Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: What planets are best for colonization?  (Read 8528 times)

Andrius227

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 33
    • View Profile
What planets are best for colonization?
« on: December 26, 2018, 01:33:23 PM »

Hi. So yeah i dont know which planets are best for colonization. I just sort planets by 'value' but it seems to put the most hazardous planets at the top as long as they have ultra rich ore deposits. And all the terran, jungle or water worlds are apparently worthless according to the game.

I would like to ask you all what do you look at when choosing what planets to colonize?

Here is my current list of planets sorted by 'value':
Spoiler
[close]
Logged

Thaago

  • Global Moderator
  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 7233
  • Harpoon Affectionado
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #1 on: December 26, 2018, 01:37:26 PM »

"Value" is... not so great. It shows what planets have interesting stuff on them.

Low hazard rating is the single most important thing. After that, resources are nice.
Logged

SCC

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 4148
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #2 on: December 26, 2018, 02:09:47 PM »

Value is based on how much XP you received from surveying that planet, it doesn't have much to do with a planet's actual worth.
As Thaago said, hazard rating is king and resources are a cherry on top. You might want to have a single cryovolcanic/frozen world for ore/rare ore/volatiles mining, but besides that, you just look for planets with as low hazard rating as possible.

Goumindong

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1896
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #3 on: December 26, 2018, 02:18:08 PM »

Hi. So yeah i dont know which planets are best for colonization. I just sort planets by 'value' but it seems to put the most hazardous planets at the top as long as they have ultra rich ore deposits. And all the terran, jungle or water worlds are apparently worthless according to the game.

I would like to ask you all what do you look at when choosing what planets to colonize?

Here is my current list of planets sorted by 'value':
Spoiler
[close]

There are a couple of criteria and it depends on what you’re trying to do.

Income: anything under 150% hazard rating with any amount of production and at least one stable point.

Defence: anything with 2 or 3 stable points

Stability: anything with a good amount of resources that you don’t have at your primary production spot.

Defense is because the speed and sensor radius bonuses make your fleets a lot stronger on the strategic map. Income because the margin on +1 production isn’t that much and you don’t really need resources to make money. Stability because raiding and random events can produce shortages. Shortages are effective minuses compared to import possibility. So if you need 6 and 8 are available then a -2 does not produce a shortage. So the best quality planets provide the higher buffer for going into shortage in the case of interrupted shipping
Logged

CopperCoyote

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #4 on: December 26, 2018, 04:15:14 PM »

I always prioritize the lowest hazard rating first, and then the necessity of their resources and if i have those resources, and finally i want it as close to the core as possible for maximal accessibility (and so i have an easier time chasing down problematic LP/Pirate bases).

as and example of how much i prioritize hazard
a 75% hazard -1 rare ore -1 organics is more valuable to me than
a 175% hazard +3 ore + 2 rare ore +0 farm in the same system.

That 175 planet sure looks real tempting, but it is so hard to get off the ground that unless it is my 3rd or 4th planet i don't even bother. (i did eventually colonize it though)
Logged
Itches are scratched. Back-rubs are savored.

Euphytose

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #5 on: December 27, 2018, 05:09:24 AM »

Getting below 100% hazard is pretty much like winning the lottery, so here's the best possible combination otherwise:

- Habitable.
- Low gravity (for that 10% increased accessibility).
- Farming +3 (farming has no demand, only production).
- Anything else that can produce is a bonus.

This will give you tons of money.

And of course, if you can have 3 stable emplacements to build com-relay and such, that's even better.
Logged

CopperCoyote

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 451
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #6 on: December 27, 2018, 02:38:46 PM »

And of course, if you can have 3 stable emplacements to build com-relay and such, that's even better.

And if there are 2 or less be sure to make a com-relay before you build the patrol building. I've noticed your ai-fleets make those last.
Logged
Itches are scratched. Back-rubs are savored.

UrbanGiraffe

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 65
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #7 on: December 27, 2018, 02:54:46 PM »

The market system is a bit unintuitive, and I think there are a few things worth noting (but I think it's hard in the current version to do badly with colonies).

With the way that demand and market share works, it doesn't seem worth it to produce commodities on more than one planet (except for food). It's easy to quickly get a massive colony going (even with mediocre hazard rating) that will dominate every industry it has the resources to produce. Having other planets on top of that producing the same goods will just spread the sector-wide market value of the commodities thinner, providing an increase in income that diminishes on top of the already diminishing market share increase. In fact, the additional income from producing goods on multiple planets could rapidly flip negative for most commodities, when you consider the reduction in income on your other colonies. Food is an exception, since it has large sector-wide value and demand while the infrastructure itself for food production has very low monthly upkeep. Drugs and organs are possibly another exception that could be worth it in multiple locations, and maybe fuel.

In this respect, I think the "optimal" setup that will usually shake out is to have one open-port colony (for growth and massive organ/drug revenue) in an attractive location, with however many other planets you'd like as a single source of goods not available on that planet (if only because it's "cozy" to produce everything in-faction), plus as many low-hazard rating farm planets you can manage (whose purpose is to produce nothing but food and population income while increasing sector-wide market value for goods you produce).

Where you pick the main colony doesn't actually matter much (although hazard rating is the most important factor). Things like a cryosleeper, a slot for a comm relay, accessibility bonuses, local resources, ruins, etc are nice, but not essential. It could probably be in the middle of the sector on one of the "featureless" planets and get by producing nothing but drugs/organs and heavy industry assuming they are valid for colonies, but I haven't tried that. The "feeder" planets producing nothing but food and without defensive upkeep will be easily profitable, but will also increase sector-wide demand in drugs, organs, ships, organics, domestic/luxury goods, supplies, fuel, and machinery which should indirectly boost income in the main colonies substantially if they grow to a large population.

