Aurora 4x
C# Aurora => C# Suggestions => Topic started by: Froggiest1982 on July 08, 2021, 10:14:22 PM
-
Hi all,
so another thing bothering me for a while is that I have to spend minerals to produce infrastructure while I can then have them build for "free" by my colonies. So I have 2 things in my mind.
Proposed model 1:
Only planets with active deposits of duranium and mercassium should be able to auto-build infrastructure.
The above work in the assumption that having access to the mineral equals the ability to produce infrastructures. This will mean that all the other bodies will have to be "manually supported". This will add a layer of production/logistics as we could have worlds focused entirely on building infrastructures for the worlds that cannot, without necessarily build the infrastructure ourselves (which I understand could be a pain). It would be easy to set up as it will work pretty much the same as the Alien Artifacts.
In the beginning, I also thought they should consume such minerals but that would be too radical.
Proposed model 2:
Infrastructure should only cost wealth.
The above will level the play as the infrastructure will only cost money considering that other planets can build them out of thin air later on.
I know is a very small component especially as you pretty much don't need any infrastructure once either Mars or Luna are terraformed and that's why I think that solution number 1 perhaps could add something to the gameplay also keeping more in line with current requirements for installation production.
-
Interesting ideas, and I like the topic as infrastructure is honestly a bit annoying to me, even though I get the sense that I build it more than many people (it seems like a lot of people will only colonize a world after terraforming...I am not that patient).
One thing to keep in mind is that the "free" infrastructure is balanced by being built quite slowly relative to how quickly factories can build it. The current implementation is admittedly consistent, as it matches how civilian companies of all types currently operate as they basically produce ships, fuel, automines, and troops out of money.
Idea #1 I think is more likely to see some kind of implementation, as it is a smaller change and remains mechanically consistent aside from adding the restriction. If it is added I think the production rate of civilian infrastructure should be increased since fewer bodies can build it, however this could be risky as Earth would produce more infrastructure in the early game which would drive faster colonization. Maybe an alternative is to tie it not to minerals but rather the presence of factories on the colony surface? This would represent having the facilities in place to actually produce the stuff, however it doesn't solve the handwaving of resource requirements.
Idea #2 is an interesting thought, however I think it is quite risky since removing the mineral cost of infrastructure makes the early economy suddenly much easier to manage, as you can solve any early duranium deficit by switching to infrastructure builds. I think it also somewhat trivializes early stages of a new colony, as it allows basically to ship the initial population and some factories, and then you can build infrastructure without minerals to build up a colony quite rapidly. This could be interesting but I think it is too radical a shift for an incremental version...if Aurora 2 ever happened then maybe.
One thing I would like to see in addition is a button or checkbox to prevent population "free" infrastructure production, mainly so it can be disabled when using orbital habitats over Venus, etc. as a way of preventing population from moving to the surface and cratering the productivity.
-
One thing I would like to see in addition is a button or checkbox to prevent population "free" infrastructure production, mainly so it can be disabled when using orbital habitats over Venus, etc. as a way of preventing population from moving to the surface and cratering the productivity.
+1
-
Another alternative that I have thought of:
Create 2 new types of civilian infrastructure, the normal and LG, respectively.
The differences are, that civilian infrastructure cannot be built via factories, only by civilians. It also cannot be transported, essentially locking it in place.
Though, with the terraforming, I do feel that it might be a bit of a waste, especially with normal civilian infrastructure...
But overall, I would like to see some ways to conserve the trans-newtonian elements, and go for a renewable resource use approach. So, I like the idea#2.
-
I think the "only wealth" approach also makes sense on a realism stand point. I think its feasible for infrastructure to work just as well when made with newtonian elements instead of TN elements. I think many of the other trade goods already acknowledge the presence of newtonian elements since they do not use TN elements to make either.
-
In my opinion the civilians should instead consume minerals and if you don't have enough to satisfy the civilian market the planet moral goes down and both you and the civilian industry produce less efficient. CMC simple provide free resources in this version as you need to provide for the TN materials that the civilians need. The more advanced your civilian economy the more TN resources they will require for morale to remain unchanged. We also should need to provide fuel for civilian ships... not necessarily that their ship spends fuel... but based on the amount of ships and their fuel use you need to spend a certain amount of fuel on each colony based on the amount of population there.
Currently the civilians use of TN materials are just abstracted.
In the same vain I also thin that terraformers should spend some minerals to operate. It could just be as easy as dumping some minerals on the planet that is used by the terraforming installations or stations in orbit.
In addition to this I also would like all commercial engine equipped ships or stations should have a wealth cost to operate in addition to all this.
