Aurora 4x

C# Aurora => C# Mechanics => Topic started by: gpt3 on May 25, 2022, 10:29:38 AM

Title: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: gpt3 on May 25, 2022, 10:29:38 AM

Aurora generally has a clear trade off between industrial options. The classic example of this is mining facilities:

Facility	Labour Cost	Material Cost	Valid Locations	Cargo Tons
Mine	50,000 (workers)	120	Everywhere	25,000
Automated Mine	0	240	Everywhere	25,000
Orbital Mining Module	50 (crew)	120	Asteroids and comets	5,000

However, ship-based terraformers appear to be better than ground-based terraformers across all dimensions.

Facility	Labour Cost	Material Cost	Valid Locations	Cargo Tons
Terraforming Installation	250,000 (workers)	600	Everywhere	125,000
Terraforming Module	100 (crew)	500	Everywhere	25,000

Why have terraforming installations at all? I can only think of a few edge cases where they would be useful:

• The player inherited a bunch of prebuilt terraforming installations from an NPR colony or ruin.
• The player is in a super low-tech game; they can't spare 5k RP to research terraforming modules.
• The player is asset-rich but cash-poor; they desperately need to maximise their tax income.
• The player is trying to roleplay a race that doesn't use orbital industry.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: skoormit on May 25, 2022, 12:14:32 PM

I pretty much never use surface terraformers, for the reasons you cite, but I'm actually using them some in my current game.

I'm playing at 30% science rate and with the 20% admin rule, so, as you suggest, tying up those labs for that long just hasn't been an attractive option.

On top of that, I'm playing with a random race in a random system.
This race just happens to have a Population Growth modifier of 2.2, and my home system has three bodies (besides the HW) that could be terraformed completely (in a reasonable timeframe).

In other words, the labor cost is irrelevant (because I'm swimming in population) and the transport cost is irrelevant (because these colonies are so nearby), but the tech cost to go orbital is substantial.

It took this perfect storm to get me to use surface terraformers, outside of occasional very-early game use for a home-system body that I want to terraform before researching the orbitals.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Cobaia on May 25, 2022, 12:22:23 PM

I like to colonize everything, even LG bodies.

I use terraforming installations:

1- Terraforming installations are free to move around (Civil Transports)
2- There is the hidden cost of other components on modules since you need to place them on a ship or a station, if station you need to build a Tug and factor ir the fractional cost of that Tug to move the stations.
3- Modules also cost you crew and commanders.

I also use modules to some extent but mainly for large systems with several planets and then dismantle them when the job is done.
I tend to use installations to systems with fewer colonizable bodies.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: nuclearslurpee on May 25, 2022, 12:37:39 PM

As it stands, the ground-based installations are almost strictly inferior to the orbital modules once the latter are researched. If the costs were the same, there would be some edge cases where the ground installations are useful but this is not the case.

As far as the suggested use cases:

• Using captured NPR infrastructure is not really an argument for why one would ever build TF installations themselves.
• Research cost is a valid point, but still once the tech has been researched there is no need to ever go back. There's not really any other technologies which work this way, some tech systems become more or less dominant than others over time but strictly eclipsing one system with another is not typical.
• If cash-poor, the best investment is financial centers, not overpriced other installations.
• Roleplay is a fair cop but isn't an argument in favor of poor balance.

In my 1.13 submod I have doubled the cost of the orbital module, however I think maybe a better solution is just to swap the costs of the ground and orbital facilities so the ground-based installations are cheaper. That should be sufficient to create a balanced, interesting decision while not changing the overall game balance of terraforming very much.

Quote from: Cobaia on May 25, 2022, 12:22:23 PM

1- Terraforming installations are free to move around (Civil Transports)

Actually a fair point. However, I don't think this even comes close to justifying the +100 BP cost difference though, especially since it is easy enough to find things for the civilians to do anyways, and late-game usually sees a need to cull the shipping lines to reduce slowdown so the benefit for growing shipping lines is questionable.

Quote

2- There is the hidden cost of other components on modules since you need to place them on a ship or a station, if station you need to build a Tug and factor ir the fractional cost of that Tug to move the stations.

I don't think these costs are substantial. The extra cost for a station is minimal, certainly much less than the 100 BP difference at hand, and the cost of a tug isn't really a problem since tugs are very generally useful anyways. If you have OMPs, FHSs, fleet support bases, etc. you already build tugs, so tugging terraforming stations is just another job they can do while they exist.

Quote

3- Modules also cost you crew and commanders.

Modules should not cost any crew as you would use the Conscript checkbox for any commercial ships. Commanders will not be a problem in 2.0 as we will be able to disable auto-assignment for classes.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Andrew on May 25, 2022, 01:01:03 PM

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on May 25, 2022, 12:37:39 PM

Quote

3- Modules also cost you crew and commanders.

