Two kinds of terraforming?

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Two kinds of terraforming?

#1 Post by Oberlus »

I'm working (thinking) on the themed tech categories, following Krikkitone's suggestion (Physics, Mechanical, Biotech, Cybernetics). There he placed terraforming in the Mech category, and I've got this idea:
Life itself is a form of (slow, low-cost) terraforming, changing environment to better accommodate life. So I thought a terraforming tech in the Biotech category makes much sense.
But (fast, high-cost) terraforming as an industrial process also makes sense (I'm thinking right now on the terraforming machinery on LV-426, from Aliens), in the Mechanical category.

What do you think about allowing two kinds of terraforming?

- Industrial terraforming (Mechanical): current system, a building project you start on the planet to be terraformed, costing certain PPs per turn. Not forgetting that current terraforming need balancing to be more interesting, and that there are several suggestions out there to improve its interest and usability, but all that will be sorted out later.
- Biological terraforming (Biotech): automatic terraforming process that takes much longer than industrial terraforming but costs no PPs (maybe some influence upkeep that, when not paid, causes the process to stagnate). Could this be implemented via a special that "counts" a given number of turns (maybe saving the counter in the capacity meter?) and then do "SetPlanetType type = Target.NextBetterPlanetType"?

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#2 Post by Ophiuchus »

No general objection. This could be a RP-number-of-planets-and-time (research, wide empire) vs PP tradeoff (production empire).

I guess very rarely auto-terraforming could do the wrong thing (if you want another species on the planet). Guess it should 30+ turns?

Certainly implementable. I suggest put it in your tech tree and lets see in the end if it fits.
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#3 Post by Krikkitone »

Oberlus wrote: Wed Feb 27, 2019 8:46 am I'm working (thinking) on the themed tech categories, following Krikkitone's suggestion (Physics, Mechanical, Biotech, Cybernetics). There he placed terraforming in the Mech category, and I've got this idea:
Life itself is a form of (slow, low-cost) terraforming, changing environment to better accommodate life. So I thought a terraforming tech in the Biotech category makes much sense.
But (fast, high-cost) terraforming as an industrial process also makes sense (I'm thinking right now on the terraforming machinery on LV-426, from Aliens), in the Mechanical category.

What do you think about allowing two kinds of terraforming?

- Industrial terraforming (Mechanical): current system, a building project you start on the planet to be terraformed, costing certain PPs per turn. Not forgetting that current terraforming need balancing to be more interesting, and that there are several suggestions out there to improve its interest and usability, but all that will be sorted out later.
- Biological terraforming (Biotech): automatic terraforming process that takes much longer than industrial terraforming but costs no PPs (maybe some influence upkeep that, when not paid, causes the process to stagnate). Could this be implemented via a special that "counts" a given number of turns (maybe saving the counter in the capacity meter?) and then do "SetPlanetType type = Target.NextBetterPlanetType"?
like the idea
some Terraforming thoughts
1. For both forms of terraforming, you should keep track of the "original" EP

2. For maximum differentiation.
Industrial, very expensive (and will take time to build, 5-20 turns), but when you finish instant environment change [cost and maximum turns, and tech requirements increase depending on how far you move from original]

Biological, totally free (happens on all your colonies when you have the correct tech for Target distance from Original (target is current species best env), but Very slow (40-100 turns per EP, depending on how far from the target the current EP is). You can speed it up with policies that costs

User avatar
The Silent One
Graphics
Posts: 1129
Joined: Tue Jul 01, 2003 8:27 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#4 Post by The Silent One »

I like the idea to have two kinds of terraforming, but I don't think it's a good idea to make the bio terraforming slower than the mechanical one. The bio category should be better at this than the mechanical one, to make bio terraforming slow would be a huge disadvantage. Bio terraforming would be one of the reasons to decide to go for the bio category. Mech category brings other boons (industry boost), but terraforming should be weaker than on the bio category.
Bio vs. mech terraforming could also be balanced further by RP cost (e.g. mech terraforming costs more RP and more turns).
If I provided any images, code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0.

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#5 Post by Oberlus »

The Silent One wrote: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:30 am I like the idea to have two kinds of terraforming, but I don't think it's a good idea to make the bio terraforming slower than the mechanical one. The bio category should be better at this than the mechanical one, to make bio terraforming slow would be a huge disadvantage. Bio terraforming would be one of the reasons to decide to go for the bio category. Mech category brings other boons (industry boost), but terraforming should be weaker than on the bio category.
Bio vs. mech terraforming could also be balanced further by RP cost (e.g. mech terraforming costs more RP and more turns).
Agree on that mech terraforming should be overall less efficient than Biotech terraforming. Keep in mind that making bio-terra PP-free implies a Biotech specialised empire gets more PPs to invest on further expansion, hence getting more population too. So I do think it should take some extra time when compared to mech-terraforming. Moreover, I would make Biotech better than Mech at adaptation to environments (so you get more pop on suboptimal environments while you wait for them to be auto-terraformed).
I'm thinking of making bio-terra take three times more turns than mech-terra, but that will need simulations/tests to see how population figures evolve for Mech-focused vs Biotech-focused vs Mech&Bio-mixture and get to relatively balanced numbers.