I simply would not mind if the economy was a tiny bit more complex... there need to be a bit more sinks to put resources into as the economy snowballs to easy in general.
-
In my opinion the civilians should instead consume minerals and if you don't have enough to satisfy the civilian market the planet moral goes down and both you and the civilian industry produce less efficient. CMC simple provide free resources in this version as you need to provide for the TN materials that the civilians need. The more advanced your civilian economy the more TN resources they will require for morale to remain unchanged. We also should need to provide fuel for civilian ships... not necessarily that their ship spends fuel... but based on the amount of ships and their fuel use you need to spend a certain amount of fuel on each colony based on the amount of population there.
Currently the civilians use of TN materials are just abstracted.
In the same vain I also thin that terraformers should spend some minerals to operate. It could just be as easy as dumping some minerals on the planet that is used by the terraforming installations or stations in orbit.
In addition to this I also would like all commercial engine equipped ships or stations should have a wealth cost to operate in addition to all this.
I simply would not mind if the economy was a tiny bit more complex... there need to be a bit more sinks to put resources into as the economy snowballs to easy in general.
Phooow...
On one hand yes...
But considering that civilians are automated, there probably going to be bunch of bugs the moment such features are implemented. And, they are going to be frustrating for obsessive perfectionists... How dare does this civilian peasant waste my RESOURCES?!
On one hand, this could make the resource situation even more desperate.
It also would demand more micromanagement.
And... Well, this change would essentially make EVERYTHING that you do cost resources, and since they are finite, this would eventually lead to a point where there are no more resources. Anywhere. All of them consumed.
Year 8000 of the campaign - the Empire is starving. Rebellion is inevitable... And with numerous different planets rebelling, there are even less resources...
By the way, do destroyed ground units drop their resources? Considering that you can at least salvage spacecraft, can you do the same with ground forces?
But overall, I would agree with the civilians consuming resources IF those resources are renewable. Otherwise? No.
-
I agree with most of what Blogaugis has said, though I do want to point out that resources in Aurora are technically infinite as you can always generate new systems. Rate of gathering of course flatlines as the empire expands to infinity unless the empire is broken up i.e. Sol is abandoned, which most players I think are loathe to do.
However it is an important point, it's not good if civilians are consuming resources without any player control as this would be frustrating in terms of gameplay. In the early game the last thing anyone needs is an unstoppable sink for duranium which is already a critical resource. Later on this would motivate weird approaches to colonization to minimize civilian population at mining colonies, particularly manned mines being avoided as the extra corundium cost of automines is worth paying considering the minerals saved by not using manned mines with greedy civilians taking a share. While I am in favor of having more specialization of colonies that would also likely follow, this is a very forced rationale for it and not RP friendly by being so.
The solution would be to put a button for player control for any circumstance where civilians consume resources, which I suspect would not go over well with Steve who has stated that he doesn't want to give the player too much control of civilians.
Other ideas such as adding mineral cost to terraforming I think are more interesting, as this is a player-controlled mechanic adding some complexity and a sink for a usually surplus resource. Admittedly though it doesn't really add any decisions to make, just an extra micro step but a very small one. Wealth costs for commercial ships is also interesting, flavor-wise I'm not sure how I feel about it but it adds no micromanagement and makes wealth a bit more interesting. Usually it is easy to run a surplus so this would possibly add a bit more challenge.
-
I agree with most of what Blogaugis has said, though I do want to point out that resources in Aurora are technically infinite as you can always generate new systems. Rate of gathering of course flatlines as the empire expands to infinity unless the empire is broken up i.e. Sol is abandoned, which most players I think are loathe to do.
There is a... somewhat cinical and game-y question:
Do right now civilian ships cost resources?
Because, I almost see the potential of unlimited resources by salvaging their wrecks.
You allow attacks to happen on civilian shipping - only to extract the resources from the wrecks! ;D
But if this is really a way to get infinite resources... boy, something really feels off.
As for infinite systems...
Well, that limit is probably decided by the capabilities of your computer.
I guess the last resort is spacemaster.
But really, I think that it might be an interesting way to have planets regenerate a very small portion of their resources - as they catch those TN elements thanks to their gravity... Though, it would encourage the player to expand rapidly, like a time limit above their heads, as otherwise NPRs going to take those potential resource producing objects of gravity.
So, on one hand, limited resources do give you infinite time, the question essentially becomes can you successfully siphon the resources off of your opponent, while minimizing yours (battle with salvage).
While unlimited, will essentially force you to go out and get more planets than your opponent or risk being outnumbered. Salvage could still play a role, but it is less significant. Although, the "golden medium" between these 2 is decided by how quickly and in what numbers do these resources regenerate.
