Rush buying on a desolate planet

[awesome]

Well, notice I said "realistically." I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd go on an expedition to a planet in a far off solar system or galaxy if I didn't get paid for it.
You probably won't start out with any energy, same as most games...but maybe you will. It took a lot of energy to get to the planet, after all, so I'm sure you have some extra and maybe even the expertise to convert it into the currency-style energy. There are a lot of ways this can play out.

 

[3of5]

Well, notice I said "realistically." I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd go on an expedition to a planet in a far off solar system or galaxy if I didn't get paid for it.

All of the leaders we have seen thus far don't embark on the voyage for the paycheck, but lets imagine for a minute that they would: what are you going to do with your big mission bonus, when you are the leader of a fledgling colony on an alien planet 400 years from the next currency based economy? Any leftover energy the ship would be able to muster would go straight into the construction of the colony. Holding some back for personal gain might not be looked well upon by your fellow starving colonists, depending on cultural backgrund it might even be considered theft (not for Fielding obviously, which seems to be BEs Morgan).

I just don't think that a survival economy would be currency based. This would change later obviously, when survival is not the main focus of the colonists any more, giving room to a free market economy.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well, notice I said "realistically." I don't know about you, but I don't think I'd go on an expedition to a planet in a far off solar system or galaxy if I didn't get paid for it.
You probably won't start out with any energy, same as most games...but maybe you will. It took a lot of energy to get to the planet, after all, so I'm sure you have some extra and maybe even the expertise to convert it into the currency-style energy. There are a lot of ways this can play out.

Your getting paid with the expedition itself... ie you have been given control over a bunch of people's lives and resources.*
(and exclusive** exploitation rights to an entire planet..between yourself and the other members of the expedition)

So your 'payment' is the hammer output of the colony.. and you use that to "buy" whatever you want


* now that control may be through money... ie all members of the expedition are paid a wage, and then have to pay you for things like air and water... so effectively you control their lives with the money rather than rush building anything
**other factions may not recognize the exclusivity of that right

 

[awesome]

Your getting paid with the expedition itself... ie you have been given control over a bunch of people's lives and resources.*
(and exclusive** exploitation rights to an entire planet..between yourself and the other members of the expedition)

So your 'payment' is the hammer output of the colony.. and you use that to "buy" whatever you want


* now that control may be through money... ie all members of the expedition are paid a wage, and then have to pay you for things like air and water... so effectively you control their lives with the money rather than rush building anything
**other factions may not recognize the exclusivity of that right

That's one way to look at it, but hardly the only way (which you imply by your use of "ie," though I'm sure you actually mean "eg." Semantics, sure, but it's a pet peeve because so many people use it wrong).
Anyway, the Earth factions (and/or their sponsors) are obviously expecting some kind of return on their investment, so I wouldn't say that exclusive rights are really the assumption. If anything, it's probably a Purity victory condition followed by the Earth's governors being in charge again (though the kavitha protectorate might be an exception to that general assumption).

 

[3of5]

Survival as a species might be its own reward. Not putting all the eggs in one basket. From what the Devs told us, seeding missions did not only fly to one single planet but to different ones in reach. But planet seems to be the first (judging from the leaders bios).

You're arguing like Wu An and Liang Fang-Kar... every possible ROI for the people staying behind on earth would be purely speculative and impossible to calculate (there is 800 years of travel time in between). This is more like parents sending away their children, because they know they will be safer elsewhere. Thousands of London families choose to do this during WWII and they surely did not speculate on some return on investment?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

That's one way to look at it, but hardly the only way (which you imply by your use of "ie," though I'm sure you actually mean "eg." Semantics, sure, but it's a pet peeve because so many people use it wrong).
Anyway, the Earth factions (and/or their sponsors) are obviously expecting some kind of return on their investment, so I wouldn't say that exclusive rights are really the assumption. If anything, it's probably a Purity victory condition followed by the Earth's governors being in charge again (though the kavitha protectorate might be an exception to that general assumption).