Another note: there's a chance when raiding a planet with a nanoforge that the nanoforge will be looted, permanently reducing their production substantially and boosting your own market share in the heavy industry commodities or fuel production. It's also an alternative route to acquire these things (plus blueprints!) without extensive exploration. It's more tempting than the temporary disruptions, anyway, since it's permanent.

And one more note: the decrease in demand from AI cores should be a strictly bad thing under most circumstances, since it'll decrease sector-wide market value for that commodity. Unless it's needed to prevent a shortage, it's probably best to never use the lowest tier cores and to be cautious about using the middle tier. However, the top tier cores provide special bonuses to certain buildings, which might be worth checking out.
Logged

Euphytose

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 478
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2018, 05:38:17 AM »

Looks like I won the lottery. New game, only a few systems explored, and I get this planet as the only planet in the technology cache mission system.

Spoiler
[close]
Logged

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1471
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2018, 05:52:40 AM »

Fun Fact for lottery winners: You can build Light Industry on a 75% world and it will make a profit without using the Free Port.

Super lottery rollover winners get 50% worlds.
Does the Calm Weather condiditon even appear in the generation table? I don't think I've ever seen it.
Logged

cybersol

  • Ensign
  • *
  • Posts: 18
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2018, 09:49:54 PM »

Super lottery rollover winners get 50% worlds.
Does the Calm Weather condiditon even appear in the generation table? I don't think I've ever seen it.

I think it only appears if the planet is named Gilead :P
Logged

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2018, 10:06:53 PM »

75% worlds and worlds with 100-125 and "decivilized" or "low gravity" conditions are instantly profitable without any investment or attention and will eventually grow on they own ever without any production.
As soon as such world hit 25k income, you can assign administrator and forget about it.

and highly unlikely to attract any raids (if you put colony on claimed world, claimee will run saturation bombing, but this can be done intentionally just to farm expedition fleets)

and 50% are worlds extremely rare or never spawn at all, 100% world with low gravity is best possible world you can find.
Logged

Baxter

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 85
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #12 on: December 30, 2018, 01:21:26 AM »

Value lies, and is being removed from the planets column next build iirc, or at least replaced with class which is generally a better measure of usefulness.

Things to consider would be:

Firstly, Hazard rating MASSIVELY affects your colony's profitability. I made the mistake of settling a 250% volcanic world as a partner to a more reasonable terran planet in my first game of this patch and it generally was just an anchor on everything. It got a high value rating because of ultra rich ore and rare ore veins in addition to having vast ruins but the income from exporting ore wasn't that much higher than the cost of the mining facility itself. Another colony of mine with fairly meagre ore reserves generated about the same profit because the upkeep on the mines was much lower.

Secondly, know that for fulfilling industry/populace demands with in-faction supply, each colony only considers the LARGEST source of any resource. If said source can't meet a need then it's made up for by out of faction imports (if it can). You can have a single planet with a farm producing food for your entire faction, or a single source of rare ore. Doubling up on production is a good idea as if a colony can meet its own needs for something it can export it for profit but otherwise you can skip putting in multiple instances of low-profit industries. In my first game I settled a low hazard tundra world with trace volatiles, producing 8 units. All my other colonies have fuel production with synchrotrons requiring 6 units of volatiles and they both make a ton of money and ensure that there's large amounts of fuel to grab at those colonies when I visit while doing exploration runs to distant planets

Thirdly, planetary ruins are cool because you get access to tech mining, which can produce a lot of useful goods for very little upkeep. Going from the above point however, once you build an industry that produces a superior quantity of a resource that techmining provides (metal, machinery, fuel, supplies), then techmining's production of that good is stripped from consideration.

Given this I would consider that the first planet you colonize should be low hazard rating and has a wide variety of resources, even if they aren't super high ones (so poor ore/farmland/whatever is fine), with techmining being a very neat bonus as it will allow you some flexibility early on. For your subsequent colonies low hazard should still be the primary concern but you don't need to dismiss a planet because it can't farm or has no ore or whatever. You just want low hazard and for it to be the BEST at providing some resource, or for it to have a resource that usually isn't found on low-hazard worlds (Like volatiles, they don't show up on terran/arid or other "habitable" planet types). That way you can have a "main" colony which has the important industries and every other colony is just a boost to income or a safe port for exploration.


Location's also kind of handy because if you can get a planet close to the central cluster it's less travel to go back to home base after expeditions to the outer systems. Plus accessibility is higher.
Logged

Megas

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 12159
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2018, 04:14:07 AM »

Location and accessibility are important too.  In my second game, I found a great system far in the fringe with 75% Terran with most resources orbiting a gas giant, and a 100% or 125% water world right next to it, then in the system next to it, 100% Tundra.  However, far in the fringe hurts because of 1) accessibility penalty and 2) distance to core.  Having your main colony far into the fringe means long travel times to kill some colony threats and to do things in the core (like raiding for blueprints).  Exploring the other side of the sector is hard because there is always something on fire, whether it is your colony or a core world.  I ignored events that did not threaten my colony, and pirates decivilized Asharu.

With Industrial Planning 2, all you need to satisfy demand are poor farmland, moderate ore, moderate rare ore, poor volatiles, and (maybe) poor organics.  If you use cores on top of that, even poor ores are enough.
Logged

RawCode

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 511
    • View Profile
Re: What planets are best for colonization?
« Reply #14 on: December 30, 2018, 04:30:42 AM »

building as close as possible to core, or ever inside core (just get ready for saturation raids) is VERY profitable, you can get profit from "blank" planet, due to bug, or probably early access nature, lots of planets around core have no planetary features and fixed 100% hazard, putting colony on such planet also instantly profitable.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2