A formula could be made out of this, but I want to experiment with Aurora 4X, not with excel spreadsheets...
-
Do right now civilian ships cost resources?
Because, I almost see the potential of unlimited resources by salvaging their wrecks.
You allow attacks to happen on civilian shipping - only to extract the resources from the wrecks! ;D
But if this is really a way to get infinite resources... boy, something really feels off.
Each civilian shipping line starts with its own wealth, which it uses to construct ships. It gains this wealth by pulling loads. So if a civie ship gets blown up, that line will take longer to build new ships. In theory, this is still infinate, as new lines can spawn, but we're talking about a trickle instead of a river.
Or, as Steve has said elsewhere, Aurora is a complex form of solitaire, and there are easier ways to cheat in it.
-
Another alternative that I have thought of:
Create 2 new types of civilian infrastructure, the normal and LG, respectively.
The differences are, that civilian infrastructure cannot be built via factories, only by civilians. It also cannot be transported, essentially locking it in place.
Though, with the terraforming, I do feel that it might be a bit of a waste, especially with normal civilian infrastructure...
But overall, I would like to see some ways to conserve the trans-newtonian elements, and go for a renewable resource use approach. So, I like the idea#2.
I like this idea and to complete it I would add a Convert CivInst to Installation so that a player could then spend minerals if really wants to have access to unused installations.
-
In general I would say the game have more or less infinite resources already as your computer probably will melt from the strain of playing any sort of campaign where you have an empire advanced and big enough to use up all the resources in all the systems you can find... systems also basically are infinite as you can just add more and more as you play a campaign if needed.
My resoning for adding more resource consumption is to keep the snowball from rolling to steep down the hill in general. I also see it as a good simulation in general that the civilian part of any factions also demand TN resources to function. It should basically be tied to the Wealth expanding technology... the higher you research this the more wealth your population create but also the more TN resources they require.
I also think it "fixes" some issues. Such as you now want to research better fuel efficiency for your civilian fleet as it require you to spend less fuel for your colonies for example. Infrastructure from population are no longer directly "free" even if they are cheaper than the infrastructure that you build yourself probably.
Wealth in general require some resources to exist in the first place, but good colonies spread out will make whatever wealth you get more effective through trade. Trade goods are not entirely free as you need population to produce it and they consume some resources.
The amount of resource would need to be balanced of course in some way, but it should not make population a drag on your economy... just absorb some of the profit to flatten the snowball curve a bit.
There also could be some differences in population total so really large populations require slightly more or less resources depending on the effect you are after. I would like larger population use more resources (more luxuries needed) which then would favor spreading your population out to some extent, while concentrating them favors leadership bonuses so still are useful... it give you actual choices to make.
-
The amount of resource would need to be balanced of course in some way, but it should not make population a drag on your economy... just absorb some of the profit to flatten the snowball curve a bit.
A simple balance might be to allow populations to only use the resources which are in excess, at some small (or tech-adjusted?) fraction.
This way if I have a duranium crunch, my populations are not exacerbating it by consuming duranium to build not-so-free-anymore infrastructure, but if I balance the economy and make a small surplus production, say +100 per increment, then maybe 5% as a maximum of that can be consumed by the pops if they feel like doing something useful in the background. Obviously scaled with population
If this resource consumption is used for all trade goods plus essentials such as CSL fuel, I think it adds a nice background dynamic to the trade system.
Ideally there should also be a checkbox to turn this off entirely ("communism button" :P ) so that civilians aren't sucking minerals from resource stockpile worlds (i.e. which are being stockpiled until a freighter picks them up and takes them to another system). I think this level of control over civilians would be okay as it is only an on/off toggle and the player cannot control what civilians do with the resources.
I think this would be a neat way to solve the problems stated in the OP - making free infrastructure and other things cost something to build, without making the cost onerous, and also requiring some actual investment instead of dumping 10m pops in a sweatshop on Luna.
-
The amount of resource would need to be balanced of course in some way, but it should not make population a drag on your economy... just absorb some of the profit to flatten the snowball curve a bit.
A simple balance might be to allow populations to only use the resources which are in excess, at some small (or tech-adjusted?) fraction.
This way if I have a duranium crunch, my populations are not exacerbating it by consuming duranium to build not-so-free-anymore infrastructure, but if I balance the economy and make a small surplus production, say +100 per increment, then maybe 5% as a maximum of that can be consumed by the pops if they feel like doing something useful in the background. Obviously scaled with population
If this resource consumption is used for all trade goods plus essentials such as CSL fuel, I think it adds a nice background dynamic to the trade system.
