Colonial attrition, trying to understand it....

[Koenus]

Hello deer fellow inhabitants of this large universe,

 

I'm rather new to this game and try to understand some of my colonization issues here.

 

I've some reasonable good, i thought at least, planets colonized a lot's of turns ago.

The last thing I colonized was an astroid field with origanlly some bad looking odds.

Now I do have build some anti-attrition stuff on all planets, like

- cities

- domed cities, just there against atmosfere

- fluid conversion plants, to deal with oceans

- colony training centres

- churches/temples and the like (don't seem to do a lot)

- administration things

 

Now, in the first (best looking) planet, all buildings except powerplants/factories are

deplated over time somehow. Is that random or is that for a reason? And can I do

something against that?

 

Second, I seem to have to deal with gravity and axial tilt, can I do something against that?

 

What I really don't understand is why my origanally looking planet is doing worse

then the, at best problematic looking, astroid belt. I've recent CSV reports of the 3 colonies below.

 

The two problemetic colonies (on different planets) show now the following CSV scans

==============================================================

CSV: #, ColonyAlpha

Survey teams aboard # Recon Group # conduct a detailed analysis of planet_X

They focus especially on the conditions present in Population Group Alpha, and determine that the attrition rate at this

world would be extremely low, with only minimal problems expected.

Your survey teams break down the cause of the attrition into the following categories:

Ocean: ----------------------------------------------------------|

Temperature: ----------|

Gravity: -----|

Axial Tilt: ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

Terrain (favorable) ................................................................................

..........|

Lifeform (favorable) ..........................................................|

==============================================================

CSV: #, ColonyBeta

Survey teams aboard # Recon Group # conduct a detailed analysis of planet_Y

They focus especially on the conditions present in Population Group Beta, and determine that the attrition rate at this

world would be moderate, with loss of colonists on an ongoing basis expected.

Your survey teams break down the cause of the attrition into the following categories:

Temperature: -|

Gravity: ----|

Axial Tilt: --------------------------------------------------------|

Terrain (favorable) ....|

Lifeform (favorable) .....|

=============================================================

The origenaly terrible looking astroid belt gives however the following results on the colony:

CSV: #, ColonyAstroid

Survey teams aboard # Recon Group # conduct a detailed analysis of Astroid_Z

They focus especially on the conditions present in Population Group Astroid, and determine that the attrition rate at this

world would be very low, with either a slight loss of population over time or perhaps a slight gain. Though not ideal, it

is close.

Your survey teams break down the cause of the attrition into the following categories:

Atmosphere: ---------------------------------------|

Ocean: -------------|

Temperature: ---|

Gravity: -----------------------|

Lifeform (favorable) .............|

============================================================

 

 

 

I hope you've some advice to add with this 'harsh' problem,

 

Greetings, Koen.

[LenLorek]

What I really don't understand is why my origanally looking planet is doing worse

then the, at best problematic looking, astroid belt. I've recent CSV reports of the 3 colonies below.

 

In a CSV for a body (ie, planet or moon or asteroid field), the lengths of the dotted lines for each category (ie, Ocean, Temperature, Gravity, etc) are all relative to each other on that body only -- they cannot be compared to the lengths of the dotted lines on another body. The most important part is "the attrition rate at this world would be ...".

 

Your CSV of ColonyBeta on planet_Y shows attrition would be "moderate", whereas your CSV of ColonyAstroid on Astroid_Z shows attrition would be "extremely low". It is these descriptions of attrition that determine how problematic will be your colonization of that body.

 

The lengths of the dotted lines for each category tell you how the attrition is split and to what degree, relative to each other, which enables you to determine what mitigating installations would be best to use there.

 

I hope this helps!

 

/Len

[Calamaran]

From your CSV's it is clear that Axial Tilt is the killer on both planets. On the astroid is was atmosphere but Domed Cities are very good for getting that under control.

 

Axial tilt is a lot harder to deal with. I have not come across anything yet that helps with that but there is probably something somewhere in the tech line that might help with it but tilting an entire planet won't be easy or cheap, for sure. The same for slowing down or speeding up the rotation of a planet: Likely possible but not easy.

 

Colony Alpha also shows a rather high level rate of attrition for oceans. If you do not have 1 fluid conversion plant per 100 pop in that colony, build some more. If you do, then attrition there is not going to get better any time soon.

