Edit: Keep in mind that this was written way back in June 2016. 1.2 came out 3 days after me writing this. But recent developments have brought me to revise that idea.
Sooner or later every Space 4x game will include some way to make a Mechanic or not-conventional organics race - leftovers from previous civilisations, the post-rebellious machines.
I think one of the worst parts to realise this would be to have only 1-2 traits (as we have with Robots through Synths) to conflate all the stuff that makes a interesting Synthethic race.
Instead we should have a set of traits, each one supporting one aspect. So the player can choose what applies to "thier" robot race and what not.
I see the following traits usually applied to robots:
Lack of Happiness.
While explicit not a thing for any Sentient Pops (even Synths) maybe we should not so quick to write it off. Maybe somebody wants to roleplay as the Borg, Zerg, Zor (Gal Civ) or Opteris (Star Drive 2).
In Stellaris this would have to take the form of both Fixed Happiness and "no Ethos", both of wich make it a double edged blade: Sure your management is easier, but a enemy conquerors ability to control your people would be even higher. And "every system you dodged, is a system you can not master", as I like to say.
And conquered people would usually not have this atribute until you "retrofit" it unto them (or you have to deal with them staying affected by it).
Alternatively if conquered the people might change to a trait called "Freed", wich operates like the "Uplifted" trait - bonus happiness to thier Liberator.
Evaluation: 0 to negative cost during creation. But adding this too a species that you (re)conquered should propably cost some GE points anyway.
Non-Psionic:
It should be impossible to build Psi-Armies from Robots and the descripton of Robot/Android armies says they are immune to moral breaking. However some degree of seperation between game and special effect is needed. "Psi" only means "exceptional morale damage". Morale damage can also imply stuff like assinating leaders.
A Psi Warrior attached to a normal/gene warrior army could just as well be a Starcraft Ghost assinating the enemy Command structure using Sniper Rifle and Nuke-Sniping - even on a Xenomorph or Robot army.
Breaking morale can just as well mean "command structure collapsed".
There might be some argument for them not having Psionics tech access but having forced Robot access, even as Spiritualist.
Evaluation: +/-0 perhaps? It allows them to "accept" stuff like "AI Rights" and even "AI useage" while spiritualist, but locks out Psionic tech for good (unless you add alien Leaders).
Energy Eater:
In Stellaris robots can not process Food - ever - but instead have a energy maintenance cost.
At it's core, Energy is the better resource. The simple advantage is that energy is shard amongs planets within the sector/inside the empire. As a side effect, a species like this should also treat energy rather then food as thier "never stop working" resource (even at worse happiness, people still work food tiles without issue; and even at shortage, food production continues to work). This might require some recoding of the Shortage penalties, however.
But why are robots totally unable to eat food? Why not give them a "Bio-reactor" that is designed totake in some for of food?
"Food" is already abstracted to be compatible with every species you might have on the planet. Dietary requirements for Avians and Reptiloids might be utterly different, yet they all eat the same food.
Why could you not produce "Food" that is ideal for processing in a robots Bio-reactor?
Evaluation: +1 at least for "Energy only". It is a considerable advantage. More for the "Food first, then energy" variant.
Buildable body (stateeffort reproduction vs individualist reproduction):
Humans Grow. Robots are build. Wich is usually simulated by a build menu option for new Pops. But does this distinct make as much sense? And only for those two? Or should it be a more generalised trait?
First let us talk about the two extremes:
- Individualist Reporduction: The humanly designed way is for 1 man and 1 women to like each other. Make a baby. Raise it. The effort might be subsidized in various ways (Motherhood Vacation, Freed Education), but overall it is a thing between those two people.
- Stateeffort reproduction in turn is a state effort. You have to build hundreds of millions of Robots to make up one pop (a comon figure is 500 million to 1 billion humans per pop).
But what if two Synths like one another very much and decided to take up a energy credit to afford the building of a new Synth? Is that not like the way Organic reproduce?
Or what if a species somehow engineered the reproduction ability out of themself and instead relied on stuff like mass cloning?
Or what if they are energy/gas being that reproduce normally, but need to build body to function on the organic level?
Or what if there is state based population control (similar to what slaves experience) in a collectivist regime, that limtis wich tiles pops can grow onto?
Having a build body can be beneficial in other ways, as the body can be build for the current climate - increasing habitability.
Evaluation: If no special advanages exist, Statebased Reproduction is about as viable as natural one. Below 5 pops, the 30 months per pop is actually detrimental.
However if secondary ability like adapting to habitat exist, this is getting quite a powerfull boost. Possibly too powerfull to even implement (for mere trait point cost) for a starting race.
Any thoughts on this?
