Do you think there is too much low colony cost planets?

[Uran (OP)]

Hi All,

In my current game I have discovered 9 systems. They have 9 bodies with normal gravity and colony costs of 2 or lower. I have even more low gravity bodies with low colony costs.

My greed says colonize everything. But I think it will turn into micro-management nightmare.

But, first of all, do you think it is a little bit unrealistic to have so many habitable worlds? In such situation, the habitable worlds do not feel like precious rarity.

I do not know what role it will play to gameplay if the habitable worlds will be rarer. May be, it is ok to have them so much?

[nuclearslurpee]

Usually "habitable world" refers to a planet with CC=0.0 or very close. CC=2.0 or so is not too uncommon, you may discover an average of one every 1-2 systems depending on RNG.

What is rare in practice is not low-cost worlds but rather low-cost worlds that are also in good locations worth investment. By this I mean not only on a planet which has good minerals and is easy to colonize, but also the rest of the system has good prospects. Any CC=2.0 world in a backwater system can be used as a small fleet outpost with a dozen or so maintenance facilities, periodic MSP or mineral shipments, and a cruiser or two on station (and with Raiders in the game this is an important role to play). However, looking for a CC=2.0 world with good minerals, easy to terraform to CC=0.0, a rich asteroid belt, a nearby gas giant with accessible sorium, etc. is much more rare and these systems are the valuable ones.

If you want colonizable bodies to be less frequent I recommend reducing the gravity range for your species. By default humans have a gravity range of 1.0 ­± 0.9 G, if you reduce the range to ±0.65 for example then these CC=2.0 worlds become more valuable, and you also start to face challenges where you need a fleet base somewhere but must use LG infrastructure to colonize the most suitable body. You can probably similarly limit the range of habitable worlds by changing your species' oxygen, temperature, or pressure ranges but I think messing with gravity is more fun personally.

[Ulzgoroth]

Note that CC 2.0 isn't a habitable world in the slightest. You get 2.0 for any airless dry rock that happens to be orbiting in the habitable zone of its parent star. That's why it's pretty common.

It's relatively easy to terraform those worlds to true habitability, and relatively cheap in infrastructure to settle them. But they're not a place people can live without serious technological assistance.

[Froggiest1982]

I would agree especially when you start getting the Colonization bonuses which will turn every rock dark blue, however, you can fix it easily as it mainly relate to the very lenient parameters of the human race. Tweek pressure, atm, and such to lower values and you will get less blue/light blue worlds.

Overall, the colony cost is only for infrastructure though, as some 2.0 worlds could potentially take longer than a 7.xx world with terraforming values closer to Earth.

So again, the only reason I would change Human parameters is to avoi the 14 "habitable" worlds on thr galaxy map.

[Ulzgoroth]

It's awkward that the map differentiator for actually-habitable worlds isn't adjusted to compensate for that tech. 2.0 vs. less means something, but that meaning goes with 2.0 before colony cost adjustment, not after.

[JacenHan]

Maybe the <2.0 cost blue indicator should be changed to "breathable atmosphere and <2.0 cost", since before the reduction tech breathable atmosphere is the only thing that lets the cost go below 2.0.

[Ulzgoroth]

Maybe the <2.0 cost blue indicator should be changed to "breathable atmosphere and <2.0 cost", since before the reduction tech breathable atmosphere is the only thing that lets the cost go below 2.0.

Or just directly < 2.0 cost without cost reduction factor? (That would also prevent dangerous atmospheres and dry planets from getting a meaningless promotion.)

[Uran (OP)]

Note that CC 2.0 isn't a habitable world in the slightest. You get 2.0 for any airless dry rock that happens to be orbiting in the habitable zone of its parent star. That's why it's pretty common.

It's relatively easy to terraform those worlds to true habitability, and relatively cheap in infrastructure to settle them. But they're not a place people can live without serious technological assistance.

Good point! I didn't think that way. Rocks in the habitable zone are really common and they are just rocks actually, they are not precious worlds without infrastructure and human labor.

[Steve Walmsley]

For v2.4.0, I've changed the System View window and Galactic Map, so that colony cost reduction tech is accounted for when system bodies are categorised. For example, with 5% reduction tech, a colony cost 1.9 planet will still be Cyan.

[Garfunkel]

Yeah, the default gravity tolerance range is quite, well, tolerant There is a theoretical discussion to be had whether the human race could survive living on the Moon permanently, for example, or whether it would lead to birth defects and serious growth problems - at the very least the Luna-born might never be able to come back to Earth. I often run campaigns where I scale it down - going from 0.9 G to 0.5 G already makes a huge difference.

[nuclearslurpee]

Yeah, the default gravity tolerance range is quite, well, tolerant There is a theoretical discussion to be had whether the human race could survive living on the Moon permanently, for example, or whether it would lead to birth defects and serious growth problems - at the very least the Luna-born might never be able to come back to Earth. I often run campaigns where I scale it down - going from 0.9 G to 0.5 G already makes a huge difference.

I have been doing a range of 0.65 G and it makes a big difference... main reason for this selection was to still colonize Mars, but all of the moons in Sol are LG bodies. Even this fairly tolerant range makes you consider using LG infrastructure to colonize some planets, just because you need a few million pops to support a fleet base to defend a jump chain.

[Nori]

Yeah, the default gravity tolerance range is quite, well, tolerant There is a theoretical discussion to be had whether the human race could survive living on the Moon permanently, for example, or whether it would lead to birth defects and serious growth problems - at the very least the Luna-born might never be able to come back to Earth. I often run campaigns where I scale it down - going from 0.9 G to 0.5 G already makes a huge difference.

Yeah I think 0.5-1.5g is probably a more realistic range for humans...

In regards to the discussion as a whole, I think terraforming is just too fast by default. I reduced it to 0.25 on my recent game and that feels a lot better. Took me darn near 100 years to terraform a large earthlike planet.

[nuclearslurpee]

Yeah, the default gravity tolerance range is quite, well, tolerant There is a theoretical discussion to be had whether the human race could survive living on the Moon permanently, for example, or whether it would lead to birth defects and serious growth problems - at the very least the Luna-born might never be able to come back to Earth. I often run campaigns where I scale it down - going from 0.9 G to 0.5 G already makes a huge difference.

Yeah I think 0.5-1.5g is probably a more realistic range for humans...

In regards to the discussion as a whole, I think terraforming is just too fast by default. I reduced it to 0.25 on my recent game and that feels a lot better. Took me darn near 100 years to terraform a large earthlike planet.

I think of terraforming as an economic cost... the slower it is, the more you have to rely on building infrastructure to maintain colonies instead of being able to move from one to another by shifting older infrastructure from terraformed planets.

I usually like to expand rather fast and establish colonies in most systems as long as I have the transport capacity, so for my playstyle terraforming at the normal rate is in a sweet spot. I have been messing with conventional starts lately and I think in those cases terraforming can be slower, I've been using 50% racial research rates so probably the same for terraforming as well would be a sweet spot. 25% scares me though...