I don't think the sponsors are really expecting any return. (actually I meant ie... the way you control people through money is by buying and selling with them)

It takes you 400 years to get to the planet, and assuming it a normal civ game length, you don't get back to Earth for another 200-400 Years

The sponsors are either investing in a project with zero return and zero control over its ongoing progress for 600-800 years. (and a possibility of complete failure)

The sponsors are like patrons of the arts... they are not backing the seeding for any actual return to them, they are backing it because

1. They believe it is a good thing to do (because humanity will stagnate and die otherwise)
and/or
2. They want to look good to other people who believe #1
and/or
3. They want to have some influence on what humanity looks like in the future (sort of like a reason for having kids/writing down your philosophy even if you the kids/royalties won't be able to take care of you in your old age)


***Note it is possible the sponsors are actually looking to turn a profit, but you would have to assume that humans are now effectively immortal (maybe that is the great mistake... a simple cheap anti-aging treatment upended society)

 

[SupremacyKing]

The sponsors are like patrons of the arts... they are not backing the seeding for any actual return to them, they are backing it because

1. They believe it is a good thing to do (because humanity will stagnate and die otherwise)
and/or
2. They want to look good to other people who believe #1
and/or
3. They want to have some influence on what humanity looks like in the future (sort of like a reason for having kids/writing down your philosophy even if you the kids/royalties won't be able to take care of you in your old age)


***Note it is possible the sponsors are actually looking to turn a profit, but you would have to assume that humans are now effectively immortal (maybe that is the great mistake... a simple cheap anti-aging treatment upended society)

I could see someone like Fielding of ARC looking at the Seeding as an investment because if she shows that ARC is capable of something as complex as sending an interstellar ship to another planet then she could get more contracts to help others with their Seeding. Similar to SpaceX demonstrating that they can send cargo to ISS as a way of getting contracts taking other people's cargo to space. So the investment would be on Earth rather than in the expedition itself.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I could see someone like Fielding of ARC looking at the Seeding as an investment because if she shows that ARC is capable of something as complex as sending an interstellar ship to another planet then she could get more contracts to help others with their Seeding. Similar to SpaceX demonstrating that they can send cargo to ISS as a way of getting contracts taking other people's cargo to space. So the investment would be on Earth rather than in the expedition itself.

(Which I would put as #2 there... looking good to others)

 

[Lancor]

Is turn 1 not the "outpost that grows into a settlement" time with different game mechanics? I bet rush buying works differently then too.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Is turn 1 not the "outpost that grows into a settlement" time with different game mechanics? I bet rush buying works differently then too.

I think on turn one you get a full settlement... I hope it is only 2,3,4th etc. cities that take time to grow.

 

[awesome]

You're arguing like Wu An and Liang Fang-Kar

i don't know who those people are.

... every possible ROI for the people staying behind on earth would be purely speculative and impossible to calculate (there is 800 years of travel time in between). This is more like parents sending away their children, because they know they will be safer elsewhere. Thousands of London families choose to do this during WWII and they surely did not speculate on some return on investment?

you're assuming that the people on earth *know* that it's going to take 400 years. the closest solar system is less than 4 and a half light years away. there are at least eight others within 15 light years, so it's pretty probable that the seeding ships checked those out first before passing them up.
but, if we're going to assume that everybody knows it's going to take 400 years, then let's take a look at some of the factions: ARC is a corporation, so they definitely can get contracts from this. Franco-Iberia's critics say they're basically the Romans again, so I can see them wanting to expand their influence to other planets, same with Brazila.
and i don't see what this has to do with WWII, other than that they both involve devastation (and even then, WWII has nothing on this).

I don't think the sponsors are really expecting any return. (actually I meant ie... the way you control people through money is by buying and selling with them)
It takes you 400 years to get to the planet, and assuming it a normal civ game length, you don't get back to Earth for another 200-400 Years

The sponsors are either investing in a project with zero return and zero control over its ongoing progress for 600-800 years. (and a possibility of complete failure)

see comments above. do we really know for sure that everybody in-universe knows it's going to take 400 years?

The sponsors are like patrons of the arts... they are not backing the seeding for any actual return to them, they are backing it because

1. They believe it is a good thing to do (because humanity will stagnate and die otherwise)
and/or
2. They want to look good to other people who believe #1
and/or
3. They want to have some influence on what humanity looks like in the future (sort of like a reason for having kids/writing down your philosophy even if you the kids/royalties won't be able to take care of you in your old age)


***Note it is possible the sponsors are actually looking to turn a profit, but you would have to assume that humans are now effectively immortal (maybe that is the great mistake... a simple cheap anti-aging treatment upended society)

again, you guys are basing your assumptions on everybody knowing that it's going to take 400 years. but, even if that's the case, i still disagree that nobody wants a return on their investment. for example, if number 2 is true, then that usually implies that they expect something from it, even if it isn't directly from the space mission itself. you're looking at things in a vacuum.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

i don't know who those people are.
you're assuming that the people on earth *know* that it's going to take 400 years. the closest solar system is less than 4 and a half light years away. there are at least eight others within 15 light years, so it's pretty probable that the seeding ships checked those out first before passing them up.