Did I miss any property of Organics vs Machines you would want seperated out into distinct traits?
Sooner or later every Space 4x game will include some way to make a Mechanic or not-conventional organics race - leftovers from previous civilisations, the post-rebellious machines.
I think one of the worst parts to realise this would be to have only 1-2 traits (as we have with Robots through Synths) to conflate all the stuff that makes a interesting Synthethic race.
Instead we should have a set of traits, each one supporting one aspect. So the player can choose what applies to "thier" robot race and what not.
I see the following traits usually applied to robots:
Lack of Happiness.
While explicit not a thing for any Sentient Pops (even Synths) maybe we should not so quick to write it off. Maybe somebody wants to roleplay as the Borg, Zerg, Zor (Gal Civ) or Opteris (Star Drive 2).
In Stellaris this would have to take the form of both Fixed Happiness and "no Ethos", both of wich make it a double edged blade: Sure your management is easier, but a enemy conquerors ability to control your people would be even higher. And "every system you dodged, is a system you can not master", as I like to say.
And conquered people would usually not have this atribute until you "retrofit" it unto them (or you have to deal with them staying affected by it).
Alternatively if conquered the people might change to a trait called "Freed", wich operates like the "Uplifted" trait - bonus happiness to thier Liberator.
Evaluation: 0 to negative cost during creation. But adding this too a species that you (re)conquered should propably cost some GE points anyway.
Non-Psionic:
It should be impossible to build Psi-Armies from Robots and the descripton of Robot/Android armies says they are immune to moral breaking. However some degree of seperation between game and special effect is needed. "Psi" only means "exceptional morale damage". Morale damage can also imply stuff like assinating leaders.
A Psi Warrior attached to a normal/gene warrior army could just as well be a Starcraft Ghost assinating the enemy Command structure using Sniper Rifle and Nuke-Sniping - even on a Xenomorph or Robot army.
Breaking morale can just as well mean "command structure collapsed".
There might be some argument for them not having Psionics tech access but having forced Robot access, even as Spiritualist.
Evaluation: +/-0 perhaps? It allows them to "accept" stuff like "AI Rights" and even "AI useage" while spiritualist, but locks out Psionic tech for good (unless you add alien Leaders).
Energy Eater:
In Stellaris robots can not process Food - ever - but instead have a energy maintenance cost.
At it's core, Energy is the better resource. The simple advantage is that energy is shard amongs planets within the sector/inside the empire. As a side effect, a species like this should also treat energy rather then food as thier "never stop working" resource (even at worse happiness, people still work food tiles without issue; and even at shortage, food production continues to work). This might require some recoding of the Shortage penalties, however.
But why are robots totally unable to eat food? Why not give them a "Bio-reactor" that is designed totake in some for of food?
"Food" is already abstracted to be compatible with every species you might have on the planet. Dietary requirements for Avians and Reptiloids might be utterly different, yet they all eat the same food.
Why could you not produce "Food" that is ideal for processing in a robots Bio-reactor?
Evaluation: +1 at least for "Energy only". It is a considerable advantage. More for the "Food first, then energy" variant.
Buildable body (stateeffort reproduction vs individualist reproduction):
Humans Grow. Robots are build. Wich is usually simulated by a build menu option for new Pops. But does this distinct make as much sense? And only for those two? Or should it be a more generalised trait?
First let us talk about the two extremes:
- Individualist Reporduction: The humanly designed way is for 1 man and 1 women to like each other. Make a baby. Raise it. The effort might be subsidized in various ways (Motherhood Vacation, Freed Education), but overall it is a thing between those two people.
- Stateeffort reproduction in turn is a state effort. You have to build hundreds of millions of Robots to make up one pop (a comon figure is 500 million to 1 billion humans per pop).
But what if two Synths like one another very much and decided to take up a energy credit to afford the building of a new Synth? Is that not like the way Organic reproduce?
Or what if a species somehow engineered the reproduction ability out of themself and instead relied on stuff like mass cloning?
Or what if they are energy/gas being that reproduce normally, but need to build body to function on the organic level?
Or what if there is state based population control (similar to what slaves experience) in a collectivist regime, that limtis wich tiles pops can grow onto?
Having a build body can be beneficial in other ways, as the body can be build for the current climate - increasing habitability.
Evaluation: If no special advanages exist, Statebased Reproduction is about as viable as natural one. Below 5 pops, the 30 months per pop is actually detrimental.
However if secondary ability like adapting to habitat exist, this is getting quite a powerfull boost. Possibly too powerfull to even implement (for mere trait point cost) for a starting race.
Any thoughts on this?
Did I miss any property of Organics vs Machines you would want seperated out into distinct traits?
Last edited:
- 1
- 1
Upvote
0
