yellow / red planets

[CKHO2]

I have read one post here somewhere b4 said that it is expensive to keep a terraformed planet. is it true? I read that guy said he have a yellow hab ring planet that he terraformed and the cost of keeping the terraformed planet is so expensive that the planet have hardly any money left for production. Can anyone shine some light? I havent play the game much since the patch and now I only colonizing those greens. sadly and leaving all the yellow and reds untouch.

[Breschau]

Haven't really paid attention to the costs, but in the absence of a mixed race empire (to make more of those red/yellow into green) I still just colonise everything. At least once the more readily available greens are taken.

Even if that is the case though, you can still get some use out of them - cover them in mines (for minerals and any left-over cash), recreations (cash and unrest reduction - with good enough tech the unrest modifier is meant to spread to nearby planets and systems) and militarys (same reason as recreation, just without the cash).

And even with limited cash from paying for terraforming, even some left for industry or research is better than nothing. As long as it's not actually losing you money overall.

[CKHO2]

yea but then it be better to save it for when I got other race to colonize it (since its behind chock and I have other planets there to claim the system and I have ships there prevent other race colonize it.)

[ethmoid]

I have noticed that colonizing yellow 1 or better is the best way to go innitially. If you colonize the less desirable planets you are getting in the way of any magnate or conquered species who can better utilize these worlds. Take the "good ones" for your particular species, go for the yellows if they are rich in minerals or have specials you can't pass up and then just pass the time until your citizens choose to migrate to the world on their own. You would be better off using your rescources to expand your empire to toher systems than to force a fit on an inhospitable world.

[zanzibar]

I say go with yellow 1 or better until you discover the bio-tech that allows you to grow food on red 1 or better planets :)

[CKHO2]

acturally food wasnt a problems casue I got lots green planet making them but I was afraid of paying the bill to upkeep yellow/red planets in green hab condition.

[ethmoid]

I take the "lazy man's" aproach to planetary colonization. Why bust your butt to develop a red 1 or 2 when some magnate species or a conquered species will rush in there and do it for you, growing food and breeding like crazy. Each to their own.

[Da_Blade]

I agree with most here. Though red1/2's can be definately worth it if you're in dire mineral need.

Terraforming does not need upkeep (unlike popular belief), better said, i have not been able to find ANY evidence that it does. And if it does, it doesn;t need it in big amounts.

But terraforming is a costly business, especially early game. This does not mean you shouldn't colonize red at all, since sometimes you will simply be forced too (no room for expansion, need minerals, need production, etc).

I have a savegame of a nommo empire which had almost exclusively red planets within it's colonizable space, i managed to win with them nonetheless. If you have a magnate or different race which can colonize the red planet, or you foresee having a race anytime soon, i would advice waiting. If you don't, and want the planet badly, go ahead. I often colonize size 12 gas giants no matter what race i play, especially if they're on choke points. Just because i know they will be important planets at some time in the future, even if it will take another 50 turns.

[King's Specter]

Will terraformed planets ever revert back to their original state if you wipe out the population?

[RobNelson]

In another thread, Da_Blade said that they do not. I've never noticed one way or another, so can neither confirm nor deny Da_Blade's observation.

[Da_Blade]

Originally posted by King's Specter
Will terraformed planets ever revert back to their original state if you wipe out the population?

If you terraform them, yes. None of you ever exterminated an ithkul in late game? Never noticed how each and every planet they once infested in now some ice-covered hellhole?

Now, i must say these have been mere observations on my side, i'd be glad to be proven otherwise.

[King's Specter]

Originally posted by Da_Blade
If you terraform them, yes. None of you ever exterminated an ithkul in late game? Never noticed how each and every planet they once infested in now some ice-covered hellhole?


It was a beautiful thing, though. I caught them half-way done, so all those hot gas giants were green2 for me!!! But they will stay where the Ithkul left them unless you move in and terraform them?

[Da_Blade]

AFAIK, yes

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by King's Specter
It was a beautiful thing, though. I caught them half-way done, so all those hot gas giants were green2 for me!!! But they will stay where the Ithkul left them unless you move in and terraform them?