 

As for loosing buildings: You will only loose buildings if you do not have more unemployed pop at the colony than it has attrition per turn. Say that attrition on the colony is 5 pop a turn and growth is 1 and you have no unemployed pop; this will mean you will loose 4 buildings at random. If you have 4 unemployed pop you will loose 5 pop to attrition, gain 1 through narural growth but will thus not loose any buildings this turn.

 

You might want to try and build textile plants and other buildings that improve morale on the colonies (prisons?). It will not remove your attrition problems but they may make them less troublesome.

 

Calamaran.

[Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr]

PMAPs will also assist you. The temperature bar will only tell you that temperature is a factor in attrition. A PMAP, in conjunction with knowing the PMAP for your own homeworld, will give you a clue as to whether a world is too hot or too cold.

 

If you have steamy jungles on your homeworld and there are nitrogen-dusted conifers on the potential colony world, you might consider a Thermal Transfer Center. If the situation is the reverse, deep core heatsinks may be for you. These are power intensive.

 

We've (the cats) had good luck with building a lot of small colonies (multiple population centers) on very hazardous worlds. Linked together with small orbiting cargo ships and convoy routes for the transfer of coal and resources, these can function very well with marginal upkeep. Just figure out where the balance between colony growth and attrition are for that world while using standard attrition limiting instalations, then don't build colonies larger than that.

 

The Four instalations I use are Domed Cities, Cities, Fluid Conversion Plants and Colonial Training Centers.

 

-Sha'thar

[Koenus]

Thanx for the tips guys.

 

I guess that i've to do three things now:

1) quickest thing to do is break down a lot

of buildings and rebuild it with morale boosting/anti-attrition buildings.

of wich the most important for the harsh colonies are:

fluid conversion plants

more domed cities/cities (do you need them both or just 1 per 100?)

2) reorganize my convoy-routes to build less and keep some unemployed pop

on my colonies

3) Trying to figure out the research path to something dealing with axial tilt and gravity.

 

Ofcourse the last thing I could do is evacuate the lot

 

As for the network tip with lots of small colonies, I'm under the assumption that all attrition is

relative. In other words, I think that 10 colonies with 100 pop or 1 with 1000 on the same

world with the the same buildings on 1:100 ratio would have the same attrition.

 

 

Greetings,

 

Koen.

[Lord Uriel]

Thanx for the tips guys.

 

I guess that i've to do three things now:

1) quickest thing to do is break down a lot

of buildings and rebuild it with morale boosting/anti-attrition buildings.

of wich the most important for the harsh colonies are:

fluid conversion plants

more domed cities/cities (do you need them both or just 1 per 100?)

2) reorganize my convoy-routes to build less and keep some unemployed pop

on my colonies

3) Trying to figure out the research path to something dealing with axial tilt and gravity.

 

Ofcourse the last thing I could do is evacuate the lot

 

As for the network tip with lots of small colonies, I'm under the assumption that all attrition is

relative. In other words, I think that 10 colonies with 100 pop or 1 with 1000 on the same

world with the the same buildings on 1:100 ratio would have the same attrition.

 

 

Greetings,

 

Koen.

Depends on how you read his post, and also your what your Imperial bean counters have to say.

If you read it as smaller colonies on several worlds (as I did at first) no problem. You just have to decide what you really want from that world. If you read it as several smaller colonies on the same world, then this is a different matter. I have no idea personally, I only put colonies on worlds where there is little or no attrition. However some players have mentioned in the past that smaller colonies do not have as high attrition as the larger ones.

 

Actually, the more I think about it I seem to recall my one very large colony had no attrition until it hit 100. That was a few years ago so I don't really remember the details.

[cestvel]

As far as I remember colonies have no attrition until they have 10 pop.

 

Which makes it quite easy to plant some research colonies.

[hobknob]

There is not a standard number for when attrition kicks in. It is all based on your lifeform type and the attrition rate. Some colonies will see attrtion start at 5, 10 20 70 or higher or even never if it is a good world. I had a position that did not suffer any attrition on asteroids until I passed the 73 pop mark.

 

Smaller colonies are certainly viable, but the eat up many orders to get going and are a bit of a pain to upkeep. It is entirely possible to have 100 colonists set up on a gas giant all working away with no appreciable colonist attrition. This is useful if there is no other way to get the resources found on the gas giant, but is rather spendy with the $$'s.

 

It has been a while, but Pete has adjusted some of the attrition modification installations so they work better. You may want to revisit those.

