Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Distant Worlds 1 Series >> The War Room



Message

Omniblivion -> Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/2/2011 11:55:13 PM)

Greetings!

I'm still pretty new at this game, although I'm catching on pretty quickly. One question: is there a real downside to colonizing most available planets early game? IE: I have a couple relatively nearby systems with 50-60% quality and average resources. Other than the cost of the colony ship, is there any other reason I shouldn't be colonizing them? I've found that just popping these up pretty early along with bare-bones small space stations start to generate revenue pretty quickly.

Thanks :)



Omniblivion -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/2/2011 11:56:03 PM)

Also, to clarify, by "every planet"/"Available planets" I mean ones that which I am able to colonize based on my race/tech :)



cookie monster -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/3/2011 12:18:28 AM)

Check out this thread

http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=2753358

Colonies above 50% quality are automatically selected for colonising by the engine unless you've turned off auto colonisation

You can see from the expansion planner which planets to colonise

Or from the potential colonies list in the main game window on the left

Just click on a 50% plus colony to make/send a ship there

To take over independant colonies when there population is hostile you need to use troops



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/3/2011 8:35:28 AM)

Also, colonizing low quality worlds does incurr a cost in itself. It can be easily offset later but in the begining it will hurt.
For hostile independents you can also use colony ships of the same race (if you have colonies with them)....they will not be hostile towards their own kin and you'll not incur the rep hit for taking them over.



Kayoz -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/6/2011 4:42:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

Also, colonizing low quality worlds does incurr a cost in itself. It can be easily offset later but in the begining it will hurt.
For hostile independents you can also use colony ships of the same race (if you have colonies with them)....they will not be hostile towards their own kin and you'll not incur the rep hit for taking them over.


This is new! Chance of colonizing an independent race depends on the race in the colony ship, not the dominant (ie: starting) race of the empire?



adecoy95 -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/7/2011 8:41:25 AM)

unless its under 50% quality, you incur no cost other than the colony ship. so its not a bad idea to just go into the list, sort by distance or quality, and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets) [:D]



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/7/2011 8:51:06 AM)

Yes, and it was always so



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/8/2011 1:12:57 PM)

quote:

...and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets)


It is really obligatory to do that, at the least to make my "conquer the Galaxy" strategy to work, but, in the middle of the game, after getting one or two new colonization tech, it can be quite tiresome.




Kayoz -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/8/2011 2:27:13 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

Yes, and it was always so


I always thought it was based on the dominant race of the colonizer, regardless of what race happens to be in the actual colony ship. Weird - in that case, the "colonization chance" message for an independent world is misleading.



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/8/2011 3:04:55 PM)

it can be considered so and it could be contextualized....maybe we should even have independents from our own race that could resist colonization (past arguments, internal politics etc etc)



Kayoz -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 3:50:30 AM)

As I understand it, each colony's tax revenue is based on the population, quality and development. By colonizing a low quality world (under 50%), the tax can NEVER be positive - it will forever be a drain on your empire's finances.

I'm not sure how rare luxuries and ruins affects that. If you have a planet with - say 49%, will it be profitable if you control the rare luxuries and/or it has ruins that give it a bonus?



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 6:48:55 AM)

Yes, and even without it a low quality planet can become profitable as pop and dev increase over time.



Kayoz -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 6:55:27 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Data

Yes, and even without it a low quality planet can become profitable as pop and dev increase over time.


Looks like I'll have to experiment a little. The DW galactopedia states:

quote:

Planet Quality
Note that each planet and moon has a Quality rating that indicates how habitable it is. The highest quality planets are 100%. These should be prime targets for colonization.

However any planet or moon with a quality below 50% should be avoided. These planets will be a net drain on your empire’s economy if you colonize them. They will cost more to support than they produce in revenue. There may be rare situations where you choose to colonize a planet with quality less than 50% (e.g. has special resources), but beware of the negative affect on your empire revenue.


... which I assumed meant that the negative revenue was permanent - that without any other considerations (ie: ruins, rare luxuries, etc), a planet below 50% would never be a revenue contributor.

Can you elucidate a little? I'm a bit confused since the documentation implies one thing but you're stating another.



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 6:57:59 AM)

In my games even low quality planets turn out positive income in time if you develop them iirc.



adecoy95 -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 11:46:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bertipa

quote:

...and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets)


It is really obligatory to do that, at the least to make my "conquer the Galaxy" strategy to work, but, in the middle of the game, after getting one or two new colonization tech, it can be quite tiresome.




yup, its the one thing about the game i dislike, planets have no real weight.



ElanaAhova_slith -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/9/2011 2:08:03 PM)

Yes, I agree. I play on a very small galaxy because of this. (Is this why i never see the shaktauri? I wish colonizing was much more difficult and expensive - so as to reduce the colony spam.



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 8:42:15 AM)

I still rememeber Civilization 3 games where, at the end of the game, there were still parts of the planet onowned (Ok, we are speaking of really big maps).
At a Galactic level should be even more evident.

Colonization should be more expansive, colonization of non ideal planets even more, low quality not ideal planets should be almost impossible to colonize.

For what we know now terraforming is all but impossible, at least until we crack an utopic/maybe almost magical level of nanotech.

An abitable planet shold be something exceptional, not a fleeting moment in a clickfeast of colonization spamming.

Even an ideal planets colonization could/should be difficoult and full of surprises.

I know that DW is a strategy game but, after you figure it out the good strategy, it is depressigly banal to win. The Sakaturi were a good idea to give a jolt to the second part of the game but that also, being repetitive and previsible, it is just a matter to optimize the basic strategy to be prepared to welcome them.

At least in DW I have to buils ship and actually colonize, in GALCIV2 you can win at the suicide level without building a single ship and own the galaxy having colonized by yourself 1 (one) planet.



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 9:05:42 AM)

iirc at the suicide level in galciv 2 you wouldn't even have time to develop an empire [:)]



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 12:51:11 PM)

At suicide level I always get full galaxy domination, and in one afternoon and one evening (going to bed before midnight). Higher is the difficuly level, quicker the game, same results.

Just one colonized planet (why trow the starting colony ship away?) and the rest of the galaxy buyed out (and exploration ships, builder ships, a little of war ships) exchanging techs with the other empires.

It was so depressingly simple that I really can't play it anymore.

BTW DW suffer of the same problem, you just have to colonize by yourself becouse the price of the planets here is usually more expansive. Unfortunately that means just colony spamming, not higher strategy challenge.

NOTA BENE: In my last game I was in Mutual defence agreement with half of the other empire and the rest (the littler ones) were under my protectore. I fired 1 (one) time against a non pirate ship: a constructor who had the nerve to start repairing a World destroyed even if it was surrounded by one of my fleets.
I moved the percentage of the galaxy to own to win to 50% hoping for the Sakaturi war but they didn't even showed up in time.



Merker -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 5:40:09 PM)

Ha, why colonize all planets when it's way more FUN to colonize a few good ones, and conquer the rest. Why work to make a non-native to you race planet valuable when you can simply take them from your enemy who finds them suitable enough for his race. Besides, lots of planets mess up the colony screen[;)]
Cheers



fix_account_please -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 6:39:30 PM)

One thing not mentioned, so far, is a low value planet (under 50) is raised by the number of luxuries you have, just as other planets are. So a planet with a rating of 35, with a ruins that ups the rating, and with some luxuries may become a marginal colony.



Merker -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 6:45:52 PM)

If you have several of the top luxuries then the bad quality is easily offset. But I generally colonize planets based on resources, not so much on quality.



Lrfss -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/11/2011 11:50:35 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: bertipa

I still rememeber Civilization 3 games where, at the end of the game, there were still parts of the planet onowned (Ok, we are speaking of really big maps).
At a Galactic level should be even more evident.

