• We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.

Stellaris Dev Diary #10 - The Spaceport and rare resources

Good news everyone! We are back with another dev diary! This time we’ll look at the spaceport.

Spaceports are permanent off-world installations that, depending on size, may support thousands of crew and inhabitants, acting almost as a city in itself. As the main hub for anything moving planetside it becomes a natural focus for interstellar trade and production as well as a vital strategic point in any conflict. All types of ships are built and serviced in the spaceport, from smaller vessels like science ships to enormous battleships. As it is too large for a construction ship to build, the spaceport is instead constructed by an established colony. When finished, the spaceport orbits the planet offering basic off-world defenses and the ability to construct and repair ships. The spaceport starts out small and can be upgraded in steps, a total of five times, where each upgrade adds additional toughness, damage output, the ability to build larger ships and most importantly additional module slots.

stellaris_dev_diary_10_01_20151123_station_modules.jpg


Modules are attachments that can be added to spaceports, allowing further specialization or utility. Like many other things in Stellaris, some modules may only be available to empires of a specific ethos while others may be the result of a rare scientific breakthrough. Their effects can range from additional defenses (Reinforced Hull Structure for added toughness, Fighter Squadron to combat raiders), benefits to economy (Hydroponic Farms to grow additional food, Solar Panels to gather energy) and ship support (Crew Quarters for lowered upkeep of ships while docked) as well as refining and utilizing different rare resources. This all comes at a cost of course. A fully upgraded and equipped spaceport is a huge investment and the loss of one may alter the course of a war.

A rare resource is any resource showing an abnormal or useful behavior when processed. The uses can range from financial to destructive and some resources offer multiple effects depending on their use. A source of Engos Vapor could either be used to boost the thruster speed of all ships built within the spaceport or be pumped into the local atmosphere to soothe the local populace. Monopolizing a few of these resources offers great potential for a trade empire to flourish, or a warlike one to take whatever else they desire.

stellaris_dev_diary_10_02_20151123_exotic_resources.jpg


We’d like for spaceports to be something players customize and develop according to their playstyle, either by covering weak areas or further enhancing their strengths. The decision where, when and with what modules to build a spaceport will also be heavily influenced by the planet it orbits and how close it is to potential danger.
The rare resources should ideally provide a source of power and tension in the game. We’ve seen some players go for strategies based on controlling specific resources while some players prefer a more opportunistic approach, adapting to whatever they might happen upon. Others simply prefer to grab everything they can to better control where, and by who, they are used. Why risk the uncertainty of war when supplying both sides with the means of destruction ensures profit regardless of outcome?

(We’ll discuss further details on trade at some point in a future dev diary.)

P.S. I forgot to mention, next weeks dev diary will cover the technology system!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • 111
  • 45
  • 1
Reactions:
Question for any devs. Is the wormhole station linked to spacestations? Or is it a different mechanic?
 
Last edited:
It's what we have been doing our entire history my friend, and it's a much stranger idea to ship the materials to build the ship of to space to be assembled there when you could just assemble it where all of the materials are ready and available.

Since at least three other people have explained why you are wrong, I will just give a counter example to your "it's what we have been doing our entire history" line: The ISS.

And Mir as well. And that space station the Chinese are going to do.

Do we assume that all the species in the universe function as humans and rats does ? This is pretty boring and restricted as far as Sci-fi goes. It would mean every species is water/carbon based lifeform breathing oxygen and that the conditions for life are mostly the same as earth.

It's also as valid an assumption for the likely path of alien life as "alien life is wildly different from any life we know of, or can imagine". We simply don't know.

Now, as to the rest - yes it is restricted, though perhaps not to the extent you seem to think, there's a pretty decent range of potential types of life form that would find Venus face meltingly hot and poisonous, doesn't mean they're all water-based oxygen breathing life forms: all the description of the toxic world says is that this particular world is so ridiculously hostile that literally nothing can live there.

The final part, that it is boring, is subjective. To me, there are two different game play dynamics you get when you have when you have species that like radically different types of planet vs species that like basically the same types of planets. In the first, you get pretty much every planet ending up colonised and empires co-existing in almost the same spaces; In Space Empires V it's not uncommon to see empires of rock dwellers and gas giant dwellers sharing pretty much the same territories, but with the gas giant guys on all the gas giants and rock guys on all the rocky planets. Whereas if you've got fewer planets, you tend to see sparser colonization with more well defined territories. I tend to prefer the latter. Everything we've seen from Stalleris so far indicates that the latter is also what they're going for: some worlds are just uncolonizable, colony caps early game, etc.
 