Ideally there should also be a checkbox to turn this off entirely ("communism button" :P ) so that civilians aren't sucking minerals from resource stockpile worlds (i.e. which are being stockpiled until a freighter picks them up and takes them to another system). I think this level of control over civilians would be okay as it is only an on/off toggle and the player cannot control what civilians do with the resources.
I think this would be a neat way to solve the problems stated in the OP - making free infrastructure and other things cost something to build, without making the cost onerous, and also requiring some actual investment instead of dumping 10m pops in a sweatshop on Luna.
I would just attach a drop down menu for each colony where I set the amount of resources I allow the colony to assume which also translate to the amount of morale penalty as well. So if I set it to 50% the colony consume only 50% of the resource and take some morale penalties (economic production modifier perhaps)... the penalties will have to depend on balance.
Turning the feature of should probably not be a big deal for Steve similar to turning of Maintenance for ships when you start a game.
-
I think civilian TN mineral consumption should be tied to planetary population; for example, per million population on a given body there would be a set rate of mineral consumption (say maybe a total of 100 tons of various TN minerals per month) at certain tech levels (perhaps dictated by the wealth generation technology). I think tying civilian consumption to trade good production, with different goods needing different types and quantities of TN minerals, sounds really cool in theory. However, in practice, organizing mineral shipments for a constantly-changing civilian market could prove to be a micromanagement headache.
I also agree with the idea that the player should be able to set some sort of % modifier to consumption as a form of "rationing"; for example, if one sets consumption to 50%, then resource consumption would be reduced to 50 tons per million population per month, with a corresponding increase in planetary unrest and perhaps a decrease in wealth generation. Likewise, being unable to fulfill civilian TN mineral needs should cause similar penalties to rationing. Furthermore, while these mineral needs are met, civilian infrastructure production should proceed as normal, with corresponding decreases when shortages and/or rationing occurs.
Civilian mining operations should also aid towards fulfilling the resource consumption of populated colonies, although I'm not sure of the best way to go about implementing such a mechanic. I'm thinking minerals sold to the civilian sector should subtract from the mineral consumption of the most populous colony in the system. However, this would create the need to track "civilian" stockpiles of TN minerals which introduces additional complexity.
The lack of TN mineral consumption by populations has been bugging me for some time, as theoretically one can turtle up in Sol with military craft made with whatever limited resources were found in-system. The introduction of true TN resource scarcity would drive players to explore, and come into conflict with alien races. The introduction of civilian TN mineral requirements could also introduce planetary blockades as an interesting tactic: assuming that the population doesn't have any local mineral production, a fleet could "starve" into submission the planetary population as their TN mineral stockpile runs out and unrest rises. This could tie neatly into surrender mechanics for a planetary population, though I'm not sure how the surrender mechanics for a population work at present.
-
The amount of resource would need to be balanced of course in some way, but it should not make population a drag on your economy... just absorb some of the profit to flatten the snowball curve a bit.
I think this would be a neat way to solve the problems stated in the OP - making free infrastructure and other things cost something to build, without making the cost onerous, and also requiring some actual investment instead of dumping 10m pops in a sweatshop on Luna.
I am currently editing my DB to allow the production of infrastructure only above 500m population.
Mostly it's an experiment to see how much would cost to support manually Sol's colonies.
Long story short: a lot.
If I were to reach my goal of 500 on Luna I would have to invest:
190,000 Wealth
95,000 Duranium
95,000 Mercassium
Terraforming it's becoming a big factor as I cannot spare the Mercassium atm. To terraform Luna at a decent pace (same as organically reaching 500m with immigration and base pop growth) I would require at least 10 terraformers at 100% with base tech (roughly 19 years) and to support the workers and build the facilities I would have to invest only:
6900 wealth
3475 Duranium
3000 Boronide
475 Mercassium
Considering the above, with my current setup I will have to change the Terraforming at least to 10% making terraforming still preferred but not so cheap (100 terraforming installations):
79,000 wealth
69,500 Duranium
30,000 Boronide
9,500 Mercassium
-
I think civilian TN mineral consumption should be tied to planetary population; for example, per million population on a given body there would be a set rate of mineral consumption (say maybe a total of 100 tons of various TN minerals per month) at certain tech levels (perhaps dictated by the wealth generation technology). I think tying civilian consumption to trade good production, with different goods needing different types and quantities of TN minerals, sounds really cool in theory. However, in practice, organizing mineral shipments for a constantly-changing civilian market could prove to be a micromanagement headache.
