Effective expansion policy

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Effective expansion policy

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> Effective expansion policy

Page: [1] 2 next > >>

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 7:42:10 AM

concern

Posts: 57
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

I am wondering if some of the more experienced players out there can tell me what an effective expansion policy is?

At the beginning, should I colonise aggressively, claiming all decent worlds I discover, or should I conservatively colonise a couple of choice worlds and wait for them to bring in a tax income prior to pushing out further.

How do you balance this against the requirement to grab worlds before your competition does? What reports within the game actually assist you in making the decision that it's time to expand further?

Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:05:26 AM

2guncohen

Posts: 401
Joined: 4/9/2010
From: Belguim
Status: offline

Be "selective" when you Colonyze planets or mine resources.
Best thing to do, is to frequently check the list of resources Your Empire Need.*
And keep an eye for "Rare luxury goods".

* Check what your resource-demands are => and see that mid-game you have them all in the pocket.

When you made contact with aliens, check the resources needed on galactic scale. => Im not 100% sure but when you see resources in this list => this is the demand of other empires => this means more income for your BNP.

I know this tips are not detailed enough, but its just my "2cents "to try to understand this game and rule an intergalactical Empire

And share my thoughts with other people.

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 2

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:05:41 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: concern

I am wondering if some of the more experienced players out there can tell me what an effective expansion policy is?

A consistent expansion policy I have found to work well and put you far ahead of the AI is "SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS". If you aren't constructing a colony ship, it better be because there's nowhere for it to land and you don't expect to ever find more. Every time you plop a colony ship, your population increases by +10M or more, depending on your level of colony ship technolergy. SPAWN MORE OVERLORDS! Prioritize grabbing independent worlds, particularly populated ones. If they don't want to join, and you can't colonize them with a spare colony ship of a compatible race (yours is probably incompatible), then invade them. If you see an enemy colony ship, declare war on them and shoot it down.

< Message edited by Fishman -- 5/12/2010 8:07:09 AM >

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 3

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:13:06 AM

Canute0

Posts: 616
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline

my priority
- with ultra rare resources (spice, fluid,...)
- with independed population , more tax, more bonus abilitys
- with artefakts, better colony development, maybe empire bonus
- with useful resources.

You should avoid to colonies at other empire systems, mosttimes your population geting unhappy, rebel and join the other empire then. But you allways can use these colony to trade with that empire.

Basicly colonies anything, at last any colony is a cheap refuel point.

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 4

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:31:41 AM

2guncohen

Posts: 401
Joined: 4/9/2010
From: Belguim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Canute

- with independed population , more tax, more bonus abilitys

You should avoid to colonies at other empire systems, mosttimes your population geting unhappy, rebel and join the other empire then. But you allways can use these colony to trade with that empire.

I forgot those two.

1- Pirates are good to trade info of locations to Independent Planets.

2- I would never trade it

I Would accidently click war and invade the Alien Colony

or
You can try to make that planet rebel and then invade it ?=> never tried this...

(in reply to Canute0)

Post #: 5

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:56:15 AM

concern

Posts: 57
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

Maybe I am still recoiling from the challenges of the various 1.04 betas, but I recall that an unfettered expansion policy quickly results in bankruptcy as your constructors build too many unprofitable mines and your private citizens build too many ships, to support colonies that still don't produce tax revenues.

Has this changed since we moved out of beta?

(in reply to 2guncohen)

Post #: 6

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 8:58:17 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: concern

Maybe I am still recoiling from the challenges of the various 1.04 betas, but I recall that an unfettered expansion policy quickly results in bankruptcy as your constructors build too many unprofitable mines and your private citizens build too many ships, to support colonies that still don't produce tax revenues.

Slightly, although allowing your constructors run amok building things was never advisable to begin with, and I can always find something useful they can be doing myself. As for unfettered, you clearly need priorities, but you also need to keep DOING it.

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 7

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 9:05:03 AM

concern

Posts: 57
Joined: 4/9/2010
Status: offline

quote:

although allowing your constructors run amok building things was never advisable

Does this mean constructor automation is still broken in 1.04? ie: it doesn't make sound economic judgements.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 8

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 9:09:43 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: concern

Does this mean constructor automation is still broken in 1.04? ie: it doesn't make sound economic judgements.

Not a clue. Given the opaqueness and lack of reason given to some of these decisions, though, I am not inclined to trust them. The AI has not demonstrated that it is capable of anything approaching prudent fiscal management. It once asked to build 50 escorts, several dozen destroyers, and a resupply ship. No rationale was given for why it would want such a thing, especially given that such things did not actually exist, yet a cost was proposed anyway. After receiving many such dubious, unexplained suggestions, I stopped listening to its advice completely.

