Hi there. I'm suggesting a new option:

If you build the moon habitation project, you may increase its effectivity by an upgrade to later technologies (biology & construction).

When you look at a large moon, it may be a little planet so to say. We know moons, that are able to hold a larger population, if habitated, like titan, the earth moon or ganymed. So, when we build the habitats out to the whole moon and give them an atmosphere, there will be life avaiable.

My suggestion:
The advanced habitation project will double the bonus we have on small and medium moons. So a small moon will make two, and a medium moon will make +4 to the max. population. The large moon is a special. It will be altered with an atmosphere (must be done by a ship in orbit like a constcuction ship or a transporter or a colony ship - something with treeaforming-equipment) and will get a 'small' planet.
This planet will add +10 to the max. population, but the overall growth rate is not changed.

This advanced habitation project will also round the max. polulation to a value, that is a part of 10. So when we have afer the project is completed a population of max. 197, it will be 200. If you say: When we have after the alteration a population of 61 and it will be 70, it would be a huge difference. Well, I think a system that got only 70 as max. pop wont do much either and it will become more worthy.

If we have a system with 501 max. pop after advancing, it will have 510 max. pop, and this single slot more wont either do a great deal. So it is not critical I think.

The costs to the habitation project will depend on the moons you have.
I think a simple calculation will do.
(amount of small moons)*factor + (amount of medium moons)*factor + (amount of large moons) *factor = overall costs

After finishing the project, you may build extendet defense patterns to rebalance the value of the system (you invested a huge amount of ressources, it should be feelable for enemies, that THIS system is'nt easy to take over then)

If the system got raw-materials, you can enhance the ouput by additional 10% through moon-factories and increase the ship-uilding by 10% through support-stations around the moons.

How is this?

Having larger moons has already been asked for - there are reasons against having it though.

First of all, is a bit of maths. Each moon can come in one of three sizes. Small moons have 1 population, medium have 2, and large have 3. Each planet is then capable of having up to 5 moons, and each system can have 10 planets. So imagining a system with the maximum possible everything means:

3 population x 5 moons x 10 planets = 150 population.

That's the equivalent of 15 entire population blocks! Ok, it's unlikely you'll find such a system in the game, but as you've probably noticed, systems are geared to have quite a high number of moons. In my experience, they are usually large moons as well. Extend the benefit to all the systems in your empire though, and you're talking a serious population boost then.

So then say we double the moon populations as you've said - thats a potential 300 population per system. There are entire sytems with less population than that! Hell there are systems with less population than the moons already support, and you can't go lower than 1 population.

The planets are also more generous than those in BOTF - the largest planets in BOTF could support 120 population, but the largest planets in Supremacy can support up to 200 population, meaning a population potential of 2000 - or almost quadruple the largest system i've ever actually seen in BOTF. Add on the moon populations and you're talking 2150 - or even 2300 population. Could you really imagine playing the game with such a system?

I know i'm talking this to the extreme, but seriously, the numbers that we could potentially have in a game are huge. It could potentially upset the balance of the game if we increase it by what is seemingly even a tiny amount.

That said though, the game is hugely moddable, so that doesn't mean you won't be able to include this yourself - I could write a guide if you wanted. But seeing as the editor doesn't even work yet, it's a bit more difficult to mod the game or even to know what to expect from the editor once editor version 3 is released for public use.

I do know that .Iceman will be interested in discussing this topic though, so he might have some good points to discuss if/when he posts.

Well, I'm not a big fan of moons as they're implemented.
Also, I didn't see you making these calculations when you increased the max pop values for all planets Seeing the roles reversed here got me a little hehe

It did feel good to be on the other side, hehe. And besides, the changes I made really were small and necessary. You were complaining yourself that systems were too small. if I hadn't changed it, you probably would have.

I didn't complain systems were too small... *some* systems are too small, but that's only a problem if you want the game to require you to colonize each and every system. Map sizes also have an influence in this - in larger maps, a few smallish systems don't have as much an impact as in tiny maps. I did mention that tiny maps are not very good, for a bunch of reasons. [fixed locations make it even worse]
As for moon colonization, I agreed that increasing system max pop through them could add something to the game, but not like this - because a bunch of problems may arise. Simply increasing max pop for each planet with moons would have been easier and less problematic.
But you like to complicate, and deal with the consequences later... valid, but innefficient.

Hello

New to this site and a MAJOR STAR TREK FAN. Downloaded SUPREMECY and LOVE IT!!!

BOTF has got to be my most favorite Star Trek game and have always wished it could be improved upon. This SUPREMACY is GREAT!!! THANK YOU!!!

Just a note:

The Habitation project does not appear to be working. Once built, it does update your Max Population but no increase in actual population despite numerous turns. The original MAX population remains the same.

Thank you for all your efforts on this and the other ST project's.

Welcome to the forums ScottRV. I think that feature is yet to be implemented in the pre alpha download game. MOE will know better and he may answer this post as well.

Hi Scott, thanks for your comments about the game.

The Habitation Project is a newly-introduced sructure that is unfortunately buggy. I've already notified Mike, the developer, about the problem so with any luck a future update will fix it.

Hmm, the thing that bothertes me was the 'not round number' after finishing the project.

You might have systems with, lets say 99 max_pop and there, you only get 9 instead of 10 slots.
I wished for a habitation project, that will exactly do the thing it will do now BUT with the extra, that it will round up the max_pop.

Until now, there is no need for a max_pop number that is'nt part of (x*10).

A system with 230 will do the same as a system with 239 max_pop. Only: The system with 239 will take 9 amounts of food more than the other system.

So here is my question:
Is there a plan to give the 'unround' numbers an effect later in the game?
If yes, then let it be as it is now.
If not: Make the habitation project to round up the max_pop size.

Actually, there were instances where pop might end in a 5, before MoE made changes to the max pop values. IIRC, they still do. His changes made tiny planets triple their pop, and the relative sizes of planets are totally screwed. Of course, unless you check the numbers, you won't really notice it, because all pop is lumped together in the system panel display.

Err..what? The planets are all rounded off to factors of five. Odd numbers such as 239 population should not normally be possible.


See? No wierd numbers. It's possible the wierd numbers have been caused by the Habitation Project itself though.

The Habitation Project allows your people to expand onto the moons of the system. There are three moon sizes; small, medium, and large. Small moons add +1 population per moon, medium moons add +2 population per moon, and large moons add +3 population per moon.

Now i'll admit that I hadn't previously considered the possibility of wierd numbers being created by the moons before. And purely by coincidence, the tests that i've run have all resulted in even population numbers, so it didn't appear to me that there was a problem.

If the moons are resulting in wierd population numbers for people though, then obviously we should consider rounding them off. Unfortunately, the numbers would have to then be 5, 10 and 15, instead of 1, 2, and 3. This would mean the largest moons would be capable of supporting the same amounts of population that a tiny planet is capable of supporting, even though tiny planets are graphically still several times the size of the moons. So the only way to sort this would be to increase the sizes of the planets further than I have already done so.

However, with the current moon sizes, you've got a potential system size increase of 150 (3 population x 5 moons per planet x 10 planets = 150 population). With moon sizes of 15, that means 15 x 5 x 10 = 750!)

Larger systems mean you can produce more industry, more energy, and more research (Forget about intel for the time being, that system is changing). A potentially huge increase of 750 would highly likely result in game-breaking changes in game balance, as you would be capable of producing vast amounts of everything.

Because of this potential problem, i'm not really sure what I can do. I'll have a word with mike about it.

Well, you are right. The moon habitation project will result in odd numbers.

So my suggestion was:
Make it the normal way we have with +1/ +2 / +3 and round it up.

And... if I see it up until know, I never saw a system that would have such a high boost of max_pop that would outbalance it.

Every system got, dependent on the amount of planets it had, a relativly tiny bonus of max_pop. Sol for example increased from 255 to something around 300. And this system already got a harcore moon-number.

So my suggestion was, that the habitation project might me splittet into two cases:
- standard (first time you do it)
- advanced (the large moons get +4, medium maybe +3 and tiny +2 AND gas gigants and demonics might get terraformed so they can hold additional max pop of: Class B +20, demonic +10)

I dont hink that it will outbalance the game because in the later game you need better systems to withstand enemy attacks from high-level ships. And only with upgrading defensive systems that ARE dependent on the population size of the system you wont get very far.

So in order to defend your system against attacks, you might need a larger population to support your defense systems.

Did you even read what I posted?



Where exactly is this wrong? Ending in 5 is just as bad as ending in 9. Exact same issue.



...

It's better to have 5 than 9 because if you've got multiple planets with odd population then it balances out. BOTF had 5's and few people complained. Blame the spare population on babies, the old and the invalid if you have to.

I've sent a PM to Mike asking about the rounding of population. I'm loathe to increase the moon numbers to ~15 as 750 extra population is overkill with the current stats.

Is that a statistical study? Are there any other numbers besides 5 and 9 in the decimal system?

BTW, and here's what I'm here for too, you should see the whole picture instead of keeping to what you can see. Like Mike said, having each pop block be 10 pop is a convention to simplify things, which can be changed at any time if deemed necessary or wanted - let alone the modding potential. So, if a block for *any* or all production types is changed to say 3 pop, then 9 is a very handy number.
Sure, 10 is a round number. But then, why not have pop blocks of 1, and have systems have 50 pop instead of 500 for example?! Doesn't make any sense.
Also, say Mike wants to seperate working pop from "military" pop. Those 9 pop could be used to be drafted to the system's army. It'd could be a way to use that spare pop, using military blocks of 1 pop.
Yep, vision

There really is no difference between 10.9 and 109 population, its all in the perception of what people view the number to mean, and since the game doesn't come out and say 1 pop = 1,000 people, then no one can really argue the "sense" argument. It is really just statistical numbers that you need to use to balance the game. Some people just hate decimals...

