Transparency... that's what would make all of this easier to understand and digest. We are grasping as straws trying to make sense out of the mechanics. I see approval as just that, not the logistics of it because I understand it the way Fen pointed out.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If a planet has some sort of anomaly that improves Approval (i.e. Low Gravity), it may be worth it to colonize it ASAP. Even if you have only one opulation:, you get the full bonus from that Anomaly.



And, speaking of anomalies, pay attention to any you might find. It's much easier now that they's been color-coded, but see if any of them give you significant advantages - say, better , although the most important bonus is arguably more .



Also look to see what resources each planet has to offer. Hydromiel can be incredibly powerful, since it gives +3 per opulation: as well as a percentage-based Food bonus.



There are cases where, if an Arctic planet has, say, Coral Reefs, it may be more beneficial to colonize that planet even as opposed to a T1 planet. The point is, anomalies/resources are arguably more important when colonizing than the actual tier of the planet - you would almost never colonize a Terran planet with Acid Rain over an Arid with Metallic Waters, for example.

I should do a screen capture of my current game and post it up as an example.

Nasarog wrote:
I should do a screen capture of my current game and post it up as an example.

That may help.



One thing that vastly improved how well I did at the game was my strategy of building every Approval improvement in every system. Keep taxes low enough that most/all systems are Ecstatic, and as you research and build the improvements you can make that money back.



The important thing to remember is that the early game is slow. You're not trying to accomplish much, you're mostly building up for a solid mid-game. IDS are less important than Food, because a higher population is more valuable than a higher production.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
That may help.



One thing that vastly improved how well I did at the game was my strategy of building every Approval improvement in every system. Keep taxes low enough that most/all systems are Ecstatic, and as you research and build the improvements you can make that money back.



The important thing to remember is that the early game is slow. You're not trying to accomplish much, you're mostly building up for a solid mid-game. IDS are less important than Food, because a higher population is more valuable than a higher production.

That's my technique as well for the most part.I tend to play with random settings in planet/system quality and number. My games tend to be unbalanced and usually not in my favor.

Nasarog wrote:
That's my technique as well for the most part.I tend to play with random settings in planet/system quality and number. My games tend to be unbalanced and usually not in my favor.

I generally play with a high number of constellations. It's not good to split your empire up, so I try to colonize every system in my starting constellation (unless some of them are objectively awful, i.e. all has gas giants or red anomalies).

Yup, same here. I colonize at least one planet per system as the game permits to have solid control over my borders. I try to colonize the best planet in the system and take several things into account. Now if I discover a system with lots of tier 2 planets, it becomes a priority. A system with tier 1 planet/s is the gold standard.



I am currently playing 1.1.9



I'm waiting for the bugs in 1.1.14 to be worked out before patching it up.

Igncom1 wrote:
Just because you were born on Tatooine, that doesn't make it a good place to live.

I disagree. YOU dont like tatooine because have the image of a water-filled and green planet in your mind. Someone born and raised on Tatooine would take the endless dunes of sand as a given and a beatyfull landscape. Forest or lakes would put a righteous fear into you being total unknowns.



In addition...NATURAL-born species on Tatooine would be perfectly adapted to heat, dry air, lack of water and low food supplies. Natural-borns wouldnt "need" more water or food to survive and prosper.



That being said the OP has a point. Your home planet would suit you perfectly therefore it would be the "perfect" place in space for you. No other planet would ever come close having slight variations in chemical composure, pressure, mass aka gravity etc etc.

MTB-Fritz wrote:
I disagree. YOU dont like tatooine because have the image of a water-filled and green planet in your mind. Someone born and raised on Tatooine would take the endless dunes of sand as a given and a beatyfull landscape. Forest or lakes would put a righteous fear into you being total unknowns.

I dunno man, Anakin was really eager to leave.

MTB-Fritz wrote:
In addition...NATURAL-born species on Tatooine would be perfectly adapted to heat, dry air, lack of water and low food supplies. Natural-borns wouldnt "need" more water or food to survive and prosper.

The species that start on Tier 2 planets weren't "naturally" born there. Look back and read what was pointed out - Cravers and Sowers were abandoned on their respective home planets by the Endless. They didn't grow up there.

