Donate to Build the Autobots a Moonbase!

[Zalthun]

Building a starbase when the game starts is just murder on your economy, but you can't refit colony ship pods without one, thus ensuring that you either A) Must build more colonizers or B) Must suffer the 1930s not to.
Either way, this is annoying (though possibly intended to slow down expansion).

I suggest starting with Earth and a Moon Base that is unique, and can do what a Starbase and Shipyard can, minus the guns. The lunar outpost would be cool, could be called something fun (Armstrong City?), and would allow for refitting and such of ships in Earth orbit. Also, come on... By that year (2151) wouldn't we have at least a moonbase? We went there in the 1969, and the only real reason we aren't there today is the money aspect. Just sayin...

Anyway, anyone dis/agree with this?

[jorgen_cab]

Yes... I would disagree!

In my opinion the last thing we need is making it even easier than it already is to expand in the game. Building colony ships is not very difficult for Earth, especially after you upgraded your industry to high levels.

I would rather like to see expansion becoming much harder and more expensive so you need to make more hard choices and certainly more strategic choices. Currently after you colonized a few good planets you can basically afford to colonize everything worth colonizing since your economy expand exponentially quite soon.

There are not many mechanics in place to slow expansion down. At least so far for me... I will start my fourth game soon and try to avoid wars as much as possible and see how it goes.

One thing to stop this could be a slightly more aggressive AI, but then again... why start war for wars sake! Might not make much sense in reality for an otherwise reasonable race. Trade and friendly relationships will usually pay of more for everyone involved.

[Zalthun]

but then again... why start war for wars sake! Might not make much sense in reality for an otherwise reasonable race. Trade and friendly relationships will usually pay of more for everyone involved.

Because the it is the Necromonger Way!

I don't tend to be a despot in these sorts of games, but having the OPTION to be evil is nice. Besides...think about humanity. Babylon 5 got it totally right, and we WOULD be the bad guys.

[jorgen_cab]

Yes... fear of being betrayed is something that has to be weighed into any agreement. But trade will usually make "the people" unwilling to engage in hostilities the longer that trade goes on. In time it will not matter what the despot wants, he will just be replaced if he messes with the masses...

It's a shame that most games don't care what the people want and just let the player play God with their robotic population...

One of the bigger issues of colonization might be that population birth rates are much too high. In a year we should perhaps see about 1-3% (per turn) of total population increase in total in a human empire. Technology might increase this further if we resort to cloning or some other measure of breeding people in labs.

More realistic population growth might make the colonization part of the game a little more interesting as well.

[Zaimat]

We will tweak population growth but it's very tricky to balance it.

Lowering it affects not just the good terran colonies but significantly more non-ideal colonies who have penalties on population growth, low population max and so on. Too much and only terran planets become worthwhile for colonization.

Population has a very big effect on economy and income so we have to tread carefully here.

[Zalthun]

We will tweak population growth but it's very tricky to balance it.

Lowering it affects not just the good terran colonies but significantly more non-ideal colonies who have penalties on population growth, low population max and so on. Too much and only terran planets become worthwhile for colonization.

Population has a very big effect on economy and income so we have to tread carefully here.

Are you planing on making a system/option for populations to rebel against you and either descend into anarchy, making a planet useless, or go to another empire? If Babylon 5 taught me anything, it's that a species doesn't need to run with its own government to succeed.

[Lithari]

I think its not the base population growth that's the problem, its likely the tech that increases it.

I mean, imagine a world that has 3 billion people on it, that unlike us, some want to help, some want to get ahead, no matter the cost to others, another lot, just doesn't care and does nothing, unless inaction affects them and others just cause nothing but harm to anyone, but instead wants to help each other, for the benefit of all, I am thinking the population growth would be massive.

I mean, if you think about it, right now there are nations that are in famine and/or totally poor, there is enough food in the world and money in the world that all these problems will be gone easily with plenty left over, but that won't happen, since they tend to think about: 'what do we get out of it'.

What if the population on this colony that you believe is growing too fast, doesn't have this limitation.

[jorgen_cab]

Well... I'm mainly looking from a semi-realistic viewpoint and game balnce is another thing. But here goes some suggestions for how it might be handled.