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 9

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 9:45:17 AM

Canute0

Posts: 616
Joined: 4/30/2010
From: Germany
Status: offline

My constr. ships are all automated and they are running fine overall.
90% of the time they just build what your empire is needed, that include research stations too and it dont help to made these stations Obsolent. You should build these at your own pretty fast.

And when you discover a debris field, const. ships like to repair these too, even when they are still guarded by creatues.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 10

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 9:47:42 AM

Wenla

Posts: 83
Joined: 4/14/2010
Status: offline

My expansion speed depends on my financial status. I expand as fast/slowly as my financial status stays black. This means normally slow and carefull expansion, which is my overall strategy with all another games also, and usually it works well.

_____________________________

Before you can define your strategy, you have to have a vision

(in reply to concern)

Post #: 11

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 5:59:18 PM

Dadekster

Posts: 141
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

Depending on the map and scouting I generally colonize several planets quickly to get a base going. I only use 2 constructors as they are expensive and I select what to build depending on what I need as far as strategic and luxury things I need. You end up with a decent surplus but depending on how much you build certain things can run out (the red rock thing and something that looks like a pearl, can't remember but they are both strategic). Once I've got about 5-10 colonies I tend to expand in gulps of 3 planets at a time as I find them. Once I am a decent sized empire and start meeting other races I build up 4 dedicated fleets for offensive and defensive operations. For pirates I generally just grab a couple local escorts and frigs once I find their base and deal with it. My mining and gas stations are decently armoured and armed so pirates are just a nuisance and I don't design anything under capital for pirates to steal (besides whoever heard of an escort imperial star destroyer??!? Awesome mod btw!) Once I hit twenty planets or so I keep an eye on the profits on the other colonies and while I will grab a nice new planet if I see it I am much more selective in what I launch a colony ship towards. Ruins, nice resource spread, native population etc are big factors in what I snag. I play humans a lot so when I get a race that can colonize swamps your planner will many times blow up with planets to colonize. It's at that point you have to cherry pick of its easy to crash your economy.

But that's just me.

< Message edited by Dadekster -- 5/12/2010 6:00:22 PM >

(in reply to Wenla)

Post #: 12

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/12/2010 7:39:29 PM

2guncohen

Posts: 401
Joined: 4/9/2010
From: Belguim
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Dadekster
(besides whoever heard of an escort imperial star destroyer??!? Awesome mod btw!)
But that's just me.

Pirates ?

(in reply to Dadekster)

Post #: 13

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 12:14:54 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

The most effective colonization plan is to colonize, colonize, colonize. Colonize EVERYTHING (literally every planet you can... but only if not in a system claimed by AI)...
Acquire races that can colonize other types of planets ASAP. (specifically, ice, volcanic, and ocean).

Colonize priority:
1. Ruins.
2. Luxury resources - NOTE: they might be in order, but you should prioritize #1 and #2 significantly. Especially in early game.
NOTE2: Aim for the largest variety of luxury resources, and prioritize rarer resources over less rare.
3. Regular resources
4. No resources.

But still colonize everything you can.

Note, that you should trade maps and tech... The goal is to get as much maps as you can and ALL the tech. Once you are ahead you should, ideally, buy other's maps with tech but NOT sell them your maps, maps are worth more then tech!
Furthermore, there will be empires that seem to just swim in cash, literally in millions. SELL them tech for cash. use that cash to buy colony ships...

Example. in one game I swapped map and tech so I have it all, then I sold some tech for 1,200,000 money (what is the unit of money in DW?)... I used that to buy 200 colony ships at 6000 a pop. In under 5 minutes I gained 200 colonies... then I sold more tech and repeated... I ended up going from under 100 colonies to 600 colonies out of 730 (I got the rest when I conquered the other empires :P)

< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/13/2010 12:23:48 AM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to 2guncohen)

Post #: 14

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 12:18:28 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

My Priorities:

-Colonies with independent populations that are 'likely' or 'possible' for colonization
-Luxury Resources
-Resources I need
-Proximal to my capital
-all others when the first 4 options are taken

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 15

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 12:20:55 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My Priorities:

-Colonies with independent populations that are 'likely' or 'possible' for colonization
-Luxury Resources
-Resources I need
-Proximal to my capital
-all others when the first 4 options are taken

Independents are not worth a colony ship... send a troop ship!
Not only are troop ships cheaper, but you can reuse them... you can claim all the independents with one single troop ship. No risk of "failed colonization" (which wastes a colony ship), its faster (no need to build a colony ship first), and it works every time even for races that hate you.
The rep hit is really irrelevant.

< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/13/2010 12:21:46 AM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 16

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 12:26:55 AM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My Priorities:

-Colonies with independent populations that are 'likely' or 'possible' for colonization
-Luxury Resources
-Resources I need
-Proximal to my capital
-all others when the first 4 options are taken

Independents are not worth a colony ship... send a troop ship!
Not only are troop ships cheaper, but you can reuse them... you can claim all the independents with one single troop ship. No risk of "failed colonization" (which wastes a colony ship), its faster (no need to build a colony ship first), and it works every time even for races that hate you.
The rep hit is really irrelevant.