You are assuming the seeding ships can go to a planet, check it out turn around and then go to another???

It seems much more likely that they used advanced telescopes to get some of the basics (size, temp, atmospheric compostion) and then went straight there.

Otherwise
1. You are assuming some type of low energy drive that works near light speed
and
2. If that was possible, then as soon as the settlers found a planet they should send the ship back to earth to let them know where they are and start ferrying supplies

but, if we're going to assume that everybody knows it's going to take 400 years, then let's take a look at some of the factions: ARC is a corporation, so they definitely can get contracts from this. Franco-Iberia's critics say they're basically the Romans again, so I can see them wanting to expand their influence to other planets, same with Brazila.
and i don't see what this has to do with WWII, other than that they both involve devastation (and even then, WWII has nothing on this).
see comments above. do we really know for sure that everybody in-universe knows it's going to take 400 years?

again, you guys are basing your assumptions on everybody knowing that it's going to take 400 years. but, even if that's the case, i still disagree that nobody wants a return on their investment. for example, if number 2 is true, then that usually implies that they expect something from it, even if it isn't directly from the space mission itself. you're looking at things in a vacuum.

What this stemmed from is the idea that you are 'paying' people to Go on the mission with rights to use the planet.. because the Sender isn't getting anything Back from the planet. (they just get to choose the people who Go, and pick people who will behave the way they want them too)

You might get something from the process of Sending, but you aren't expecting them to bring anything back.

 

[awesome]

You are assuming the seeding ships can go to a planet, check it out turn around and then go to another???

It seems much more likely that they used advanced telescopes to get some of the basics (size, temp, atmospheric compostion) and then went straight there.

Otherwise
1. You are assuming some type of low energy drive that works near light speed
and
2. If that was possible, then as soon as the settlers found a planet they should send the ship back to earth to let them know where they are and start ferrying supplies

i'm assuming advanced telescopes are in effect, but, i'm also assuming that part of the 400 years was spent sending robots to these planets to test all of that stuff (advanced telescopics will have limits even in the future).
but anyway, using today's speeds, an unmanned flight is currently in its eight year of an expected nine year flight to pluto, which is 7.5 billion kilometers from earth, so that's less than a billion kilometers per year. a light year is just under 10 trillion kilometers. so it's already going to take many thousands of years to even reach alpha centauri. gliese c, if you remember it from when they discovered it about 7 years ago, is about 20 light years away.
if we even use 1/4 light speed, that's 80 some odd years to gliese c, so, no, i'm not saying that there will be any benefit right away from the space mission, but the investors will expect something, like at least a publicity bump here on earth.

What this stemmed from is the idea that you are 'paying' people to Go on the mission with rights to use the planet.. because the Sender isn't getting anything Back from the planet. (they just get to choose the people who Go, and pick people who will behave the way they want them too)

You might get something from the process of Sending, but you aren't expecting them to bring anything back.

okay, so the leader gets to be the leader. i guess i'll concede that some people might be fine with that, but even in space, the settlers will probably set up an economy of some kind and i doubt it will be with energy. but i guess that's neither here nor there, difference of opinion.

 

[3of5]

i don't know who those people are.

Those two:
https://www.civilization.com/us/new...--the-story-behind-pac-leader-daoming-sochau/

you're assuming that the people on earth *know* that it's going to take 400 years. the closest solar system is less than 4 and a half light years away. there are at least eight others within 15 light years, so it's pretty probable that the seeding ships checked those out first before passing them up.

Why would they do that? Thats a huge waste of time and energy (not speaking of the risk involved). You'd analyze possible colonisation prospects with telescopes (atmospheric composition + indicators for life, gravity, rotational speed, temperature, presence of magnetic field...) build a huge seeding ship, packing it with all of the useful things you can think of (and then some more for redundancy, since you might only have one shot at this), freeze the best and brightest of your people, and then let that package propel itself for 200 years, reaching a fraction of lightspeed, and then decelerate for 200 years. If you could do it faster, you would, especcialy knowing that other factions are shooting for the same planet. No matter the scenario, when time is short you'd always send the seeding ship without waiting for the probes answers and you would try to keep travel time to a minimum (because electronics don't do that well under the hard radiation in space and many systems like the ships drive would be subject to attrition). Its a sprint not a sightseeing tour. In the meantime you build smaller ships with useful provisions and slightly stronger drives, so they would arrive roughly at the same time as the seeding ship (normally you'd park them in orbit and let the colonists coordinate reentry, but we are speaking of Civ, and therefore need goody huts), marginally increasing the main missions success. Any robot probes would take roughly 400 years to arrive too and keep in mind that the people on earth know that the launch window in which humanity is able to support such a seeding effort is closing fast due to ressource scarcity. Its now or never. This ressources will lack humanity in the years to come, therefore from a strictly utilitarian perspective it is a very unwise investment (humongous negative ROI). But one that could secure the very survival of mankind.

and i don't see what this has to do with WWII, other than that they both involve devastation (and even then, WWII has nothing on this).