Population growth should not care much about the condition of a planet as long as there are infrastructure to support the population then new babies will be born (in theory). Sure, on Terran planets you can have babies and have them living in huts or more simple buildings so expanding the population will be easier.

You then have migration, there is nothing that theoretically hinders migration to harsher worlds, although I presume people rather migrate to more hospitable climates.

In the end I presume that it will be the economy that decides where people migrate or decide to start a family. Why should people migrate to a poor dessert planet?
If it is a mineral rich planet where many mining companies settled there might be allot of jobs in that sector but not much potential for raising families. Most people there will be short time workers and so the population count and growth will be very low, there is nothing strange about it.

I see no reason why Terran worlds should hug all the population while more inhospitable worlds should still be able to turn profit based on workers taking short time work on these planets. That is, almost all population growth should be based on migration and the working potential of the planet (not its living space potential). There should be very few permanent families living there.

Exactly how this can translate into the game I'm not sure, but it might require some small changes to the underlying code, but it should probably be doable with the current game mechanics I believe.

[Zalthun]

Why should people migrate to a poor dessert planet?

Because...there they shall give you pie.

Also, more seriously, what if they found spice there? Where's my spice on the desert planets, yo?

[Madbiologist]

We will tweak population growth but it's very tricky to balance it.

Lowering it affects not just the good terran colonies but significantly more non-ideal colonies who have penalties on population growth, low population max and so on. Too much and only terran planets become worthwhile for colonization.

Population has a very big effect on economy and income so we have to tread carefully here.

Have you considered diminishing return models? If you have, making them more pronounced at the higher pop levels?

This might just keep them 12b planets from producing so much wealth that you get flooded with cash but not cripple the smaller worlds who just starting to turn a profit and add to your empire. I think this should also apply to science output as well. So smaller research colonies are still competitive and desirable, and max pop worlds don't just dominate the sciences by a landslide. I also think science output tends to get a little out of hand as well when you hit the point that money goes out the roof.

In lore justification, a population gets larger more people end up working in support of the population as a whole. Service industries to keep the bursting population served, bureaucrats to manage the teeming mass of life forms. Heck just having people manning the impressive infrastructure. Trade goods are harder to export as they are 'consumed' more locally (contributing via taxes at this point). So as the population gets bigger, the bonuses to trade goods, profits from trade, and even science (it takes more to get the same when it comes to research) are smaller. So the end result, your finances and science keeps growing but not exponentially. Smaller worlds don't suffer, but larger worlds are curtailed a little more.

[jorgen_cab]

I think this sounds as a good system.

Population should also have a diminishing increase as you reach maximum (less on low pop worlds) and the larger the population the total workforce could decline since more people work in the non productive service industry.

[Martok]

What about implementing some sort of "Corruption" or "Bureaucracy" mechanic that eats an increasing percentage of your income the larger your population grows (up to a point of course)?

A number of strategy games have this feature (or something similar) already, and it works fairly well. It's not ideal perhaps, but it alleviates having to try and fiddle with population growth rates more than is otherwise necessary.

[Madbiologist]

What about implementing some sort of "Corruption" or "Bureaucracy" mechanic that eats an increasing percentage of your income the larger your population grows (up to a point of course)?

A number of strategy games have this feature (or something similar) already, and it works fairly well. It's not ideal perhaps, but it alleviates having to try and fiddle with population growth rates more than is otherwise necessary.

Indeed, it creates the same result as the DR effect, but without modifying the core numbers and the player can observe and decide around it easier since he sees the reduction effect. So as a world or empire gets bigger, you get more productive but not on a linear or exponential scale.

I like how Armada handled it, it was called Bureaucracy (which sounds nicer and better than corruption, but has the same effect). It reduced popularity (which was important in that game, but since Horizon doesn't have an analogue at the moment I will skip this one), and reduced tax revenue. Now expanding and growing would always increase your income, but you get less and less of it for each new acquisition. This suddenly made you very careful where you spent your money as maintenance of a large empire could get out of hand.

It doesn't have to be a complex or involved system in Horizon, just something that keeps the high pop worlds in check. However then you will need to balance to avoid encouraging the 'fast expand to win' strategy as being the best and only strategy, since you might encourage many smaller worlds as the only way to go. Usually these effects are placed both on high population and on number of worlds. Reducing the runaway effect of both high population and making the player choose his next expansions wisely, without ever making expanding undesirable (just not always the first and best choice).

