v2.0.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I agree that an ark module's crew requirements should emulate the base 5% agri/env requirement in terms of crew. Even if crew =/= population and also the conscript option allows you to effectively create "new" crew. It would also be a decent approximation of the civilian population fighting back against invaders/boarders.

It's interesting that this is coming up based on a name change, when the rules for the Ark Module are exactly the same as the Orbital Habitat, and they have been around for many years.

[QuakeIV]

Lol

[Black]

I would guess that as a relatively niche feature, it was simply not in the focus for most people. Now when it is getting changed, people think more about it and share their opinion on the feature.

[db48x]

Are Deep Space Populations able to be tugged? Can they also be moved in orbit?

A Deep Space Population is not an object, it is a place very like a waypoint. Ships can go to the DSP and hang out there. They can be towed to or from a DSP. Any ship that is hanging out at a DSP might have population aboard, living in Ark Modules/Orbital Habitat modules. The most interesting change is that population living in an Ark Module is not left behind when the ship moves or is towed.

So you can tow a ship (or a station) containing population, but you can’t tow the Deep Space Population itself.

[alex_brunius]

It's interesting that this is coming up based on a name change, when the rules for the Ark Module are exactly the same as the Orbital Habitat, and they have been around for many years.

Yeah perception is important!
I think it's mainly because an "orbital habitat" is associated with Sci Fi stories like a floating/orbiting city which can be associated with ground populations or infrastructure on a planet, while an "Ark" is more associated with the generation ship stories that are assumed to travel for excessively long times without outside support.

IMO though I felt that orbital habitats were too cheap/easy to put into place before. If you ask me I think it should be more expensive than infrastructure to use orbital habitats/arks for example for the Jovian Moons ( with colony costs of around 6-8 ) but cheaper for Venus.

[nuclearslurpee]

It's interesting that this is coming up based on a name change, when the rules for the Ark Module are exactly the same as the Orbital Habitat, and they have been around for many years.

Besides the other points raised in response, I would note that "well AcKsHuLlY..." the matter was raised due to the potential for an enemy to board an Ark Module and capture the population onboard, which has not previously been the case - if an enemy captured an old OrbHab the population would remain grounded and just die off from a lack of 'infrastructure'. The question was whether those 200,000 or so people might not put up a little bit more of a fight when faced with the possibility of forced relocation to an alien gallicite mine. After this we have had the additional comments from the Realism Brigade™ about crew requirement to operate the facility.

Technically this also applies to the luxury passenger module, but no one actually uses that for transporting colonists so it hasn't really come up before.

IMO though I felt that orbital habitats were too cheap/easy to put into place before. If you ask me I think it should be more expensive than infrastructure to use orbital habitats/arks for example for the Jovian Moons ( with colony costs of around 6-8 ) but cheaper for Venus.

I think it is a good balance point where it is. Currently, OrbHabs match the efficiency of regular infrastructure for a colony cost between 5.0 and 6.0, and there's good reasons to consider both options for a range of CCs on either side of that breakpoint. For example, for colonizing Jovian moons OrbHabs/Arks may be nominally cheaper but would require a tug to get into place while infrastructure can be shifted by a robust civilian shipping sector for just a few spacebucks.

This is similar to how the changes to Ark Modules make them cost-effective modes of colonist transport but in practice not always easy to use due to large size, so that more expensive colony ships will likely remain the most time-efficient mode of transport for at least a good portion of the game. In the late game this may change but that is fine as a big part of the tech tree design in Aurora is how different technologies come into their own at different times during the game.

[Droll]

I agree that an ark module's crew requirements should emulate the base 5% agri/env requirement in terms of crew. Even if crew =/= population and also the conscript option allows you to effectively create "new" crew. It would also be a decent approximation of the civilian population fighting back against invaders/boarders.

It's interesting that this is coming up based on a name change, when the rules for the Ark Module are exactly the same as the Orbital Habitat, and they have been around for many years.

It's also because thanks to DSPs OH/Arks are also going to act like planets in a way, being able to independently support population so it makes sense that they should behave more consistently in certain regards.

It's something I always found weird because you can currently use OHs to actually reduce the env/agri % of a planet proportionally. I've got worlds with 6bn ppl and 2bn orbitals that have like 3-4% agri because for some reason orbital habitats just make it even easier to live on an already habitable planet.

I just haven't vocalized this before because it wasn't a thing being actively looked at and changed.

[Vivalas]

Very cool! 

I like the Arks for the ability to make JP anchorages. I can now "populate" JPs and have an actual base of operations there with all of the associated shenanigans a JP population will bring.

That and solar colonies on empty systems.

