Change Log for v7.10 Discussion

[Haji]

However, the real issue is the armour. Perhaps the solution is a new type of 'armour' for habitats. The question becomes why it would only be used on habitats? In fact, it could be a new armour that is only suitable for objects that don't move under their own power and can only be 1 thickness, so you could also use for deep space stations, etc. A combination of 'habitat armour' and increased capacity should solve the problem.

I think that would work great.

[illrede]

Open to other suggestions. Also on UI, which I haven't used as much.

I've used UI once, it was to turn an asteroid into a on-ground fleet base because it was the best way to defend. I used construction battalions to build it, and the biggest (huge, frankly) problem was that I couldn't stop civilian colony ships from dropping off millions of people to their deaths on it, constantly, year after year, until the population hit 25 million.

[Bremen]

On the subject of both orbital habitats, underground infrastructure, and mining ships, would it be worth considering making automated mines more expensive as an alternative to trying to make those cheaper? I know I don't bother with either because it's so much easier just to build several hundred automated mines and drop them in place.

[Haji]

On the subject of both orbital habitats, underground infrastructure, and mining ships, would it be worth considering making automated mines more expensive as an alternative to trying to make those cheaper? I know I don't bother with either because it's so much easier just to build several hundred automated mines and drop them in place.

The thing is that automated mines are already plenty expensive at least in my opinion. Maybe I'm just not lucky with resources, but supplying my world with TN elements after the homeworld runs dry is usually quite a hassle and I have to use automated mines often. Being only twice as expensive as normal mines may not seem like much, but it is especially since you start with not a single one - all automated mines have to be built from nothing or by modifying manned complexes, which is cheaper but consumes time and resources without actually increasing your mining capacity. Last but not least for me it's not only about mining. I'm primarily a builder and from the very beginning Aurora captivated me with the number of bodies in existence. I want to be able to use as many of them as possible for RP reasons. I want to have belters floating among the asteroids, I want to make Triton habitable just because I can, I want to have outcasts hiding and living in orbital habitats in the Kuiper belt. I can set this up at the beginning but due to the costs I can neither build nor expand it during the game. Which is why I'm so passionate about the topic. I want cheaper orbital habitats so I can create whole civilizations where there were none.
Which reminds me I haven't commented on underground infrastructure. The biggest issue that makes the whole thing useless is that the reduction in colonization cost technology does not apply to UI. Once it does you can use R&D to lower UI requirement per million people to half of what it is, although it is admittedly very expensive. Other than that I'd love to see reduced price, preferably to three or four BP per unit. As you need 1.5 as much UI as normal infrastructure for million people (on Mars at least) than reducing cost to 4 BP would still make normal infrastructure cheaper on anything with colony cost 6 or less.
One other potential tweak to UI. I can get behind the idea it has to be build in place and you cannot use civilian shipping lines to transport it. That is reasonable considering what it's supposed to be and how much wider use it has. However it is difficult to believe that civilians living in such an underground city cramped like sardines would not try to help themselves. In case of infrastructure if colony is at its limit the civilian production of the colony would be automatically added, effectively making the colony expand itself. Something like this could be done for the UI, albeit on a lesser scale of course.

[Bremen]

Fair point about raising the cost of automated mines.

I do have one thought on orbital habitats, but it's more a coding/convenience one. IIRC, right now if you build an orbital habitat colony and fill it with colonists, then tow it somewhere else, the colonists get left behind (and probably die). How hard would it be to change that so that colonists will stay on an orbital habitat when it's towed to a new world? They don't have to continue producing money or growing in number or anything, but even if it just automatically treated them as in cryogenic suspension that would make orbital habitats handy as a sort of mobile colony.

On the other hand, that sounds like it might be a more tricky coding change. Maybe just give the habitat built in cryo support for as many colonists as it can hold, even if you have to order it to "load" its colonists before it can leave the planet and unload them when it arrives?

[Zincat]

Nice to see the changes about the orbital habitats. But the part about a deep space permanent station, however that is achieved, that's what makes my mouth water.

I would love to be able to put some permanent station in empty systems and the like. Like you see in so many science fiction setting. That would be so nice.

Regarding automated mines, they are rather costly, yes. But to be honest in my opinion they are still too convenient. They are so convenient, instead of all the trouble of managing a colony that can provide for them, that in my opinion they are still much more cost effective that normal mines. You don't really have to defend them, they don't cost upkeep, they can't revolt and don't need a garrison.  So you can't really say they are too expensive. You should not look only at the cost to build them....

Still the new orbital habitat + mine solution seems nice. We'll see how it pans out. As I'm much more roleplaying oriented than mechanics oriented, I love what I'm seeing.

About UI. This one is tricky. I like it very very much from a RP perspective, and I mostly play for that so... Still it has 2 problems in my opinion. Yes it's costly but I don't care much about that.
1 - It's really, really, really slow to build. Did I mention it's slow to build? After you build some then you can bring factories and such, but still... It takes a lot of time to start out, or a LOT of construction brigades.
2- It is underground but as far as I know there's no advantage for that. I mean, aside of the cost, from a roleplay perspective an underground city should be more resistant  to bombardment, safer from radiation, it should have a lower EM/thermal emission rating...  Building underground does provide some advantages! Yet I don't think the game models that at all...

[Garfunkel]

Regarding automated mines, they are rather costly, yes. But to be honest in my opinion they are still too convenient. They are so convenient, instead of all the trouble of managing a colony that can provide for them, that in my opinion they are still much more cost effective that normal mines. You don't really have to defend them, they don't cost upkeep, they can't revolt and don't need a garrison.  So you can't really say they are too expensive. You should not look only at the cost to build them....