I also agree with the idea that the player should be able to set some sort of % modifier to consumption as a form of "rationing"; for example, if one sets consumption to 50%, then resource consumption would be reduced to 50 tons per million population per month, with a corresponding increase in planetary unrest and perhaps a decrease in wealth generation. Likewise, being unable to fulfill civilian TN mineral needs should cause similar penalties to rationing. Furthermore, while these mineral needs are met, civilian infrastructure production should proceed as normal, with corresponding decreases when shortages and/or rationing occurs.
Civilian mining operations should also aid towards fulfilling the resource consumption of populated colonies, although I'm not sure of the best way to go about implementing such a mechanic. I'm thinking minerals sold to the civilian sector should subtract from the mineral consumption of the most populous colony in the system. However, this would create the need to track "civilian" stockpiles of TN minerals which introduces additional complexity.
The lack of TN mineral consumption by populations has been bugging me for some time, as theoretically one can turtle up in Sol with military craft made with whatever limited resources were found in-system. The introduction of true TN resource scarcity would drive players to explore, and come into conflict with alien races. The introduction of civilian TN mineral requirements could also introduce planetary blockades as an interesting tactic: assuming that the population doesn't have any local mineral production, a fleet could "starve" into submission the planetary population as their TN mineral stockpile runs out and unrest rises. This could tie neatly into surrender mechanics for a planetary population, though I'm not sure how the surrender mechanics for a population work at present.
This was pretty much what I suggested as well... the population would consume a specific amount of TN resources and base it on the wealth technology. Fuel would also be consumed but not only based on population but also on the total size and consumption of the civilian fleet. In addition every player created ship deemed as either commercial or station should also cost an amount of wealth to support. There should be NOTHING in the game that is totally "free" of charge to run and maintain.
Cost of trade goods would then just be an abstract as population produce trade goods and consume TN resources, so indirectly there is a cost to trade goods and the infrastructure that population build.
It would be a relatively simple change but would have a big impact on game balance perhaps, but it also could be an option players can choose to use or not for people that don't like the extra challenge.
-
The surrender-through-blockade idea is one that needs to be treated with care lest ground invasions become completely useless. At least now OBS causes so much collateral that you kind of want a ground invasion to conquer a world however if I can just establish a totally legal blockade then I can have a world with no collateral damage and no need to spends time and resources on an invasion army/transports.
Such a feature pretty much would require an overhaul on what unrest actually does (there was a suggestion a while ago to make unrest cause damage to infrastructure and garrisons if not policed) and as far as the time frame goes it should operate on periods as long as decades, so an invasion is available as the quick and dirty option.
-
The surrender-through-blockade idea is one that needs to be treated with care lest ground invasions become completely useless. At least now OBS causes so much collateral that you kind of want a ground invasion to conquer a world however if I can just establish a totally legal blockade then I can have a world with no collateral damage and no need to spends time and resources on an invasion army/transports.
Such a feature pretty much would require an overhaul on what unrest actually does (there was a suggestion a while ago to make unrest cause damage to infrastructure and garrisons if not policed) and as far as the time frame goes it should operate on periods as long as decades, so an invasion is available as the quick and dirty option.
Seconded, given that planetary invasions take (based on nuclearslurpee's analysis on planetary invasions) months at most to resolve, I think TN resource shortages should take years before forcing the surrender of a planetary population. The player is thus presented with an interesting choice between forcing a surrender now via ground invasion, or starving the enemy into economic submission.
In addition, there's also the possibility that the planet has its own reserves of TN minerals and/or mineral production, thus rendering the whole blockade strategy unfeasible. This would then necessitate the gathering of intel on the population to blockaded (the installations it has, mineral reserves (both in the ground and in stockpiles), current unrest levels) which would spawn more interesting choices and narrative opportunities for the player.
This was pretty much what I suggested as well... the population would consume a specific amount of TN resources and base it on the wealth technology. Fuel would also be consumed but not only based on population but also on the total size and consumption of the civilian fleet. In addition every player created ship deemed as either commercial or station should also cost an amount of wealth to support. There should be NOTHING in the game that is totally "free" of charge to run and maintain.
Cost of trade goods would then just be an abstract as population produce trade goods and consume TN resources, so indirectly there is a cost to trade goods and the infrastructure that population build.
It would be a relatively simple change but would have a big impact on game balance perhaps, but it also could be an option players can choose to use or not for people that don't like the extra challenge.
Apologies, I missed one of your earlier posts in this thread. +1 to the concept that nothing should be totally "free" of charge, and that all of these new mechanics should be completely optional.
-
"I haven't had a new TV in two years and this makes me so angry that I want my planet to surrender to the aliens who eat babies for breakfast", said nobody ever.
People don't surrender unless it's literally the only option aside from certain death and sometimes not even then. Germany was starving in both 1918 and 1945, and defeat was a certainty, yet Germans didn't topple their governments. Japanese civilians on Okinawa committed mass suicide rather than surrender to Americans.
Furthermore, especially on CC0 planets, there is no need for TN minerals to keep the civilian economy going. It's abstracted and in the background, but it's there, same with food production. Even on non-CC0 planets, it's questionable how much TN minerals the colony would need to survive. The idea that a bunch of civilians would attack their own soldiers and overthrow their local government in order to surrender to aliens because they haven't gotten new high-tech toys in a year or three is absurd.
Blockading colonies and forcing them to surrender or wither away requires at least food production to be properly modelled and most likely a non-TN based economy at some level.
-
I don't think that blockading a planet should have any effect on population other than what the player want to have which can be modeled with SM.
I think that lack of TN material simply lower the production efficiency of the colony and that is it, it should only be an economic modifier.
-
Its odd, in reality you would think the civilian economy would wind up developing a pretty strong dependency on this stuff.
I assume the reason it hasn't is partly for simplicities sake, but its not unreasonable to think a blockade might actually have an impact in most cases if there is actually a big interstellar integrated economy (particularly if there was a lot of civilian freight going back and forth).
e: I originally came here to mention that wealth-only infrastructure cost actually wouldn't fit into the system and would be a special case. If I recall correctly, the wealth cost is always the sum of the mineral cost and might even be a calculated value based off of that.
-
"I haven't had a new TV in two years and this makes me so angry that I want my planet to surrender to the aliens who eat babies for breakfast", said nobody ever.
People don't surrender unless it's literally the only option aside from certain death and sometimes not even then. Germany was starving in both 1918 and 1945, and defeat was a certainty, yet Germans didn't topple their governments. Japanese civilians on Okinawa committed mass suicide rather than surrender to Americans.
I was thinking more along the lines of "our society is breaking down since we're having a severe shortage of these amazing minerals that make modern society possible". Sure, people wouldn't outright starve, but as their machinery and infrastructure break down it'll become harder and harder to keep the social order. Perhaps the "blockade" mechanic could be a function of the blockaded species' determination, as well as the blockading species' xenophobia (though that seems tricky to integrate, given that multiple allied empires could blockade a planet together).
Alternatively, perhaps a TN-mineral shortage could weaken the morale of ground forces instead. This would model their equipment gradually breaking down as their TN-mineral-based parts become impossible to replace, and eventually make the planet much easier to take via ground invasion.
Anyway, I think that we're straying away from the main point of me and Jorgen_CAB's suggestion: that civilians and civilian shipping should consume TN resources. At its core, this suggestion would (if the player desires) remove the civilian sector's exception to resource consumption, while adding corresponding penalties to limiting civilian consumption. This would also address the main issue of the thread (the production of "free" infrastructure produced by civilians) as well as give more impetus for player expansion. I merely suggested the concept of a blockade as interesting gameplay (or roleplay supported by game mechanics) that could arise from this suggested mechanic.
-
[I was thinking more along the lines of "our society is breaking down since we're having a severe shortage of these amazing minerals that make modern society possible". Sure, people wouldn't outright starve, but as their machinery and infrastructure break down it'll become harder and harder to keep the social order.
But that has never happened in human history. People think it's a plausible scenario but it isn't. Because war, especially total war, displaces all other priorities and usual/normal life. And as long as civilian economy exists outside of the player-controlled TN-economy, you cannot make the argument that the civilian sector is dependent on TN minerals to the extent that lack of them would cause everything to collapse. I know that quite a few players have roleplayed that in their stories but there isn't anything in the game mechanics to prove that. Which means that there shouldn't be a game mechanic that logically goes against other game mechanics.
Anyway, I think that we're straying away from the main point of me and Jorgen_CAB's suggestion: that civilians and civilian shipping should consume TN resources. At its core, this suggestion would (if the player desires) remove the civilian sector's exception to resource consumption, while adding corresponding penalties to limiting civilian consumption. This would also address the main issue of the thread (the production of "free" infrastructure produced by civilians) as well as give more impetus for player expansion. I merely suggested the concept of a blockade as interesting gameplay (or roleplay supported by game mechanics) that could arise from this suggested mechanic.
You're right and I do agree that civilians should consume TN resources. Civilian shipping shouldn't appear out of nowhere - ideally, they would construct their own shipping yards or rather there would be civilian shipping yards that civilian shipping lines buy their ships from and then they use those to establish civilian mining colonies, and that whole cycle would consume TN-minerals. And that player could establish rationing or mandatory government stockpiles.
