Fractal Softworks Forum

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Starsector 0.95.1a is out! (12/10/21); Blog post: Hostile Activity (09/01/22)

Author Topic: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?  (Read 829 times)

speeder

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
    • Email

There are some mods lately that create custom star systems. I am making my own too.

I was wondering, suppose I decided to make the mod "cheaty" and add exactly one of each planet you need, with perfect market conditions, what is the smallest planets you need and what planets are them?

Idea is:

Assuming you have:

  • Hyperhsunt and Cryosleeper in range.
  • Planets have the perfect condition to install the appropriate items (for example no atmosphere on the planet you will have the fuel factory, so you can use the item that needs no atmosphere)
  • Planets all have enough size to have 5 industries (4 + 1 from hypershunt)
  • You will use AI cores and Story Points on everything that is needed
  • You will install "commerce" in at least one planet to give monetary fuel for your industrial shenanigans
  • Administrator will be whatever is best (player, AI core, NPC, etc...)
  • Optional: assume all planets will have ruins thus 1 slot busy techmining

What is the least amount of planets you will need, to have a well oiled production chain that produces the maximum output without imports from other factions?

For example a good planet for mining probably won't be a good planet for "habitable" stuff.
The best planet for fleet ouput need to be "extreme hot"
Nanoforge must go in a planet it won't pollute

The list goes on.

My take on this so far, probably wrong:
1 very hot planet with no atmosphere, to host Fleet HQ, heavy industry, fuel refinery, metal refinery.
1 habitable planet to be your main source of population growth, it should have maybe farm conditions? it should have I guess the light industry that also get boost from habitable...
1 non-habitable planet but low hazard otherwise, that has all 4 mine-able items, so you can put an efficient mine there...

That is my guess, probably missing something.
Logged

Ruddygreat

  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 246
  • Seals :^)
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #1 on: June 21, 2022, 12:07:25 PM »

you just need 2 -

a habitable with organics & farmland for mining, light ind & farming.
and a very hot +3/+3/+2 (think this can happen naturally, not 100% sure though) no atmo planet for fuel prod, mining, refining, heavy ind & high command.

BigBrainEnergy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #2 on: June 21, 2022, 02:33:24 PM »

you just need 2 -

a habitable with organics & farmland for mining, light ind & farming.
and a very hot +3/+3/+2 (think this can happen naturally, not 100% sure though) no atmo planet for fuel prod, mining, refining, heavy ind & high command.

Yeah, the +3/+3 hot worlds always have dense or toxic atmosphere, and they can't also have volatiles. So in a natural setting you would need a third planet with no atmosphere and volatiles, I believe these are most often cold planets.

Of course, if you want to use the item that boosts volatiles production you would instead need a gas giant (which also has dense or toxic atmosphere). You can probably get by without it, but given condition #2 I would say you need a total of 4 planets.

1. Habitable planet, organics, farmland, preferably minerals, no transplutonics (mining, light industry, farming, commerce)

2. Extreme heat, +3 minerals, +3 transplutonics (mining, refining, heavy industry, fleet command)

3. No atmosphere (fuel production)

4. Gas giant, +2 volatiles, preferably not high gravity (mining)

You want the commerce on the habitable world because the hot world (tectonics) and gas giant (gas giant) won't be able to install the spaceport item for increased accessibility. You could put it on the no atmosphere world, but that light industry with open port is gonna be making way more bank than what you can get from some space rock. With 5 industry slots you still have room for tech mining on every planet, but I don't think gas giants or extreme heat worlds have ruins. Ideally the space rock would have minerals and volatiles but they're never going to be +3/+3 like your hot world, so aside from trading fleet command for fuel production it's going to be an inferior imitation of your hot world. You can squeeze in heavy industry on both the gas giant and the space rock to up your maximum production per month and beyond that I dunno.

Another thing you should look for is if the planets orbit the gas giant, that way it's much easier for patrols to protect all of them.

