If that's true, and it turns out that only rocky, icy or HMCs contribute to the stats - there's going to be a revolt
"Development Level >>"? Figuring out what all these numbers do.
- Thread starter Ian Doncaster
- Start date
If that's true, and it turns out that only rocky, icy or HMCs contribute to the stats - there's going to be a revolt
3 systems from a daisy chain taken chronologically (oldest to newest). Each system has only one Industrial Outpost as main port, and nothing else build yet.
First, pop 4500. main star is a L dwarf, main port orbiting a land-able ice world.
Second, pop. 5500, main star Y dwarf, main port orbiting a Class I gas giant.
Third, pop. 6500, main star K, main port orbiting an ELW.
So why are the population levels different?
First, pop 4500. main star is a L dwarf, main port orbiting a land-able ice world.
Second, pop. 5500, main star Y dwarf, main port orbiting a Class I gas giant.
Third, pop. 6500, main star K, main port orbiting an ELW.
So why are the population levels different?
Last edited:
Hi Ian,
Thank you very much for your reply.
That all sounds like very good advice.
I will make a start on a Refinery Hub of one of the other planets and use the remaining slot on Planet 2 for either a Large Exxtraction or Large Industrial Settlement.
Cheers,
Regdc
Maybe. My initial industrial outpost had pretty terrible performance until I built a few other things in the system - <100t of hydrogen fuel, and single digits of most of the actually useful stuff.
Science outposts get +1 initial population which probably helps them get started a bit.
Yes - could be the influence of those hidden stats (whether entirely hidden stats, or just that we can't see the values for the semi-hidden tech-level stats), could be just plain random variation so that not every system started off with an industrial outpost is an identical clone of every other system.
Does anyone have a T1 surface port that has more than 3 products?
Last edited:
Writing this up, since it seems to be either contrary to the received wisdom that ≥ +9 net security → high security system, or else some of those installation type mismatches are more than cosmetic.
My colony (Tucanae Sector IX-S b4-6) is stubbornly medium security, despite building up to +12 net security, and building nothing with negative impacts (yet). Specifically, what I've built, in order:
(Sure would be nice to have some access to those actual numbers that support seems to be sometimes quoting to people...)
My colony (Tucanae Sector IX-S b4-6) is stubbornly medium security, despite building up to +12 net security, and building nothing with negative impacts (yet). Specifically, what I've built, in order:
- A scientific outpost (Prometheus) as the primary port. ±0 security (net: 0).
- A satellite (Angelia). Shows up as "scientific installation" in contacts when near it. ±0 security (net: 0).
- A communication station (Aletheia). Shows up as "comms installation" in contacts. +1 security (net: 1).
- A relay station (Enodia, I think; not 100% sure). Also shows up as "comms installation". +1 security (net: 2).
- A medium agricultural settlement (Picumnus). ±0 security (net: 2).
- A security station (Eunomia). Shows up as "scientific installation". Allegedly +8 security (net: 10). System security went up from low to medium soon after completing this, and before building anything else.
- A medium extraction settlement (Orcus). ±0 security (net: 10).
- A government installation (Harmonia). +2 security (net: 12). No change to system security level after completion. Population did go up a bit, so presumably it's not just a delay thing.
(Sure would be nice to have some access to those actual numbers that support seems to be sometimes quoting to people...)
You mean the T1 Surface Planetary Port that costs ~ 36,000 commodities? My Science one has only 3 commodities.
Somebody on the main forum was bragging about how good their T1 surface ports were, and that larger orbital ports (Corriolis & Orbis) are basically a waste in effort/benifit comparison, but I couldn't get them to expand on this.
Yeah, port/outpost. I keep wanting to call it a hub.
That's a load of crap though. The orbital is better like all orbitals are better.... because they are orbital.
If I understand you correctly, you want to build 7 tier 3 ports and no tier 2 ports? The total number of tier 3 build points needed for 7 ports would be 132 (6+6+12+18+24+30+36) which would require 66 tier 2 large settlements. If you only have 54 ground slots you won't be able to build 7 tier 3 ports.
If you instead build only 6 tier 3 ports (and no tier 2 ports), then the total is only 96 tier 3 build points (6+6+12+18+24+30), would could be earned by 48 tier 2 large settlements. If you want your tier 3 to be ground ports, that means every ground port in your system will be either a tier 2 large settlement or a tier 3 planetary port. You would indeed have no ground build slots leftover for refinery hubs And you would also need to spend all 48 orbital slots on tier 1 facilities to get enough tier 2 points for your tier 2 large settlements. If you pull it off, it would be a thing of beauty.
Or you could content yourself with only 5 tier 3 ports, and have more flexibility.
Thank you!
I looked, but I didn't see the link in the first post. Am I just overlooking it?
I'm a little worried about this honestly. I would overall prefer the influence to be per planet system. That would open up a lot more locations and possibilities but it also means that stuff built in this per-moon situtation would become a cluster $%^# in the new system. So I'm trying fairly hard now to keep certain planetary moon systems for single-use economies and will lean that way in future systems. It won't hurt too much but it will preserve my main orbitals from getting jacked up if they expand the reach of influence.
I did start with a Tier 3 as primary port, so I would only need 48 tier 2 large settlements. But yeah, I'll stop at 6 tier 3 settlements
There are very few systems in the galaxy that have that many anyways.
Ah yes, if you started with a tier 3, you could get a total of 7. That would be massively impressive. And a super-truckload-ton of hauling!I did start with a Tier 3 as primary port, so I would only need 48 tier 2 large settlements. But yeah, I'll stop at 6 tier 3 settlements
There are very few systems in the galaxy that have that many anyways.
No, I must have messed up saving the edit. Should be there now.
Mine will probably(knock wood!) go live tomorrow. Planet with Coriolis in orbit, 3 refinery hubs, 1 T2 industrial settlement and the aforementioned T1 civilian surface port with Colony economy. We'll see how that goes.
Have also done all but the last delivery of materials for the fourth and last refinery hub, will wait until I've seen how the T1 civilian surface port affects the economy and markets before completing that refinery.
Interesting. So that suggests from other data that hubs are +0.45 there (and maybe the 0.9 for 3 hubs, one of the hubs isn't online yet?) which is the same influence they seem to have on a T1 planetary port. But the L agri is doing a lot less than it does to a T1 planetary.
(But is that because of the different target, or because multi-economy influencing works differently?)
Or the "random" factor is the system the colonization agent resides in. Sort of makes sense that different systems with different economies would field different resources for a colony. That would be pretty ugly at the end of a long chain of colonies, logical in a way but still pretty ugly.
Does the sun rise in the east?