Just checked a partially terraformed planet that remained uncolonized (post glassing) for 115 turns. Atmosphere and Temperature values were identical, so there appears to be no "reversion" taking place (as Blade postulated).

I must admit, it would be a nice feature if planets did slowly revert to pre-terraformed values, but not exactly a high priority.

Bh

[Orionator]

If terraforming becomes permanent with planetary change-of-ownership could you give away a planet with very expensive terraform upkeep costs then take it back next turn to eliminate that upkeep cost?

(Persumably you would "cede" the planet to an enemy so reconquering it wouldn't be a diplomatic problem ...)

[RobNelson]

You probably have to wait until they actually finish t-forming it until there's any benefit.

[Beamup]

Examining habitability.txt (which deals, among other things, with terraforming) may answer the question (or confuse the matter even more, one of the two). There is an entry which the notes claim is "the percent of terraform cost that maintenance costs," which is by default 5. However, there are other entries that are "needed for calculating maintenance degradation each turn."

Assuming, then, that these entries actually do something (not necessarily true), that suggests to me that terraforming does cost maintenance. BUT, once a planet is terraformed, that maintenance starts going down (maintenance degradation). So eventually, maintenance would be negligible or nonexistent - but not to start with.

This seems to me to be fully consistent with all the data.

[Bhruic]

Originally posted by Orionator
If terraforming becomes permanent with planetary change-of-ownership could you give away a planet with very expensive terraform upkeep costs then take it back next turn to eliminate that upkeep cost?

(Persumably you would "cede" the planet to an enemy so reconquering it wouldn't be a diplomatic problem ...)

No, the original temperature and atmosphere are stored as well as the modified (by terraforming) values. If you give it away and then take it over again, you will still have to pay the same amount for terraforming. Even if you bomb it to dust and resettle, you'll still have to pay.

Bh

[cousLee]

From what I have seen in my limited experience, is terraforming does not require maint. I have had planets that I put lots of AU into terraforming, to the point it got the circle/ for the slider. The circle/ never left. So it would appear that terraforming is permanent, no maint and has a max that it can be adjusted (with the given tech level).
No idea about how it gets handled when changing ownership, but doubt it would change the hability.

[Norfleet]

Given that my most profitable planets are now those formerly red2 planets that I terraformed into paradises, I have to say that whatever maintenance terraforming supposedly has, it can't be important enough to care about.

And Ithkul planets are neato, particularly if you have a hunamoid empire. Every single one of those "hellholes" is a shiny green-level world, waiting for you to colonize it after you glass the existing inhabitants off of it, which of course, you naturally want to do.

[rhyssan]

pre-patch (haven't gotten far enough in any one game post-1.2.5), Tform maintenance could be a bear. some testing done by various people seemed to indicate that if a planet is as terraformed as you can make it (no more tform tech available), the maintenance costs drop to nothing (or really close). but if you only have it partway done, including the case where you tformed it all the way, then got a new level which would allow you to tform it some more (so you lose the circle/), the maintenance costs are exhorbitant. certainly in my own games, where i've had R2 worlds and not been able to afford to tform them all the way up to my max tform ability, maintenance costs for a world with 1 DEA were just over 2k AU.

like i said, haven't checked yet with the 1.2.5 patch. but if that's still the case, you want to always have the planet either fully terraformed as far as you have the tech, or else don't do any at all... :(

-rhyssan

[cousLee]

Ok, now I feel like a blithering idiot. I was thinking "terraform maintenance" meant a fee to keep the planet in that new terraformed state. Was not thinking about DEA maint. :bulb:

I still think the 2k maint for 1 dea is a bug, but will certainly keep an eye out for what is going on with terraforming and what type of planet it is when I do see that again.

[rhyssan]

Originally posted by cousLee
Ok, now I feel like a blithering idiot. I was thinking "terraform maintenance" meant a fee to keep the planet in that new terraformed state. Was not thinking about DEA maint. :bulb:
don't. terraform maintenance is just what you thought - it just seems to go away (degrade rapidly to 0, in spreadsheet file terms) quickly once the planet is terraformed as high as you can do it. i think 2k maint for 1 DEA is absurd, even with rapid rot, global storms, hostile microbes or hostile gases (the big 4). and the worlds i had in that condition never got any better... :(

-rhyssan