Revised colonization question

Describe your experience with the latest version of FreeOrion to help us improve it.

Moderator: Oberlus

Forum rules
Always mention the exact version of FreeOrion you are testing.

When reporting an issue regarding the AI, if possible provide the relevant AI log file and a save game file that demonstrates the issue.
Message
Author
User avatar
mem359
Dyson Forest
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am

Revised colonization question

#1 Post by mem359 »

Will the outpost-to-colony building acquire the cryo tech upgrade?
Or will cryo modules be exclusively ship modules?

While cryo modules aren't as necessary now as they used to be, they seem to make a difference for population growth rate (higher for larger populations).

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#2 Post by MatGB »

We haven't actually discussed it in any way yet, at the moment cryo pods have been untouched, not sure if that'll remain the case.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

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

Re: Revised colonization question

#3 Post by Vezzra »

What Mat said. I want to get the basics of the new mechanic working and into the main dev branch before starting on expansions and the like. As far as the cyro pods are concerned, I don't have any concrete plans yet, I'm open for suggestions.

User avatar
mem359
Dyson Forest
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am

Re: Revised colonization question

#4 Post by mem359 »

Let me start by saying its working smoothly.
There are no critical issues that I've noticed (so far).

For the long term / low priority ideas, I have these thoughts:
- The cryo module costs the same as a regular colony pod, except it takes 10 turns instead of 8 to build. I'm wondering if it makes sense to have the former just replace (upgrade) the latter, once the cryo tech is acquired, instead of keeping both around. (Internally, the game would have to remember that older ships would have the colony pod, from before the upgrade.)

- Would be useful to edit the list of outpost-to-colony buildings (like the list of ship designs can be modified). Deleting them may be too much, but at least be able to hide some of the choices, or mark them as "unavailable" (by player choice). If my empire has both the Abaddoni and the Ugmors, there are zero reasons why I would choice the former instead of the latter.

- Having the output-to-colony building start at 3 instead of 1 (after cryo tech) would help to really get the empire going. But on the other hand, maybe leaving things as they are would be interesting too. It might make the player think about the strategy of using the cryo colony bases or ships, if the building doesn't get the cryo module advantage. (Dunno.)

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#5 Post by MatGB »

mem359 wrote: For the long term / low priority ideas, I have these thoughts:
- The cryo module costs the same as a regular colony pod, except it takes 10 turns instead of 8 to build. I'm wondering if it makes sense to have the former just replace (upgrade) the latter, once the cryo tech is acquired, instead of keeping both around. (Internally, the game would have to remember that older ships would have the colony pod, from before the upgrade.)
Not necessarily a bad plan, I'd definitely want to standardise the cost/build time (I'd be happier to see Cryo at increased cost over increased build), not sure about dumping the former completely, but I would have it mark as redundant/obsolete in the design window.
- Would be useful to edit the list of outpost-to-colony buildings (like the list of ship designs can be modified). Deleting them may be too much, but at least be able to hide some of the choices, or mark them as "unavailable" (by player choice). If my empire has both the Abaddoni and the Ugmors, there are zero reasons why I would choice the former instead of the latter.
Really? I colonise with Abaddoni fairly regularly, Ugmors are great but their narrow tolerance makes them much harder to use until you've got fairly end game environmental tolerance techs. Plus for some reason several of my recent games have given me small Abaddoni homeworlds with useful growth specials, always a nice thing to have and makes them much better across the board, currently a higher population is much better than good industry for overall benefit.
- Having the output-to-colony building start at 3 instead of 1 (after cryo tech) would help to really get the empire going. But on the other hand, maybe leaving things as they are would be interesting too. It might make the player think about the strategy of using the cryo colony bases or ships, if the building doesn't get the cryo module advantage. (Dunno.)
Also unsure on this, I'd like to see them start at a higher point in the mid to late game (if only because it makes them still useful to do instead of simply going conquest happy in cost/benefit terms) but there are balance concerns, etc. It's definitely something to consider and possibly try out. Perhaps have them start at 2 or even have a tech that specifically improves all starting colonies a bit in some way?
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
mem359
Dyson Forest
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am

Re: Revised colonization question

#6 Post by mem359 »

I had a large Snowflake decide to repeatedly tap dance on a new colony.
Was nice I could get it going again in 5 turns, instead of having to build a colony ship and wait for it to get there.
MatGB wrote: Really? I colonise with Abaddoni fairly regularly, Ugmors are great but their narrow tolerance makes them much harder to use until you've got fairly end game environmental tolerance techs.
I had overlooked that.

