v2.6.0 Changes Discussion Thread

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

Thread for discussion of changes announced for v2.6.0. Please do not post bug reports or unrelated suggestions in this thread.

[AlStar]

So it looks like you're working to solve the problem of binaries way the hell out in the middle of nowhere, potentially with no easy way to access (and just all-round gigantic systems in general.)

I like that you've made it an option - I've always designed my ships with a surfeit of range (each generation of engines has a "Miserly" variant, which takes the biggest engine I can design and matches it with the lowest power% - for ships that don't need to move quickly, and which I don't want to have to refuel often.) Things like my stabilization ships can travel hundreds of billions of km between refuels. So, for me, as long as there's something that can hold a stabilization point on the other end, I'm willing and able to send a ship over there and wait however long it takes to form a bridge.

That said, I can be annoyed as anyone when the number of surveyed objects in a system remains stubbornly under 100%, and little chunks of rock that are in the far outreaches of a system are the number one cause of such things. This looks like it will greatly help with that.

Edit: Okay, I change my answer - I just came across a trinary star system where the third star (which has a full solar system, along with some juicy-looking planets) is 720 billion km away. That's too far.

[QuakeIV]

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.

[Ulzgoroth]

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.

[Black]

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.

[David_H_Roarings]

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

[QuakeIV]

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.

[Zap0]

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.

[Steve Walmsley (OP)]

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.

[Froggiest1982]

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"

[Kelewan]

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

[Hazard]

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.

[Garfunkel]

Yes, exactly that. You don't have two billion unemployed on Earth at the start of a conventional start.

[alex_brunius]

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.

[Froggiest1982]

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

Thanks Steve!