Fwurg

[Mercury]

Due to the abundance of natural life in settlements, we have upgraded the price of creating zones on worlds with natural life in a settlement. Thus, a zone in a settlement now costs 3000 or 2000 with natural life instead of 3000 or 1500 with natural life

[Brend]

I have two questions:

1) Who is 'we'? I'd like to know who I have to thank for forcing me to recalculate my next 50 or so turns.

2) I assume that this is based on the most optimal system of around 80 natural life zones. If so, I agree that, due to the prohibition on the creation of population, better atmospheres and more natural life can be found.

However, the already heightened price of 1500 adds a penalty of 500 to every zone ever built on the settlement, this already adds up to 40 000 (i.e. 80 × 500 ). It seems to me that this is a steep enough penalty for the fact that you can't have population and will therefore spend your on atmospheres and natural life.

By raising the price of a zone to 2000 , another 40 000 is added. A zone with natural life in a settlement is now as expensive as a zone on a barren rock in your normal system: it feels a bit like you really don't want any settlements around. If this is the case, just say so instead of making it prohibitively expensive.

[Chriz]

I would like to point out that the 1000 extra per zone is only for the first 21 zones. If your settlement is independent the normal rules for zone building apply.

Due to the fact that natural life is for free in a settlement a colony was even cheaper than terraforming, it still is, but now a colony is at least more expensive than one terraformation project. You are getting 200 and 5 , that is still worth a lot more than you pay for.

[Brend]

I would like to point out that the 1000 extra per zone is only for the first 21 zones. If your settlement is independent the normal rules for zone building apply.

Where did you get this from? I can't find any mention if this in the rules...

[Mercury]

"We" is Gerben, Chriz and myself. Gerben and Chriz contacted me after they made a discovery about the cost of settlements.

They calculated the cost of adding Natural Life to a large planet and compared it with making a settlement with a large planet with oceans, a type I atmosphere and natural life, and found the cost to be unnervingly close together.

I did the calculation as well and was forced to come to the same conclusion.

The price of a settlement is 10.000 to start, plus 15.000 for upgrades, plus 6.000 for scanning plus the additional cost per zone (which in case of natural life was 500 per zone or 18.500 for the 37 zones on the large planet). The total cost would thus be 49.500.

Additional costs would be moving population (6.000 ), population growth cost x2 (7.400 . I do not count the cost of the Holonet Relay Station and Trade Fleets because you get a Holonet Relay Station and Trade Fleets for that.

Total cost comes down to 62.900 with 2.500 worth of technology (which can be amortized). For this money you also get 5 special points.

Adding Natural Life to an existing large planet in your system already costs 35.000 to 40.000 depending on how much you pay for your terraformation modules and 7.500 worth of technology (which can be amortized).

The cost of adding Natural Life is fair, as it gives you a chance for minor savings on the building of zones and it additionally opens the options for type I and type II atmospheres, and though it not as big an investment as a settlement you have to remember that the settlement doesn't just get natural life - it also gets an ocean and the actual type I atmosphere for free, plus five special points.

Gerben and Chriz pointed out to me that though there is a difference, this is rather close for the additional benefits you get from the settlement. It certainly doesn't come anywhere close to the about 140.000 you have to pay (plus the amortized cost of 37.500 in tech) to fully terraform a large planet.

I am afraid I am forced to agree with them on this.

I do not believe settlements should cost THAT much. Finding a new planet is usually going to be more efficient then building one from scratch - the advantage is that upgrading a regular planet gives you immediate production benefits, while the additional boost from settlements takes much longer to kick in.

However, the cost was rather uncomfortably close currently, especially with new technologies that lower the cost of creating settlements (with no such technologies existing for terraformation).

This left me with two options: either lower the cost of terraformation or raise the cost of settlements.

Removing the cost reduction on additional cost for natural life zones is a natural way to raise settlement prices. It spreads the cost out over the lifespan of the colony and it raises the difference between terraformation and settlements without adding complicated constructions to the rules.

One thing to consider is that certain terraformation costs are hard to reduce - if I reduce the cost of natural life terraformation much further, it will always be cheaper to add natural life to a world before building zones (even with opportunity cost) - this is clearly undesirable.

