Fwurg

[Brend]

In light of the Cradle movement tech thread me and Elmer had a good brainstorm about the possibility of adding a new branch of fundamental technology to the game: Astroengineering.

We already have a few awesome projects and effects in mind and will give you a short overview here of a number of these things: these are not tech proposal, but more of an overview to communicate the feel and impact of the new field.

We propose to start off with the 'Astroengineering' fundamental technology (500 , 5 ). This tech will unlock the construction of 'Superstructure Components', which is constructed from 3 + 3 . The need for is self-evident, and the need for is due to the need for correct transport and structural placement. (It also helps to balance out the special goods / raw material distribution).

Base on the Astroengineering tech a number of technologies could be envisioned:

• Space elevators! Space elevators could give bonusses to trade capacity, or offer cheaper upgrades to Trade Fleets.
• Dyson Swarms! Dyson swarms can be used to harvest vast amounts of from a star, to power enormous hyperspace lanes or planetary shielding or even cloaking complete moons.
• Dyson Rings! A Dyson Ring could also be used to create extra zones around your homeworld, with those zones offering bonusses to and because they are already in stable orbit. Look up the Kuat Drive Yards
• Parts of the Space Habitat and Outpost colonization projects could be paid in Superstructure Components.

Note that these are just examples. Almost everything that is large and constructed in orbit or deep space might qualify for Superstructure Components costs.

I already have some tech ideas, but I want to get your general feel for this new fundamental technology before I detail those techs.

So, what do you think?

[Gerben]

I'm all for adding an additional special good to support this new tech tree. The idea's are certainly cool and I'd gladly look into this tree.

[Chriz]

I am in favor of this new starting tech and special good as well.

[Dragonmaster352]

I'm all for this.

[Mercury]

I like the idea of superstructure components. I have no objections to the and suggestion either. An alternative could be 4 and 4 which may better explain the composition as obviously things like space elevators require some special base materials to be constructed.

[Elmer]

I favour the and , this because I think that astroengineering will only be used on limited projects, so it will be hard focussing your economy on producing superstructure components. By making the components and , it is easier to switch between tax sets and the goods.

[Brend]

Though I envision the projects of astroengineering to be limited, those that are available will require a large amount of superstructure components, so economic focus won't be that much of an issue.

That said, I do like the 4 + 4 better than the 3/3 scheme; always requiring is a bit forced to be honest. We can always incorporate a smattering of and other goodies in the special projects' costs.

[Gerben]

Balance wise I'd rather see the used in the special product instead of a 4 .

[Chriz]

I agree with Elmer & Gerben, it fits better for a burst special good and it is better for the balance.

[Brend]

I favour the and , this because I think that astroengineering will only be used on limited projects, so it will be hard focussing your economy on producing superstructure components. By making the components and , it is easier to switch between tax sets and the goods.

I'm not really convinced on the burst project argument. I think that the fact that it's easier to switch between tax sets and special goods isn't in itself an argument in favour of using two products. is also a burst special good (as in: it goes into a specific project for a set amount, and that's it), yet it incorporates + ...

Balance wise I'd rather see the used in the special product instead of a 4 .

I agree with Elmer & Gerben, it fits better for a burst special good and it is better for the balance.

Gerben, Chriz, you two just throw around the word 'balance', but fail to explain which balance you're talking about and why it is better. Are you talking about the 'raw materials that go into special goods' balance, or the 'better for the economy' balance?

I think it boils down to demand. If there is high demand, people will be willing to set up production for a + just as easily as a + chain. If there is little demand, it takes more commitment to set up the product+raw chain. To be honest, I'd rather have a special good require a commitment, than just being able to tack it onto any 12-set producing economy. The works because it is constructed from less common products created from less common materials; but isn't uncommon at all.

Next to that, I still feel that requireing is a bit forced. Not all projects will require copious amounts of research to be completed. An alternative to increase the demand of other goods is the inclusion of a good amount of products in any special project with superstructure components. That leaves a lot of freedom to design cool special projects, without necessarily including in the special good.

I'm open to other points of view, but it will require more of an argument than "it is better for the balance" -- so enlighten me ^_^

[Chriz]

you probably mean the holonet relay nodes where you are saying hyperspace nodes . Since Crystals and Rare Elements are the "harder to aquire" raw materials I don't think there should be a special good with them as raw materials in it.