Modules should not cost any crew as you would use the Conscript checkbox for any commercial ships. Commanders will not be a problem in 2.0 as we will be able to disable auto-assignment for classes.

Further as far as I can tell crew grade has no effect on terraformers (I could be wrong) so you can use conscript crews with no penalty. Some of your commanders have good terraforming bonus and often will not have other useful skills so assigning them to the terraformers is just a bonus to your terraforming abilities

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: ArcWolf on May 25, 2022, 01:04:39 PM

Quote from: Cobaia on May 25, 2022, 12:22:23 PM

1- Terraforming installations are free to move around (Civil Transports)

Fair enough.

Quote

2- There is the hidden cost of other components on modules since you need to place them on a ship or a station, if station you need to build a Tug and factor ir the fractional cost of that Tug to move the stations.

I don't see this as a valid reason, I use tugs a lot, military station, supply stations for my explorers, Fuel Harvester stations. I'm going to have built the tugs anyway, and most of the time they sit idle above one of my worlds.

Quote

3- Modules also cost you crew and commanders.

They cost 1 commander for the entire ship, which you don't even need to assign. Additionally, between the fact that by the time you can build massive terraformer stations, unless you do not build any academies, you will have more crew then you will ever need, even on training  lvl 5, not to mention there is no (discernable) penalty to making the terraformed stations crew "conscripts" over trained navel crews, which are for all intent and purposes free.


The only time i ever use ground based terraformers is if i get them for free from a ruin, and even then i usually ship them off to an uninhabited rock shortly there after, the man power is more valuable to me in science labs or mines then in a single station, especially when i usually play with 20/20/20 rules (20% Research, Surveying, Terraforming).

I think either Station Terraforms need to be nurfed or ground based need a buff. Easiest in my opinion would be to make Space based Terraformers less efficient. Since space based ones are 1/5 the size of ground ones, making them 1/5 as efficient would be a good place to start (as a test) and then see from there.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Cobaia on May 25, 2022, 01:29:08 PM

Thank you for your inputs, I was just trying to assert that such costs exists and should be factored.
If we are discussing min-max I agree that they are more efficient but we need to account all costs related to both parties, and we are also excluding the cost of workers and the underlaying infrastructure when using installations.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Demetrious on May 25, 2022, 02:41:21 PM

Quote from: Cobaia on May 25, 2022, 01:29:08 PM

Thank you for your inputs, I was just trying to assert that such costs exists and should be factored.
If we are discussing min-max I agree that they are more efficient but we need to account all costs related to both parties, and we are also excluding the cost of workers and the underlaying infrastructure when using installations.

Seconded on the infrastructure to support workers on a planet being terraformed. Given their large population requirement and the fact that your cargo lift capacity (both empire-owned and civilian contracted) will already be heavily tasked moving the terraforming plants themselves, it's a real pain. Manufacturing it doesn't take that long; and the costs are also pretty affordable - especially since the civilian industry will start manufacturing it "for free" and as far as I've seen, that infrastructure isn't tracked separately (I believe it was in VB6) so you can just pick it up and redistribute it later. No, it really is the logistical challenge of getting that stuff to its destination that causes an issue. Oh, AND you have to move the population, as well! (Though the opportunity cost issues here are highly situation as they depend on how many colony ships you've built and how heavily you typically task them.) Doing this within Sol is annoying, but not difficult. Doing it even one system over can be an issue. Doing it two or three jumps out? It can take years. Cheap terraforming stations that are towed into place are stupidly superior.

There's two caveats to this:

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on May 25, 2022, 12:37:39 PM

If cash-poor, the best investment is financial centers, not overpriced other installations.

I tend to under-build compared to the average Aurora player (or at least compared to Steve, judging from his AAR's) because I consistently find my biggest crunch isn't minerals, but wealth. So it's not a matter of "do I need more wealth or more terraformers?" because I always need more wealth - and I also need the terraformers anyway. So the fact the terraforming installations Create Jobs™ is significant to me. Birds, stones etc.

The second consideration is commander bonuses. Unless I am mistaken, ship-based production benefits from the ship's commander and any parent naval admin command(s), but not the civilian governor of the planet. This can be significant because generating enough commanders to fully fill out your orbital terraformer platform fleet(s) can be a real challenge - in fact Steve is upping the number of naval commanders produced next patch to address this issue overall (with multiple officers per ship due to modules the overall tax on the officer pool is higher.) If you have a civilian administrator with a decent to high terraforming bonus (and by the time you get out of Sol you'll probably have at least the guy who used to be in charge of Mars leveled up a bit from experience) you can get more out of each terraformer, and that's important because time is a precious resource unto itself, one you can't always quantify like minerals, etc.