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#6 Post by Krikkitone »

The Silent One wrote: Thu Feb 28, 2019 10:30 am I like the idea to have two kinds of terraforming, but I don't think it's a good idea to make the bio terraforming slower than the mechanical one. The bio category should be better at this than the mechanical one, to make bio terraforming slow would be a huge disadvantage. Bio terraforming would be one of the reasons to decide to go for the bio category. Mech category brings other boons (industry boost), but terraforming should be weaker than on the bio category.
Bio vs. mech terraforming could also be balanced further by RP cost (e.g. mech terraforming costs more RP and more turns).
Bio should be slower but free (speed up with policy cards that impose a cost)... no cost but time
Your whole empire will be terraformed

Mech is faster but more expensive (get it instantly on completion, but ridiculously expensive)...no time only cost
Only some important worlds will be terraformed

(also all categories should have industry boosts, maybe more in the mech category.. balanced out by everything in the mech category being expensive)

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#7 Post by Oberlus »

Krikkitone wrote: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:45 pmget it instantly on completion, but ridiculously expensive
Well, it must be balanced so that it is still a useful strategy. If getting +3*HabSize is going to cost you more than a invasion party (that will get you something like 10 or 15*HabSize, you will always prefer conquering others colonies over improving yours. So I wouldn't say "ridiculously expensive".

User avatar
Krikkitone
Creative Contributor
Posts: 1559
Joined: Sat Sep 13, 2003 6:52 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#8 Post by Krikkitone »

Oberlus wrote: Thu Feb 28, 2019 5:14 pm
Krikkitone wrote: Thu Feb 28, 2019 4:45 pmget it instantly on completion, but ridiculously expensive
Well, it must be balanced so that it is still a useful strategy. If getting +3*HabSize is going to cost you more than a invasion party (that will get you something like 10 or 15*HabSize, you will always prefer conquering others colonies over improving yours. So I wouldn't say "ridiculously expensive".
I agree it needs to be balanced v. invasion,
but an invasion party only has a chance of getting you that, (it requires sacrificing some fleet PP as well), wheras there is no chance of losing a battle with the industrial terraforming.

And the time for the Bio should be balanced against the cost.

Ophiuchus
Programmer
Posts: 3433
Joined: Tue Sep 30, 2014 10:01 am
Location: Wall IV

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#9 Post by Ophiuchus »

Normal troop prices are about 5PP per troop.
Medium hull troops is about 6PP per troop (6/37PP)
Spatial Flux troops is about 5PP per troop (4/22PP)

Not so hard to achievable are 3PP to 4 PP per troop
Asteroid troops 3PP (12/26PP)
Organic troops 4PP (8/34PP)
Symbiontic troops 4PP (8/31PP)

With cyborgs that can get down to about 2.4PP per troop (asteroid cyborgs 32/72).

Double that price if you have bad attack troops.

If you assume about 20 troops on a planet that makes a normal invasion troop cost about 50PP to 100PP.
The main cost of invasion is probably combat losses. If that cost would not exist, a terraforming step should probably cost maximum 80PP (double this cost if you have only bad troops ship species?) as an invasion not only increases your population but decreases also your enemy population.

I do not know how to assume an invasion cost if you factor in ship losses (e.g. maybe starting by assuming what killing the whole enemy armies and invading all the enemies planets costs).

Terraforming should maybe only be worthwhile for big and huge planets. From that i would guess terraforming step should probably cost about 100PP to 200PP(?).
Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Look, ma... four combat bouts!

User avatar
Oberlus
Cosmic Dragon
Posts: 5715
Joined: Mon Apr 10, 2017 4:25 pm

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#10 Post by Oberlus »

I wouldn't try to factor in ship loses. It's too complex.
I assume this simplistic scenario:
Two equivalent empires, both investing same PPs on warships, with similar military techs.
It is mid game (assuming terraforming won't be a late game tech anymore), so not many growth techs.
Empire A invests the remaining PPs into terraforming a medium planet from adequate to good env., which will grant him (say) +9 pop.
Empire B invests the remaining PPs into troops.
Then this could happen:
a) B attacks and invades a native medium planet, getting (say) +18 pop (and probably extending its supply and getting a new and useful species).
b) B attacks A at an undefended planet and invades it with little loses, getting +18 pop (and probably extending its supply, maybe cutting A's supply group, and possibly getting a new and useful species).
c) B attacks A at a defended planet, B has more ships (the troops) and wins with heavy losses. Initial troops must be way more than planetary troops to account for the losses during combat, say three times more.
d) B does not attack A because it fears losing too many ships, and so its troops are idle and a waste of time.

Terraforming is easier and secure as long as you can defend yourself.
Invasion is risky and could end in no benefits or even loses (if there is a third empire C that attacks after case c).
And terraforming gets you about half the increase of population than an invasion.

I would balance the costs so that cases a and b favours invasion and case c and d favours terraforming. With "favours" I mean giving more pop per PP invested.

So I understand terraforming one level should cost more or less the troops for conquering a mid-game planet with mid-game troops (around 120 PPs with default values), which means that for same pop increase you need twice PPS as an easy invasion (cases a and b) and -33% less PPs than a rough invasion (case c).


What do you think?

PS: SO I agree with Ophiuchus 100-200 PPs calculation.

User avatar
Vezzra
Release Manager, Design
Posts: 6095
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2011 12:56 pm
Location: Sol III

Re: Two kinds of terraforming?

#11 Post by Vezzra »

The basic idea of having several separate terraforming techs is a good one.

Differentiating by having one being cheaper but slower vs. more expensive but faster is a reasonable approach, as is balancing different tech trunks by providing terraforming in more than one trunk, but having one trunk offer the better terraforming techs while the other trunk will be better at other things (helps differentiating the tech trunks).

These concepts aren't necessarily mutually exclusive. One could be the slower/cheaper option and the other one the faster/more expensive one, while one of those options is still the more effective overall. Or have even more terraforming options: both options (fast/expensive and slow/cheap) in good and not so good variants. Although that might get a bit much in the end... ;)

Post Reply