Change Log for v7.10 Discussion

[Steve Walmsley]

Asteroid mining module should be renamed space mining module and should be working on anything with low enough gravity.

I've been looking into this in more detail, using my campaign as an example as there are nearly four hundred systems. The question is where we draw the line for 'orbital mining modules' . Lets assume 0.1G for starters.

Asteroids: 27,787. 22 are 0.1G or higher.
Moons: 14,112. 1,533 are 0.1G or higher.
Terrestrial Planets: 795. 8 are 0.1G or lower
Dwarf Planets: 456. 319 are 0.1G or lower

So setting to 0.1G would make all but the very largest asteroids available, almost 90% of moons and 70% of dwarf planets but very few terrestrial planets and no terrestrial moons (although about 20% of small terrestrial moons).

At 0.05G, we would have:
Asteroids: 27,787. 182 are 0.05G or higher.
Moons: 14,112, 2908 are 0.05G or higher
Terrestrial Planets: 795. One at 0.05G or lower
Dwarf Planets: 456. 161 are 0.1G or lower

Setting to 0.05G would make 99% of asteroids available, almost 80% of moons and 35% of dwarf planets but essentially no terrestrial planets or terrestrial moons

A third option would be to start with 0.05G and have tech to raise it.

[Sematary]

I am always a fan of tech progressions.

[Bremen]

Of those two, .05g seems reasonable to me (when I imagine asteroid mining, I picture them basically knocking rocks loose, possibly with lasers). I'll second that the tech progression path sounds really cool though.

[MarcAFK]

Tech progression sounds good, maybe even start lower than .05 and raise it opening up new sites.

[Haji]

Of those two, .05g seems reasonable to me (when I imagine asteroid mining, I picture them basically knocking rocks loose, possibly with lasers). I'll second that the tech progression path sounds really cool though.

The things is the amount of minerals on the body is dependent on the size of the body. The smaller the body the less minerals it has and the less useful orbital mining module becomes. So while realistically it should be useful only on very low gravity bodies (below 0.02g for example) it would make them almost useless and I'd rather avoid another 'dead' technology like orbital habitats or underground infrastructure, which are great concepts but not economically viable.
All that being said 0.05g is still reasonable as it would cover most dwarf planets in the Sol system, which can have deposits around 200k tonnes of several minerals, which is quite reasonable (although it can still be exhausted in a single campaign several times over). Pluto and Eris would be out however.
As a personal opinion I think orbital mining modules should start at 0.03 with technology increasing the cap by 0.01g until it reaches 0.1g. If we use mining technology as a baseline, the cost would be 3k RP for 0.04g, 5k RP for 0.05g, 10k RP for 0.06g, 20k RP for 0.07g, 40k RP for 0.08g, 80k RP for 0.09g and 150k RP for 0.01g. This would make it quite realistic in the short term and very viable method of mining in the long term. 

[doulos05 (OP)]

The things is the amount of minerals on the body is dependent on the size of the body. The smaller the body the less minerals it has and the less useful orbital mining module becomes. So while realistically it should be useful only on very low gravity bodies (below 0.02g for example) it would make them almost useless and I'd rather avoid another 'dead' technology like orbital habitats or underground infrastructure, which are great concepts but not economically viable.
All that being said 0.05g is still reasonable as it would cover most dwarf planets in the Sol system, which can have deposits around 200k tonnes of several minerals, which is quite reasonable (although it can still be exhausted in a single campaign several times over). Pluto and Eris would be out however.
As a personal opinion I think orbital mining modules should start at 0.03 with technology increasing the cap by 0.01g until it reaches 0.1g. If we use mining technology as a baseline, the cost would be 3k RP for 0.04g, 5k RP for 0.05g, 10k RP for 0.06g, 20k RP for 0.07g, 40k RP for 0.08g, 80k RP for 0.09g and 150k RP for 0.01g. This would make it quite realistic in the short term and very viable method of mining in the long term.

I could get behind this.

[MarcAFK]

Sounds good.

[Steve Walmsley]

The things is the amount of minerals on the body is dependent on the size of the body. The smaller the body the less minerals it has and the less useful orbital mining module becomes. So while realistically it should be useful only on very low gravity bodies (below 0.02g for example) it would make them almost useless and I'd rather avoid another 'dead' technology like orbital habitats or underground infrastructure, which are great concepts but not economically viable.

Agree the point about 'more minerals on higher gravity bodies'. Before the original posting I checked what the gravity of asteroids actually being mined and they were in the 0.02G - 0.1G range, so I think the tech progression concept you outlined is probably in the right ballpark.

With regard to orbital habitats, this is the original post: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=2631.0

The key paragraph is:

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.