That's not the way I play. I'm Mr. Uber Nice Guy for the first part of the game, till I build up my massive fleet and backstab everyone. It probably is cheaper in the long run, but if you want to get your rep up high for the first half of the game, you need to limit that kind of action.

I'm Emporer Palpatine when it comes to 4X games. Be nice until you are in a position of ultimate power, then screw every one else.

< Message edited by Shark7 -- 5/13/2010 12:27:42 AM >

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 17

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 1:19:50 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

My Priorities:

-Colonies with independent populations that are 'likely' or 'possible' for colonization
-Luxury Resources
-Resources I need
-Proximal to my capital
-all others when the first 4 options are taken

Independents are not worth a colony ship... send a troop ship!
Not only are troop ships cheaper, but you can reuse them... you can claim all the independents with one single troop ship. No risk of "failed colonization" (which wastes a colony ship), its faster (no need to build a colony ship first), and it works every time even for races that hate you.
The rep hit is really irrelevant.

That's not the way I play. I'm Mr. Uber Nice Guy for the first part of the game, till I build up my massive fleet and backstab everyone. It probably is cheaper in the long run, but if you want to get your rep up high for the first half of the game, you need to limit that kind of action.

I'm Emporer Palpatine when it comes to 4X games. Be nice until you are in a position of ultimate power, then screw every one else.

I am also mister nice guy... and I used to say the same, but then I noticed that the rep impact from sending troops is really not all that bad. Nobody REALLY cares that you do it.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 18

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 3:28:01 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

Independents are not worth a colony ship... send a troop ship!
Not only are troop ships cheaper, but you can reuse them... you can claim all the independents with one single troop ship. No risk of "failed colonization" (which wastes a colony ship), its faster (no need to build a colony ship first), and it works every time even for races that hate you.
The rep hit is really irrelevant.

Well, the rep hit is not significant. It's not completely irrelevant, but given the choice between failing colony ship landings and a rep hit, I'll take the rep hit. However, once you OWN one, you can produce and land colony ships: While troopships are reusable, to a point, landing a colony ship will give you +10-50M pop no matter where you're landing it, and if you're landing it on an existing independent colony, you will immediately be able to collect tax revenue from them, as opposed to landing them on a bare planet with 0 dev. Just imagine the independent colony as a particularly fancy ruin.

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 19

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 4:25:23 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

Independents are not worth a colony ship... send a troop ship!
Not only are troop ships cheaper, but you can reuse them... you can claim all the independents with one single troop ship. No risk of "failed colonization" (which wastes a colony ship), its faster (no need to build a colony ship first), and it works every time even for races that hate you.
The rep hit is really irrelevant.

Well, the rep hit is not significant. It's not completely irrelevant, but given the choice between failing colony ship landings and a rep hit, I'll take the rep hit. However, once you OWN one, you can produce and land colony ships: While troopships are reusable, to a point, landing a colony ship will give you +10-50M pop no matter where you're landing it, and if you're landing it on an existing independent colony, you will immediately be able to collect tax revenue from them, as opposed to landing them on a bare planet with 0 dev. Just imagine the independent colony as a particularly fancy ruin.

you immediately get the tax benefits of a conquered planet as well...

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 20

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 11:28:48 AM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

None of this is enough to stop you from doing it if that is the only way to GET the planet reliably in the first place, but it's not not enough to justify doing it needlessly, as the rep penalties mount rapidly if you invade every single two-bit indy world.

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 21

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 2:04:17 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

it will have the tax income of ~500 million people who were the original colonists...
you are better off not wasting those 10-50M colony ship and landing it on an uninhabited planet. the chance of colonizing is too low, the loss too expensive; even of success you have destroyed a valuable colony ship. A 10M colony ship costs 6000+, a 50M costs 12,000 to 200,000 (depending on how strapped for resources you are at that point). Which means the extra money you make for landing it on such a planet will not cover its own cost in the short term, and in the long term, it certainly wouldn't because you will have 1 less planet.
Landing it on a planet with a luxury resource is great for your economy as it effectively makes it a free mining station for a luxury resource; even a planet without resources is better, because it sets a seed of population on that planet that begins to grow. It is better to have 2 planets then maybe one planet with extra 10% populace or maybe no planets at all if you are unlucky.

< Message edited by taltamir -- 5/13/2010 2:18:09 PM >

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 22

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 2:21:41 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

None of this is enough to stop you from doing it if that is the only way to GET the planet reliably in the first place, but it's not not enough to justify doing it needlessly, as the rep penalties mount rapidly if you invade every single two-bit indy world.