  • 4
Reactions:
Now, as to the rest - yes it is restricted, though perhaps not to the extent you seem to think, there's a pretty decent range of potential types of life form that would find Venus face meltingly hot and poisonous, doesn't mean they're all water-based oxygen breathing life forms: all the description of the toxic world says is that this particular world is so ridiculously hostile that literally nothing can live there.

And yet venus atmosphere is 96% CO2 a harmless gas. It's mostly the pressure and temperature that would kill anything going close to the surface (and even makes the CO2 goes supercritical, if it wasn't enough already), which kinda fits with the in game description that nothing will ever live there (i'm assuming Venus will be a "toxic world" in game), even with the best space suits in the world, and would make terraformation pretty much impossible.

Then what about Titan ? Titan is toxic. For us anyway. It's a planet where liquid methane fall from the sky. But maybe there some weird methane based lifeforms hiding in the ocean (very unlikely i know) ?
More likely we could probably be able to set up a colony there with adequat spacesuits and habitat, unlike venus where anything we would throw at it would become a blob of matter. So how do you do the distinction with these 2 very different kind of toxic planets ? Having a set of variables in game to determine the planet's "qualities" would allow for much better game mechanism since every planet would literally be different and not just a generic template.

My point is that toxic is vague, everything in the solar system except earth is toxic for us for a variety of reason.
Just as "barren world" we saw in another screenshot. the Moon is barren, Mercury is barren too. We would probably be able to set up a colony on the moon and happily jump on its surface (wait we actually did the latter), but this is something that we won't do on Mercury because anything close would probably melt.

Those definitions are already too vague for what we know. And in my mind really restrict the gameplay around very simple concepts that doesn't actually portrays what we know about space, this is what i find kinda sad.
 
  • 10
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions:
Spaceports are permanent off-world installations that, depending on size, may support thousands of crew and inhabitants, acting almost as a city in itself. As the main hub for anything moving planetside it becomes a natural focus for interstellar trade and production as well as a vital strategic point in any conflict.

So, basically this:

 
  • 4
  • 1Haha
Reactions:
And yet venus atmosphere is 96% CO2 a harmless gas. It's mostly the pressure and temperature that would kill anything going close to the surface (and even makes the CO2 goes supercritical, if it wasn't enough already), which kinda fits with the in game description that nothing will ever live there (i'm assuming Venus will be a "toxic world" in game), even with the best space suits in the world, and would make terraformation pretty much impossible.

Well, that and the clouds of sulphur dioxide, that acid rain that only doesn't reach the surface because of the intense heat makes it evaporate, the metallic "snow" that appears to be some kind of lead sulphide and the chlorine in the upper atmosphere. God knows what nastiness is in the soil. Scientists agree; Venus wants to wipe it's ass with your curtains.

(i'm assuming Venus will be a "toxic world" in game),

It is, look at the graphic of the toxic world in the DD screenshot, then go back and look at Venus in the Solar system screenshot in one of the earlier DDs. They're the same.

Then what about Titan ? Titan is toxic. For us anyway. It's a planet where liquid methane fall from the sky. But maybe there some weird methane based lifeforms hiding in the ocean (very unlikely i know) ?
More likely we could probably be able to set up a colony there with adequat spacesuits and habitat, unlike venus where anything we would throw at it would become a blob of matter. So how do you do the distinction with these 2 very different kind of toxic planets ?

Toxic World world is probably short for "Really Very Toxic World, Don't Even Bother".

Having a set of variables in game to determine the planet's "qualities" would allow for much better game mechanism since every planet would literally be different and not just a generic template.

Master of Orion 3 did it this way. It turns out, you didn't care about any of that stuff, just whether it was in the green, yellow or red habitation ring. Can I put my dudes on this world, and if I do how much will they hate it? That's what you want to know. Not "Survay report: Bellerophon IV. This world appears superficially habitable, with 0.87g, 19% O2 in the atmosphere and large bodies of surface water. But the bizarre biology of the local flora means that the atmosphere also contains at least 37 chemical compounds never before encountered by science and each of which is spectacularly fatal to humans. The 300 mph winds may also prove challenging to colonization efforts. The soil is laced with arsenic, and there's only a weak magnetic field so the surface is wildly radioactive. In summery: no."

Just as "barren world" we saw in another screenshot. the Moon is barren, Mercury is barren too. We would probably be able to set up a colony on the moon and happily jump on its surface (wait we actually did the latter), but this is something that we won't do on Mercury because anything close would probably melt.

