Post by: Steve Walmsley on May 31, 2010, 05:28:00 PM
Now, to make this anything close to realistic, the actual habitats are going to be BIG! REALLY, REALLY BIG!! For comparison, the cryogenic transport module is 50 HS and can carry 10,000 frozen colonists. That is 200 colonists per HS and a HS is 50 tons, so one colonist per 0.25 tons. In Aurora, mass and volume are used interchangeably without defining the actual volume per ton, which isn't very realistic but it makes life a lot easier (if you want some form of visualization, Traveller uses a similar method and has fourteen cubic metres per ton). Besides, it can be explained away as part of the Trans-Newtonian techno babble. So, back to the 0.25 tons per frozen colonist. Lets compare that to crew quarters and troop transport bays. The crew quarter system requires 1 HS per 250 crew, which is actually more crew per HS than in cryo! My first reaction on realizing this was to increase the size of crew quarters but I think it would be reasonable to assume that this is primarily life support and bunks for the crew and that most of the crew time would be spent elsewhere within the ship. As bunks take up less space than cryo modules, I will live with this for now. Besides I just finished designing all the ships for my new campaign
Troop Transport Bays are probably the most realistic starting point for comparison as they are a self-contained module in which troops will live for months at a time. They are 50 HS and support 500 troops and their equipment, which is 10 people per HS, or 1 person per 5 tons. Civilians probably need more living space but don't have the same amount of equipment so it probably balances out, leaving us with 10 people per HS as a basis for hab modules. Using 50,000 people as the baseline, as that is the number required for a basic factory, that gives us a hab module size of 5000 HS, or 250,000 tons. Obviously that seems huge but it is probably on the small side given the number of people. However, huge doesn't necessarily mean expensive. The hab module is essentially just a living space and has no requirement for the structural integrity that would be associated with military systems or those needed to transport heavy cargo. Therefore the cost can be relatively low, especially given the economies of scale that would be involved. The cryogenic module that supports 10,000 frozen colonists is 100 BP. I going to fix the hab module cost at 200 BP, or 2x as much. Partly because freezing people and keeping them alive would be harder than just warming a huge living complex so there is some justification on costs grounds. Secondly, and more importantly, making it more expensive than this would probably make the hab module too expensive within Aurora's economic model. In the end, fun game play has to take precedence over physics as long as I can maintain internal consistency. Thirdly, as part of justifying the relatively low cost and making my life much easier in other areas (more on this later), the orbital habitat can only support inhabitants when it is in orbit. Due to its lightweight structure, it cannot be used as an extra-large colony ship. It can be towed from planet to planet but will automatically leave behind any colonists on board.
On a col cost 2.0 planet you need 10 points of infrastructure for 50,000 pop, the equivalent of a hab module. That costs just 20 BP and requires 500 HS of cargo space for transport. Even at 5000 HS and 200 BP, that makes the hab module 10x larger and 10x more expensive. Actually, it is cheaper than it appears because the population in habitats does not require any agriculture and environment workers so that percentage of the population is available for manufacturing instead. The habitat population is still considered for the service sector. Obviously as the colony cost rises (especially given the lack of an agriculture requirement for habitats) or if the planetary surface is unsuitable for colonization, the orbital habitat becomes much more attractive. Hab modules are intended to be specialized, for those times when you want to establish a strategic colony in a difficult or remote location, rather than for general use. Their main drawback is size rather than cost as they are difficult to move under their own power, although you can tow them just like any other 'ship'.
Another issue is that habitats are so large they could not be built by shipyards under the existing rules unless the shipyard was enormous. Therefore, any commercial vessel with habitation modules can be built by construction factories in the same way as PDCs. They can be built by shipyards as well if you have a shipyard large enough. As with other ship construction projects, any system modules in the population stockpile will be used to reduce the total construction cost for habitats built by either shipyards or construction factories. Therefore, you can choose between constructing the habitat and towing it to its destination, or building the components, moving them in freighters and then building the orbital habitat in the destination system. Because of their immense size, orbital habitats cannot be refitted, although at some point I may allow them to be combined.
Something else has also occurred to me while working on this. It's entirely possible for an Empire to have multiple populations on the same planet, especially given the recent introduction of genetic modification. In that situation, it is necessary for orbital habitats and other population-specific ships, such as asteroid miners, to be assigned to a specific population. Otherwise they would contribute to all populations of the same Empire on the same planet. Therefore, when a fleet completes an order that has a population as the destination, the ships of that fleet will automatically be assigned to that population. In addition, a ship can now be manually assigned to a population, using the existing population dropdown in the top right of the Ship Window. For Orbital Habitats and Mining Ships to contribute to a population they will have to be assigned to that population and in the same location.
The population capacity provided by orbital habitats is treated in a similar way to that provided by infrastructure. You deliver new colonists to a Colony as you do now, not directly to the habitat. The Colony itself will use the habitats to house as many colonists as possible before starting to use up infrastructure. When you pick up colonists from a Colony they will be taken from the surface first and only taken from the habitats when there is no surface population. When the percentage of the population dedicated to agriculture and environment is calculated, it will only be based on the surface population, not the total colony population. Growth will be handled independently for the surface and orbital populations, with colony cost and radiation only affecting the surface population. The orbital population will be treated as colony cost zero but with the limitation that the orbital population cannot exceed the capacity of the hab modules. Therefore, on a colony that is partly based on orbit and partly on the surface, the population growth in orbit will be zero. When calculating infrastructure demand for civilian trade, only the surface population will be considered. When calculating the size of the service and manufacturing sectors, the combined orbital and surface populations are considered as one whole population. Of course, in many cases the entire population will be either orbital or surface so none of the complications associated with populations that have both orbital and surface components will arise.
Below is a screenshot of a small Martian colony that includes both orbital habitats and infrastructure. Both growth rates are shown, as are the population capacities provided by both infrastructure and the habitats. Note that the agriculture percentage of 12.9% is a little lower than would be expected for a planet with a colony cost of 2.1818. This is because the actual percentage of 15.9% only applies to the surface population of 3.25m rather than the total population of 4m. 15.9% of the surface population of 3.25m is only 12.9% of the total population.
[attachment=0:1x2sh99g]Orbital.JPG[/attachment:1x2sh99g]
Because Orbital Habitats are very large ships or bases and use the class design window, as with any other ship design, I have not needed to include any new detection or combat code. In terms of detection, movement and combat, they are treated exactly like any other ship or base. You can detect them in orbit, or in transit if being towed or moved under their own power, and attack them as you would any other ship. If the orbital habitat is destroyed, I am assuming the population will evacuate to the surface of the planet around which it is orbiting. This saves a lot of potential messing about with civilian casualties. Of course, in many cases evacuating to the surface will be a death sentence anyway. If its is in transit, it won't have any population. Because the orbital habitat is assigned to a particular population and can be reassigned, it doesn't have any species limitations.
Here is an example of a basic orbital habitat and a second version with thicker armour, a small sensor and some CIWS.
Code: [Select]
O'Neill class Orbital Habitat 1,256,650 tons 20 Crew 2072.6 BP TCS 25133 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 1-1037 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Maint Capacity 1 MSP Max Repair 8 MSP
Habitation Capacity 250,000
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposesCode: [Select]
Improved O'Neill class Orbital Habitat 1,264,700 tons 52 Crew 3254.2 BP TCS 25294 TH 0 EM 0
1 km/s Armour 2-1041 Shields 0-0 Sensors 1/1/0/0 Damage Control Rating 1 PPV 0
Maint Capacity 2 MSP Max Repair 34 MSP
Habitation Capacity 250,000
Guardian CIWS (4x6) Range 1000 km TS: 16000 km/s ROF 5 Base 50% To Hit
This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposesI hope the new habitats will add an extra dimension to colonization in v5.20Steve
Post by: symon on May 31, 2010, 05:56:58 PM
O'Neill Cylinder: Giant cylinders (or paired cylinders) miles long and wide that rotate to provide simulated gravity. Can contain a terraformed environment. Max population a few million.
Stanford Torus: Smaller but still quite large. Again can have a terraformed environment. Max population 50,000 or so.
Bernal sphere: A mile wide sphere with smaller attached cylinders. Houses only a few thousand and has limited spin gravity.
Cole Habitat: Hollowed out and thermally reshaped asteroid. Big max population.
Beehive habitat: Tunneled out asteroid. A microgravity habitat formed of a maze of tunnels and surface installations. Potentially quite a high population if you can cope with the microgravity.
Post by: welchbloke on June 01, 2010, 06:37:14 AM
Time to start building the last of the Babylon stations? Hopefully, the tractor beam code will be working in 5.20.
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 01, 2010, 01:49:16 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Looks good Steve,I just towed a shipyard from Earth to Titan so it seems to be fine. I can't remember what the reported problem was but I did find a bug that was preventing some eligible tractor targets from being displayed so I assume that was it.
Time to start building the last of the Babylon stations? Hopefully, the tractor beam code will be working in 5.20.
Steve
Post by: welchbloke on June 01, 2010, 01:51:52 PM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
That's the error I'm experiencing, so it sounds like you have fixed it.Quote from: "welchbloke"Looks good Steve,I just towed a shipyard from Earth to Titan so it seems to be fine. I can't remember what the reported problem was but I did find a bug that was preventing some eligible tractor targets from being displayed so I assume that was it.
Time to start building the last of the Babylon stations? Hopefully, the tractor beam code will be working in 5.20.
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 01, 2010, 03:12:47 PM
Now I'm just waiting for SM fleet training, and I'm starting my next personal RP campaign.
Post by: Kurt on June 01, 2010, 05:41:17 PM
This is fantastic, thanks! Now the only thing I'd like to see added is the ability to trans-ship cargo from one cargo hold to another. Currently there is no way to do that, either within Aurora or manually.
Kurt
Post by: Father Tim on June 02, 2010, 05:35:34 AM
Quote from: "Steve Walmsley"
I just towed a shipyard from Earth to Titan so it seems to be fine. I can't remember what the reported problem was but I did find a bug that was preventing some eligible tractor targets from being displayed so I assume that was it.
Steve
The bug was being unable to tow anything but shipyards.
Post by: backstab on June 03, 2010, 03:10:21 AM
Post by: welchbloke on June 03, 2010, 05:22:34 AM
Quote from: "backstab"
Orbital Habitats are going to be extremly vulnerable. Even the smallest of missiles and beam weapons would have the potential of massive damage. I would not want to be living on one !I wouldn't expect to build one in anything other than a well defended system. Orbital Habitats are not military installations and Steve did say that the occupants will be evacuated to the surface if it is destroyed. Ultimately, it is all about balancing risk against reward with any high value installation.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 03, 2010, 08:50:33 AM
Look at their size, an extra 10 k tons armor won't make it much heavier, and blasting through over 10k of armor squares just to kill an exeptionally cheap living space for a mere few thousand colonists doesn't sound like a bargain to me when you could destroy everything else.
Post by: Aldaris on June 03, 2010, 01:02:41 PM
Post by: welchbloke on June 03, 2010, 01:04:30 PM
Quote from: "Aldaris"
This is going to make establishing forward fleet bases so much easier. As well as establishing an occupational population on a conquered world of, say, methane breathers.I agree, there are some interesting possibilities for these units.
Post by: SteveAlt on June 05, 2010, 11:41:10 PM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Looks good Steve,I just towed an orbital habitat so I can confirm the tractor code is working for both ships and shipyards in v5.20
Time to start building the last of the Babylon stations? Hopefully, the tractor beam code will be working in 5.20.
Steve
Post by: SteveAlt on June 06, 2010, 12:55:25 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve -In v5.20 you can now set another fleet as the destination of an Unload <Cargo> order. So if you select a destination fleet for Unload Mine, the fleet with the order will transfer as many mines as possible into the cargo holds of the destination fleet. The only restriction is that the destination fleet must not have any orders (otherwise things could get complex due to unload times). The time required for the transfer will be based on the loading time of the destination fleet.
This is fantastic, thanks! Now the only thing I'd like to see added is the ability to trans-ship cargo from one cargo hold to another. Currently there is no way to do that, either within Aurora or manually.
Kurt
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on June 06, 2010, 08:20:32 AM
Post by: welchbloke on June 07, 2010, 06:40:26 AM
Quote from: "SteveAlt"
If I understand correctly that means that only the cargo handling facilities on the receiving fleet will contribute to reducing the loading times?Quote from: "Kurt"Steve -In v5.20 you can now set another fleet as the destination of an Unload <Cargo> order. So if you select a destination fleet for Unload Mine, the fleet with the order will transfer as many mines as possible into the cargo holds of the destination fleet. The only restriction is that the destination fleet must not have any orders (otherwise things could get complex due to unload times). The time required for the transfer will be based on the loading time of the destination fleet.
This is fantastic, thanks! Now the only thing I'd like to see added is the ability to trans-ship cargo from one cargo hold to another. Currently there is no way to do that, either within Aurora or manually.
Kurt
Steve
Post by: Steve Walmsley on June 14, 2010, 10:36:00 AM
Quote from: "welchbloke"
Yes, until I get around to adding code to average it outQuote from: "SteveAlt"If I understand correctly that means that only the cargo handling facilities on the receiving fleet will contribute to reducing the loading times?Quote from: "Kurt"Steve -In v5.20 you can now set another fleet as the destination of an Unload <Cargo> order. So if you select a destination fleet for Unload Mine, the fleet with the order will transfer as many mines as possible into the cargo holds of the destination fleet. The only restriction is that the destination fleet must not have any orders (otherwise things could get complex due to unload times). The time required for the transfer will be based on the loading time of the destination fleet.
This is fantastic, thanks! Now the only thing I'd like to see added is the ability to trans-ship cargo from one cargo hold to another. Currently there is no way to do that, either within Aurora or manually.
Kurt
Steve
Steve
Post by: Kurt on July 11, 2010, 04:49:14 PM
I was having a bit of insomnia last night, and found myself thinking about my campaign in the deep of the night. Whilst considering the current situation, and a story I was plotting out in my head, I got to thinking about your new orbital habitats and shipyards. Currently shipyards are stand-alone, self-contained modules orbiting the planet. They cannot be armored or defended, except by other units.
What I was thinking about was that the orbital habitat rules provide a framework for large orbital constructs, and the shipyard modules are merely another large orbital construct. Can they be combined? This would allow the player to create armored and defended shipyard modules, if they want, and you could also require that the shipyard module requires a certain amount of "Crew" or population to be functional, which would require an orbital habitat to be built to house the module. Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to require the entire population requirement of the module, but a fraction might be necessary to make it work.
What this would mean is that the player would end up with very large constructs in orbit around their planets, particularly their home planet. I feel that this is realistic, and an exciting part of empire-building.
Of course, this has several potential drawbacks. If a shipyard is expanded by including another slipway, this would change the size of the orbital habitat housing the shipyard, and its manning requirements.
Is this feasible?
Kurt
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 12, 2010, 03:30:10 AM
Yay, Nomad Empire!
Post by: Aldaris on July 12, 2010, 06:41:12 AM
Quote from: "Kurt"
Steve-
I was having a bit of insomnia last night, and found myself thinking about my campaign in the deep of the night. Whilst considering the current situation, and a story I was plotting out in my head, I got to thinking about your new orbital habitats and shipyards. Currently shipyards are stand-alone, self-contained modules orbiting the planet. They cannot be armored or defended, except by other units.
What I was thinking about was that the orbital habitat rules provide a framework for large orbital constructs, and the shipyard modules are merely another large orbital construct. Can they be combined? This would allow the player to create armored and defended shipyard modules, if they want, and you could also require that the shipyard module requires a certain amount of "Crew" or population to be functional, which would require an orbital habitat to be built to house the module. Perhaps it wouldn't be necessary to require the entire population requirement of the module, but a fraction might be necessary to make it work.
What this would mean is that the player would end up with very large constructs in orbit around their planets, particularly their home planet. I feel that this is realistic, and an exciting part of empire-building.
Of course, this has several potential drawbacks. If a shipyard is expanded by including another slipway, this would change the size of the orbital habitat housing the shipyard, and its manning requirements.
Is this feasible?
Kurt
You could simply make a shipyard a cluster of slipways, each with their own population, armour, etc. And yes, this would help noman empires greatly.
