 million caused my issue?
Don't know how I missed that
-
Bit of an necro but related. Any reason why I can't build this Orbital Habitat from the Industry tab on my home planet of Earth? When I select the "Space Station" drop down, the list is empty. It has not been marked obsolete:
Sitting Bull class Orbital Habitat 2,510,620 tons 160 Crew 2,722.5 BP TCS 50,212 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1645 Shields 0-0 HTK 131 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 0 Max Repair 200 MSP
Habitation Capacity 1,000,000
Dictator Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
-
Bit of an necro but related. Any reason why I can't build this Orbital Habitat from the Industry tab on my home planet of Earth? When I select the "Space Station" drop down, the list is empty. It has not been marked obsolete:
Sitting Bull class Orbital Habitat 2,510,620 tons 160 Crew 2,722.5 BP TCS 50,212 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1645 Shields 0-0 HTK 131 Sensors 0/0/0/0 DCR 1 PPV 0
MSP 0 Max Repair 200 MSP
Habitation Capacity 1,000,000
Dictator Control Rating 1 BRG
Intended Deployment Time: 3 months
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
In Class Design you need to select the no armour option.
When you do the design will say something like "this design is classed as a space station for construction purposes".
One other thing, you need a Spaceport on the planet, in the off chance you moved it.