Mercury's day time surface temperature is "only" about 400c, about twice as hot as a common oven less than half of what space craft experience during re-entry; I don't imagine constructing liveable enclosed habitats on the surface would be much beyond an advanced civilisation. The night side is less than -200 below and some craters on the poles may be deep enough to be in perpetual darkness; we could build habitats there and be more worried about being frozen to death than being burned alive.

Why anyone would want to bother is another question entirely.

Those definitions are already too vague for what we know. And in my mind really restrict the gameplay around very simple concepts that doesn't actually portrays what we know about space, this is what i find kinda sad.

I prefer vague definitions, actually. Without being specific about what makes a toxic world toxic the game can potentially encompass far more planet types than it could if it came up with some metrics about atmosphere and temperature and so on. There's more to habitability than just atmosphere composition and temperature.
 
Last edited:
  • 11
  • 1
Reactions:
Well, obviously the model has to be larger than what would be realistic, otherwise you wouldn't really see it. Just like with the ships.
So...we can't build a planet sized Death Star? :p
 
Cheers for the DD Jormungandur and further deets Grekulf :). lol at the 'first' :p. These Spaceports and the unique resources sound interesting - a good way of further personalising worlds by limiting how many modules can be put on it. Would be cool if it's possible to start off with a 'border' spaceport that's more defensively focussed, and as the empire and planet expands slowly convert it into more of an economic thing that's appropriate to the planet it orbits (which sounds like it is, all being well :)).
 
Will it be possible to move the spaceports from one planet to another (possibly by means of some module which allows it?)
Furthermore is it possible to build into said spaceport planet busting weapons? Atm the best model for a death star would be such a space-station...
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Just a small thing but, I noticed the button 'terraform' in one of the screenshots. Yea nearly every game uses it. But i Think it is not very fitting if there isn't any Terra, or you aren't from there. Which i guess most wount be.

Therefor I think the term 'Planetform' would be much better for this.
 
  • 12
Reactions:
Just a small thing but, I noticed the button 'terraform' in one of the screenshots. Yea nearly every game uses it. But i Think it is not very fitting if there isn't any Terra, or you aren't from there. Which i guess most wount be.

Therefor I think the term 'Planetform' would be much better for this.

Terraform means making something like Earth. Planetform would mean making something like a planet, which would be pretty vague. If you want to find a non-earth centric term you'd have to use a word meaning "to make something suitable for life" rather than "making something like a planet"
 
  • 1
Reactions:
So, basically this:


Speaking of Babylon 5:

1) Can we have populations on our space stations?
2) Can we make space ports over uninhabited worlds?
 
  • 1
Reactions:
Terraform means making something like Earth. Planetform would mean making something like a planet, which would be pretty vague. If you want to find a non-earth centric term you'd have to use a word meaning "to make something suitable for life" rather than "making something like a planet"


'Bioform' maybe then
 
  • 3
Reactions:
Just a small thing but, I noticed the button 'terraform' in one of the screenshots. Yea nearly every game uses it. But i Think it is not very fitting if there isn't any Terra, or you aren't from there. Which i guess most wount be.

Therefor I think the term 'Planetform' would be much better for this.

I like that you criticized a viewpoint that assumed an Earth based terminology, but are just fine with Chiron based terminology. Planetform's obvious drawback as a term is that it presupposes you will re-engineer planets to be covered in intelligent fungus, which is not likely for non-fungoid life forms.

On the topic, though, I do hope an intelligent or semi-intelligent Planet like life form makes an appearance as an easter egg anomaly.
 
This game is looking really good. I love the illustrations. The resource concept is good, really looking forward to how the trade system works. My favorite part is the modules for the space stations. I am hoping for some tough decisions regarding those.

Lastly, the science vessel "Courageous Plumage" is very well named. Whoever came up with that, you have my compliments.
 
Will we be able to "scrap" or decommission modules on spaceports and replace them with more useful ones as the situation changes?

For example, a spaceport may need defensive upgrades when it is on the frontier, but as the frontier expands and the spaceport is no longer in immediate danger I may wish to change the spaceport from a defensive focus to an economic focus.
 
If we capture a spaceport from another empire, can we use (not build) the modules that they have put on it that we cannot due to our ethos or scientific reasons, or will they be rendered useless?
 
I find it a tad impractical to build ships on a space port where (since there are no raw materials on an artificial installation) you have to ship its materials from a nearby celestial body. It would be much easier/cheaper to build the ship on that planet where materials and industry are plentiful. Will this be reflected in the game?

Well and how are you supposed to get an Superdreagnought of Planet? Ballons? :)
 
Every week it's getting more exciting.
 
  • 3
  • 1
Reactions: