Author Topic: Comments Thread  (Read 3254 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #30 on: June 15, 2020, 03:41:10 PM »
I would have not expected that pumping Frigisium would be so effective in stopping the temperature increase on Earth. For now at least!

How do you plan to try to save the remaining population on Earth? Terraform one of the planes you found?
 

Offline Migi

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • Posts: 184
  • Thanked: 56 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #31 on: June 15, 2020, 04:45:37 PM »
Are you shipping people constantly or is fuel or available space on Mars holding you back?
You can lift 2 million people with the government ships alone.

And just remember to think positively, the maximum distance between Earth and Mars is shrinking!  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: BAGrimm

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #32 on: June 15, 2020, 06:01:09 PM »
I would have not expected that pumping Frigisium would be so effective in stopping the temperature increase on Earth. For now at least!

How do you plan to try to save the remaining population on Earth? Terraform one of the planes you found?

I was surprised too, but I checked the math several times. Although its not uncommon to bring one of the Jovian moons into the habitable range using greenhouse gas and they start at -161C. The temperature reduction on Earth is far less than that.

The anti-greenhouse gas is slightly less effective than greenhouse gas as well, as the pressure of any gas increases the greenhouse effect.

And yes, I plan to start terraforming in the nearby systems or perhaps terraform Io as it is much nearer.
 

Offline Cinnius

  • Chief Petty Officer
  • ***
  • C
  • Posts: 40
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #33 on: June 16, 2020, 07:37:33 AM »
Why the "Saturn class Fuel Harvester Station" don't have a Refueling Hub but use a Refueling System?
 

Online Black

  • Captain
  • **********
  • B
  • Posts: 561
  • Thanked: 92 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #34 on: June 16, 2020, 07:41:53 AM »
Why the "Saturn class Fuel Harvester Station" don't have a Refueling Hub but use a Refueling System?

Refuelling Hub has size of 100000 tons, Refueling System has size of 500 tons. It is waste to use it for common fuel harvester, especially when you need them fast. Normal tankers can transfer fuel from them to the location that serves as Fuel Hub.
 
The following users thanked this post: Cinnius

Offline clement

  • Pulsar 4x Dev
  • Sub-Lieutenant
  • *
  • c
  • Posts: 132
  • Thanked: 13 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #35 on: June 16, 2020, 11:00:11 AM »
The anti-greenhouse gas is slightly less effective than greenhouse gas as well, as the pressure of any gas increases the greenhouse effect.

Would it be more efficient to remove nitrogen from Earth's atmosphere instead of adding more Frigisium? Maybe not right now, but at some point reducing the greenhouse effect by decreasing the atmosphere will be better than putting the same amount of Frigisium into the atmosphere.
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #36 on: June 16, 2020, 11:14:42 AM »
The anti-greenhouse gas is slightly less effective than greenhouse gas as well, as the pressure of any gas increases the greenhouse effect.

Would it be more efficient to remove nitrogen from Earth's atmosphere instead of adding more Frigisium? Maybe not right now, but at some point reducing the greenhouse effect by decreasing the atmosphere will be better than putting the same amount of Frigisium into the atmosphere.

Nitrogen isn't a greenhouse gas so only 10% of the atm contributes to the greenhouse effect. Adding Frigusium is about 9x more effective than removing nitrogen in terms of cooling the planet.
 
The following users thanked this post: clement

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #37 on: June 20, 2020, 09:52:37 AM »
The lack of significant mineral deposits is... concerning.
I wish we had an option at startup to change the mineral generation chance and/or amount.

I was taken aback by how many systems you surveyed. Then I remembered you're not running on reduced survey speed like I do. It has become a favorite of mine to be honest  ;D

You're not usually one to start with conventional tech. As you said, in this game you don't have any weapon tech researched from the start. After you build those carriers, where do you plan to develop? More beam warships or will you move to missiles?
Considering the penalty to research you started with, I guess you'll have to specialize a bit?
« Last Edit: June 20, 2020, 09:55:52 AM by Zincat »
 

Offline Shinanygnz

  • Lieutenant
  • *******
  • S
  • Posts: 182
  • Thanked: 3 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #38 on: June 20, 2020, 01:37:19 PM »
I highly approve of the Eagle Transporter icon   8)
Perhaps the campaign start date should have been 13th Sept 1999  ;)
 
The following users thanked this post: Tanj

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #39 on: June 21, 2020, 06:26:20 AM »
The lack of significant mineral deposits is... concerning.
I wish we had an option at startup to change the mineral generation chance and/or amount.