Post by: iamlenb on July 15, 2010, 04:39:22 PM
Please make them without an upkeep cost, even if military, like a PDC. Or some other solution that keeps upkeep reasonable - maybe jigger the size calc downward for Orbital Constructs.
Len
Post by: Brian Neumann on July 15, 2010, 05:43:18 PM
Quote from: "iamlenb"
So, civilian orbital habitat shipyards are civilian constructs, and naval shipyards are military possibly. With the requisite upkeep and maintenance costs for a military installation... ugh, I'm playing around with a 5 megaton mothership for a PC nomadic Race and the reliability isn't pretty, especially when adding 100 engineering stations at a time brings you from 1300 percent to 1298 percent.The maintenance percent change for failure isn't what you really want to look at when comparing big ships, the time untill they run out of parts is actually going to give you a better idea as to how long they can go before refitting.
Please make them without an upkeep cost, even if military, like a PDC. Or some other solution that keeps upkeep reasonable - maybe jigger the size calc downward for Orbital Constructs.
Len
Brian
Post by: iamlenb on July 16, 2010, 02:23:03 PM
I just discovered that. Seems like every 30 days, something fails on my OWPs. However, they still have several hundred thousand maintenance supplies left with almost 16 years average til depletion.
Overbuilt...
On the other hand, that's average mtf, so a string of unlucky uh, breaks, with the most expensive parts could rapidly deplete supplies.
I'll post up in the suggestions thread about requesting customized interrupts, I'm a bit tired of my months lasting 3 days when an OWP breaks down.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 16, 2010, 05:13:04 PM
Post by: iamlenb on July 16, 2010, 06:52:50 PM
PDC is an acronym for Planetary Defense Center while OH is Orbital Habitat...
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the mechanic for increasing the living capacity on a planet is via infrastructure, representing anything from breathing mask handout booths to all up atmospheric domes.
Are you suggesting an Orbital Defense Center with mechanics and rules like the current PDC that would follow any if-implemented Orbital Habitat mechanics? Or a different way of extending population via components attached to the PDCs built currently?
Post by: UnLimiTeD on July 17, 2010, 04:35:02 AM
I want to put them on PDCs, to allow for a vision of a heavily bunkered down civilization.
They would get 4 free levels of armor, but be unmoveable.
So far, theres no possibility to armor infrastructure, and that'd be a cheap solution.
Post by: iamlenb on July 18, 2010, 08:31:48 PM
Maybe a new population sheltering PDC only module for civilian pops.
Post by: Yonder on August 11, 2010, 01:36:14 PM
Quote from: "iamlenb"
So, civilian orbital habitat shipyards are civilian constructs, and naval shipyards are military possibly. With the requisite upkeep and maintenance costs for a military installation... ugh, I'm playing around with a 5 megaton mothership for a PC nomadic Race and the reliability isn't pretty, especially when adding 100 engineering stations at a time brings you from 1300 percent to 1298 percent.
Please make them without an upkeep cost, even if military, like a PDC. Or some other solution that keeps upkeep reasonable - maybe jigger the size calc downward for Orbital Constructs.
Len
You could make hangar bays civilian. That way a (for example) 1 million ton Orbital hangar could have 100 ktons of hangar space to keep a couple of military shipyards in, while still being a civilian ship itself. An alternative would be to give your Orbital Habitat a towing module, but that way it would only be able to tow one shipyard, instead of the flexibility of taking separate smaller ones with him.
Steve, would you be able to put orbital habitats and cryo transport modules on the same ship? Pack up 500,000 colonists in cryo, go to an asteroid, wake them up and have them live in the habitat?
It would be very wasteful but it would let you build huge, awesome, mothership style craft.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on August 11, 2010, 03:52:05 PM
My question is whether one can put them into PDCs aswell.
Btw, I would really ask for a 30k ton module being a construction factory for PDCs :D
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 27, 2010, 04:33:08 AM
Steve, would you be able to put orbital habitats and cryo transport modules on the same ship? Pack up 500,000 colonists in cryo, go to an asteroid, wake them up and have them live in the habitat?I was just thinking this.
Cryo and Orbital Hab for half a million people, cargo space holding mining equipment and extra space for mined material. Pick up 500k people, fly out to the asteroid, mine it out, load it up and move on.
Sort of like massive space locusts.
Post by: Vanigo on September 27, 2010, 06:26:48 AM
Post by: forsaken1111 on September 27, 2010, 07:38:41 AM
Why would you do that when there are perfectly good asteroid mining modules?Why leave the solar system at all? you have plenty of minerals there. Why even build ships? Why play the game?
Because it's fun.
Post by: Vanigo on September 27, 2010, 05:05:51 PM
Why leave the solar system at all? you have plenty of minerals there. Why even build ships? Why play the game?Well, I guess you could do it for RP reasons... It just seems strange when there are not one but two vastly superior options to do exactly the same thing.
Because it's fun.
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 27, 2010, 05:29:20 PM
Post by: Vanigo on September 27, 2010, 07:04:02 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on September 28, 2010, 06:37:05 AM
Why can't orbital habitats also function as cryo modules? I mean, they can't do both at the same time, or can they?They can as long as I change their cost to the same as colony ship cryo modules :)
Steve
Post by: UnLimiTeD on September 29, 2010, 12:03:23 PM
On the other hand, would anyone actually use them for cryo unless to get them to their target filled?
They are of such massive size, it doesn't allow for rapid colonization.
Still, fair point.
As long as I can pack them in PDCs, it won't be an option anyways.
Post by: ShadoCat on February 01, 2011, 11:05:09 PM
I just got my hands on a desktop computer that has a screen that I can use for Aurora (I look forward to AuroraII).
As I understand it, the reason population can not be emplaced on an Orbital Habitat is that population can only be emplaced in a colony and a colony can only be on a planetary body.
Is it possible, upon creation of an orbital habitat to set it as a planetary body? That way you can declare it to be a colony. Assuming you allow orbital habitats to transit jump points, you would then have to mod the database upon tranit to move them from one system to the other.
Post by: schroeam on February 02, 2011, 09:56:52 AM
You can also tow them through jump gates, like shipyards. Once in orbit and occupied I believe you have to take the colonists off the station in order to move it to another location.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
Post by: sloanjh on February 02, 2011, 09:01:00 PM
IIRC you can do exactly that. You can tow the orbital habitat to another planet, moon, asteroid, establish a colony, and then move colonists there. The basis for how the colonists get to the station is that the living space on the planet is filled, then the living space in the station. If there is no infrastructure on the planet then the station gets filled first.
You can also tow them through jump gates, like shipyards. Once in orbit and occupied I believe you have to take the colonists off the station in order to move it to another location.
Hope this helps.
Adam.
I think he meant that he wanted them to be new entries in the SystemBodies (or whatever it's called) table, i.e. to not have to park them in orbit around a different system body.
John
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 03, 2011, 05:52:30 AM
Post by: ShadoCat on February 03, 2011, 06:12:18 PM
I think he meant that he wanted them to be new entries in the SystemBodies (or whatever it's called) table, i.e. to not have to park them in orbit around a different system body.
That's exactly it John.
That way you can stick a Habitat anywhere and move it at will without having to hassle with disembarking the people.
It also means that you could put construction factories or research centers on them.
Post by: Mel Vixen on February 06, 2011, 10:14:11 PM
Quote from: ShadoCat link=topic=2631. msg30871#msg30871 date=1296778338
That's exactly it John.
That way you can stick a Habitat anywhere and move it at will without having to hassle with disembarking the people.
It also means that you could put construction factories or research centers on them.
Hehe that could lead to type 1 Dysonspheres or Bu'uthandi if can set a orbiting distance and speed for these things. As such they could also be nice mass-driver hubs.
And hey i think i can weaponize a OH. Since these things are big and can be build by factories i would suggest we convert them to Deathstars. Just add enough cargo bays for a dozen mass drivers and automated mines and you can perpetually bomb planets with garbage.
Post by: ShadoCat on February 06, 2011, 11:35:42 PM
Hehe that could lead to type 1 Dysonspheres or Bu'uthandi if can set a orbiting distance and speed for these things. As such they could also be nice mass-driver hubs.
Hmmm....
A simple solution that would work with Steve's current code is to make the star a system body that can be colonized (no minerals and uninhabitable). Then you can make the star a colony and put the hab in orbit around it.
And hey i think i can weaponize a OH. Since these things are big and can be build by factories i would suggest we convert them to Deathstars. Just add enough cargo bays for a dozen mass drivers and automated mines and you can perpetually bomb planets with garbage.
Well, you better have the hab around an asteroid. Otherwise, you are going to run out of space station soon.
BTW, you can already do that by landing minerals and a mass driver on an asteroid. However, I think that missiles are cheaper.
Post by: Mel Vixen on February 07, 2011, 01:19:45 AM
stationing a habitat at a waypoint should work althought it still cant be a colony.
Post by: Xeno The Morph on February 07, 2011, 06:04:56 PM
Quote from: UnLimiTeD link=topic=2631. msg27096#msg27096 date=1279318384
Can OHs be implemented into PDCs?
Quote from: iamlenb link=topic=2631. msg27100#msg27100 date=1279324370
Not sure what you're aiming for, Unlimited.
PDC is an acronym for Planetary Defense Center while OH is Orbital Habitat. . .
Unless I'm misunderstanding, the mechanic for increasing the living capacity on a planet is via infrastructure, representing anything from breathing mask handout booths to all up atmospheric domes.
Are you suggesting an Orbital Defense Center with mechanics and rules like the current PDC that would follow any if-implemented Orbital Habitat mechanics? Or a different way of extending population via components attached to the PDCs built currently?
Well I know ONE good reason to allow them on PDCs ;) (possibly with another name).
Hollowed out Asteroid Habitats
(i. e. hollowed out and spun up to provide sufficent Pseudo G)
If you could put them on PDCs you could easily simulate these by building the prefabs of the PDC (there would be a few!) and then either
a) adding a few Engineering battalions and using their construction output to assemble the habitat. then moving in the population
b) Sending out a 'Construction' habitat with a few construction factories and filling it with colonists once it gets there, then assembling the PDC and moving out the 'Construction' habitat elsewhere, while leaving the colonists in their new home! ;)
The PDCs extra armour would even simulate the extra protection of the rest of the asteroids mass :P, and any extra ones you build just acts as though you are expanding the hollowed out volume.
This would be much more fitting than having orbital Habitats just surrounding the colony. . . and as PDCs are not always visible if they haven't been active (I think. . . ) it could be a stealthy base. . . especially if all else has been lost! And if you put one on an existing 'normal' colony it would just effectively be a bunkered population environment (in case of last resort)
Heck you might even find old Precursor Asteroid Habitats as a new type of 'mothballed' Precursor find, possibly even still acting as a base for active Precursor ships
What does everyone else think about this idea?
Edit: Just thinking about the issues involved with non-asteroid emplaced PDC habitats, to avoid the use of these on uninhabitable (other than asteroids) planetary objects you could check for either the g's being in the safe zone OR it being an asteroid (I assume this would be possible as asteroids are treated differently for mining and orbits) and if it isn't the habitat just wouldn't work ;), if it is it would work exactly like a standards orbital habitat for population in it,
Post by: Erik L on February 07, 2011, 07:01:42 PM
Well I know ONE good reason to allow them on PDCs ;) (possibly with another name).
Hollowed out Asteroid Habitats
What does everyone else think about this idea?
Why not just emplace a PDC on an asteroid?
Post by: Xeno The Morph on February 07, 2011, 07:10:18 PM
Post by: UnLimiTeD on February 07, 2011, 07:12:25 PM
Sure you can also use it on an Asteroid.
Post by: Xeno The Morph on February 07, 2011, 07:23:20 PM
Quote from: UnLimiTeD link=topic=2631. msg30941#msg30941 date=1297127545
The reason I wanted Habitation modules in PDCs is that you can't armor Infrastructure.
Sure you can also use it on an Asteroid.
Indeed I also agree that that would be a useful addition, just really like the ability to have asteroid colonies that could also bring about! ;D
The issue with the possibility of using them to colonise a 'bad' gravity world is a problem (& possibly why they currently cannot be added) but I think that could be solved with the edit I put in my original post.
(If my assumptions are correct, Steve would be the only one able to know that)
Post by: Shadow on March 21, 2011, 08:51:36 PM
Post by: dalord0 on March 22, 2011, 12:53:00 AM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 22, 2011, 07:10:27 AM
Sorry about resurrecting the thread, but I've noticed a potential exploit. On 5.42, it's possible to install the huge components of the Transport & Industry category on orbital habitats while still theoretically allowing planetary factories to build the resulting design. Is this intended or not? It might revolutionize my terraforming methods, among other things, given I won't have to worry about slipway capacities. :D
I assume you mean using 1 orbital habitat module to qualify for construction factory build and a lot of terraforming modules. I hadn't thought of using them in that way so I guess it is an exploit. Although you can already build terraforming installations into PDCs using planetary industry. You can't move them afterwards :). I'll have to check out the figures and see if this is really an issue.
Steve
Post by: Shadow on March 22, 2011, 10:37:09 AM
I assume you mean using 1 orbital habitat module to qualify for construction factory build and a lot of terraforming modules. I hadn't thought of using them in that way so I guess it is an exploit. Although you can already build terraforming installations into PDCs using planetary industry. You can't move them afterwards :). I'll have to check out the figures and see if this is really an issue.
Steve
Exactly. The thing with habitats is that you can push them around with tug vessels. So you could have a 'habitat' that's actually a super mining/terraforming station that has one habitation module purely to dodge the shipyards, and 20-30 mining/terraformation modules. Sure, it'll be very expensive, but not really massive compare to OHs with several habitation modules.
That said, it doesn't feel terribly exploity. Perhaps what's in order is but a slight direction change for this whole thing, from Orbital Habitat to Space Station. The former would be just a class name, to describe space stations that are primarily orbital cities. I would allow most components on them (except things like engines, primarily), and have the type-defining piece be something like a station command deck. Yes, you'd be able to militarize stations, but in that case you would have to maintain that gigantic mofo. That wouldn't be pleasant. :P
Post by: UnLimiTeD on March 22, 2011, 05:11:36 PM
Post by: Shadow on March 22, 2011, 06:54:00 PM
Post by: Steve Walmsley on March 22, 2011, 07:17:19 PM
By the way... how are you supposed to reliably move these massive hulls? Can several tugs tractor the same target? Because I've done some tests, and it would take 100 commercial (magneto-plasma) engines to puuush a 1.5-megaton habitat at a modest 612 km/s. I can easily build ten 10-engine tugs, but a single 100-engine, 130-kiloton plus mega-tug? That's trickier.
Slowly :). One Tug only!
While it might take 100 engines to push it at 612 km/s, it will only take 10 engines to move it at 61 km/s. In my current campaign the Soviet have 500,000 ton orbital habitats with their own engines that can move at 73 km/s. NATO built 1.25 megaton habitats that their Hercules class Tugs could move at 173 km/s. The Hercules has 30 commercial ion engines.
Steve
Post by: voknaar on March 22, 2011, 09:14:35 PM
Would mostly be for flare unless line of effect rules get applied. Enemies at the gate? Move the orbital habitats to the far side of the planet to avoid immediate missile bombardment. Send the battle stations to block the ground invasion forces. Swing by the moon every few years while in position pick up maint supplies and reload mags. Build luxury resorts for your liners to send colonists to and from, set them to have the best view of the sunset! Build Spy Satelites and sneakily hide them in radiation belts* around earth like planets.
But that's just my imagination running away again. :-X
*See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Allen_radiation_belt
Post by: Shadow on March 22, 2011, 09:23:46 PM
I like the idea of a Space Station class listing. I don't agree they should be prohibited from the use of engines, but rather use them differently as far as the mechanics go. Space Stations could be set to orbit a spacial body such as a planet or moon/asteroid which is in turn orbiting the local sun. You would Tug the station to its intended distance then release. The Stations engines keep the Station orbiting at the speed you desire around the Stellar Body.
I'd assume maneuvering thrusters, apogee motors and other minor engines are taken for granted: all spaceborne designs have a minimum speed of 1 km/s, after all. Aurora only quantifies the large, major engines that are meant to allow for actual space travel. A space station equipped with such engines would become a ship.
Post by: voknaar on March 22, 2011, 09:39:05 PM