I've been playing around with orbital habitats for the Caliphate in my current game and I agree they are difficult to justify economically. Perfect for interesting start-ups but not ideal to create mid-game. So we need to find a way to make them either cheaper or larger while maintaining internal consistency within the game. For example, one option is to assume that while orbital habs are 250,000 tons that is spread over a much greater volume than would normal for a warship. A US carrier is around 100,000 tons and has a crew of perhaps 5000. However, if you took the materials that went into that carrier and used them to build accommodation only, you could create a much larger structure, albeit it with the same mass. I'm a little concerned about the precedent because mass and volume have always been equal in Aurora for the sake of simplicity but given the sheer size of orbital habitats that is probably OK. On this basis, the mass and cost could stay the same and the capacity is increased,

Another option could be that structures with multiple habitat modules create a multiplier to accommodation space. This is a similar principle that used by armour in that if ship A is twice as large as ship B it doesn't need twice as much armour volume to cover the same depth. If we assume that each extra hab module increase overall space by a set amount (say 50%) then five modules would have their total capacity multiplied by 250%.

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

[Sematary]

Would there be a way to also make a deep space station? One game of mine stands out for this and The Moat in yours isn't too far off. Wolf 365, or something similar was two jumps away from Sol and was just a star with nothing orbiting it, however it had something like eight jump points and it quickly became the most traveled in system in my empire. At one point it was even the staging area for two fronts in different wars. That would have been perfect for an armed resumption and refueling station but shy of building a huge ship and just sitting it at some way point there really didn't seem to be a good way to have such a station. It sounds like the Commonwealth's system The Moat in Colonial Wars may end up with a similar role, albeit in most likely a smaller role.

[Steve Walmsley]

Would there be a way to also make a deep space station? One game of mine stands out for this and The Moat in yours isn't too far off. Wolf 365, or something similar was two jumps away from Sol and was just a star with nothing orbiting it, however it had something like eight jump points and it quickly became the most traveled in system in my empire. At one point it was even the staging area for two fronts in different wars. That would have been perfect for an armed resumption and refueling station but shy of building a huge ship and just sitting it at some way point there really didn't seem to be a good way to have such a station. It sounds like the Commonwealth's system The Moat in Colonial Wars may end up with a similar role, albeit in most likely a smaller role.

The problem is connected to the way the program is written. All populations are based on system bodies and everything that deals with populations expects that body to exist. It may be possible to have some way of towing a small asteroid to where you need it.

However, I suspect what is really needed is some way to maintain ships in deep space, rather than a full blown population. If we had a ship that could maintain other ships in the same location, that would probably be all that was needed. Beyond that, repair ships are already possible (just a ship with a large hangar) as are recreational modules to allow shore leave, while fuel and munitions can already be based in deep space.

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

[MarcAFK]

Deep space maintenance stations sound good to me.

[Haji]

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

I think that before we decide how to tackle the capacity per size issue, we should first decide what the orbital habitat modules should cost. Let's start by checking how much normal infrastructure cost, as so far I haven't seen anyone complaining that it is too expensive.
The infrastructure is very simple to build and costs two duranium per unit, no more no less. On Mars this translates to four hundred duranium per million people and, by extension, to four hundred build points for every million of people. As orbital habitats allow you to build colonies everywhere and they do not require any population for agriculture and life support, one could argue that two thousand BP for a million colonists is reasonable. Currently it costs two hundred BP for fifty thousand people or four thousand BP for a million colonists not counting life support, bridge and armour (it is a ship after all). Overall when I try to build it in aurora, using composite armour technology, I have to spend 6808 BP for a habitat for one million people, or thirty four times as much as I would have to pay for infrastructure on Mars for this many people. By expending orbital habitat module capacity to 250 000 people without changing cost I would have to pay about seven times as much as I would have to pay for infrastructure. That could be more or less considered reasonable.
There is a catch however. You get free infrastructure from civilian sector. A lot of it. Which you can use however you want. In most of my games I would guess no more than one tenth of the infrastructure in play is made by my factories, with all the rest coming from civilians. If that is correct, than even by increasing the orbital habitat module capacity fivefold, I'd still end up paying seventy times as much for space for one million colonists as I would have to pay if I was using infrastructure. That's a pretty steep price.
To be honest I'm not sure how to deal with the issue. Making orbital habitats cheaper than infrastructure would be just wrong, but the fact you can get so much of it for free form the civilian shipping lines is undeniable. On the other hand the habitats are not supposed to replace normal colonization, so they should be more expensive, but not to such a large degree I think. Overall I'd say the right cost would be one thousand BP for one million people for habitats, but that after including armour, living spaces and such. That would require the current cost to be reduced to twenty BP per fifty thousand people. In most of my games that would mean my factories would have to work for a year to create enough habitats for five million people, which is enough to support a hundred mines or factories, if my memory serves. If so creating a colony on Venus for four hundred mines (as an example) would require eight years or so for both habitats and mines, which seems just right. It is of course only my opinion and all of the numbers here are highly speculative and very much dependent on the play style of the particular person.
One thing about modifying the size of the habitats - they need to be towed to their target location, which means they cannot be too large or making a tug for them will be very difficult.

