Page 1 of 2

Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:55 pm
by Omniblivion
Greetings!

I'm still pretty new at this game, although I'm catching on pretty quickly. One question: is there a real downside to colonizing most available planets early game? IE: I have a couple relatively nearby systems with 50-60% quality and average resources. Other than the cost of the colony ship, is there any other reason I shouldn't be colonizing them? I've found that just popping these up pretty early along with bare-bones small space stations start to generate revenue pretty quickly.

Thanks :)

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 8:56 pm
by Omniblivion
Also, to clarify, by "every planet"/"Available planets" I mean ones that which I am able to colonize based on my race/tech :)

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 02, 2011 9:18 pm
by cookie monster
Check out this thread

tm.asp?m=2753358

Colonies above 50% quality are automatically selected for colonising by the engine unless you've turned off auto colonisation

You can see from the expansion planner which planets to colonise

Or from the potential colonies list in the main game window on the left

Just click on a 50% plus colony to make/send a ship there

To take over independant colonies when there population is hostile you need to use troops

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sun Apr 03, 2011 5:35 am
by Data
Also, colonizing low quality worlds does incurr a cost in itself. It can be easily offset later but in the begining it will hurt.
For hostile independents you can also use colony ships of the same race (if you have colonies with them)....they will not be hostile towards their own kin and you'll not incur the rep hit for taking them over.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Wed Apr 06, 2011 1:42 pm
by Kayoz
ORIGINAL: Data

Also, colonizing low quality worlds does incurr a cost in itself. It can be easily offset later but in the begining it will hurt.
For hostile independents you can also use colony ships of the same race (if you have colonies with them)....they will not be hostile towards their own kin and you'll not incur the rep hit for taking them over.

This is new! Chance of colonizing an independent race depends on the race in the colony ship, not the dominant (ie: starting) race of the empire?

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:41 am
by adecoy95
unless its under 50% quality, you incur no cost other than the colony ship. so its not a bad idea to just go into the list, sort by distance or quality, and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets) [:D]

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Thu Apr 07, 2011 5:51 am
by Data
Yes, and it was always so

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 10:12 am
by bertipa
...and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets)

It is really obligatory to do that, at the least to make my "conquer the Galaxy" strategy to work, but, in the middle of the game, after getting one or two new colonization tech, it can be quite tiresome.


RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 11:27 am
by Kayoz
ORIGINAL: Data

Yes, and it was always so

I always thought it was based on the dominant race of the colonizer, regardless of what race happens to be in the actual colony ship. Weird - in that case, the "colonization chance" message for an independent world is misleading.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Fri Apr 08, 2011 12:04 pm
by Data
it can be considered so and it could be contextualized....maybe we should even have independents from our own race that could resist colonization (past arguments, internal politics etc etc)

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 12:50 am
by Kayoz
As I understand it, each colony's tax revenue is based on the population, quality and development. By colonizing a low quality world (under 50%), the tax can NEVER be positive - it will forever be a drain on your empire's finances.

I'm not sure how rare luxuries and ruins affects that. If you have a planet with - say 49%, will it be profitable if you control the rare luxuries and/or it has ruins that give it a bonus?

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:48 am
by Data
Yes, and even without it a low quality planet can become profitable as pop and dev increase over time.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:55 am
by Kayoz
ORIGINAL: Data

Yes, and even without it a low quality planet can become profitable as pop and dev increase over time.

Looks like I'll have to experiment a little. The DW galactopedia states:
Planet Quality
Note that each planet and moon has a Quality rating that indicates how habitable it is. The highest quality planets are 100%. These should be prime targets for colonization.

However any planet or moon with a quality below 50% should be avoided. These planets will be a net drain on your empire’s economy if you colonize them. They will cost more to support than they produce in revenue. There may be rare situations where you choose to colonize a planet with quality less than 50% (e.g. has special resources), but beware of the negative affect on your empire revenue.

... which I assumed meant that the negative revenue was permanent - that without any other considerations (ie: ruins, rare luxuries, etc), a planet below 50% would never be a revenue contributor.

Can you elucidate a little? I'm a bit confused since the documentation implies one thing but you're stating another.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 3:57 am
by Data
In my games even low quality planets turn out positive income in time if you develop them iirc.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:46 am
by adecoy95
ORIGINAL: bertipa
...and just keep pressing colonize until you run out of cash (or planets)

It is really obligatory to do that, at the least to make my "conquer the Galaxy" strategy to work, but, in the middle of the game, after getting one or two new colonization tech, it can be quite tiresome.


yup, its the one thing about the game i dislike, planets have no real weight.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Sat Apr 09, 2011 11:08 am
by ElanaAhova_slith
Yes, I agree. I play on a very small galaxy because of this. (Is this why i never see the shaktauri? I wish colonizing was much more difficult and expensive - so as to reduce the colony spam.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 5:42 am
by bertipa
I still rememeber Civilization 3 games where, at the end of the game, there were still parts of the planet onowned (Ok, we are speaking of really big maps).
At a Galactic level should be even more evident.

Colonization should be more expansive, colonization of non ideal planets even more, low quality not ideal planets should be almost impossible to colonize.

For what we know now terraforming is all but impossible, at least until we crack an utopic/maybe almost magical level of nanotech.

An abitable planet shold be something exceptional, not a fleeting moment in a clickfeast of colonization spamming.

Even an ideal planets colonization could/should be difficoult and full of surprises.

I know that DW is a strategy game but, after you figure it out the good strategy, it is depressigly banal to win. The Sakaturi were a good idea to give a jolt to the second part of the game but that also, being repetitive and previsible, it is just a matter to optimize the basic strategy to be prepared to welcome them.

At least in DW I have to buils ship and actually colonize, in GALCIV2 you can win at the suicide level without building a single ship and own the galaxy having colonized by yourself 1 (one) planet.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 6:05 am
by Data
iirc at the suicide level in galciv 2 you wouldn't even have time to develop an empire [:)]

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 9:51 am
by bertipa
At suicide level I always get full galaxy domination, and in one afternoon and one evening (going to bed before midnight). Higher is the difficuly level, quicker the game, same results.

Just one colonized planet (why trow the starting colony ship away?) and the rest of the galaxy buyed out (and exploration ships, builder ships, a little of war ships) exchanging techs with the other empires.

It was so depressingly simple that I really can't play it anymore.

BTW DW suffer of the same problem, you just have to colonize by yourself becouse the price of the planets here is usually more expansive. Unfortunately that means just colony spamming, not higher strategy challenge.

NOTA BENE: In my last game I was in Mutual defence agreement with half of the other empire and the rest (the littler ones) were under my protectore. I fired 1 (one) time against a non pirate ship: a constructor who had the nerve to start repairing a World destroyed even if it was surrounded by one of my fleets.
I moved the percentage of the galaxy to own to win to 50% hoping for the Sakaturi war but they didn't even showed up in time.

RE: Is there a downside to colonizing every planet early game?

Posted: Mon Apr 11, 2011 2:40 pm
by Merker
Ha, why colonize all planets when it's way more FUN to colonize a few good ones, and conquer the rest. Why work to make a non-native to you race planet valuable when you can simply take them from your enemy who finds them suitable enough for his race. Besides, lots of planets mess up the colony screen[;)]
Cheers