Logo Platform
logo amplifiers simplified

Terraforming in the other direction?

Reply
Copied to clipboard!
7 years ago
Jan 13, 2018, 4:05:06 PM

Some thoughts on terraforming:



You can terraform away from the hazard. Ice->Arctic-> Snow etc.  

Often times you can get more food and less science with the result. 


However, when you need those terrformed planets the most, is actually at the start to mid game. In the late game, I find myself often times WANTING those bad planets, because my happyness technology is already developed far enough to compensate, and I just don't want to produce more food for already full planets anyway. 


What I want late game is production and also a lot of SCIENCE.


My feeling: 

1. When I need terraforming, it too early, and when I have it, I don't need it that much.

2. I want to "terraform" backwards.






0Send private message
7 years ago
Jan 13, 2018, 5:51:07 PM

Late game your pops have huge bonuses to FIDSI. If you want production and science late game, what you really want are population slots. That typically means terraformed worlds.


There area few types of world below Terran to consider - Boreal is both fertile and cold, allowing for large amounts of science. Desert is maybe, maybe, better for production. But Jungle has more slots and is fertile, as well as being hot.

Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
7 years ago
Jan 13, 2018, 7:00:20 PM

Boreal will have more science production than Barren regardless of planet size so you won't want to do reverse terraforming.

Riftborn can do terraforming from Fertile to Sterile.


You can find details about it here and here (scroll down for a terraforming graph).

0Send private message
7 years ago
Jan 13, 2018, 9:05:58 PM

But going from ice to arctic had the preview of changes show -8 science. You sure that the 1 extra pop would make up for that?

0Send private message
0Send private message
7 years ago
Jan 14, 2018, 9:12:23 PM

I like the idea that Riftborn are the only faction that strive to have sterile planets.

It stands to reason that other factions would go for fertile planets.

I understand the logic that if you are able to terraform a planet you should be able to do it both ways but I can accept the choice to make it separate as a gameplay limitation for balancing.



Dreepa wrote:

But going from ice to arctic had the preview of changes show -8 science. You sure that the 1 extra pop would make up for that?

What you always benefit from is going from Barren / Ice / Arctic / Snow / Tundra to Boreal.

Ice to Arctic conversion is good on any planet size except huge.


Going from Ice to Arctic is a -4 in science (from 12 to 8). On a huge planet that also means going from 6 to 7 population.

On a large planet it is going from 5 to 6.

On a medium planet it is going from 4 to 5.



That 1 extra population is producing 20 science (8 base production, +4 from planet specialization for science on cold, +2 from Punctuated Evolution Fundation, +1 from Magnetic Field Generators, +3 from  Graviton-shielded Laboratories, +2 from Microwave pipes)

There can be anomalies or hero skills that increase this value further (like additional +2 from Magnetic Field Generators if planet has anomalies).

You could also cound +1 from Power of the Endless but I won't count it here is that is endless tech.


On a huge planet you lose 6 * 4 = 24 science from that terraforming action.

On a large planet you lose 5 * 4 = 20 science from that terraforming action.

On a medium planet you lose 4 * 4 = 16 science from that terraforming action.


So you can say that on large you have the same science output but output on other FIDSI increases and happiness also improves so it is worth it.

Updated 7 years ago.
0Send private message
0Send private message
?

Click here to login

Reply
Comment