Why not colonize everything?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Why not colonize everything?

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 >> Why not colonize everything?

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 8:59:14 AM

Baleur

Posts: 372
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

Okay so, i really like the latest patch with the planet quality and such, having 50-60% of all planets be rather "crappy" and undesirable.
BUT one thing i never got an answer to (in the ingame tooltips or galactopedia), is WHY they are undesirable??

I'm playing a game now as Naxxilians, and i found a system that had 1 good ice planet, and 5, yes FIVE undesirable ice moons. So i thought, what the hell, and colonized them all. It's now much later and i dont see any real downside to it, sure im not really getting any tax from them yet, but no cost either?

The things ive read on the forums suggest that if the planet quality is below 50% the planet will cost you rather than help you. But, how?
Credits? Or luxury resources and other population demand?

So in short, is the downside so bad that its absolutely pointless to colonize anything other than 51% quality planets, or is it just a marginal cost that having "secure territory" can far outweigh?
Thanks.

Post #: 1

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 10:17:03 AM

Vanguard_DW

Posts: 22
Joined: 6/10/2010
Status: offline

I think they eat into your overall tax income,They give a minus GDP value and I think a minus tax value, but then again I rarely colonise lesser worlds

(in reply to Baleur)

Post #: 2

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 2:03:02 PM

Registered55

Posts: 52
Joined: 8/1/2010
Status: offline

it's a bit like earth, there are places that are inhospitable, but still can have human presence,
then of course there are places that are extremely inhospitable, places that only with up to date technology can people maintain there presence, and even then only for a short while (technology can only circumvent so much, there are other variables that must be taken into account that have nothing to do with technology)

to answer your question, the 50% rule is there to let you no the hospitably factor of the planet/moon in question,

the lower it is the more it will cost you to maintain your presence, but as you have the resources of an entire empire at your disposal, it will take many bad worlds before it effects your overall balance sheet if you will,

just remember though the cost must weighed up by you,
and the effect is cumulative, the steady increase of resources needed for each worlds that looses starts to add up,

although in real life research would play a significant large role in what planets can be colonized, and how bad a colony could be settled, the worse the world is, the far greater technology would be needed to compensate,

(terraforming concepts is not apart of this game unfortunately, as this would be a real life element, and something Space Empires did quite well)

DW will more and likely introduce terraforming system in a later expansion, as like you have rightly pointed out, the 50% thing is not overall fitting, and does and is a after thought system put in place, effective it maybe, but very simple in design and nature.

terraforming is a more realistic approach, and should take a long time to complete (research levels, planet quality level, planet type and size variable would need to be taken into account)

the current system just doesn't take into account species natural climate, and the fact that people (beings) have a voice,
there are some planets that a certain species would never live on, there are some planets that if beings were living on, would leave at the earliest possibility.

terraforming is needed in this game, but so are so many other things, DW is IMO so far from coming even close to being finished.....

but here's looking forward to the expansion (as things like this are way outside the scope of a patch, in fact it was a patch that came up with the 50% thingy)

< Message edited by Registered55 -- 9/1/2010 2:15:51 PM >

(in reply to Vanguard_DW)

Post #: 3

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 6:09:28 PM

Shark7

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

I think the point of quality is to keep it from being a 'colonize every barren rock in the galaxy' game that so many 4X become. Sentient, humanoid beings simply cannot live on every type of planet, as it should be.

_____________________________

Distant Worlds Fan

'When in doubt...attack!'

(in reply to Registered55)

Post #: 4

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 6:24:30 PM

Baleur

Posts: 372
Joined: 1/18/2010
Status: offline

I know..... I was asking about what exactly it is, in game terms, that is the downside to colonizing these worlds. Do they use more luxury resources or actually cost credits per month?

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 5

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 7:30:26 PM

rk0123msp@mindspring

Posts: 81
Joined: 7/23/2010
Status: offline

The answer also depends on what you set your victory conditions at: there are 5 or 6 different VC settings. If you've set 50% planet control you need to take 50% of the planets one way or the other, either conquest, colonization, or both.