I call these caveats because they don't, in any way, shape, or form, begin to make terraforming installations competitive. The logistics are the killer. Yes, orbitals tie up tugs and those are always in short supply (no matter how many I build I always need more) but they're tied up infrequently as they move the fleet to the next target planet and there they will sit, for months, usually for years. Production speed - since you can crank out the terraformer component with construction factories (or the entire finished product if you always use towed space stations as I do) there's no real difference in production, except that the installations are a bit slower (because they cost 100 more minerals) and because you have to build an initial investment of infrastructure to go along with them! And then you get to tie up a lot of your empire's cargo lift capacity to move the whole shebang any serious distance past a single jump out of Sol!

Humbly, I submit that the cost of ground-based Terraforming Installations should be significantly reduced - to 300, if not even further. Maybe 150-200. It'd not just be balanced, but also more lore-friendly; explaining why what takes one million workers on the ground can be done by a crew of a few hundred in space - automation. And automation costs. So if you have the lift capacity and spare population banging at the window to get into the new upper-class of the "TN economy," you have real incentive to go the manual route; plopping down "shake-and-bake" colonies so you can start Building Better Worlds.™

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: xenoscepter on May 25, 2022, 08:31:38 PM

 --- So uhhh, I'm going to chime in here for a second. Planetside Terraforming Installations derive a benefit from the Governor, while the Orbitals derive a benefit from Naval Officers instead. I actually tend to use both to maximize the bonus, however I've never sat down to math out if this works properly or not. However, it works in my head and AFAIK it works in game too, so... for your consideration I suppose.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: bankshot on May 25, 2022, 09:30:23 PM

My terraforming ships tend to be large and slow.  I'll sometimes use terraforming installations when I have a colony on a fairly small world  (terraform speed 10x or greater) that is far from the primary.  Sending a fleet of 5 freighters on a long journey can be more convenient than typing up one of my tugs to pull a terraforming ship tens of billions of km.  But it's an edge case and I'd never use more than a handful. 

I've also once used them for drying out an ocean world.  As long as I'm increasing the population cap faster than they are making new colonists the speed of doesn't seem to matter much.  But in that case I usually just leave one or two terraforming ships in orbit when the fleet moves on. 

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: xenoscepter on May 25, 2022, 09:37:44 PM

Quote from: bankshot on May 25, 2022, 09:30:23 PM

My terraforming ships tend to be large and slow. ~~Snippy Snips~~

 --- This. They only need to be fast enough to catch a planet. I typically make them with obscenely large engines relative to the payload and use 'em for years and years, until engine tech gets a good way further. Then they're replaced with more efficient vessels.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Garfunkel on May 26, 2022, 12:48:40 AM

Yeah, this has been discussed before and, from pure mechanics POV the installations are strictly inferior.

I tend to build some early in my conventional games that I use on Luna and Mars before I've had the time & chance to research the module and start building the TF stations.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: xenoscepter on May 26, 2022, 01:48:10 PM

 --- Fringe benefit, they're easier to defend with STOs and ground forces than an orbital might be.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Destragon on May 26, 2022, 02:20:11 PM

The only reason I use terraforming installations is, because I don't really like how the modules don't require any workers from the population. The installations require such a massive amount of workers, but when you put the same stuff on a space ship, it suddenly needs basically no workers. It feels too cheap to me.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Zincat on May 27, 2022, 09:59:52 AM

From a minmaxing point of view, installations are worse in every way. Even moving them to a different world can be troublesome. I don't know you, but I'm often using the civiians to move my stuff, especially in the early game, so they are rarely free.

Of course I will use installations that have been captured or found from alien ruins. But building them is not convenient

Now, roleplay reasons do of course exist. And I am always for roleplay. But mechanically they just won't cut it. A simple orbital stations with 10 modules can be quickly tugged and will be a much better investment...

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: ArcWolf on May 27, 2022, 10:56:34 AM

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).

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Cobaia on May 27, 2022, 11:40:25 AM

Quote from: ArcWolf on May 27, 2022, 10:56:34 AM

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 :P 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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on June 11, 2022, 07:58:09 AM

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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: xenoscepter on June 11, 2022, 08:41:31 AM

 --- 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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: gpt3 on July 05, 2022, 10:46:28 PM

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

Thanks Steve! ;D

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Lightning on July 07, 2022, 11:12:44 AM

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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: TallTroll on July 08, 2022, 08:19:28 AM

>> 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

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Droll on July 08, 2022, 04:24:56 PM

Quote from: Lightning on July 07, 2022, 11:12:44 AM

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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Rince Wind on July 09, 2022, 02:39:09 AM

Quote from: TallTroll on July 08, 2022, 08:19:28 AM

>> 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. ;)

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Erik L on July 09, 2022, 03:17:07 PM

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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: skoormit on July 09, 2022, 04:51:59 PM

Quote from: Erik L on July 09, 2022, 03:17:07 PM

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.

Title: Re: Why Build Terraforming Installations?
Post by: Jorgen_CAB on July 09, 2022, 06:16:13 PM

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.