MTB-Fritz wrote:
That being said the OP has a point. Your home planet would suit you perfectly therefore it would be the "perfect" place in space for you. No other planet would ever come close having slight variations in chemical composure, pressure, mass aka gravity etc etc.

This explains why humans, Sophons, Amoeba, etc love their home planets, and why Cravers, Sowers etc hate their own. So you've only really proven the OP wrong

Actually the Sowers like their home planet. It's the product of MILLENIA of their terraformation (and now they're finally learning to do that faster). They consider their Tundra to be paradise, and it is given that they're a machine race built by disembodied electrical impulses.



That being said approval isn't "How happy are your people" it's "How difficult is it to maintain the logistics of your empire"

Autocthon wrote:
That being said approval isn't "How happy are your people" it's "How difficult is it to maintain the logistics of your empire"

Then it wouldn't be called Approval. I also don't see why you would have a harder time maintaining logistics on a Tundra as opposed to a Jungle.



And they're probably pretty upset with their tundra, considering it still isn't as full of life as a Terran or Jungle, even after millenia of labor.

They don't care about life. They're making a techno paradise not an eden. I mean, they're a sentient group-consciousness spread across billions of individual subunits with the express purpose of creating a perfect environment for the Virtual Endless that implicitly will also support them as a species. Of course the fact that they have true Sapience (admittedly on a cultural level rather than individual) kind of invalidates the comment about the endless not being able to create sentient AI in the Automaton description.



As far as logistics between tundra and jungle, Tundra is going to have fewer available support resources in terms of agriculture. Hence more difficult to maintain (more logistically intensive). Calling it approval really just makes it simple to understand to a new player. Sure it would be more technically "Logistic Intensity", but then you'd want to minimize the bar.



Actually that would be a fun change. Instead of trying to get lots of approval we should try to minimize logistic difficulty and gain a full spectrum bonus based on that bar rather than a stepwise set of bonuses or penalties.

Autocthon wrote:
They don't care about life. They're making a techno paradise not an eden. I mean, they're a sentient group-consciousness spread across billions of individual subunits with the express purpose of creating a perfect environment for the Virtual Endless that implicitly will also support them as a species. Of course the fact that they have true Sapience (admittedly on a cultural level rather than individual) kind of invalidates the comment about the endless not being able to create sentient AI in the Automaton description.

I'm pretty sure their job was to make an eden, not a techno paradise. I'm also pretty sure they're corrupted by Dust, which has more to do with their sapience than the Endless do.

Autocthon wrote:
As far as logistics between tundra and jungle, Tundra is going to have fewer available support resources in terms of agriculture. Hence more difficult to maintain (more logistically intensive). Calling it approval really just makes it simple to understand to a new player. Sure it would be more technically "Logistic Intensity", but then you'd want to minimize the bar.

Fewer agricultural options is represented by , making you pay for it twice seems a tad silly (pay once with a lower output, and again with an malus). It also doesn't explain how a Hero's ability to raise people's happiness affects the "Logistic Intensity."

Nasarog wrote:
How so, maybe that will explain where I am going wrong.

If a planet has some sort of anomaly that improves Approval (i.e. Low Gravity), it may be worth it to colonize it ASAP. Even if you have only one opulation:, you get the full bonus from that Anomaly.



And, speaking of anomalies, pay attention to any you might find. It's much easier now that they's been color-coded, but see if any of them give you significant advantages - say, better , although the most important bonus is arguably more .



Also look to see what resources each planet has to offer. Hydromiel can be incredibly powerful, since it gives +3 per opulation: as well as a percentage-based Food bonus.



There are cases where, if an Arctic planet has, say, Coral Reefs, it may be more beneficial to colonize that planet even as opposed to a T1 planet. The point is, anomalies/resources are arguably more important when colonizing than the actual tier of the planet - you would almost never colonize a Terran planet with Acid Rain over an Arid with Metallic Waters, for example.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I'm pretty sure their job was to make an eden, not a techno paradise. I'm also pretty sure they're corrupted by Dust, which has more to do with their sapience than the Endless do.

They were tasked by the Virtual Endless, that implies that they were tasked with making the perfect environment for virtual beings. Their affinity further implies that they don't much consider agriculture to be required for perfection.