As to the left over population, lots of games leave the decimal numbers (or left over) because they simply represent not quite enough population to reach the next value of unit.

The only way to do it without this problem would be to have every population value explained and that would get complicated, especially when you have to manage numbers like "Ok I'll put 1,390,567 population into industry and I'll put 1,143,459 into farming". Representative population makes it more simplistic and easier to design and play with, but the cost is you get anomalous population remainders.

If you are worried about the balance of having to pay for the extra 9 population when you have 109 and can only use 10 units then simply have the food cost (and others) based off of the units as well. This is just an option and I really can’t stand behind it being the optimal solution, but rather it is just an idea.

Well, the thing is this:

When you have a population of 100, then you have 10 slots.
If you have a population of 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108 and 109 you also have 10 slots.
But one more, will give you 11.

So it would be perfect, if the number is rounded up, because there is no need for odd numbers.

So: Why having odd numbers when you dont need them?
Sure, you have planets with a 5 in the number, but when the habitation project is finished and the feature to round up is enabled, even this planet will fullfill its role, because the 5 litte extra people there will add to the bonus of the project and count in for the 'rounding' up.

I dont want to have a habitation project, that will give a boost of 15 per moon. THAT is insane.

The way we have now is totally okay. But I like the idea of an upgrade of the project.

So we have now:
Small +1
Medium + 2
large +3

After the upgrade:
small +2
medium +3
large +4
gas-gigants: +20
demonic planets: +10

Will this outbalance the game? No, because systems with gas gigants in it are systems with one planet less to colonize but holding a planet in the max_number of planets for the system. So these systems are mostly systems with a value of around 200 max_pop. After the advanced habitation project is set, you may have a system with 240.

Now the system is worthy to colonize. But it wont make any huge diffrence.

And I never talked about +750 max_pop through the moons alone. A system like edo already got over 700 max_pop and the moons there make only 5% to 10% more. And this goes for every system.

10% more is nothing critical, when you compare it with the costs but you get a balancing factor fopr the late game experience, were the ships are advanced, but the population and thus the ressources of a system are the same.

You can power on one or two more plasma reactors that allows you to supply all the stations you build instead of leaving them dead in space (or something like that)

@Kaladin:
I guess you didn«t understand what I meant about the size of pop blocks...

@Sheva:
Maybe you should play a bit more. 9 pop may not be enough for a new pop block, and they do consume food. Thing is, they also create credits. So it's a trade-off, not a penalty. They'll likely also count towards your system's defense rating. And they may actually be enough to get an additional officer in the system (this of course is going to be changed).
As for gas giants, they may not have pop, but they generate Deuterium. Another trade-off. They're very useful for your ships that are outside their fuel range, makes them almost unaffected by range if you're lucky.

Going further on what .Iceman said, Demon planets are another trade-off - they are uninhabitable, but produce vast amounts of Deuterium. They are also exceedingly rare, having perhaps just one of them per quadrant even on huge maps.

Crystalline planets will also be uninhabitable but will likely have Dilithium as the trade-off. I say likely because we haven't sat down and said precisely what we're going to do with them yet. I'm still scratching my head as to why Mike included them in the game, actually. They weren't in BOTF, no one specifically asked for them to my knowledge, and they aren't in Dafedz's database. But there they are. I'm sure we'll come up with a use for them.

If you don't like the idea of having uninhabitable planets, please also think about the fact that uninhabitable planets can still have up to five moons each. In fact, the uninhabitable planets are also the most likely of all of the planets to have moons.

No I did, just I agreed with you, so I didn't want to debate against it. Actually I wasn't really debating anything only attempting to add to the conversation. To be honest it doesn't really matter if blocks were based on 5, 10, 15, 25, 73, 100, etc. it only maters how the game is balanced to use those numbers. I was only meaning that it is just perception, that people feel more comfortable with base 10 whole numbers and that decimals bother some people.

I went further to explain that remainder population is just a byproduct of the system used and that in order to eliminate that you would need to represent every population unit (rather than blocks), which would over complicate the system. I think the one used now is perfectly expectable.

I’m sorry if I somehow sounded confrontational; because I’m sensing some annoyance with my post but I could be mistaken it is hard to tell with text sometimes.

Anyways keep up the good work all, looks great and the planning and thought going into the game seems well underway as well.

Oh no, no annoyance on my part, no worries. My comment was based on the decimals. My point was if the game used pop units instead of pop blocks (those 50 pop vs 500 example), there would be *no* decimals. Displayed, I mean. Internally, the code would keep track of them, but the player wouldn't see them. But it was just an argument vs the validity of blocks . I'm really not sure about the modding potential argument though, now that I think about it, since blcoks are hard-coded at 10 AFAIK, so setting pop upkeep of some structures to a different number might end up creating some... hmm, I'm not even sure what would happen.