This.

The only reason to use anything other than automated mines is either RP or really specialized game-specific context, like Steve and Haji described, which frankly are pretty rare. I'm very glad that there are multiple options and I'll gladly use them but the problem isn't that OH's are too expensive or that UI is slow to build, just that auto-mines are "cheap enough" and so damn convenient.

Having OH not use the regular ship armour would certainly make it cheaper and thus a slightly better option but unless auto-mines get their price hiked up or OHs become almost free, the basic priority/advantage issue between will not change.

[Haji]

Having OH not use the regular ship armour would certainly make it cheaper and thus a slightly better option but unless auto-mines get their price hiked up or OHs become almost free, the basic priority/advantage issue between will not change.

The example of a new orbital habitat shown by Steve in change log for 7.2 thread can support one million people which is enough to support sixteen mines. The habitats itself costs 1200 BP (approximately). Sixteen mines cost 120*16=1920BP for a total cost of 3120BP. For comparison 16 automated mines cost 16*240=3840BP.
Of course as the size of the colony increases, so does the service sector, proportionally. At ten million people the habitats could support 136 manned mines. The total cost would be 28320BP. For comparison 136 automated mines would cost 32640BP. So automated mines are still more expensive option, not even counting the fact that a manned colony produces taxes and trade goods.
At twenty five million people a colony can support three hundred and one mining complexes. The total cost is 66120BP. For comparison automated mines would cost 72240BP. Still more expensive.
To be honest I don't know how Aurora tackles the relationship between manufacturing sector percentages and total population, so I'm not sure where the breaking point is, although I'm pretty sure that with large enough colony automated mines will be cheaper once again. After all at some point only twenty five percent of total population will be able to man mines, while at twenty five million people sixty percent are available for government work. But for medium sized mining outposts operating 300-400 mines orbital habitats will be cheaper option already with the new 7.2 patch. Which for me is fantastic news.

[Zincat]

-snipped for legibility-

I have not done the calculations, but you are surely correct, based on cost alone.

But as I said that's just a small part of the whole, we're not just talking profitability here. Automated mines don't revolt, don't need garrisons, are more or less safe from attacks, can be moved at whim in case a system becomes not secure, or a planet's reserves of mineral dry up. Basically, they are logistically extremely simple to support.

Not so a colony, which has to be defended, manned, garrisoned and most importantly cannot be easily relocated for whatever reason.

With automated mines instead, once you built them you're basically done and the investment keeps reaping benefits forever. That is why I say they are the most cost effective.

At any rate, I mostly roleplay so it's not a problem for me and I'm happy about the new OH changes. just saying that in my opinion automated mines are, if anything, too cheap.

[MarcAFK]

I've always liked the idea that population in UI would be shielded from negative pop growth or bombardment. Say radiation has reduced a population to -12% growth, but there's enough UI to hold 5% of the population, for negative pop growth calculations that 5% of the pop is simply ignored, negative growth then becomes -11.4% not a major difference, but once the population falls or if more UI is made eventually growth will stop at 0%.

Hostile systems could be entirely colonised with UI for protection, or you coukd hastily make it on earth if it's bombarded.
Orbital habitats should also get the same mechanics, of course they're easily blown out of the sky anyway.

[Bremen]

Now I'm tempted to try playing a game without any automated mines, for RP reasons.

[JOKER]

To be honest I don't know how Aurora tackles the relationship between manufacturing sector percentages and total population, so I'm not sure where the breaking point is.

I have tried it, the breaking point is between 300-500 million people.
In one campaign I made a Mars mining colony, shipped more than one thouand mines and so many people onto it, but the efficiency never rise above 70%, as all of newly arrived people turn to service.

[JOKER]

Anyone have better idea about permanent fuel harvester station? This design works well, but really hard to relocate. As OH and rec module are too large, use less harvest module don't help.

Code: [Select]

North Carolina class Fuel Harvester    2,107,700 tons     7235 Crew     43638 BP      TCS 42154  TH 0  EM 0
1 km/s     Armour 8-1464     Shields 0-0     Sensors 1/1/0/0     Damage Control Rating 40     PPV 0
MSP 518    Max Repair 30 MSP
Intended Deployment Time: 12 months    Spare Berths 0   
Habitation Capacity 50,000   
Recreational Facilities
Fuel Harvester: 600 modules producing 38400000 litres per annum

Fuel Capacity 200,000,000 Litres    Range N/A

This design is classed as a Commercial Vessel for maintenance purposes
This design is classed as an Orbital Habitat for construction purposes


[Vandermeer]

Maintenance modules already exist. All I need to do is make them work in deep space. Would that suffice for what you need?

I am sure you would make a bunch of sci-fi simulationist players and occasional nomad style gamists very happy with that solution. There was always an urge for the concept of deep space bases, and we had so many ideas for bridging the gap of missing maintenance there with things like truly big hangars (since they also revitalize the clock) with exchangable modules, who would fly back for maintenance while being replaced by an identical module in time (essentially forcing to build everything double), or like me with just a massive civil swarm fleet that would deposit resource, population and shipyards for all military on locations after some transit time.
Deep space fit maintenance modules would void all those interpretation dances, and directly give us the tools that can finally paint all that fiction.

Don't forget to include perpetuum mobile for them then though: They need to be able to maintain themselves, or they stay useless for those stationary base or "Galactica" concepts still.

[MarcAFK]

As I already stated on the bay 12 forum, the rec facility is mostly redundant because if the habitat, your best bet is to half the size of the platform and make 2. Or just bigger tugs and patience.