Why Build Terraforming Installations?

[ArcWolf]

I realize i am a fringe case because i play with 20% terraforming speed, but to give you an idea. I build terraforming stations with 20-25 modules. 3-4 Stations above Mars (early game) can still take 20-30 years to make it a CC 0 planet. If i were to do that with instillations, were talking about investing 60-100mil population for 30 years. It's just not worth it for me. (yes i can play with quicker terraforming, but i feel that the default speed is too quick, terraforming should be close to a lifetimes work, not a few shot years).

[Cobaia]

I realize i am a fringe case because i play with 20% terraforming speed, but to give you an idea. I build terraforming stations with 20-25 modules. 3-4 Stations above Mars (early game) can still take 20-30 years to make it a CC 0 planet. If i were to do that with instillations, were talking about investing 60-100mil population for 30 years. It's just not worth it for me. (yes i can play with quicker terraforming, but i feel that the default speed is too quick, terraforming should be close to a lifetimes work, not a few shot years).

I see a fellow terraformer I use 10% and I try to terraform everything that moves I mix it and let it run, that's why I like installations, the population keeps organically growing (I change the default value for POP capacity as well usually to 5.0) this way the terraforming installations keep increasing. I like to role play it. That's the magic of this tool that Steve provided us.

[Jorgen_CAB]

I think that Steve should look at how these two interact in the game.

In my opinion you should want to use terraforming stations on planets where people can comfortably operate them and orbital stations to clean a planet to the point that population can operate them with installations more efficiently.

The only reason to build installations right now is if you need the jobs to get wealth or that you can more easily defend them on the ground. The defending part might get more important in the next version if raiders do try to destroy orbital structures, then installations will find a new important niche role.

[xenoscepter]

 --- If they were more powerful perhaps? In the old VB6, PDC launchers were better than ship-borne ones... they reloaded faster IIRC. So maybe have Terraforming installations be more powerful, and have it be in the "lore" that the orbital versions are smaller, scaled down ones.

[gpt3 (OP)]

Looks like this isn't an issue anymore with the latest update: http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=12523.msg160538#msg160538

Thanks Steve!

[Lightning]

I would think the reason to build installations instead of modules would be justified by having to maintain the changed atmosphere once you terraformed a body. Something not currently in the game, but would seem reasonable to have, and yes, I'm sure it would be a pain to implement. Other than that, yeah... the installations seem to be of little use or value.

[TallTroll]

>> the installations seem to be of little use or value.

Not quite true. Ground installations will never take extra minerals for repair (spaceborne modules on civilian ships could be damaged, and thus require repair work), and do produce tax income, which the modules don't. You can also build them with construction factories, rather than generally more limited shipyard space, and you can build them with less research investment and thus get them operating more quickly, so they do have some niche uses.

On the whole though, yes, installations are generally not as useful or widespread. I, and probably most players I suspect, only build a few at the start of a game, and then rely on terraforming ships when they become available, and any extra installations dug out of ruins or captured from NPRs. The 2.0 version will certainly be more interesting though, as they will become cheaper than modules, and easier to use, with the lower worker requirements and size, so there will be a genuine choice to be made over which you favour, especially for games that have a conventional start, and/or lowered research rates

[Droll]

I would think the reason to build installations instead of modules would be justified by having to maintain the changed atmosphere once you terraformed a body. Something not currently in the game, but would seem reasonable to have, and yes, I'm sure it would be a pain to implement. Other than that, yeah... the installations seem to be of little use or value.

I think even now the versatility of being able to just move terraformers without using valuable freighter space makes ground installations sub-par, though they are definitely better.

I think it would be more useful if planets that have enough gravity to sustain an atmosphere but lack/have a weak magnetic field should "leak" their atmosphere over time based on proximity and luminosity of the star they orbit. That way there is an incentive to build permanent ground terraformers in order to "maintain" the atmosphere on the otherwise habitable planet.

Would definitely want a maintain mode on the environment screen to make micro not hell though.

[Rince Wind]

>> the installations seem to be of little use or value.

Not quite true. Ground installations will never take extra minerals for repair (spaceborne modules on civilian ships could be damaged, and thus require repair work), and do produce tax income, which the modules don't. You can also build them with construction factories, rather than generally more limited shipyard space, and you can build them with less research investment and thus get them operating more quickly, so they do have some niche uses.

On the whole though, yes, installations are generally not as useful or widespread. I, and probably most players I suspect, only build a few at the start of a game, and then rely on terraforming ships when they become available, and any extra installations dug out of ruins or captured from NPRs. The 2.0 version will certainly be more interesting though, as they will become cheaper than modules, and easier to use, with the lower worker requirements and size, so there will be a genuine choice to be made over which you favour, especially for games that have a conventional start, and/or lowered research rates

I build my terraforming stations with construction factories.

[Erik L]

I don't use the modules as I prefer to keep my shipyards tooled to warships and scouts and keep a minimum of civilian yards. The installations are fine for me. I can make 10 to 20 and ship them where I need as my freighters are usually idle a lot.

[skoormit]

I don't use the modules as I prefer to keep my shipyards tooled to warships and scouts and keep a minimum of civilian yards. The installations are fine for me. I can make 10 to 20 and ship them where I need as my freighters are usually idle a lot.

You don't need shipyards.
Put the modules on an armourless space station, which you can build with construction factories.
Build a few tugs instead of overbuilding freighters.
Now you can ship 10 to 20 modules with a LOT less shipping tonnage (and fuel), and you don't need population to work them.

[Jorgen_CAB]

On the other hand... using the current version of the game. If you instead of using your factories to build expensive terraforming facilities you build a single extra shipyard which only will build terraforming platforms. The yard even expands itself and build more efficiently than factories. In the end you save wealth, population and resources.