When you look at the special goods / raw material distribution, the metals, rares, information and mostly organics are not used much. I think using only the rare elements raw material is a bit forced as well.

Balance wise I think that crystals and rares should only be in special goods in their products forms due to the availability.

Terraformation can be used in many forms and on basically all planets and does not seem to be that rare. I am not sure about the projects for Superstructure Components, but it looks like they are mostly unique one time things.

[Gerben]

By using 'balance' in my earlier statement I meant the product-raw material balance which are currently used in the production of special goods.

The current products/raws required ( excluding superstructure components) is:

| | 4 , 4 |
| | 4 , 4 |
| | 3 , 3 |
| | 4 , 4 |
| | 4 , 4 |

which equates to 4 , 20 , 13 , 8 , 7 and 8 .

with the addition of superstructure components this becomes
if ( 3 + 3 ) 4 , 20 , 13 , 11 , 10 and 14 .
and if ( 4 + 4 ) 4 , 20 , 13 , 12 , 7 and 16 .

As you can see the latter choice puts the focus back on and as main materials in special product, whereas the first option devides the materials used in special products a bit better. Because of the current setup both gasses and organics will always stand out as the odd ones. Though i'll admit the difference is only marginal ( and smaller then I originally thought it would be).

From an economical perspective its doesn't really matter much which route is chosen besides the fact that the / is a little more forgiven tax wise if production of superstructure components is not needed. It is true that the / requires a bit more dedication real-estate wise.

That being said, I'm left with no other argument for my opinion in this matter then to say that the / feels a bit better then the / option.

[Brend]

(I did indeed mean the O_o)

I can see how this is good for the 'raw materials in special goods balance': + clearly improves the balance of raw materials. That is clearly a point in favour of the 3/3 scheme.

I do not agree with Chriz' opinion that 'balance wise' crystals and rares should only be used in product form, as I do not see what this balance he is talking about actually is... But that is irrelevant for my further point:

I do have a few projects in mind that can be used on a lot of planets because I think the tree won't work if it only contains unique one time things. I will also be proposing that payment of colonisation projects is done partly (roughly 50% of the construction costs) in superstructure components as well, and I will certainly try to work them into new projects that are about the construction of large deep-space or orbital structures as well.


That being said, you two are reasoning from purely a OOC-mechanical perspective, while my problem with + is partly based on the IC implications of this.

What I meant with 'it feels forced' is this: not all projects which contain superstructure components require large amounts of research, some projects will just be the construction of a large space station (space habitat), or the set-up of multiple habitation centers either in space or in the surface of a world (outpost). Requiring all colonisation projects to include feels forced to me.

For those projects that are unique, makes a lot of sense. But for the projects that aren't, it doesn't make sense. makes sense in most cases, as such large structures are bound to require power grids, hyperspace anchors, and other high-tech magics.

For me, the IC implications of the 3/3 scheme are a strong point against it.

[Gerben]

Brend, your reasoning makes sense and I feel that IC reasons should outweigh other OOC factor. Therefore I can settle with the / as proposed by you with some of the more specialistic project following from the tech tree requiring a fair amount of .

Chris, Im not sure what you are looking for here as a product vs raw choice doens't really have a huge impact on the balance. Eventually it comes down to real estate anyway. Where as I also have to disagree on your statement that crystals and rares should only be used in their product form when building special goods, as the reason for the / choice was logical and still sound in my opinion.

[Chriz]

I guess you are right on the raw materials balance. When looking at real estate you will need things like Exotic matter devices zones if you are not making superstructure components. While the research would be directly usable in tax sets.

For the IC reasoning I think it is fair to say that + sounds more reasonable.

When it comes to colonisation I think we should look at the costs for the techs there again since currently they are based on 8 players using it, which is clearly not the case...

[Brend]

((EDIT: Additions in green))

We have been working on the superstructure components, and the following is our proposal.

Base game elements

Astroengineering

Astroengineering is the application of scientific and economic knowledge in order to design, build, and maintain structures and devices in outer space.

This technology allows the construction of Superstructure Components Zones.

Cost: 500 / 5

Superstructure Components Zone

(Industry, Third tier)

Produces Superstructure Components by processing and .

