Jump to content
Rolling Thunder Forums

is moderate really moderate ?


rotor911
 Share

Recommended Posts

my first csv states that attrition "would be moderate,

with loss of colonists on an ongoing basis expected."

Does it mean that a colony would be viable right now or "moderate loss of life" would still be to much and I'd better wait for domed cities (atmosphere is the biggest worry).

TIA

 

Ah, and a silly and OT question :angry2: : when you scrap a ship, you get back its components such as say, a Mk1 nuclear engine. Is there a way to scrap further the said engine to get back steel electonic and such so as to buy (for instance!) a mkii nuclear engine. Would be great imo...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

my first csv states that attrition  "would be moderate,

with loss of colonists on an ongoing basis expected."

Does it mean that a colony would be viable right now or "moderate loss of life" would still be to much and I'd better wait for domed cities (atmosphere is the biggest worry).

TIA

 

Ah, and a silly and OT question  :angry2:  : when you scrap a ship, you get back its components such as say, a Mk1 nuclear engine.  Is there a way to scrap further the said engine to get back steel electonic and such so as to buy (for instance!) a mkii nuclear engine. Would be great imo...

 

I'd wait until Domed Cities, but that's me. Depends on what's on the colony.

 

And no, you cannot scrap components to get steel, electronics, etc.

 

Well, at least not yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We think "Moderate" is horrible. Any loss of scanners is unacceptable.

 

Even with "Almost ideal" there is still a little bit of attrition, so at Moderate, you have to keep on adding colonists just to maintain production. Not very sustainable, so you need adjusting installations.

 

Luckily, there are always "volunteers" to help the Republic getting production from unfriendly worlds and moons.

 

Kind regards,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slight is "better" than moderate, right? (sorry, english is not my main language)

No problem. It is better in the context of this game.

 

As for the question about moderate loss of life. My first colony was moderate and we found that the loss of life was over 8% of the colonists. We of course researched Domed Cities as fast as possible as those kind of losses were unacceptable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

slight is "better" than moderate, right? (sorry, english is not my main language)

 

 

Here's a short list of Attrition levels from most desirable to least desirable:

 

Ideal (No Attrition)

Less than Ideal

Very Low

Low

Moderate

High

Very High

Very Nearly Prohibitive

Prohibitive (90%+ Attrition)

 

I hope that helps.

-SK :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that moderate attrition for one lifeform could be different that a moderate for another lifeform. You are truly on your own when it comes to the attrition game.

 

IMHO it is rarely worth building colonies on any world with attrition. There are the few gems that fall out but for the most part it isn't worth it. In the end it will cost you more time efort and pop than it is worth. So if you find yourself in this predicament ten start researching species engineering and civil engineering to get better installations.

 

Have fun..

 

:cheers::cheers::cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It should also be noted that moderate attrition for one lifeform could be different that a moderate for another lifeform. You are truly on your own when it comes to the attrition game.

 

IMHO it is rarely worth building colonies on any world with attrition. There are the few gems that fall out but for the most part it isn't worth it. In the end it will cost you more time efort and pop than it is worth. So if you find yourself in this predicament ten start researching species engineering and civil engineering to get better installations.

 

Have fun..

 

This is one of those places where I think reasonable beings can disagree. I think you definitely need to consider the needs of your empire, your birthrate and what it will take to support a colony. IMO a colony with a small level of attrition may be worth the effort, especially if you know there is some technology that is coming that will give you improvements in birthrate or reduced attrition. However, only you can weight the factors whether you will colonize or not. Some will look at a world and say not and some will say OK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our colony is listed as "Extremely Low" attrition, but we've never lost a single egg there.  So attrition values definitely vary from species to species.

 

But doesn't this also depend on the number of pop you have at the colony, with attrition 'kicking in' when you go over a certain limit?

 

Actually, it's less that there is a minimum safe colony size as there is a rounding function to the amount of population that is lost. If you have 10 POP and the attrition rate is less than 5%, you won't lose any POP.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Our colony is listed as "Extremely Low" attrition, but we've never lost a single egg there.  So attrition values definitely vary from species to species.

 

But doesn't this also depend on the number of pop you have at the colony, with attrition 'kicking in' when you go over a certain limit?

 

Actually, it's less that there is a minimum safe colony size as there is a rounding function to the amount of population that is lost. If you have 10 POP and the attrition rate is less than 5%, you won't lose any POP.

We have about 8500 people on the world in question and haven't lost any yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you run another CSV on that particular Pop group, lately? :ph34r:

 

I'm somewhat discussing this in a vacuum. For while the causes for Attrition and your Racial profile are both considered on the initial CSV, any modifying structures that you have the capability of building (i.e. Domed City, Thermal Transfer Center, etc.) are not. Depending on what the primary cause of the Attrition is for your particular world, Krelnett, you may have built the appropriate structures to compensate enough to bring it within "Ideal" levels. Of course, if all you have on the planet are Mines, Power Plants and Admin Centers and you still have no Population loss on a non-Ideal world, I have no idea why. There may be some funny math or a glitch in the system. <shrug> Either way, it's working to your benefit (and probably a few other positions as well), so I wouldn't worry about it considering how many other things are running at a less than optimal level that aren't aiding anybody. :ranting:

 

-SK :cheers:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...