I was taken aback by how many systems you surveyed. Then I remembered you're not running on reduced survey speed like I do. It has become a favorite of mine to be honest  ;D

You're not usually one to start with conventional tech. As you said, in this game you don't have any weapon tech researched from the start. After you build those carriers, where do you plan to develop? More beam warships or will you move to missiles?
Considering the penalty to research you started with, I guess you'll have to specialize a bit?

Yes, I think next time I might go reduced research and reduced survey. The reduced research makes decisions on what to research far more meaningful and each new tech feels like an achievement.

I plan to use a 10cm railgun for energy point defence and probably for an energy-armed fighter, then I will start with lasers. Can't afford to go for gauss or particle lances in this situation, at least not yet. I will also start with some basic missile tech as well. I've never been 23 years into a campaign without any weapons or offensive ground forces :)
 

Offline Steve Walmsley (OP)

  • Aurora Designer
  • Star Marshal
  • S
  • Posts: 10151
  • Thanked: 11189 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #40 on: June 21, 2020, 06:26:53 AM »
I highly approve of the Eagle Transporter icon   8)
Perhaps the campaign start date should have been 13th Sept 1999  ;)

It seemed appropriate for the scenario :)

 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #41 on: June 21, 2020, 07:13:53 AM »
Yes, I think next time I might go reduced research and reduced survey. The reduced research makes decisions on what to research far more meaningful and each new tech feels like an achievement.

I plan to use a 10cm railgun for energy point defence and probably for an energy-armed fighter, then I will start with lasers. Can't afford to go for gauss or particle lances in this situation, at least not yet. I will also start with some basic missile tech as well. I've never been 23 years into a campaign without any weapons or offensive ground forces :)

I might even say, I think that reduced research speed and reduced survey speed (and maybe even reduced terraforming speed) are the way the game should mostly be played right now. It was different in vb aurora, because there games tended to slow down pretty quickly, and even have death by slowdowns.

But here, with the turn speed we have.... At 100% speed you tend to reach high tech levels and huge numbers of system explored VERY quickly. In just a few hours, comparately speaking, you'll reach the tech levels you might have reached at the end of a campaign in vb aurora. It really feels too quick. 10 years in game, and you researched 3-4 different engine techs...

Being 23 years in and not having a real military is very entertaining, as far as I'm concerned. Once again, same reasoning. At 100% speed it feels warships just magically pop into existance. Here, have these 4 new weapons tech. Not enough? Have another four.

At reduced speed it's a struggle instead  ;D
 
The following users thanked this post: Warer

Offline vorpal+5

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 379
  • Thanked: 55 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #42 on: June 26, 2020, 10:29:10 PM »
What would be for you a decent reduction in research and survey that makes the game much slower but not like 'marathon speed' of a Civ game? 20%
 

Offline skoormit

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 466
  • Thanked: 175 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #43 on: June 28, 2020, 07:03:58 AM »
What would be for you a decent reduction in research and survey that makes the game much slower but not like 'marathon speed' of a Civ game? 20%

My current game is 25% research and survey.
I find this research rate satisfying, but I could still stand to slow down the surveying. Next time I will probably have 10% survey.

This is partly a playstyle preference. I very much enjoy the challenge of exploring and expanding efficiently, more than I enjoy the challenge of defeating an alien empire.
If you prefer action, and don't enjoy being constrained on your options for expansion, you may prefer higher survey speed.

But research 25% or lower really does make each tech advancement meaningful very early in the game.
 

Offline Zincat

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Z
  • Posts: 503
  • Thanked: 81 times
Re: Comments Thread
« Reply #44 on: June 28, 2020, 07:36:56 AM »
I personally play 15% research, 10% exploration now. With all spoilers active and very unfavorable NPR settings, it really makes for a challenge.
It might be too much if you don't want "marathon speed". I'd say 25% research should be good for you then.

I definitely recommend 10% exploration, it really changed how I play my game. It's so much more entertaining, space feels vast. I might even try 5% next time...
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72