The Fremen Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 It appears DCS’s like engines and shields have not escaped significant changes. This discovery does not bode well for those races who can’t colonize easily. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 If your lifeform isn't well suited for colonization then open up Domed and Subterranean Cities. They're much less expensive and help more in Draco than in Andromeda, their attrition benefits stack, and they're pretty easy to research. Colonization issues solved. For lifeforms that are good at colonization they can either do without them or maybe get away with one or the other instead of both, depending on the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 There has always been a cap on DCS use. I certainly hope this new cap is not ridiculously low. Hungry empires need resources and while iron and a few others are improved at asteroids they are not all an empire needs. I know I will feel really disappointed if my empire uses the vast majority of its industrial mite to convert RAW to iron... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 The biggest impediment to colonization is temperature and the installations have indeed been tweaked. However, if you start at a temp of 250 or hotter, good luck with asteroids as they are mostly at 50 or lower. The Thermal transfer center is awesome at giving you an extra 200 degrees. I am still looking at all sorts of planets and I have yet to see a Hot planet that does for those starting on hot worlds what the asteroid field does for those a bit cooler. It would sure be nice to have something for them too... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RTGPete Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 Draco is not Andromeda, so you definitely won't get to the super high yields found there, but if your Deep Core Surveyors find everything that they can on a world you can just dismantle and rebuild them elsewhere. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rfouasnon Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 We have super high yields ? They never can be high enough....... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Fremen Posted August 17, 2019 Author Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 13 hours ago, hobknob said: The biggest impediment to colonization is temperature and the installations have indeed been tweaked. However, if you start at a temp of 250 or hotter, good luck with asteroids as they are mostly at 50 or lower. The Thermal transfer center is awesome at giving you an extra 200 degrees. I am still looking at all sorts of planets and I have yet to see a Hot planet that does for those starting on hot worlds what the asteroid field does for those a bit cooler. It would sure be nice to have something for them too... This is the problem I was inferring. If your a race that has zero colonization bonuses like your standard human and your HW mean temp is 250 Kelvin as Hobknob states then good luck trying to colonize those VITAL asteroid belts without incurring attrition losses turn after turn after turn even with attrition reducing installations. If you chose to take a few negatives that affect your colonization ability then triple good luck, your gonna need it. If your a standard human and your HW mean temp is cold then your 'in like Flint'. This race will have issues trying to colonize the much warmer worlds that usually have lumber and grains and meats etc etc but who cares. The really important resources like IRON, CRYSTALS , LIGHT METALS can be found in awesome abundance on asteroid belts. Those other resources are important as well but thier needs can be met by converting RAW materials. Trying to convert RAW materials to the key resources that are needed to build your massive war fleets just doesnt cut it. It comes down to a bit of luck IMHO and that shouldnt play a role in determining viability Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted August 17, 2019 Report Share Posted August 17, 2019 I suppose that it all depends on what you consider "super high yields". I don't consider the 32k (exactly the same as andromeda) cap on DCS as not really high. What is really high is the yields over 1M that you get with ICE. It takes years to get to 32k with DCS's even in Andromeda so it will take even longer in Draco, assuming you can ever get that high. I don't mind lower levels, they just have to be worth the investment. Not knowing when things are supposed to top out it is hard to say at this point. I would also hope that world caps relate to world size and not some arbitrary number as either a finite value or how many DCS operations have been conducted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakarissa Posted August 21, 2019 Report Share Posted August 21, 2019 I don't mind the cap being the same as what the deep cores have in Andro. I've seen one world max out at 32k and one at 38k. Not sure why there is a difference but it is there. I thought ICE would adhere to that limit and just get you there quicker. I was corrected on that and have been having a lot of fun dropping 10m ICE-4 on colonies and homeworlds. I do agree with Hobknob that the limit should be tied to the size of the world. We already have the diamter value for each world. In a recent SS, I got two worlds with diameters 24,128 and 63,869. I can see the second world having a higher yield cap than the first one since the second one is almost triple the diameter. And since asteroid fields always show a diameter of 1, then a static cap could be put in place for them. I guess I'm making the case to use the diamter value as the yield cap. I used a quick volume calculater using inches and the 24 inch world had a volume of 233 and the 63 inch world had a volume of 4,233. That's 18 times the volume of the smaller world. Seems like a good way to set the caps. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hobknob Posted August 22, 2019 Report Share Posted August 22, 2019 If that is the difference just between 24k and 63 k, a planet that is 170k should have massive yields by comparison. I would also consider gravity as a factor. Higher gravity should indicate higher metals content. This only works for me on minerals and such. For the softer stuff, meat, grain , lumber etc., , I would expect the Terraforming station to be used to increase yields and not the DCS. As asteroid fields are huge in comparison and could be multiple planets crushed and laid out to inspect I would say the yields there should be increasable much more than a planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.