Post reply

Warning - while you were reading 8 new replies have been posted. You may wish to review your post.

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: gpt3
« on: Yesterday at 12:17:23 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on May 17, 2024, 11:32:32 AM
New Colonists
Each construction phase, more colonists will become available at the rate of:
(Length of Construction Phase / Year) * Population * Colonization Pressure

For example, if colonization pressure was 5% and the population was 100m, then a 5-day construction phase would generate (5 / 365) * 100m * 5% = 68,493 colonists. A population of 1 billion with 2% pressure would generate 274,000 colonists every construction phase.

The max number of available colonists at any time will be equal to the annual amount generated. This 'production' of colonists has a side effect of breaking up the shipping line colony ships so they all don't move everywhere together. As shipping line colony ships load colonists they will be deducted from the available colonists total.

Should new colonist production be scaled by the species and/or governor population growth modifier? Given sufficient civilian transport capacity, every core world will eventually drift towards an equilibrium point where emigration is balanced by reproduction. In principle this is fine, but in practice the actual equilibria can vary surprisingly wildly based on local growth rates.

For example, let's consider Earth: homeworld, 12b capacity, colonization pressure 2%. In order to be at its equilibrium point, Earth will need a population with a 2% growth rate. I tried manually playing around with Earth's population in Spacemaster and got the below results:

Species Growth ModifierEquilibrium (millions)
2.05100
1.53400
1.251950
1.01000
0.8510
0.667300
0.5125
Posted by: bankshot
« on: June 10, 2024, 10:35:18 AM »

Quote from: alex_brunius on May 27, 2024, 02:46:41 AM

For immersion:
It's not mutually exclusive with the idea that this population is available to be more gainfully employed (earning higher salary/status) if they were moved into a prioritized trans-newtonian industry career instead where such opportunities exists on other colonies.

For gameplay:
It's handy to have colony shipping prioritize colonies with surplus workers without having to micromanage this yourself by turning stable on and off again in the larger empires having to monitor the surplus workers.

The pressure bump shouldn't be huge (maybe 2% of available/"unemployment" workers?), but would do a lot to help shipping lines pull colonists from where I would want them pulled without micromanagement.

Additionally I'd propose giving some priority to target planets where there is a worker shortage.  This would again ease micromanagement and makes sense from an immersion standpoint - colonists would be more likely to go to worlds where jobs were waiting for them, even if the world is less desireable (re: higher colony costs).  Any colonists en route should be subtracted from the shortage for this calculation. 
Posted by: Droll
« on: May 28, 2024, 01:08:02 PM »

I know this is sort of a lend them a hand, lose the entire arm situation I'm causing here, but it would be nice if the tactical view option (esp. the "Open Tactical Map" one) somehow was differentiated visually. Even simply forcing Open Tactical Map to be always on the top of the list would be very nice. I can see it getting buried in systems with a lot of fleets.

The above was mentioned and remedied in the suggestions thread.
Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: May 27, 2024, 05:23:28 PM »

So glad this is not a problem anymore https://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=11545.msg166635#msg166635

Thanks Steve!
Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: May 27, 2024, 02:46:41 AM »

Quote from: Hazard on May 23, 2024, 08:20:25 PM
Population that is in excess of required manufacturing personnel numbers is generally considered to be gainfully employed, just not in trans-newtonian industries relevant to the game.

Correct, but it could still be relevant to include some smaller pressure from this factor both for gameplay reasons and for flavor/immersion reasons.

For immersion:
It's not mutually exclusive with the idea that this population is available to be more gainfully employed (earning higher salary/status) if they were moved into a prioritized trans-newtonian industry career instead where such opportunities exists on other colonies.

For gameplay:
It's handy to have colony shipping prioritize colonies with surplus workers without having to micromanage this yourself by turning stable on and off again in the larger empires having to monitor the surplus workers.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: May 24, 2024, 07:28:08 AM »

Yes, exactly that. You don't have two billion unemployed on Earth at the start of a conventional start.
Posted by: Hazard
« on: May 23, 2024, 08:20:25 PM »

Population that is in excess of required manufacturing personnel numbers is generally considered to be gainfully employed, just not in trans-newtonian industries relevant to the game.
Posted by: Kelewan
« on: May 23, 2024, 10:34:55 AM »

I like the idea of "Colonization Pressure", but I think there is a factor missing.
Aurora does consider the security and environmental effects, but not being able to find a work and
to earn a living has been a major factor for migration around to world.