The point raised by Chriz and Gerben regarding the cost of colonies vs terraformation is a fair one that needs to be addressed and I feel that removing the natural life cost reduction on the additional zone construction cost is a fair way of doing this.

I am open to alternative solutions.

Regarding the additional cost per zone after 21 zones, I'm forced to agree with Brend as to what it says in the rules, though I do seem to remember talk along the lines of Chriz' proposal - perhaps this was discussed as an option earlier but thrown out? I have to admit I do not remember.

[Chriz]

Once you have 21 zones, you can free your colony, making it a fully independent system. Upon completion of a payment of 5.000 , your colony becomes a fully separate system that is completely self-sufficient.

I was under the impression that a fully separate system that is completely self-sufficient is capable of gathering its own building materials. It has everything it needs from a starting system... Why does it still have to pay extra? The idea was that once you finished this last upgrade it would be like a starting system right?

[Brend]

@Chriz: But it does not say so in the rules. You just extrapolate from the quoted sentence that it is so. The exemption from upkeep is specifically mentioned, while the exemption from heightened build costs is not. So I conclude that the settlement is not exempt from those.

Regarding the additional cost per zone after 21 zones, I'm forced to agree with Brend as to what it says in the rules, though I do seem to remember talk along the lines of Chriz' proposal - perhaps this was discussed as an option earlier but thrown out? I have to admit I do not remember.

I too have a vague recollection that this cost should be applied to the first 21 zones only. However, as it isn't in the rules, I can't really argue based on that recollection.

Maybe it should be in the rules, and it was lost from conversion of the proposal to the rules?

[Brend]

(Previous 2 posts interupted my writing -- so I moved this post down)

Harrumph, the same reasoning can be applied to a whole system. As the price of a new settlement consists of buying a whole system, it is again much more favourable (even with the increased price):

Fully terraform a complete system (assuming 80 zones) with atmosphere IV and Natural Life: 72.000 to 80.000 depending on how much you pay for your terraformation modules and 7.500 worth of technology (which can be amortized).

(Those of you that find the above example too contrived: have a look at the Smi-Halek System, it is basically a 80+ zones system with a single Eden planet, resulting in 77 zones of barren rock.)

Buy new system with 80 zones atmosphere IV and Natural Life (same cost as a single Large planet with everything): 73.400 with 2.500 worth of technology (which can be amortized). As already mentioned, this gets you 5 as well.

Ok, so basically, what it says above is that terraformation is vastly outperformed by colonisation. I'm shooting myself in the foot here, but this does seem to be a logical conclusion: finding something is easier than creating it from nothing.


What does not sit right with me in your example is the fact that there is no indigenous sentient life on the found 'Eden' planet -- it is after all a perfect crucible for the evolution of sentient life: Goldilocks Orbit + Atmoshpere I + Oceans + Natural Life. You can't really get any better.

So the assumption that you'd find such a beautiful planet, specifically optimized for <insert your favorite economic sector here>, without any strings attached seems flawed. Right now you pay the same for a settlement on an 'Eden' system, and for that same settlement on a system filled with barely survivable planets (i.e. acidic Atmosphere IV, with toxic microbial Natural Life, or even without any Natural Life).

Of course, there is really no reason NOT to invest all your into eden planets, but this is mainly because you're allowed full control over the distrubution of the 200 you are given.


So, my ideas on this subject:

1) Maybe the system quality is something that can be taken into account? This might mean higher surveying costs for more , , and to be present in the new system. Unfortunately, this would force us to put a -price on the distinct system creation resources; but that's basically what we're doing with the colonization rules anyway.

2) Maybe another view of the concept of 'settlement' is needed. Right now, a settlement is a full-fledged system. What if it is only a source of new zones? If the settlement you find is a barren system starting out with only 50 , and having atmosphere IV at most, this would greatly reduce the desirability of the system over your home-system. It would however keep the option of extending your system once you grow past your zone-count... (And since terraformation is deemed balanced, we already have the option of improving the settlement based on the current economic system.)