_____________________________

Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:

(in reply to Baleur)

Post #: 6

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 9:02:26 PM

shinobu

Posts: 214
Joined: 12/12/2009
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think the point of quality is to keep it from being a 'colonize every barren rock in the galaxy' game that so many 4X become. Sentient, humanoid beings simply cannot live on every type of planet, as it should be.

What about the AI civs? I'm not sure I can pinpoint any trends there; anyone else noticed anything? Do they "colonize every rock"? Anyone notice how they behave? Is there a limit on their colonization? (i.e.- they will not colonize any planets below 40% quality- that type of thing...)

(in reply to Shark7)

Post #: 7

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/1/2010 10:07:13 PM

Spacecadet

Posts: 1780
Joined: 4/18/2010
Status: offline

First, planets <50% in Quality cost income.
I have a few that I really needed the resources from (Zentabia fluid, etc.) and some of them are costing 5k+ in income each.

You do still gain resouces from them, but they also cost resources to maintain the population's living standard.
In short, extra people always require more resources - good planet or bad planet.

quote:

ORIGINAL: shinobu

quote:

ORIGINAL: Shark7

I think the point of quality is to keep it from being a 'colonize every barren rock in the galaxy' game that so many 4X become. Sentient, humanoid beings simply cannot live on every type of planet, as it should be.

What about the AI civs? I'm not sure I can pinpoint any trends there; anyone else noticed anything? Do they "colonize every rock"? Anyone notice how they behave? Is there a limit on their colonization? (i.e.- they will not colonize any planets below 40% quality- that type of thing...)

I have seen the AI with planets below 40%.
In fact I have taken over a few of them.

Now as to whether there were Independents on these planets that the AI took over . . . well, that I can't say.

(in reply to shinobu)

Post #: 8

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/2/2010 2:48:08 AM

torrenal

Posts: 189
Joined: 7/12/2010
Status: offline

Supposedly, independents only occur on worthwhile planets, but you can explore ruins that will trigger populations to appear on planets that are not worthwhile.

The game will even send colony ships to unprofitable planets if there are no profitable ones available.
//Torrenal

(in reply to Spacecadet)

Post #: 9

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/5/2010 6:01:04 PM

taltamir

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

50% is the point at which you make no tax income.
below 50% it actually costs you money to maintain said colony
the thing is, its worthwhile to colonize planets a little under 50% because those planets "cost" less than a mining station's maintenance.
Moreover, population benefits you (can build more colony ships faster, gets more research points, etc)...

So I find it worthwhile to colonize planets as following:
1. planets with no resources at all, colonize only if 50% or above quality, or in an important system (aka, the same system as a super luxury resource; don't want the other empires gaining beachheads there).
2. planets with "regular" quality resources, depending on how rich I am and how rare the resource on said planet, cutoff will be between 30 and 50%
3. planets with super rare luxury resources, will colonize at any quality level.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to torrenal)

Post #: 10

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/5/2010 6:56:41 PM

WoodMan

Posts: 1345
Joined: 6/2/2010
From: Ol' Blighty
Status: offline

quote:

its worthwhile to colonize planets a little under 50% because those planets "cost" less than a mining station's maintenance.

But the mining station maintenance is taken from your private budget, I assume the planet "cost" would be taken from the state budget, so as far as your income is concerned a mining base costs 0 to maintain.

_____________________________

"My body may be confined to this chair, but my mind is free to explore the universe" - Stephen Hawking

(in reply to taltamir)

Post #: 11

RE: Why not colonize everything? - 9/6/2010 6:34:41 PM

taltamir

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

quote:

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

quote:

its worthwhile to colonize planets a little under 50% because those planets "cost" less than a mining station's maintenance.

But the mining station maintenance is taken from your private budget, I assume the planet "cost" would be taken from the state budget, so as far as your income is concerned a mining base costs 0 to maintain.

It is a good point... however, "private sector" budget is not a free unlimited bucket and is closely tied to your state funds. If the private sector loses money then the state loses money, and vice versa.

_____________________________

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

(in reply to WoodMan)

Post #: 12