-
But that has never happened in human history. People think it's a plausible scenario but it isn't. Because war, especially total war, displaces all other priorities and usual/normal life.
From Peloponnesian War to Rhodesian war.
It is not a frequent outcome, but sometimes it happens - the economy of blocaded polity becomes so suffering, that it leads to the surrender.
-
But that has never happened in human history. People think it's a plausible scenario but it isn't. Because war, especially total war, displaces all other priorities and usual/normal life.
From Peloponnesian War to Rhodesian war.
It is not a frequent outcome, but sometimes it happens - the economy of blocaded polity becomes so suffering, that it leads to the surrender.
Rhodesia was a civil war or, more accurately, the longest-standing colonial war in human history. You're right in that both sanctions and a blockade were involved to an extent but the end came only because the Rhodesian side lost the war itself. Or rather, the Rhodesian government realized that they were going to lose and they went for a negotiated peace treaty to avoid the complete collapse of their nation. I'm not well versed in Ancient History so you might be right about Peloponnesian War.
Anyway, this is definitely getting off-topic - my main point vis-a-vis Aurora is that colony surrender when blockaded should not happen until there are game mechanics in place that deal with civilian economy, food and basic supplies production in more detail than there is currently. Forcing a colony to surrender due bombardment is fine of course, that's already in.
-
Rhodesia was a civil war or, more accurately
It's a tricky question sometimes where some war is civil war or not, yet I think it would be sufficiently to specify, that inner-Rhodesian sources (both manpower and financial) were not primary ones for nationalists, so it was mostly intervention, not an inner conflict.
(I'm not a fan of White nationalists, so it's just a point of conflict structure, not ideology.)
And my main point is, weather or not this war was a civil war, it's end was achieved mostly through blockade. It isn't, I think, essential for this topic if some war is a civil war, because civil wars are mostly bitter ones, their belligerents are usually just more immune, not more sensitive to economical threats, so if some civil war is ending because of blockade and hopeless economical (not military) perspectives - it's a relevant example.
-
To the starting point.
If some level of unrest will be sufficient to declare independence or surrender to blockading empire - it's, I think, more a secondary question compared to the point, that some significant effects of blockade* would be very nice to see, and to calculate, remember and implement such things manually is rather tedious.
So I think the most easy-to-implement and in the same time satisfying will be a mechanics, where:
1. Destroyed civillian ship will add some extra (temporal, half-life time I think a year) value to the PPV need of colony this ship was heading to.
2. Restricted status do the same for the restricted colony.
-
Well, it does matter in this context because the original suggestion was:
assuming that the population doesn't have any local mineral production, a fleet could "starve" into submission the planetary population as their TN mineral stockpile runs out and unrest rises. This could tie neatly into surrender mechanics for a planetary population, though I'm not sure how the surrender mechanics for a population work at present.
My argument used the fact that in human history, entire populations have not surrendered to hostile invaders because their economy collapsed or because they suffered hardship. Your counterpoint was Rhodesia, which was not a war where a hostile invader besieged a population into surrender. Whether we call it a colonial/independence war or civil war or proxy war doesn't matter because the crux of the matter is that the main factions existed in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe already. And the economic sanctions (or blockade) wouldn't have forced Rhodesian government to agree to a negotiated end to the conflict if they hadn't seen the writing on the wall - that without the support of the US and South-Africa, they were absolutely going to lose the military conflict, though they might have lost it anyway.
Now, having thought about this more, we could make a case where colonies are treated more like medieval castles/towns, which did sometimes surrender due to sieges, though it wasn't a given. But that sort of thing mostly happened because to the local population it didn't matter who their lord was - one noble was largely same as any other - and things wouldn't generally change for them much at all. Whereas when religion came into play (Crusaders, 30-year war), surrendering became lot rarer and atrocities became commonplace. Which might be a better analogue for Aurora, where aliens won't blink an eye(-stalk) before committing nuclear holocaust on other species.
So I think the most easy-to-implement and in the same time satisfying will be a mechanics, where:
1. Destroyed civillian ship will add some extra (temporal, half-life time I think a year) value to the PPV need of colony this ship was heading to.
2. Restricted status do the same for the restricted colony.
Isn't this already the case? Civilian shipping will avoid systems where civilian ships have been destroyed until the danger rating goes back down. Though I think the danger rating doesn't affect the PPV needs of colonies. Connecting those could be useful to give the system little more meat.
-
Your counterpoint was Rhodesia, which was not a war where a hostile invader besieged a population into surrender.
My point is that factually it was.
It's not a popular view outside of certain whitish circles, it's not a pleasant view, yet the structure of this war was mostly intervention, not inner insurgency.