I love the Deep Space 9 vibes here. Star Trek roleplay stuff also benefits from this. The Galaxy-class literally is a moving city with a large civilian accompaniment, and being able to spice your setting up with things like this and misc components is pretty neat! And roleplay aside, I think there's also a meaningful choice here with orbital habitats now functioning as much cheaper but more logistically challenging colony ships, along with the flexibility they entail. The possibility of mobile fleet bases opens up some pretty serious strategic and operational decisions.

[Garfunkel]

Technically this also applies to the luxury passenger module, but no one actually uses that for transporting colonists so it hasn't really come up before.

A-hem, I do use them! Only in my latest game and only for few ships for RP purposes... BUT STILL! 

IMO though I felt that orbital habitats were too cheap/easy to put into place before. If you ask me I think it should be more expensive than infrastructure to use orbital habitats/arks for example for the Jovian Moons ( with colony costs of around 6-8 ) but cheaper for Venus.

I think it is a good balance point where it is. Currently, OrbHabs match the efficiency of regular infrastructure for a colony cost between 5.0 and 6.0, and there's good reasons to consider both options for a range of CCs on either side of that breakpoint. For example, for colonizing Jovian moons OrbHabs/Arks may be nominally cheaper but would require a tug to get into place while infrastructure can be shifted by a robust civilian shipping sector for just a few spacebucks.

This is similar to how the changes to Ark Modules make them cost-effective modes of colonist transport but in practice not always easy to use due to large size, so that more expensive colony ships will likely remain the most time-efficient mode of transport for at least a good portion of the game. In the late game this may change but that is fine as a big part of the tech tree design in Aurora is how different technologies come into their own at different times during the game.

Yeah, there is no need to touch OH/ARK cost for now, at least.

[Bughunter]

If you wanted to minmax I suppose you would always keep ark modules less than full to benefit from the growth there.

[Density]

If you wanted to minmax I suppose you would always keep ark modules less than full to benefit from the growth there.

Depends on the situation.
If the surface has a low to mid CC, and there is room, sure you could periodically unload from the arks.
If the surface has a high CC (venusian/frozen), it seems to me a better choice to just let the arks be full rather than drop population on the surface and wreck the available workforce.
If the surface isn't habitable (high grav/DSP), the only way to get pop off the ark is to move it somewhere else. If your needs for pop growth justify this, you may have too many arks.
So from my point of view, the more desirable it is to have an orbital population at a colony in the first place, the less desirable it is to unload them.

[TMaekler]

Since we do have generation/ark ships now, could we have survival pods that last longer than 14 days? I always preferred to be able to generate survival pods depending on playstyle / race behaviour. Klingons of course would not add survival pods at all, but the Federation would create one that would last one person for 20 years... . Ok, kidding aside, depending on the level of deep space operations it would be a nice flavour add if we could design survival pods that last for a specified duration of time (and would of course be bigger, depending on how much food etc. you would add to that module. Also if you have a pod designed for 200 survivors and only have 100 it should last double the time... . Also being able to specify how much pod capacity a ship has would become part of the ship design (yes, thinking Titanic here...).

[Vandermeer]

Since we do have generation/ark ships now, could we have survival pods that last longer than 14 days? I always preferred to be able to generate survival pods depending on playstyle / race behaviour. Klingons of course would not add survival pods at all, but the Federation would create one that would last one person for 20 years... . Ok, kidding aside, depending on the level of deep space operations it would be a nice flavour add if we could design survival pods that last for a specified duration of time (and would of course be bigger, depending on how much food etc. you would add to that module. Also if you have a pod designed for 200 survivors and only have 100 it should last double the time... . Also being able to specify how much pod capacity a ship has would become part of the ship design (yes, thinking Titanic here...).

I would like that. In the past I have sometimes created 200-250t personalized life pods for larger ships that had emergency cryo pods on them and enough fuel/ low power engines to tow the survivors back to port on their own over very long time.
It would be kind of atmospheric to have survival pod capacity/quality part of the design in some way. Maybe instead of costing tonnage though which is currently well balanced, they could just incur cost on the efficiency of the crew quarter. So to get the current state of 14 lifepods, the crew quarters are just as effective as they are now, but if you want 60 days, maybe they lose 25% capacity or something, and on the other side you might get another +5%(?) by completely omitting them.(perhaps also a crew quality penalty from morale though? but seems too complex)

[Agraelgrimm]

I have a question. Does making a deep space population on a point, asteroid or etc make it viable to have space stations now? Like not having to worry about time on space, maintenance and etc?

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

I have a question. Does making a deep space population on a point, asteroid or etc make it viable to have space stations now? Like not having to worry about time on space, maintenance and etc?

You can't put a DSP on an asteroid. You would just create a normal pop on an asteroid. Space stations work the same at DSP as they do at normal pops.

Space stations are already viable in 1.13. I use them all the time.