I would therefore suggest that either:
- a high unemployment rate increases the colonization pressure, or
- the number of unemployed workers could increase the maximum number of colonists

Posted by: Froggiest1982
« on: May 22, 2024, 06:50:54 PM »

Since reading the post of the new "Colonization Pressure" mechanic, I was puzzled if the actual "Colonization Pressure" words would clearly reflect what was going on. So I have turned to my friend Chat GPT using the full changelog from Steve, asking the same question. Here is the answer:

Instead of "Colonization Pressure," you could consider using the term "Migration Incentive" or simply "Migration Pressure." These alternatives reflect the concept of individuals being incentivized or pressured to migrate to certain colonies based on various factors such as infrastructure, security, and population capacity.

However, I was still unsure, since if I understood properly, what is going on is that the higher this number is, the higher number of people will be unhappy at their colony and be willing to pay to relocate to another world with perhaps higher desirability. When highlighting this, and after several other conversations, we agreed on the following:

"Relocation Rating"

I think the Relocation might still be better than Colonization. Eventually we could keep pressure and go for the following:

"Relocation Pressure"
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 22, 2024, 06:22:03 AM »

Quote from: Zap0 on May 21, 2024, 08:26:45 PM
The new shipping changes look good. It makes good sense to have only a certain amount of pop available for transportation.

Do the existing source, destination, stable buttons remain?

Is the emigration pressure percentage shown anywhere in the UI? I think it needs to, otherwise people will wonder why the civs don't ship anything to their new 10%+ colony.

Yes, source, etc. is the same.

Pressure is shown on the population summary in the first column after infrastructure.
Posted by: Zap0
« on: May 21, 2024, 08:26:45 PM »

The new shipping changes look good. It makes good sense to have only a certain amount of pop available for transportation.

Do the existing source, destination, stable buttons remain?

Is the emigration pressure percentage shown anywhere in the UI? I think it needs to, otherwise people will wonder why the civs don't ship anything to their new 10%+ colony.
Posted by: QuakeIV
« on: January 27, 2024, 01:05:50 AM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth on January 26, 2024, 09:01:26 PM
Quote from: QuakeIV on January 26, 2024, 12:34:26 PM
Regarding the LaGrange rule, perchance apply that to planets as well?  I've had a few cases where far-out gas giants had an LP and that made them interesting.
Having an LP doesn't do that much to make a gas giant in a huge orbit accessible, since the point is at a distance from the body that appears to relate to the orbital circumference.

Though it can be very helpful for catching some trojan asteroids.

Oh yeah good point, would need to be a moon.  I could swear it happened once.
Posted by: David_H_Roarings
« on: January 26, 2024, 10:02:22 PM »

Quote from: Ulzgoroth link=topic=13465. msg168369#msg168369 date=1706324486
Quote from: QuakeIV link=topic=13465. msg168365#msg168365 date=1706294066
Regarding the LaGrange rule, perchance apply that to planets as well?  I've had a few cases where far-out gas giants had an LP and that made them interesting.
Having an LP doesn't do that much to make a gas giant in a huge orbit accessible, since the point is at a distance from the body that appears to relate to the orbital circumference.

Though it can be very helpful for catching some trojan asteroids.

If we could put a DSP at Lagrange Points particularly at L1 then it would make a gas giant that is far out more accessible
Posted by: Black
« on: January 26, 2024, 09:17:03 PM »

Does the Limited Planet Distance option means that some real star systems could be missing the companion stars? I think from close stars Epsilon Indi and 40 Eridani could be affected for example.

SJW: Yes.
Posted by: Ulzgoroth
« on: January 26, 2024, 09:01:26 PM »

Quote from: QuakeIV on January 26, 2024, 12:34:26 PM
Regarding the LaGrange rule, perchance apply that to planets as well?  I've had a few cases where far-out gas giants had an LP and that made them interesting.
Having an LP doesn't do that much to make a gas giant in a huge orbit accessible, since the point is at a distance from the body that appears to relate to the orbital circumference.

Though it can be very helpful for catching some trojan asteroids.