Not with WWII per se, but it happpeneed during WWII that the London families in fear of german air raids brought their children to the relative safety of the countryside while they themselves continued to work in the capital. They could not all flee to the safer countryside so they at least saved their children. Not expecting return on investment, because if their action would have saved their childrens life it would be because a bomb would have hit their house in their sleep and they would be dead anyway. See the parallels? Not? Just stop looking for nazis and soldiers in that simile. See it now? At least read Narnia.

do we really know for sure that everybody in-universe knows it's going to take 400 years?

thats a basic assumption since its basic physics the street children of the Kavithan protectorate could explain to you in excruciating detail. Yes, we can assume that most humans know the details of the seeding.

again, you guys are basing your assumptions on everybody knowing that it's going to take 400 years. but, even if that's the case, i still disagree that nobody wants a return on their investment. for example, if number 2 is true, then that usually implies that they expect something from it, even if it isn't directly from the space mission itself. you're looking at things in a vacuum.

Yes, we assume that. And with good reasons, physics among them. The fact still remans that the huge investment has to be compared to other investments in term of profit. The seeding takes just about the whole production capability of the factions and yields a bit of goodwill and maybe some useful tech. Investing these ressources into the economy, or into intrasolar settlement and mining operations would yield far higher ROI for the people of earth, in which case you'd have to compare both scenarios to calculate the "economically rational" action. Compared with other possibilities the seeding yields far less than any other possibilities, therefore the seeding is a net loss for anyone staying behind. The only really big gain is the survival of mankinds offspring, and thats not very tangible for the people back on earth.

Lets put in terms, even business administration students would understand it: You have an apple. You could give it to your child to eat. You won't compare this option to letting it rot in your cellar (at least as BA student you would not). You will compare it to the cost of selling it / buying a new apple to replace it. Then calculate the ROI of your options under the assumption that it is the last time you see your child. Ever. Have fun

 

[salocin097]

Well why did we go to the moon? What ROI was there? We are going to send a Mars mission in the hopes of making a small colony. That's definitely a long term "investment" over the next potentially century. A lot of the people involved won't actually see a return in their lifetime for that. Maybe the 8 factions are seeding other planets for the Space Race reasons( like USA and USSR) to claim it first. I feel like very few people expect tangible return of $$ in their lifetime on this project

 

[SupremacyKing]

Let's not forget that Earth has just recovered from a Dark Age following The Great Mistake. So, humanity is now painfully aware that their time on Earth is running out. The return on investment has become the very survival of humanity as a species.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I doubt they would only send a few people to the new planet(s), they would likley send atleast millions of them + much more advanced technology then we know today which would likley make construction far easier atleast at the start which would represent why a colony is started as early as turn one.

Early food would probably be produced inside the colony probably in large greenhouse type of buildings maybe with the help of hydroculture.

The plants themself would have been made for maximum food production.
Maybe they also bring animals for the same reasons as plants.

I would think alot of the sponsors would follow to the colony they sponsored.

Ship would likley be accelerated with some kind of mass driver to extreamly high speed with everything caculated to allow the ship to reach the planet safely.

 

[boghog]

Well why did we go to the moon? What ROI was there?

I've heard that for every dollar spent on the Apollo missions 14$ went back into the American economy. A mission like that is definitely a job creation program and it incentivises development, science and technology which will benefit an economy enormously.

 

[salocin097]

I've heard that for every dollar spent on the Apollo missions 14$ went back into the American economy. A mission like that is definitely a job creation program and it incentivises development, science and technology which will benefit an economy enormously.

Fully unaware of that haha. But I feel like this mission( Civ:BE) is a "hey humanity dying. Let's try not to let that happen"

 

[3of5]

I've heard that for every dollar spent on the Apollo missions 14$ went back into the American economy. A mission like that is definitely a job creation program and it incentivises development, science and technology which will benefit an economy enormously.

Thats very impressive, normally you gain a ratio of 1:2 or 1:3 for good government investment, maybe more for infrastructure investment, but i have never heard of a 1:14 ratio.