http://www.freeorion.org/wiki/index.php ... activitiesIt would be convinient to have a link to where it as been decided. (A page in the design doc, a wiki, a design thread....)
scroll down to "resources."
http://www.freeorion.org/wiki/index.php ... activitiesIt would be convinient to have a link to where it as been decided. (A page in the design doc, a wiki, a design thread....)
Hrm. That would involve a slider or a slider diguised as a queue item. It opens another can of worms as well: what if I want Planet Y to recieve resources, but not Planet X?
Infrastruture was never meant to be the result of economic investment. It's just a gauge of how long a planet has been in the empire and a number to guage the effects of tradegies.
Economic investment comes from researching economic techs, Build Projects, building colony ships.
There's not much point in having a "Develop To Full Colony" building project for a new colony... since this is obviously the first thing you're going to do, and thus isn't really a choice and should be abstracted somehow.
Personally, I quite like the idea of a fixed number of turns. It also opens up potential for empire-wide wonders. For example, a wonder that reduces the number of turns a nascent colony takes to become a full fledged one. It's simple and easy to understand.Daveybaby wrote:I dont have a problem with dreks proposal in principle, but i dont like the concept of a colony automatically changing state after a fixed number of turns.
Plagues and environments provide their own disadvantages already. For a nascent colony to reach the end of its tenure, it is simply saying "This colony has now finished construction of the infrastructure relative to its needs". Obviously, a race that prefers terran colonising an inferno planet will already have disadvantages on that planet - both for pre-nascent and post. I don't think we need to slow or speed it up, since the infrastructure describes the readyness of that colony for the environment it's in.IMO this should still be tied to population, i.e. if you start a new colony, and its population doesnt grow for some reason (e.g. its not a good environment for the species, or some plague event hits it) then it should take much longer to reach 'full colony' status than one which has lots of people flocking to it and breeding like rabbits.
It is possible for something to be too simple. While it may be easy for a player to understand that a colony will take 20 turns to develop to usefulness, s/he will undoubtedly want to know why this can't be sped up a bit.Tyreth wrote:Personally, I quite like the idea of a fixed number of turns. [...] It's simple and easy to understand.
This is not dependent on early colonies having a "nascent" trait. Almost any system could incorporate this sort of effect. (the idea itself is fine... just not the implication that it's an advantage to the "nascent colony" special with fixed (but now variable?) duration)It also opens up potential for empire-wide wonders. For example, a wonder that reduces the number of turns a nascent colony takes to become a full fledged one.
The turns aren't entirely fixed, as Tyreth guessed. There'd be a Construction meter. Buildings/techs/enviroment/leaders and racial picks would be able to apply bonuses/penalties to this meter.Tyreth wrote:Personally, I quite like the idea of a fixed number of turns. It also opens up potential for empire-wide wonders. For example, a wonder that reduces the number of turns a nascent colony takes to become a full fledged one. It's simple and easy to understand.Daveybaby wrote:I dont have a problem with dreks proposal in principle, but i dont like the concept of a colony automatically changing state after a fixed number of turns.
If the food meter is reduced to 0 or below, the colony wouldn't be able to feed itself. That be the major effect of Nascent/Ruined colonies: you'd need outside Nutrients if you plan on keeping these colonies alive. (their Health meter would also be reduced, meaning a lack of food would easily kill off the colony.)As far as I know, the nascent colony trait would just lower some meters. If so, it is redundant.
Obviously not. Which is why I support either/or and took the time to spell out how I'd like to see system B written up in the design doc.drek: Are "My dumb idea" and "Geoff/Krik's idea" mutually exclusive?
Yes. That's why I like it.I guess the real gist of your system is that the specials are all there is... and there's no other system that they work with or interact with. Simplicity to the extreme.
Hmm... for some reason I'd been thinking in terms of pooled PP for ships, but local only for buildings... there was some discussion of that elsewhere, and the public review was mostly about ships. I guess this suggestion won't work: new colony has low population so produces only a few PP / turn. If this is less than X in "X / turn for Y turns for building Z", you can't build Z. nascent colony special would do it, I guess. (I'll avoid any comments concerning problems with pooled production )drek wrote:I'd like to be able to restict buildings, so that they can't be built on new/messed colonies via the global PP pool. If we use system B, there'd should be a metric for determining when a colony is "Nascent", "Ruined" or whatever.
Could also just the "production meter" for this. It's just an on-off switch, but like smac, if it falls below a certain level (say if it goes to 0) then you can't build anything at the planet. The bonuses from meters don't have to be just increasing the resource production...Perhaps, if total infra < X, then the world is flagged as not being a target for build orders. If infra is reduced below X, then any current build orders are canceled