 

The other solution to your attrition problems is to use some Species Engineering points to modify your lifeform to offset attrition.

 

Good Luck

 

[Soerenjev]

In my experience, attrition is an percentage. If you have an attrition rate of 9% and a population of 10 , you have 0.9 pop loss due attrition. As 0.9 is rounded down to 0 you have no attrition for all practical purposes.

[Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr]

What we did was to develop a colony on the worst planet we could find (nobody doesn't like molten boron!), and then slowly build the colony until attrition offset colony growth. Since attrition seems to happen -after- colony growth, you could then build a colony right to the limit. On one hostile world I'm mining, a typical colony looks like this:

 

1 City

1 Domed City

1 Colonial Training Center

1 Fluid Conversion Plant

2 Coal Fired Power Plants

20 Mines

 

I've 15 Colonies on that world currently. A convoy route distributes 60 coal each turn to each colony. Another convoy route gathers mined resources and deposits them in one population center for pick-up and transfer to a friendlier world for use.

 

You would be able to forgo the coal convoy route if the planet had coal deposits above, say, 65. One mine would then have to be a coal mine, and you'd need to remember to drop 60 coal on the colony in the beginning.

 

I don't use this system to mine deposits that are smaller than 150, and focus on larger deposits. On the planet above, the main ore mined is Iron, with a deposit size of about 500. Of course, this can be increased through the use of Ice or DCSs.

 

The same mix has worked on other worlds, and I'm also considering using this system for fuel stops on far-flung colony routes.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

Coal? Eww... How resource-intensive!

We use hydropower on all our worlds. Cheap and efficient.

What we did was to develop a colony on the worst planet we could find (nobody doesn't like molten boron!), and then slowly build the colony until attrition offset colony growth. Since attrition seems to happen -after- colony growth, you could then build a colony right to the limit. On one hostile world I'm mining, a typical colony looks like this:

 

1 City

1 Domed City

1 Colonial Training Center

1 Fluid Conversion Plant

2 Coal Fired Power Plants

20 Mines

 

I've 15 Colonies on that world currently. A convoy route distributes 60 coal each turn to each colony. Another convoy route gathers mined resources and deposits them in one population center for pick-up and transfer to a friendlier world for use.

 

You would be able to forgo the coal convoy route if the planet had coal deposits above, say, 65. One mine would then have to be a coal mine, and you'd need to remember to drop 60 coal on the colony in the beginning.

 

I don't use this system to mine deposits that are smaller than 150, and focus on larger deposits. On the planet above, the main ore mined is Iron, with a deposit size of about 500. Of course, this can be increased through the use of Ice or DCSs.

 

The same mix has worked on other worlds, and I'm also considering using this system for fuel stops on far-flung colony routes.

[Koenus]

> Coal? Eww... How resource-intensive!

> We use hydropower on all our worlds. Cheap and efficient.

 

Ah, but I'd prefer Solar Energy then.

No need to feed anything and plenty of energy for small colonies.

[Krelnett_of_Kraan]

But see, we don't do "small" colonies. Our queens lay many eggs and we need somewhere to put them all.

Ah, but I'd prefer Solar Energy then.

No need to feed anything and plenty of energy for small colonies.

[Shaitan]

Sounds like a lot of wasted power if you only have a few facilities that need it - although a self sustaining power supply might be ok if you have the resources to spare.

[Sha'thar of the Gosht Kohr]

> Coal? Eww... How resource-intensive!

> We use hydropower on all our worlds. Cheap and efficient.

 

Ah, but I'd prefer Solar Energy then.

No need to feed anything and plenty of energy for small colonies.

 

For very small colonies though, coal is the only option. A 250,000-Construction Material Hydropower Plant would be worse than overkill on a 20-mine colony, and indeed the same resources would build 14 of the small mining colonies, for a total of 280 mines.

 

Which would need only 840 coal a turn to function. That means just two coal mines on a world with a coal deposit of 420+ would surfice.

 

And the value of small colonies increases if you factor in the resources needed to build and power items such as Deep Core Heatsinks.

 

And coal, for the most part, remains the only colony power generating resource you can transport, except for the odd finds of "power" which are pretty much one-shot affairs.

 

This only works for mining worlds, note. To really build anything in the quantities you need, large centralized population centers brimming with Industrial Complexes is the only way to go. We're experimenting with producing limited runs of specialized materials on microcolonies made up of Industrial complexs, however.

 

-Sha'thar