Colonization should be more expansive, colonization of non ideal planets even more, low quality not ideal planets should be almost impossible to colonize.

For what we know now terraforming is all but impossible, at least until we crack an utopic/maybe almost magical level of nanotech.

An abitable planet shold be something exceptional, not a fleeting moment in a clickfeast of colonization spamming.

Even an ideal planets colonization could/should be difficoult and full of surprises.

I know that DW is a strategy game but, after you figure it out the good strategy, it is depressigly banal to win. The Sakaturi were a good idea to give a jolt to the second part of the game but that also, being repetitive and previsible, it is just a matter to optimize the basic strategy to be prepared to welcome them.

At least in DW I have to buils ship and actually colonize, in GALCIV2 you can win at the suicide level without building a single ship and own the galaxy having colonized by yourself 1 (one) planet.


I for sure think that the research tree needs major tweeking to slow down R & D and as it stands now it's just way too easy in a very short time through various means to accelerate R & D to crazy levels. Some things in particular like colonization as stated above is just nuts and IMHO take much away from the game.

We need to be able if we choose:

A) Slow down the R & D by at least another 100% or more even?

B) Another thing that would improve things greatly in this respect would be expanding the R & D tree by at least double if not more, additionally make more tech gaining dependent on other tech's being gained prior, etc.

C) Some if not most tech's gained by spying and reverse engineering should not be imediately gained though some don't happen right away, most do and way too quickly at that. Therefore make tech's gained outside your normal R & D to take a reasonable and much longer period of time to aquire and maybe even require other known or potentially known tech's first in order to implement the Alien tech depending on the level and race factor as well. Some Alien (other than your race...lol) techs may not even be usable to your race...

D) The other thing that would be tech's far more interesting is if there was more of an unknown factor to it. Of course there should be general idea's about future techs and be able to go in certain directions as there is now, however the outcome of certain or several completed researched techs should/could reveal prior unknown directions/branches to research. The whole Fog of War/Research thing.

The whole research thing and what it results in as it stands now is IMHO overally simplified to a huge extent. It would not seem to me that it would be too difficult with all the support this game has to come up a fantastic tech tree that everyone would be happy with and still not be too nuts to program into the game[8|] I'm not a programmer, so can't help out there[8|]

Anyway, this is a great game, hope the Dev's get this amongst some other important issues addressed in the future[&o]



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 7:21:41 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Merker

Ha, why colonize all planets when it's way more FUN to colonize a few good ones, and conquer the rest. Why work to make a non-native to you race planet valuable when you can simply take them from your enemy who finds them suitable enough for his race. Besides, lots of planets mess up the colony screen[;)]
Cheers



Point taken: I just don't use the Colony screen and I always think "If I was really there I would prefer to gain planet with colonization or with war?". I have no problem to go to war if it is needed, in the end I'm playing to win. But the point here is that in DW if you want to win then war is just a way to lose time. Colonization is much more efficent. War is just not needed (at least until the Sakaturi shows up, if they shows up).
Really it was the Sakaturi surprise who made me really like DW, but it seems to be a one trick pony.

I have seen in the forum people who are going in the editor to create a semi-worty oppositon: I can see their point but that should also become a signal to the developers that something is missing.

I can imagine that to make players happy is quite difficult: we want to win... but not easily. Not so simple to implement in such a complex game. But DW should really make impossible to win with just simple and repetitive strategies.

P.S. And I'm convinced that all the pro-war spam that you get from your advisors is just a Sakaturi plot.



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 7:24:43 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Lrfss
Anyway, this is a great game, hope the Dev's get this amongst some other important issues addressed in the future[&o]


I back your post, point by point.



bertipa -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 7:31:12 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Merker

If you have several of the top luxuries then the bad quality is easily offset. But I generally colonize planets based on resources, not so much on quality.


In my last game, while I was happly colony spamming, I noticed that somehow I got all the more expansive luxury.
I think that that was a major influence in the incredible economy/population success I enjoyed (I initially tought it was due to the patch). Diplomatic too as I shared them with everybody.