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 23

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 2:48:03 PM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

None of this is enough to stop you from doing it if that is the only way to GET the planet reliably in the first place, but it's not not enough to justify doing it needlessly, as the rep penalties mount rapidly if you invade every single two-bit indy world.

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

Which means you wasted a colony ship that could could have colonized another planet for you...
In mid game I have about 50 colonies and HUNDREDS of known planets... the problem is finding enough money to afford enough colony ships to rush those planets. wasting ships on something like that is not a good proposition.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 24

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 2:54:23 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

None of this is enough to stop you from doing it if that is the only way to GET the planet reliably in the first place, but it's not not enough to justify doing it needlessly, as the rep penalties mount rapidly if you invade every single two-bit indy world.

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

Which means you wasted a colony ship that could could have colonized another planet for you...
In mid game I have about 50 colonies and HUNDREDS of known planets... the problem is finding enough money to afford enough colony ships to rush those planets. wasting ships on something like that is not a good proposition.

And this is where you and I disagree. When you are already in diplomatic relations with other empires, getting that reputation hit is more significant than you think. Not to mention that you get +10-50m population with the colony ship, making that already established colony even bigger. And I don't know why you have so much money problems, I'm able to expand easily and still have money left over. Perhaps its the fact that I'm currently playing Human with a Republic style government.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 25

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 3:26:05 PM

Axefire

Posts: 15
Joined: 4/19/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

If you go to the planet and look at the planet details at the lower left of the screen, it will tell you the likelihood of colonizing the indies.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 26

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 3:34:57 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Axefire

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

If you go to the planet and look at the planet details at the lower left of the screen, it will tell you the likelihood of colonizing the indies.

Yep, which is what I use to base my decision to colonize or invade.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Axefire)

Post #: 27

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 6:26:28 PM

Fishman

Posts: 795
Joined: 4/1/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

Pay no attention to the "chances", they are meaningless, especially when your lander race is not your own. If you are colonizing a planet with more of its own people, even odds that report as "very very bad" pretty much always work, because what matters is not your race, but the landing race, yet odds reported will always be your race. It is possible to reliably take even "very unlikely" as if it were "very likely" if you are landing with more of their race, which would you have if you conquered the first one with a troop.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 28

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/13/2010 6:28:48 PM

Shark7

Posts: 7937
Joined: 7/24/2007
From: The Big Nowhere
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.
Pay no attention to the "chances", they are meaningless, especially when your lander race is not your own. If you are colonizing a planet with more of its own people, even odds that report as "very very bad" pretty much always work, because what matters is not your race, but the landing race, yet odds reported will always be your race. It is possible to reliably take even "very unlikely" as if it were "very likely" if you are landing with more of their race, which would you have if you conquered the first one with a troop.

I think the whole issue here is that everyone has a different way to play the game. Some are more diplomatic, while others are more agressive.

And you are correct, if you have your own small population of the alien race already, they can almost certainly colonize the planet with no problems. But for your first few colonies, that will matter.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Fishman)

Post #: 29

RE: Effective expansion policy - 5/14/2010 4:13:57 AM

taltamir

Posts: 1290
Joined: 4/2/2010
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: taltamir

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

quote:

ORIGINAL: Fishman

Yes, but it won't have +10-50M extra people on it from landing your colony ship. If you land your colonists on an inhabited world, you will collect tax income from them immediately as the preexisting population boosts the development level. If you land them on an uninhabited world, you get zilch for some time, and when you invade the other planet, income across all planets may suffer from the morale penalty of increased rep loss.

None of this is enough to stop you from doing it if that is the only way to GET the planet reliably in the first place, but it's not not enough to justify doing it needlessly, as the rep penalties mount rapidly if you invade every single two-bit indy world.

Basically, if the chances are likely or possible, it's worth taking the chance with 1 Colony ship to try it. IF that fails, then use the hostile take-over method.

Which means you wasted a colony ship that could could have colonized another planet for you...
In mid game I have about 50 colonies and HUNDREDS of known planets... the problem is finding enough money to afford enough colony ships to rush those planets. wasting ships on something like that is not a good proposition.

And this is where you and I disagree. When you are already in diplomatic relations with other empires, getting that reputation hit is more significant than you think. Not to mention that you get +10-50m population with the colony ship, making that already established colony even bigger. And I don't know why you have so much money problems, I'm able to expand easily and still have money left over. Perhaps its the fact that I'm currently playing Human with a Republic style government.

This is what I THOUGHT based on theory, it took me forever to actually TRY it out in real gameplay... then I found out I was wrong. I told people how rep is sacred! it is far too valuable to sacrifice one iota of (don't get me wrong, it is very valuable, but there are cases where small sacrifices of it are worthwhile)... my experience from playing the game, especially on max difficulty, has been that it is worthwhile to send troops.

_____________________________

I do not have a superman complex; for I am God, not Superman.

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 30