Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.97a is out! (02/02/24); New blog post: Simulator Enhancements (03/13/24)

Author Topic: Would you colonize this system?  (Read 5376 times)

Masteraries

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Would you colonize this system?
« on: January 20, 2020, 12:11:29 PM »

Hello everyone,

I’m fairly new to Starsector, I’ve a predicament in my current play through.  I’m attempting to colonize for the first time after finding an interesting system.  After reviewing past/guides posts am struggling to see if I should hold out even longer...

I’m currently in cycle 212, but I came across a Terrain world (75%)  early in my game with Bountiful farmland and average resources in organics, rare and regular minerals.  Sadly no Volatiles...

I held off because in the same system there was only 2 additional barren planets both at 200% habitability. But they had interesting resources... One has some minerals (sparse rare though), while the other has ultra rich rare minerals and rich regular minerals.

I’ve been searching the several cycles now, with no real luck with system with planets < 20 ly from the core. (Even this one I found is 19 ly)

I was going with the guiding principle of 2 planets with <150%...would you colonize this system anyways?

P.S.:  I did find another terrain world in a another system but it’s a solitary planet in the system and about 24 ly from the core...funny thing it’s fairly close to the system I’ve kept my eye on...maybe about 6-9 ly away... I’m wondering if it’s wise to colonize planets in separate systems...
Logged

Rocksummit

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 20
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #1 on: January 21, 2020, 03:22:16 AM »

I probably would, I havent found a system like that in my playthrough yet and I have been looking.
I also would not wait too long with colonizing but I guess it depends on how much funds you have. It's a nice way to long term invest spare capital.
The fact that the other planet have ultra rich rare minerals would seal the deal for me and having three planets in the system is probably a minimum for enough fleet defenses.
I would mot care for the solitary planet out of defence point of view.
The 150% "principle" is a good rule but its troublesome if you never find anything, better to build somewhere, it shouldn't be a dealbreaker
Logged

Squigzilla

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 114
  • SQUIG Industries
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #2 on: January 21, 2020, 04:28:19 AM »

That still sounds like a worthwhile system. If you put a couple really expensive industries like heavy industry on your terran planet, the upkeep cost savings should offset the more expensive upkeep on your other planets.
Logged
High Admiral Davian MacNaile of the SQUIG Industries Human Resources Motivational Flotilla

Plantissue

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1231
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #3 on: January 21, 2020, 05:46:00 AM »

Where did you get the guiding principle of 2 planets with <150% from? The % upkeep isn't as important as it used to be.

Anyways that one terran planet is good enough and the rest can also be colonised for more money a patrol/military base/ high command. If you don't want to search anymore, they are a reasonably good candidate. The only thing you loses is more colonies for additional protection and a source of volatiles for the volatiles market.

Personally I would go for a system with more planets depending on the Colony Management Skills.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #4 on: January 21, 2020, 07:46:02 AM »

Planets can be profitable without much investment. A good option is to look for a planet with 3 or 4 mining types on it, those can bring in good money with one cheap mining industry. There's no need for further investment. If the planet dies after a year or so, that's okay too.

A good benchmark for a "good" system is to look for two good quality planets. The galaxy is filled with a lot of junk worlds and a tiny sprinkling of really good ones. It's pretty difficult to find a pair of above average worlds in the same system, so there's nothing wrong with grabbing the first one you find.

Multiple planets provide mutual coverage in the same system. That isn't very important for vanilla play, but on most modded overhauls you need the increased patrols and defenses to keep the planets intact.

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #5 on: January 21, 2020, 11:11:50 AM »

If your goal is just to make money and/or have your own dedicated storage then the system in the OP would be fine.
The Terran world would make an excellent cash cow just with the food and organics alone, and any extra industries you put on it would only add to that.
The barren world with ultra rich rares would make a decent mining/refining colony.

The above mentioned planet with multiple decent resources is a great find if you just want a money fountain.

You should definitely always look to colonise at least 2 planets in any system you want to permanently inhabit though. It makes defending them noticably easier when you have a 2 military bases generating patrols, even if they're only dinky things from a size 3 or 4 colony.

Personally, I really dislike colonising in multiple systems. Each system you inhabit can generate 'pirate activity' events which requires interverntion to remove the accessiblity and stability penalty it imposes.
Doing it for more than 1 system is micromanagement I'm just not interested in subjecting myself to.
I won't make permanent bases in more than 1 system, but I will plant temporary tech mining colonies to extract loot from. Those are ignorable tbh.

If I were in your position, I would not colonise that first system.
Reason: It does not have all resources present in useable quantites.

I'm looking to colonise a system rather than a planet, and the criteria I have for selecting a system is:
Spoiler
System as a whole must contain

At least 1 stable location.

Minimum resources
Food:   -1
Ore:      +1
Rare Ore:   +1
Volatiles:   +1
Organics:   -1

Food will always be on a habitable planet - this will probably be my 'main' colony.
Organics will likely be on the same planet as the food.
It is possible, but very unlikely the ores will be on the same planet.
The volatiles will never be on the same planet as the food.

Above resources will be spread over multiple planets.
2 or 3 is preferable. 4 is acceptable, but I'd rather have less.

Moons of gas giants are particularly attractive as they are easy to get to from hyperspace, and easy to manage.
These are a preference.
Planet + Moon combos in general are nice.

Resources must be a certain level to fully supply the industries that depend on them. The reason why you want to do this is you get a reduction to your upkeep costs based on how much you can cover your own needs.
This can be as high as 50%.