Fewer agricultural options is represented by , making you pay for it twice seems a tad silly (pay once with a lower output, and again with an malus). It also doesn't explain how a Hero's ability to raise people's happiness affects the "Logistic Intensity."

Well I suppose I may be a tad non-specific.



Maintaining a planet that is effectively locked in near-arctic conditions requires heavier infrastructure and efficient self-correcting equipment. The "cost" to maintain the planet will be higher than a more temperate or tropical climate, though I'd think that jungle planets are temperate jungles rather than tropical. Compound a higher infrastructure maintenance cost with fewer overall resources you get additional requirements on the planet you won't have on an equivalent planet.



Obviously these planets can't be *all* one biome. The problem here is that "Approval" is a weird hybrid of "Are your people happy?" and "How difficult is it to maintain your empire" (IE: Planet approval vs expansion disapproval vs certain anomaly approval penalties).



The hero +Approval bonus could just as easily be flavored as "Efficient Leader" rather than "Great PR Guy"

Autocthon wrote:
They were tasked by the Virtual Endless, that implies that they were tasked with making the perfect environment for virtual beings. Their affinity further implies that they don't much consider agriculture to be required for perfection.

So why do the concept arts show them planting trees and such? Wouldn't life be potentially harmful if they wanted a "techno paradise"? By your understanding, an Arctic would be the paradise of choice. Or, at that point, why not just live in giant space stations?

Autocthon wrote:
Maintaining a planet that is effectively locked in near-arctic conditions requires heavier infrastructure and efficient self-correcting equipment. The "cost" to maintain the planet will be higher than a more temperate or tropical climate, though I'd think that jungle planets are temperate jungles rather than tropical. Compound a higher infrastructure maintenance cost with fewer overall resources you get additional requirements on the planet you won't have on an equivalent planet.

What "cost" is there in maintaining a tundra planet? You fail to explain why the Sowers have an easier time maintaining a Jungle as opposed to a Tundra. By your explanation, a Tundra would be easier, because if the Sowers don't care for life then it's probably just getting in the way anyway.

Autocthon wrote:
Obviously these planets can't be *all* one biome.

They seem to be pretty clearly all one biome.

Autocthon wrote:
The hero +Approval bonus could just as easily be flavored as "Efficient Leader" rather than "Great PR Guy"

But it isn't. Instead we have a "Ministry of Propoganda," which is pretty definitely a happiness-related thing.







I think what you're trying to do is, replace game logic with your own logic, because you believe your logic makes more sense. And, to be fair, it does. It explains a lot of the gaps in information and the logic the game has. But the game is still telling a different story than you are, and so I think to answer the OP's original question we need to explain it within the game's terms.

I don't think the devs spent as much time thinking about the detail of how the lore fits in with the gameplay. I mean in many ways the lore appear almost like an afterthought. How many times do you even see the race you're playing, once at the beginning with the opening movie, once at the end when you win, and whenever you open diplo to look at that static holographic representation. Most of the time, these beings are just treated as numbers. I feel like the devs are more interested in the mechanics of game than in the lore they're supposed to represent. Why else would there be all these apparent discrepancies between description and actual gameplay. It's not necessarily good or bad. I'm willing to accept some unrealism if it means more balanced gameplay, but it does render certain discussions of lore moot.



As for approval, my interpretation is exactly what it says, approval. Just read the description of the Transvine plant. Now, you could make the argument that planetary approval bonus comes from logistical effect. But trying to use lore to back that up is not going to work because plenty of lore example that counters that argument. Ex, Amoeba has the least logistical issue in Ocean planets, they can swim to get to places, yet approval is the same for Terran, Jungle, and Ocean.

Antera wrote:
I don't think the devs spent as much time thinking about the detail of how the lore fits in with the gameplay. I mean in many ways the lore appear almost like an afterthought. How many times do you even see the race you're playing, once at the beginning with the opening movie, once at the end when you win, and whenever you open diplo to look at that static holographic representation. Most of the time, these beings are just treated as numbers. I feel like the devs are more interested in the mechanics of game than in the lore they're supposed to represent. Why else would there be all these apparent discrepancies between description and actual gameplay. It's not necessarily good or bad. I'm willing to accept some unrealism if it means more balanced gameplay, but it does render certain discussions of lore moot.

I wouldn't necessarily say it was an afterthought, but I do agree that they prioritized the mechanics over the lore. What is approval and how does it work? They give us a basic answer, and focus on explaining how to use it within the game rather than explaining how it works within the universe. It does cause certain issues (like the ones discussed in this thread) where people want to have more answers than the game can provide, but quite frankly I don't think it's okay to replace the limited amount of flavor text the game has with some of your own - specifically referring to the idea that approval is really just logistics. Does it make more sense? Probably. Is that what's actually happening? No.

I dunno man, Anakin was really eager to leave.

We could dabble about details here but Anakin was a human child, he got human bio-chemistry, he got human education, he "knew" he didnt evolve on Tatooine but that he and his family are frontier workers and he hated that life. Not the best analogy. I agree my wording could ve been a little more detailed but I ll stay with my opinion. Anakin doesnt apply for being a "true" Tatooine-bred being. The scorpions there would be better qualified.



Besides I dont like the spoiled lil brat, some spanking might ve changed a lot in his later life /grin





Cravers and sowers werent specifically mentioned in the OP so I went with the title and the 3-liner post. Under that light I dont feel I was posting anything wrong.



I might ve proven the OP wrong but only in the fact that even 2 "terran" planets will never be the same apart from their skin texture. Theres so much more to a planet then its appearance that simply changing the size or atmosphere by a tiny fraction can completely change evolution.



I take a match start as a beginning point for awakening species. The home planet then different sides start from is their "true" home planet but considering game lore its probably just a staging step and they all arrive simultaneously in the same galaxy from "somewhere else".



Under my view.....I agree with the OP. Taking the other view, yes, I would prove him wrong with what I said but then, by intention my post doesnt do that





In the end I do accept these things as facts of the game used to balance stuff out. I also sometimes make the mistake to apply "reality" filters but then I have to remind myself that we r dealing with "fiction" mostly. Most of in-game techs are theoretical only, some of em pure fiction while others offer "real" basic theories just the application again is fiction. When I enter Endless space I accept these things as long as the whole package "works"

MTB-Fritz wrote:
We could dabble about details here but Anakin was a human child, he got human bio-chemistry, he got human education, he "knew" he didnt evolve on Tatooine but that he and his family are frontier workers and he hated that life. Not the best analogy. I agree my wording could ve been a little more detailed but I ll stay with my opinion. Anakin doesnt apply for being a "true" Tatooine-bred being. The scorpions there would be better qualified.

This still proves my point, because the Cravers and Sowers didn't evolve on their respective homeworlds. The other races who are happy with their homeworlds did evolve there (or on similar planets, depending on how you choose to interpret the lore) - United Empire on Terran, Amoeba on Ocean, Sophons and so on and so forth.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
This still proves my point, because the Cravers and Sowers didn't evolve on their respective homeworlds. The other races who are happy with their homeworlds did evolve there (or on similar planets, depending on how you choose to interpret the lore) - United Empire on Terran, Amoeba on Ocean, Sophons and so on and so forth.

Killjoy!.. Just agree with me, and maybe we'll get the dev's to give this aspect of the game a once-over.

Nasarog wrote:
Killjoy!.. Just agree with me, and maybe we'll get the dev's to give this aspect of the game a once-over.

Hahaha, yea..

Nasarog wrote:
Killjoy!.. Just agree with me, and maybe we'll get the dev's to give this aspect of the game a once-over.

I wouldn't mind if they changed the lore to be exactly what you guys were saying, but at this time that's not how it's currently explained within the game. I really would like for them to flesh it out, though.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
I wouldn't mind if they changed the lore to be exactly what you guys were saying, but at this time that's not how it's currently explained within the game. I really would like for them to flesh it out, though.

Yea, flesh it out, make it transparent, whatever. We need to understand the mechanics better.

This still proves my point, because the Cravers and Sowers didn't evolve on their respective homeworlds.