So, I think that if you have them you will be good even on other planets than the ones who produce them.



Bingeling -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 9:25:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Merker

If you have several of the top luxuries then the bad quality is easily offset. But I generally colonize planets based on resources, not so much on quality.

Hm, you value very high quality, I guess?

I agree on resources, and also to claim a resource rich system even if the potential colony is not exactly looking as a star. And of course, with the right ruin or rare resource I colonize at 0%...

It was quite fun to see Korabbia swapping populations. The few that could live there were on all kinds of races depending on time...

Btw, how can you judge development bonus? Is this a bonus to culture, a bonus to planet quality, or in a way both (does culture work much the same as planet quality?).



Data -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 10:32:29 AM)

actually culture and development are synonyms, don't know why the game uses the two instead of one of them. It doesn't apply to planet quality directly but it can offset it's effects afaik



fix_account_please -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 4:55:18 PM)

This is elanaahova again. Yes, I agree with both ideas strongly: Les determinism in tech tree, and varied special events in a multi branching story line.

Tech would be much better if the R and D only approximated the finishing date. And some special events in various storylines don't have to be ones that require the whole game storyline. Here is a suggestion:

At some point, all the members of a particular species suddenly become enamored (ultra nationalism) of one another to the exclusion of all other races. They become xenophobic (not necessarily hostile - but wanting to live on worlds with only members of their race). So, all colonies with a high percentage (random /coded?) revolt and join the (fill in species here0 alliance. Colonies with miniritie populations of this species get very unhappy and immigrate away... (or create disorder). Conquered colonies with majority representation of this species continually revolt, and ...

colony suddenly gets upgraded to a much higher development potential and the people want independence.

"somebody" tries to corner the market on a particular strategic resource, or luxury, and the supply decreases significantly and the price 'sky-rockets (pun intended).

A design flaw is discovered in all the (fill in ship component here) and all the ships with it have to go and get refitted ... or suffer increasing possibility of (bad thing) happening. Reactors blow up, cargo pods allow pathogin(s) to spread.. plague! etc.

Wouldn't it be fun, once in a while, to discover an extra large variety (size of kaltor / or jellyfish that forms a school and statrts going to other solar systems?

Any other ideas?



Bingeling -> RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game? (4/12/2011 9:18:33 PM)

I wonder if... Not really the right thread, but...

Research could be more interesting with upgrading tech, rather than researching the fixed next upgrade. Take maxos blasters - you can pick between improving them, and doing the longer project of getting shatterforce lasers directly. How long time it takes to make shatterforce is not known in detail. Nor it is it known in detail how much better maxos gets if you research improvements.

Say maxos got a minimum damage and a maximum damage. Where a research project brings you is somewhat random, but you can always start another maxos upgrade project.

You can also imagine better researched maxos gives an easier route to shatterforce, or that shatterforce will have better stats when they arrive. So, do you go for breakthrough technology, or the longer, steady upgrade route with incremental improvements. Direct jumps should be worse short term, but potentially better long term as long as you hold your own at the start.

As for storylines. I don't really like the DW ones. I want each game to have its story. If one could incorporate many different random turn of events (shakturi like event being one of them), you would not know which one you meet. And you meet several each game. Some empire finding an ancient tech cache and turning nasty could be an even, tor instance. I prefer my DW games storyless. Here we start, what happens?

And as for story lines and research. What if you find something that provides research multipliers. Somewhat random. My last game was with the Dhayut. They got special (nice) hyper drives, that almost match the ultimate one in the final upgrade. And outclass everything comparable at the way to the top.

Yes to more events forming the galaxy. More than one event. Much more fun than storylines, and way more replayable. Do they have to be perfectly balanced? Sure not. Imagine the two biggest AI empires, no natural friends, suddenly forming a deal to ally themselves to ensure their positions as major players. In one game, never seen again for the next 15...



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.65625