I will be picking up the Industrial Planning skill, so I'll be getting +1 to the output of everything.
If you don't get this skill you'll need planets with the following:
Food:   -1
Ore:      +2
Rare Ore:   +2
Volatiles:   +2
Organics:   0
Which is a fair bit more time consuming/frustrating to find.

Hazard rating, not too concerned about.
[close]

How useful all that word salad is to you depends on what you want to do with your colony.
And with how much you care about avoiding events and giving yourself maximum upkeep discounts.

If you take away nothing else, just take these 2 things:
Don't get so hung up on the hazard ratings. It really doesn't matter all that much.
In any system you permanently colonise, always build at least 2 military bases.
Logged

Logiwonk

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #6 on: January 21, 2020, 12:10:37 PM »

I colonized a terran world (150%) and my second colony was on a volacanic world (250%) third was on a desert world (150%). The Volcanic world I was most worried about and it's going like gangbusters despite the fact that "all construction on this planet can only be considered semi-permanant at best." It's actually the site of my fleet HQ! I named it Crematoria after Chronicles of Riddick.
Logged

DDwarrirofire

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #7 on: January 22, 2020, 07:58:28 AM »

Based on Serenitis advice I may have to settle for a red star system.

I've been checking yellow stars but typically very poor luck.  Last two didn't even have any planets.

Just found a red star system which has 7-8 planets. 

Spread across 3 planets
-1 food,
0 organics,
0 volatiles  (boost with Synchrotron Core?)
+3 rare ore on 2 separate planets if I want a 4th planet
+3 ore
2 stable points

food, organics and volatile are a gas giant and moon so that helps too.  Think I've got a good one after all.  Just an excess of ore should make thing very profitable. 
« Last Edit: January 22, 2020, 08:02:59 AM by DDwarrirofire »
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1458
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #8 on: January 22, 2020, 11:15:32 AM »

You don't have to take anyone's advice really.
Spread across 3 planets
-1 food,
0 organics,
0 volatiles  (boost with Synchrotron Core?)
+3 rare ore on 2 separate planets if I want a 4th planet
+3 ore
2 stable points
Everything good except volatiles. You need +1 at a minimum if you have the industrial planning skill (or hire someone who does to manage the colony). +2 otherwise.
Synchrotron only increases the output of the fuel production, the input still needs to be the same.

Alternatively, just deal with less fuel production and less potential maintenance reduction.

The Volcanic world I was most worried about and it's going like gangbusters despite the fact that "all construction on this planet can only be considered semi-permanant at best." It's actually the site of my fleet HQ! I named it Crematoria after Chronicles of Riddick.
Hazard is a secondary concern at best.
Resources are the main thing which will make or break a colony site.

Star colours are a weird thing.
I seem to have the most luck finding 'good' systems around white dwarves.
The yellow and orange stars seem to get the really good habitable planets, but are almost always missing 1 or more resources.

Another thing to keep an eye on when starting a new game is to take a look at Duzhak fairly early on.
Sometimes the RNG will bless you profoundly.
To my sorrow, I have never experienced this. But many have.
Logged

bobucles

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 532
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #9 on: January 22, 2020, 12:59:17 PM »

Quote
Alternatively, just deal with less fuel production and less potential maintenance reduction.
This is exactly the sort of situation that gamma cores are made for. The -1 demand is normally not very meaningful or useful, but it's ideal for clearing up a shortage.

DDwarrirofire

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #10 on: January 22, 2020, 07:36:39 PM »

Redacted
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 06:53:10 AM by DDwarrirofire »
Logged

Daynen

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 413
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #11 on: January 22, 2020, 11:45:36 PM »

You found a world with 75% hazard rating.  That's where the question was answered in my mind.  The other two planets are just gravy; get that terran world settled, build up some economy and the other two planets can just be extra patrols to defend.  Having lots of low hazard planets is nice but even just ONE 75% is a golden goose.  It'll grow with startling speed and be a pittance to upkeep.  Once you get some AI cores running that world you'll be SWIMMING in cash.
Logged

DDwarrirofire

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 68
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #12 on: January 23, 2020, 06:56:25 AM »

How did it go?

I ended up taking my red star system.  6 colonies later it is completely self sufficient (though the volital may be short later,  not sure on what yet) with the only import being drugs and a single organ demand. (apparently miners like to get high)

Aside from a single high command I stuck an HQ patrol on each colony.  So many fleets.
« Last Edit: January 23, 2020, 10:30:19 AM by DDwarrirofire »
Logged

Masteraries

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: Would you colonize this system?
« Reply #13 on: January 23, 2020, 11:43:29 AM »

Everything good except volatiles. You need +1 at a minimum if you have the industrial planning skill (or hire someone who does to manage the colony). +2 otherwise.
Synchrotron only increases the output of the fuel production, the input still needs to be the same.

Alternatively, just deal with less fuel
Hazard is a secondary concern at best.
Resources are the main thing which will make or break a colony site.

Star colours are a weird thing.
I seem to have the most luck finding 'good' systems around white dwarves.
The yellow and orange stars seem to get the really good habitable planets, but are almost always missing 1 or more resources.

Yeah I’ll have to keep that in mind about the hazard rating and resources.  I found it taxing to ferry fuel. 

I’ve basically started a new game after my fleet got destroyed by a Pather fleet out in hyperspace (between a surveying job).  Maybe I wasn’t ready for normal yet and probably waited too long.  I’m enjoying this new run through... just haven’t found a system like I did (it seemed I won the lottery lol)
Logged