1 Superstructure Component is created from 4 + 4 . Superstructure components have no icon as of yet (we will use as a placeholder in this post.).

Modifications to existing rules

These are the proposed changes to existing rules and technologies.

Colonisation:
We propose to change the costs of colonisation to include Superstructure Components. Conversion based on the assumption that 1 ~ 4.5 .

• Change cost of Space Habitat to: 1000 + 1500 (was 6000 )
• Change cost of Outpost to: 800 + 1400 (was 5000 )
• Change cost of Outpost, Upgrade 1 to: 600 + 1300 (was 4000 )
• Change cost of Outpost, Upgrade 2 to: 400 + 1200 (was 3000 )

We propose to modify the Space Habitat and Outpost construction cost reduction technologies (this is till a 10% reduction on the total price, but shifted fully into the component):

• Prefabrication reduces the tax component of both the Space Habitat and the Outpost to 900
• Network Centric Colonization reduces the tax components of both Outpost upgrades to 900

Extra-dimensional Particle Collectors:
We propose to change the construction costs of the Extra-dimensional Particle Collectors, and to change the prerequisites of the technology itself.

• Change construction cost to: 400 + 200 (was 2000 )
• Change prerequisites to: Extra-dimensional Detector Arrays + Astroengineering (was Extra-dimensional Detector Arrays)

New technology

At this moment, we propose a single new technology. Others will follow later in their own topics.

Solar Wind Generator Array

By deploying calibrated receiver arrays the solar winds from a star can be funneled through a generator coil. In this way, the natural outflux of the star's energy can be captured for industrial and civil use.

The Solar Wind Generator Array allows construction of a single Power Zone on the Star of a system. The zone has a +25 bonus per hot orbit. The construction of a Solar Wind Generator Array requires 400 + 200 .

Cost: 2500 / 5
Prerequisites: Astroengineering

[Gerben]

Me likes and approves :P

[Stuiter]

I like it also. I think my faction will be going to make super structures.

[Dragonmaster352]

Wouldn't it make sense to have a Planetary Defence Grid also cost superstructures?

[Brend]

We thought about that for a while, and decided against it.

The idea is that the Planetary Defence Grid, though located in space, does not necessarily have a superstructure. It can just as easily be a grid of missile platforms, or an array of surface-to-space plasma cannons on the world itself. We envision superstructure components as being used for things that actually have a superstructure of some kind. (The reasoning goes for the Hyperspace Monitoring Grid.)

Of course, in the end it is a judgement call, as the reasoning could also be applied to the Solar Wind Generator Array and the Extra-dimensional Particle Collectors, but we feel that harvesting from a sun requires larger platforms, that actually have a superstructure.

Next to that we tried to stay away from Standard Template Construction based technology, as we feel that technology is more representative of smaller scale, larger number things, while we feel superstructure components are more large scale, low number things. It is true that colonisation technologies are mostly based on Standard Template Construction, but the base colonisation feels like a large scale, low number thing.

[Brend]

It seems I made an error in the proposal. It was of course the intention to have the Solar Wind Generator Array construction cost the same as the particle collectors.

I have updated the proposal.

[Elmer]

It looks like that this is going the way of the capital ships: it is new so everybody is going to produce them, but superstructure components aren't going to be used massively.

I already know 4 interested parties for the production of this good (probably because it is new and thus awesome).

What other kind of projects can we expect? Because the demand of this product now would be even lower than the capital ships (which doesn't have to be bad by the way.)

[Brend]

I predict that the superstructure goods will be used in expensive yet rare projects. So once someone starts a project, they will want to consume 1000+ components. But those projects will be far in between, as most of the projects will be both expensive and strange.

Some things might incorporate 200-400 components, but I don't think that these will be often.


We shouldn't forget that since this is a Star Wars setting in which space is basically the ocean, 'building things in space' doesn't require special components, just your run of the mill . Only very large and special projects will require Superstructure Components.

[Brend]

If no one objects, the proposal will be put into effect in the weekend of 2013-11-23.

[Brend]

Elmer and I have updated/added the necessary pages and icons:

• 
• Superstructure Components
• Superstructure Components Zone
• Astroengineering
• Solar Wind Generator Array
• Extra-Dimensional Particle Collectors
• Outpost
• Space Habitat
• Prefabrication
• Network Centric Colonization