I suggest the Pedia species description for the Ugmors should include:
- Narrow Planet Tolerance: flourishes on fewer types.
... just like the Egassem description does
I didn't think to check the actual tolerances, since the Narrow description was missing.

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#7 Post by MatGB »

Don't suppose you fancy checking the entire file to see if any others that should have that are misssing it? I've gone through it several times and had never noticed it wasn't there, concur it definitely should be.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#8 Post by Dilvish »

MatGB wrote:Don't suppose you fancy checking the entire file to see if any others that should have that are misssing it? I've gone through it several times and had never noticed it wasn't there, concur it definitely should be.
I just checked, they were the only ones missing it, and that no longer.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
mem359
Dyson Forest
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am

Re: Revised colonization question

#9 Post by mem359 »

MatGB wrote:Don't suppose you fancy checking the entire file to see if any others that should have that are misssing it? I've gone through it several times and had never noticed it wasn't there, concur it definitely should be.
I noticed that the Cynos should have Broad Tolerance, based on their environmental preferences.
But that would be somewhat pointless, since they cannot colonize.
Maybe it makes more sense to change two of their Poors (radiated, desert) to Hostiles.

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#10 Post by MatGB »

I'm pretty sure I went through and removed the "broad tolerance" thing that a fair few non-colonising species had but never finished off changing their stated preferences, there is a minor edge case that could see a non-colonising species on a non-optimal world but it's close to redundant to have that they don't like certain worlds they can basically never live on.

So yeah, probably true, but a deliberate removal on my part as it's pointless displaying it as the game currently is, and all the non-colonising species should probably have a different tolerance list with everything uninhabitable unless someone plans to change the way they work, which I doubt.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 13587
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

Re: Revised colonization question

#11 Post by Geoff the Medio »

It's possible to add content that will change planet types, other than players producing terraforming on their own planets. Orbital terraforming ships, monster effects, "climate change" / environmental damage... So having environmental preference info available for species that can't produce colony ships might still be useful.

User avatar
mem359
Dyson Forest
Posts: 214
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 1:18 am

Re: Revised colonization question

#12 Post by mem359 »

Just had Happiness affect my game. :shock: :mrgreen:

I was wondering why I couldn't build the Hhhoh colony building. But the recently conquered homeworld only had a Happiness of 4, so I'll have to wait for next turn.

Are there other Happiness effects currently in play?

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#13 Post by MatGB »

Only the bonuses. Being on preferred focus gives a bonus (for species that have preferred focus), and being in an empire that has its capital on a world with your species gives a bonus as well. This is the only actual use we've implemented for it, more are planned but we're working on it slowly, there are higher priorities.

One thing being considered is making shipbuilding require a minimum happiness but that's also just in the "being discussed" stage.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

User avatar
Dilvish
AI Lead and Programmer Emeritus
Posts: 4768
Joined: Sat Sep 22, 2012 6:25 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#14 Post by Dilvish »

MatGB wrote:Only the bonuses. ...
And to clarify this a little more, I'm pretty sure that Mat is just referring to the bonuses to Happiness here, not that there are any bonuses resulting from Happiness.
If I provided any code, scripts or other content here, it's released under GPL 2.0 and CC-BY-SA 3.0

User avatar
MatGB
Creative Contributor
Posts: 3310
Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2013 11:45 pm

Re: Revised colonization question

#15 Post by MatGB »

Ah, yes, correct, sorry, could've been clearer. Suggestions as to what else can be done and/or specifics about the restrictions on shipbuilding post conquest, etc more than welcome as well.
Mat Bowles

Any code or patches in anything posted here is released under the CC and GPL licences in use for the FO project.

Post Reply