I dont get it....the cravers and sowers are not "true" inhabitants of their (so-called) home-planets (which are really "just" starting planets then) so they are unhappy there....isnt that the same thing I said and goes along the Anakin argument? Isnt it more the case that you prove my point here?

Autocthon wrote:
5 Happiness on averahe isn't a big difference, not enough to shift to empire happiness a great deal unless you have a lot of colonies already (and therefore large penalty from colonies).

I like slow starts where I get to expand, and often the hit (-5 per tier 2 planet)in approval can significantly change my plans. So yea, it does affect me some.

Just because you were born on Tatooine, that doesn't make it a good place to live.

Igncom1 wrote:
Just because you were born on Tatooine, that doesn't make it a good place to live.

Sure, you make a valid point, but is that the perspective of all of the Tatooine residents, or of one Luke Skywalker with his need for adventure. That analogy aside, look at the game universe and compare it to the Star Wars universe.



The various alien species/factions start off on a particular world except pilgrims and Horatio, and I believe that they picked the worlds that they use as their homeworlds. So yes, they negativity bonuses they suffer kind of suck. I think that the 3 tier 1 worlds should actually offer a bonus in approval, and the Tier 2 worlds should give no mallus if it's your homeworld type.



That's just how I see it.



On edit: Maybe the first 3 planets the you colonize that are identical to your home-type have no negative malus, but after 3, the people have had enough.

If you love your home planet so much, why leave? I mean, considering your empire bottled up a couple million souls onto those two ships you start the game with, chances are they're pretty unhappy with where they live. Just think about the overpopulation malus, too. Remember that the species have no choice in what their home planet is.



Just because the Cravers start on an Arid planet, does not mean they "like" the arid climate. Their lore indicates they were left there by the Endless. The Sowers were also left on their home planet by the Endless - and you could argue that they simply weren't happy that it could have more life, and didn't yet.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
If you love your home planet so much, why leave? I mean, considering your empire bottled up a couple million souls onto those two ships you start the game with, chances are they're pretty unhappy with where they live. Just think about the overpopulation malus, too. Remember that the species have no choice in what their home planet is.



Just because the Cravers start on an Arid planet, does not mean they "like" the arid climate. Their lore indicates they were left there by the Endless. The Sowers were also left on their home planet by the Endless - and you could argue that they simply weren't happy that it could have more life, and didn't yet.

Sure, sure, but I am not talking over-population here. I am specifically referring to having a negative malus based on home planet type and only that. I agree that if the planet/system/empire has too many souls/citizens there could/would be some discord. When you colonize new planets, the planet you settle on should not have a negative malus if it's the same type as your original home planet.



Now, if you were dumped somewhere and instead are looking for a better world to settle, that would make sense. Cravers in that regard do not make sense. I would think that the way that empire happiness works would be very different for them. Unless they end up on barren/lava/gas giant, they shouldn't be angry. Now if they get the tier 1/2 planets and they should get positive happiness.



ALso, aren't the sowers trying to renovate/terraform their planets to welcome back the endless?

Approval rating on home planet is actually factored into empire balance. So removing the penalties for home planet types actually increases relative power of factions with T2 planets compared to T1.

Autocthon wrote:
Approval rating on home planet is actually factored into empire balance. So removing the penalties for home planet types actually increases relative power of factions with T2 planets compared to T1.

Really? where does it show that?

As for the Cravers, the virtual endless tried to nuke them to extinction but got called away before the job could be finished.

Igncom1 wrote:
As for the Cravers, the virtual endless tried to nuke them to extinction but got called away before the job could be finished.

That's generally how the lore goes in this game.

Nasarog wrote:
Really? where does it show that?

It's implicit, and it's something you realize as you play.



The Sophons start on a Terran Planet because if they started on Ocean they'd have broken fast research even compared to now.

The UE start on Terran because if tehy started on Jungle they could get even crazier early Industry.

The Cravers start on Arid because OMFG CRAVERS RUN



The factions affinities are balanced holistically. Changing the planetary approval of T2 planets because "hey home planet" will then change relative balance between factions.



Oh and approval would be more accurately retermed as "Empire Logistics", because it represents a LOT more than planetary happiness.

Autocthon wrote:
It's implicit, and it's something you realize as you play.



The Sophons start on a Terran Planet because if they started on Ocean they'd have broken fast research even compared to now.

The UE start on Terran because if tehy started on Jungle they could get even crazier early Industry.

The Cravers start on Arid because OMFG CRAVERS RUN



The factions affinities are balanced holistically. Changing the planetary approval of T2 planets because "hey home planet" will then change relative balance between factions.



Oh and approval would be more accurately retermed as "Empire Logistics", because it represents a LOT more than planetary happiness.

Hmm, I never thought of that, when you put it this way, it makes perfect sense.



Though I would still want your first 3 colonized planets of the same type as your homeworld unless tier 1, to not have a massive impact on your empire happiness.



Okay, can I change my request to... More transparency please.

5 Happiness on averahe isn't a big difference, not enough to shift to empire happiness a great deal unless you have a lot of colonies already (and therefore large penalty from colonies).

I know I have mentioned this in the past, but I am certain that I am not alone in this....



Why oh why do you have negative approval for your home planet, and home planet type??? Shouldn't that be automatically waved at least for the home Planet type. If you were born on this planet type, wouldn't you love it?



Just sayin'

Well if you're taking a relatively big hit to your approval form having too many T2 planets in system then you're cross colonizing planets far too early.

Autocthon wrote:
Well if you're taking a relatively big hit to your approval form having too many T2 planets in system then you're cross colonizing planets far too early.

I am trying to increase my fids so I could compete with the A.I. and their various built in bonuses. In a rush scenario, I'd be able to wipe out half the A.I. if I build accordingly, but that doesn't always work out for the RP game where I'm trying something new. I also don't MP, so I do not have an optimal build order for each faction.

Then you lower your taxes. You're basically saying you're upset that you have to deal with one of the main aspects of early game decision-making.

Cross colonizing planets doesn't tend to increase FIDS any real amount because you can only gain 1pop per system at a time, you have to wait until you've begun to pop cap planets, and by then you'll have the tech to increase approval (such as Colonial rights). Your main focus should never be on building tall in the early game (except for Harmony and Sowers who have strong cross colonization) but rather in expanding to new systems to gain exponential empire growth.



And unless you're playing in harder than Normal the AI doesn't have any real effective bonuses.

"Happiness Rate" is something that really confused me for the longest time. I think that a better name for it would be something along the lines of "Logistic Efficiency" or "Government Spending" or "Economic Maintenance". It would make it make much more sense to the average player (i.e., me). If you spend Dust on Logistic Efficiency you produce more goods, but you get less Dust back in the budget to spend elsewhere. Alternatively, you could take Dust out of the Logistic Efficiency Budget and keep it for other expenses, you'll get more money, but your economy will be less efficient. It makes much more sense than, our people are unhappy because we get money out of them rather than hard labor in the factories.

Autocthon wrote:
Cross colonizing planets doesn't tend to increase FIDS any real amount because you can only gain 1pop per system at a time, you have to wait until you've begun to pop cap planets, and by then you'll have the tech to increase approval (such as Colonial rights). Your main focus should never be on building tall in the early game (except for Harmony and Sowers who have strong cross colonization) but rather in expanding to new systems to gain exponential empire growth.



And unless you're playing in harder than Normal the AI doesn't have any real effective bonuses.

To add on to what you said, early T2 planets are still pretty damn useless. You need to actually have decent population growth, and that generally requires techs you acquire later in the game - if you don't start with Sustainible Farms, your first planet probably shouldn't be a planet with 1 per opulation:, for example.

I do not populate planets in the system until the first colony planet has hit max population. I play on harder than normal.

All T2 planets have 2 per opulation:, unless you're the sowers. Then you just don't bother with non tundra non lava planets (ever)

Nasarog wrote:
I do not populate planets in the system until the first colony planet has hit max population. I play on harder than normal.

This could potentially be a problem. A rather large one.

Autocthon wrote:
All T2 planets have 2 per opulation:, unless you're the sowers. Then you just don't bother with non tundra non lava planets (ever)

With the FIDS changes in Disharmony I just don't know anymore. Thanks for pointing it out.

Fenrakk101 wrote:
This could potentially be a problem. A rather large one.

How so, maybe that will explain where I am going wrong.