And the economic sanctions (or blockade) wouldn't have forced Rhodesian government to agree to a negotiated end to the conflict if they hadn't seen the writing on the wall - that without the support of the US and South-Africa, they were absolutely going to lose the military conflict
As far as I know - they were not.
It was a question of quality of life. They have enough resources to stand, though they'll have to sacrifice too much in quality of life - and a quality of life was what they fought for.
And the same is for South-Africa - it was forced to surrender by (factually) blockade/sanctions, not military actions (though it was less a war at all).
Now, having thought about this more, we could make a case where colonies are treated more like medieval castles/towns, which did sometimes surrender due to sieges, though it wasn't a given. But that sort of thing mostly happened because to the local population it didn't matter who their lord was - one noble was largely same as any other - and things wouldn't generally change for them much at all. Whereas when religion came into play (Crusaders, 30-year war), surrendering became lot rarer and atrocities became commonplace. Which might be a better analogue for Aurora, where aliens won't blink an eye(-stalk) before committing nuclear holocaust on other species.
Yep.
It's possible to implement some level of vectored xenophobia, based on weather or not your enemy's empire has the same species as citizens or not and what is your and their level of general xenophobia, but it looks like quite complicated. I'll be happy if Steve will implement it, yet I'm not in optimistic mood about this possibility.
Though I think the danger rating doesn't affect the PPV needs of colonies. Connecting those could be useful to give the system little more meat.
That's my point exactly.
Because to calculate minerals need for civilian economy... I'm not in optimistic mood about this possibility at all.
-
Blockades certainly play a role in ending wars, looking at modern industrial wars blockades gradually crippled German production in both world wars and Japans in WW2. However in all of these cases it took a combination of massive bombardment and invasion to actually end the wars and in both cases there were signifigant elements of the nations who wanted to keep fighting. Britain had no interest in surrendering under partial blockade despite the availability of superficially generous terms in late 40 until mid 42.
So blockades forcing government collapse on something as self sufficient as a homeworld is questionable, more likely on a colony which cannot feed itself (But Japan was on the verge of mass starvation and still planning to fight on until the atomic attacks) but the likelihood of it is effected by a huge range of factors Aurora does not model, Government type, population attitudes, secret police efficiency, percieved consequences of surrender, actual consequences of surrender, Terms offerred and many other factors.
Options would be to make it apurely optional rule, add an SM Option to force the surrender of an NPR (a PR can already surrender) but there needs to be ways of ensuring that it does not happen when it does not fit the 'scenario' i.e Orks don't surrender
-
With regard to blockades, I think we need to recognize that a blockade "only" affects the shipping of resources (neglecting knock-on effects which are not straightforward to understand or predict), not necessarily the resources which are already present "behind the lines" so to speak. Already in Aurora this is true mechanically, as a planet cannot receive shipments of minerals from offworld if it is blockaded.
However, a planet is a very large object and almost certainly has the capability to provide essentials such as food, water, etc. to its inhabitants. In fact this is explicitly modeled through Aurora through the agricultural segment of the population. Compare to historical cases where very often the object of a blockade or siege has explicitly been at least in part to starve the defenders into surrendering. As Aurora stands, mechanically this is not possible right now.
In a hypothetical future version in which agricultural production is controllable and food can be shipped from farming worlds to other worlds, allowing colony specialization in this regard, then blockade-based surrender mechanics make sense as a natural extension of such a system...if a population is starving to death at some point surrender becomes at least an option, likely tied to the racial stats. But for now as long as every population is mechanically self-sufficient at a base subsistence level it is not a mechanic which makes much sense.
I would like to see NPRs offer surrender, not so much due to blockading but certainly if their fleet lies in shambles they should offer surrender to get a better result than total annihilation. However this would require an overall rework of diplomacy so I will have to be patient for such things and meanwhile content myself with SM mode and PvP campaigns.
-
Blockades certainly play a role in ending wars, looking at modern industrial wars blockades gradually crippled German production in both world wars and Japans in WW2. However in all of these cases it took a combination of massive bombardment and invasion to actually end the wars and in both cases there were signifigant elements of the nations who wanted to keep fighting. Britain had no interest in surrendering under partial blockade despite the availability of superficially generous terms in late 40 until mid 42.
This is an extremely common myth but it really isn't true - German military production increased throughout both WW1 and WW2. Germany definitely had economical, industrial and logistical issues but the blockades were not crippling. They helped win the wars, that is true, but they did not end them. Just like the U-Boat campaign in WW2, which Churchill wrote in his memoirs as the 'scariest thing to him' but economic historians have proven was never a real threat to Britain.
Sorry for going on a tangent again but this is my field so... :P