*Edit*
I guess gas giants can be hot, but I don't think I've seen a hot one with +2 volatiles nor have I seen one with extreme heat at all. If it exists, maybe it can be a military base. With a little cheating we can get something like:

1. Habitable planet, organics, farmland, minerals, no transplutonics (mining, light industry, farming, commerce, tech mining)
2. No atmosphere, +3 minerals, +3 transplutonics (mining, refining, heavy industry, fuel production, tech mining) *impossible without cheating
3. Gas giant, +2 volatiles, extreme heat, not high gravity (mining, refining, heavy industry, fleet command, commerce) *impossible without cheating(?)

Putting commerce on the military planet helps balance out the stability penalty, but if you only get one I would still stick to the habitable planet. Also, having a proper comm relay (not makeshift) would be good.
« Last Edit: June 21, 2022, 03:07:59 PM by BigBrainEnergy »
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

speeder

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 364
    • View Profile
    • Email
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #3 on: June 21, 2022, 03:08:20 PM »

Why no transplutonics on habitable planet?

I even saw one mod that has a way to literally remove minerals from a planet and I couldn'1t figure why someone would do that.
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #4 on: June 21, 2022, 03:11:45 PM »

Why no transplutonics on habitable planet?

I even saw one mod that has a way to literally remove minerals from a planet and I couldn'1t figure why someone would do that.

You can't use the colony item for farming if it has them.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

Serenitis

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 1329
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #5 on: June 22, 2022, 01:45:44 AM »

A full production chain with all items used + a Tech Mine on all colonies will need a minimum of 4 planets.
  • A habitable world
  • A Gas Giant
  • A Toxic world
  • A Barren world
The Toxic wants organics because if organics are on the hab world you will need to drop the tech mine to fit mining in.
Thus Toxic needs to be 'hot' since organics don't get proc'd on cold ones.
There's only one kind of hab world that doesn't have any negative modifier: Terran.
So this precludes the hab world being Tundra for the cold condition, thus the cold world must be the Barren.

The Terran world industries:
  • Tech Mine
  • Farm
  • Commerce
  • Light Industry
The Gas Giant industries:
  • Tech Mine
  • Mining
  • Military
  • <free>
The Toxic world industries:
  • Tech Mine
  • Mining
  • Military
  • <free>
The Barren world industries:
  • Tech Mine
  • Refinery
  • Fuel
  • Heavy Industry

Terran gets nanites, holosuite, embryo and spool.
Barren gets forge, catalyst, synchro and fusion lamp. (Barren gets the industry b/c it will have lower haz, so will have less maint.)
Toxic gets bore and cryo.
Gas Giant gets dynamo and cryo.
The tap can go anywhere - stacking commerce on the Barren would be profitable tho.

So your "perfect" system might look something like:
- Gas Giant (Extreme Heat, +2 volatiles)
-- Toxic Moon (Extreme Heat, +3 both ores, +2 organics, +2 volatiles)
- Terran Planet (+2 farm, not any of: rare ore, volatiles)
-- Barren Moon (cold, resources irrelevant)

If you were to ditch the Tech Mine requirement for all worlds, you could lose the Toxic world entirely and move the mining to the barren (minerals) and terran (organics).
And your tech mining would be on the gas giant, but you'd lose a military base.
« Last Edit: June 22, 2022, 02:34:32 AM by Serenitis »
Logged

BigBrainEnergy

  • Captain
  • ****
  • Posts: 310
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #6 on: June 22, 2022, 02:03:30 AM »

Okay that's a hell of a lot more readable than my post. Noted.
Logged
TL;DR deez nuts

Amoebka

  • Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 959
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #7 on: June 22, 2022, 03:35:19 AM »

The chances for a toxic world to have +3/+3/+2/+2 are 0.06%, by the way.  :D

Even having one of each deposit, regardless of quality, is only 1.7%.
Logged

Candesce

  • Lieutenant
  • **
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: Smallest amount of ideal planets to have full production chain?
« Reply #8 on: June 22, 2022, 01:54:10 PM »

There's only one kind of hab world that doesn't have any negative modifier: Terran.
So this precludes the hab world being Tundra for the cold condition, thus the cold world must be the Barren.
Arid or Eccentric with Solar Mirrors. Also gets you +2 to food production.

I don't think I've seen the Mirrors show up on a Tundra world yet, but even if they can Volatiles also blocks the farming nanites.
Logged