[Garfunkel]

You're looking at it from a wrong angle: you shouldn't make OH an attractive alternative to infrastructure - OH should be used when using infrastructure is pointless or really difficult. Venus is a good example because no matter how much "free" infra your civilian sector produces, majority of the population on Venus will always be tied down to maintaining it thanks to the high colony cost.

But the real problem is that there is no need for population on Venus in the first place because we have automated mines. It's them that take away need for orbital habitats. Only if you make the cost of a manned mine and the OH that works it cheaper than an automated mine, will the problem go away. At that point players will only use automated mines because they lack workers or they are rich enough to avoid the hassle of placing OHs and moving population there.

[Steve Walmsley]

I think that before we decide how to tackle the capacity per size issue, we should first decide what the orbital habitat modules should cost. Let's start by checking how much normal infrastructure cost, as so far I haven't seen anyone complaining that it is too expensive.
The infrastructure is very simple to build and costs two duranium per unit, no more no less. On Mars this translates to four hundred duranium per million people and, by extension, to four hundred build points for every million of people. As orbital habitats allow you to build colonies everywhere and they do not require any population for agriculture and life support, one could argue that two thousand BP for a million colonists is reasonable. Currently it costs two hundred BP for fifty thousand people or four thousand BP for a million colonists not counting life support, bridge and armour (it is a ship after all). Overall when I try to build it in aurora, using composite armour technology, I have to spend 6808 BP for a habitat for one million people, or thirty four times as much as I would have to pay for infrastructure on Mars for this many people. By expending orbital habitat module capacity to 250 000 people without changing cost I would have to pay about seven times as much as I would have to pay for infrastructure. That could be more or less considered reasonable.
There is a catch however. You get free infrastructure from civilian sector. A lot of it. Which you can use however you want. In most of my games I would guess no more than one tenth of the infrastructure in play is made by my factories, with all the rest coming from civilians. If that is correct, than even by increasing the orbital habitat module capacity fivefold, I'd still end up paying seventy times as much for space for one million colonists as I would have to pay if I was using infrastructure. That's a pretty steep price.
To be honest I'm not sure how to deal with the issue. Making orbital habitats cheaper than infrastructure would be just wrong, but the fact you can get so much of it for free form the civilian shipping lines is undeniable. On the other hand the habitats are not supposed to replace normal colonization, so they should be more expensive, but not to such a large degree I think. Overall I'd say the right cost would be one thousand BP for one million people for habitats, but that after including armour, living spaces and such. That would require the current cost to be reduced to twenty BP per fifty thousand people. In most of my games that would mean my factories would have to work for a year to create enough habitats for five million people, which is enough to support a hundred mines or factories, if my memory serves. If so creating a colony on Venus for four hundred mines (as an example) would require eight years or so for both habitats and mines, which seems just right. It is of course only my opinion and all of the numbers here are highly speculative and very much dependent on the play style of the particular person.
One thing about modifying the size of the habitats - they need to be towed to their target location, which means they cannot be too large or making a tug for them will be very difficult.

Excellent point about the free infrastructure from civs.

Lets use your number of "one thousand BP for one million people for habitats", that is 25% of the current cost and you would still have the cost of the armour (I know you mentioned 1000 including armour). However, if we reduce the cost of the habitat but keep the same size, the armour becomes the primary cost.I have a 1m pop habitat as 6836, with 4000 BP for the habitats and 2610 BP for the armour. If we reduce the cost of the habitat to 1000 BP, the armour is still 2610 BP. So we are very limited in terms of cost reduction because the armour is the issue.

Instead, lets use my aircraft carrier analogy and increase the capacity on the assumption the volume is greater than an equivalent mass ship and the armour is spread more thinly. If we assume 250,000 colonists per 250,000 ton habitat and keep the cost the same that gives us a million ton habitat for our million people at a cost of 1782. A habitat for five million colonists would be five million tons and cost 6836, so larger habitats bring the cost down.

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.

[Steve Walmsley]

You're looking at it from a wrong angle: you shouldn't make OH an attractive alternative to infrastructure - OH should be used when using infrastructure is pointless or really difficult. Venus is a good example because no matter how much "free" infra your civilian sector produces, majority of the population on Venus will always be tied down to maintaining it thanks to the high colony cost.

But the real problem is that there is no need for population on Venus in the first place because we have automated mines. It's them that take away need for orbital habitats. Only if you make the cost of a manned mine and the OH that works it cheaper than an automated mine, will the problem go away. At that point players will only use automated mines because they lack workers or they are rich enough to avoid the hassle of placing OHs and moving population there.

There are other uses. In my current campaign the Caliphate is short of suitable colony sites because they have been grabbed by other powers and the Caliphate cannot take them by force due to the recent unfortunate loss of its navy . Therefore it is looking to create an actual functioning colony, rather than just a mining site. Automated mines are also a lot easier to move around than orbital habitats, although I agree we have to be careful not to make OH +  mines an obviously better option than automated mines