some very silly occurrences, such as Barren, irradiated planets apparently being capable of housing populations of hundreds of millions without issue, despite the obvious logistical difficulties of running a colony where the environment is described as being "extremely hazardous to even hardened robotics" and people needing to wear bulky hazmat suits to go outside, if ever.
I think that Aurora 4x had the best approach to colonies of any space game.
You need population to run industries (including terraforming), and you need infrastructure to sustain population with harsher conditions requiring more infrastructure.
If Sindria can manage a size 7 planet as a barren rock without an atmosphere being constantly bombarded by solar flares, it makes no sense that a player colony can't go above a size 4 or whatever because it's got some earthquakes or "is a bit small".
If Sindria can manage a size 7 planet as a barren rock without an atmosphere being constantly bombarded by solar flares, it makes no sense that a player colony can't go above a size 4 or whatever because it's got some earthquakes or "is a bit small".
Wasn't Sindria settled during the Expansion, and all the hive cities were built underground during that time period to avoid the solar flares? I think there's a difference between an established settlement vs. a colony that's been newly founded.
Although it would be interesting to have buildable industries that counter an environmental condition. So Underground Arcologies to dodge Hot/Cold, or Magnetic Disruptor for Strong Field, or Construction Bearuea for High Gravity/Low gravity / Techtonics, or Airlock Tunnels to counter airless / toxic atmosphere / pollution. So you have to think - do I want to build one of these to improve growth and accessibility and take the cost and loss of building slot; or just deal with it?
If Sindria can manage a size 7 planet as a barren rock without an atmosphere being constantly bombarded by solar flares, it makes no sense that a player colony can't go above a size 4 or whatever because it's got some earthquakes or "is a bit small".
Wasn't Sindria settled during the Expansion, and all the hive cities were built underground during that time period to avoid the solar flares? I think there's a difference between an established settlement vs. a colony that's been newly founded.
Although it would be interesting to have buildable industries that counter an environmental condition. So Underground Arcologies to dodge Hot/Cold, or Magnetic Disruptor for Strong Field, or Construction Bearuea for High Gravity/Low gravity / Techtonics, or Airlock Tunnels to counter airless / toxic atmosphere / pollution. So you have to think - do I want to build one of these to improve growth and accessibility and take the cost and loss of building slot; or just deal with it?
I think that Aurora 4x had the best approach to colonies of any space game.
You need population to run industries (including terraforming), and you need infrastructure to sustain population with harsher conditions requiring more infrastructure.
I'd appreciate something like that -- where the Population & Logistics base building is really susceptible to hazard rating making its upkeep more expensive, and then tie buildings to population like Civ does so that maxing out a colony's building slots requires growing it to max size, which requires having maxed out logistics size which has an upkeep that multiplies your population size with your base hazard rating to make getting gigantic colonies on terrible terrible worlds, not un-doable but not profitable enough to be worth doing unless it's a thing that you want to do for the sake of it.
as it is the game is just a touch too laissez-faire about planet selection. I appreciate the sandboxy-ness, and how much the game being proc-gen open world complicates the matter of forcing players to make hard choice bc of the possibility of sector generation giving 0 good options, but still you'd think this game that makes you struggle between the pressures of fuel consumption per LY and supply drain and "do I have enough to make it back to the core before I break down?" and "Do I need to mothball some of these ships to stretch my supplies out?" would make deciding the home of thousands of people a touch heftier of a choice -- or at least have some more consequences.
I figured out a way that'd make this part of the game bug me less; your first colony starts with the High Command building by default which now isn't an upgrade of the military base but negates both Hazard rating and the option of making a profit -- and in exchange for getting one freebie colony hazard rating matters way more to the extent other colonies can grow.The game already encourages multiple specialist colonies over fewer self-sufficient colonies. This industry would be overpowered on resource rich worlds that otherwise have huge hazard ratings, especially in systems with a cryosleeper vessels. I found two systems with sleeper ships and both of them only had planets with +200% or greater hazard.
Come to think of it, I wonder if the planetary shield from the Red Planet blocks hazards resulting from space. I read it boosts defense, but I wonder if it has other effects. (I need to get to that red planet soon!)