[Martok]

I like how Armada handled it, it was called Bureaucracy (which sounds nicer and better than corruption, but has the same effect). It reduced popularity (which was important in that game, but since Horizon doesn't have an analogue at the moment I will skip this one), and reduced tax revenue. Now expanding and growing would always increase your income, but you get less and less of it for each new acquisition. This suddenly made you very careful where you spent your money as maintenance of a large empire could get out of hand.

Exactly. (It was actually the Bureaucracy system in Armada 2526 that I was specifically thinking of when I wrote that post. )

It did a pretty decent job of preventing players (both human and AI) from simply spamming colonies all over the place. I think a similar mechanic in Horizon could do the same.

[Lithari]

I like how Armada handled it, it was called Bureaucracy (which sounds nicer and better than corruption, but has the same effect). It reduced popularity (which was important in that game, but since Horizon doesn't have an analogue at the moment I will skip this one), and reduced tax revenue. Now expanding and growing would always increase your income, but you get less and less of it for each new acquisition. This suddenly made you very careful where you spent your money as maintenance of a large empire could get out of hand.

Exactly. (It was actually the Bureaucracy system in Armada 2526 that I was specifically thinking of when I wrote that post. )

It did a pretty decent job of preventing players (both human and AI) from simply spamming colonies all over the place. I think a similar mechanic in Horizon could do the same.

I tended to have my tax on low anyway when I played and expanded on that game, I just had trading buildings all over the place, since I had alien artifacts to trade, so having the importing and exporting facilities gave me all the income I could ever need.

I mean, having those importing and exporting buildings on all my colonies, each colony would be producing so much income, tax would be pointless.

[Zalthun]

I like how Armada handled it, it was called Bureaucracy (which sounds nicer and better than corruption, but has the same effect). It reduced popularity (which was important in that game, but since Horizon doesn't have an analogue at the moment I will skip this one), and reduced tax revenue. Now expanding and growing would always increase your income, but you get less and less of it for each new acquisition. This suddenly made you very careful where you spent your money as maintenance of a large empire could get out of hand.

Exactly. (It was actually the Bureaucracy system in Armada 2526 that I was specifically thinking of when I wrote that post. )

It did a pretty decent job of preventing players (both human and AI) from simply spamming colonies all over the place. I think a similar mechanic in Horizon could do the same.

I tended to have my tax on low anyway when I played and expanded on that game, I just had trading buildings all over the place, since I had alien artifacts to trade, so having the importing and exporting facilities gave me all the income I could ever need.

I mean, having those importing and exporting buildings on all my colonies, each colony would be producing so much income, tax would be pointless.

I like the idea of this bureaucracy thingy, but even so, what about the moonbase? Population talk is all well and good, but does anyone want to discuss the topic I started with? No? Hey, why do I hear crickets all of a sudden?

Guys?

Guys?!

[Quazil]

I don't like the idea of a special moonbase for human with an Earth start.
How can this translate to playing other races or random galaxies?

I do agree there seems to be an issue here.
The starbase sinks the home world economy but colonies produce profits with a couple of years.
Neither seems right. It seems like it should be a longer investment to get a ROI on a new colony (especially from a poor worlds like Mars & Pluto) and it seems like you should be able to refit ships easier.

Adding an option to colony ships to scrap them to build the colony headquarters might be a solution.
Now the player won't have aimless colony ships they are looking to refit early in the game.
This is how MOO worked and this game seems to draw heavily from that design.

[Zalthun]

I don't like the idea of a special moonbase for human with an Earth start.
How can this translate to playing other races or random galaxies?

I do agree there seems to be an issue here.
The starbase sinks the home world economy but colonies produce profits with a couple of years.
Neither seems right. It seems like it should be a longer investment to get a ROI on a new colony (especially from a poor worlds like Mars & Pluto) and it seems like you should be able to refit ships easier.

Adding an option to colony ships to scrap them to build the colony headquarters might be a solution.
Now the player won't have aimless colony ships they are looking to refit early in the game.
This is how MOO worked and this game seems to draw heavily from that design.

That makes sense. Repurpose the ship itself to make the base.