Since we are comming up with a public review on the subject, looks talk about the generation of the galaxy, star systems and planets here.
One thing I think would be cool and we should discuss:
-Should we have star systems that have more than one sun?
I think minimum 1 star/sun in a system and maximum 3 (we have to have limits I guess).
We must think of the effects of these extra stars, such as three suns=very short night or the opposite, very short day, but 3 months night (like pitch black).
Galaxy/System/Planet Generation
Moderator: Oberlus
Star-Systems with 2 Suns in one System are pretty useless, because they have no effect.
Me as a student of physics would suggest:
Create Stars very close to each others. That way, it would make sense, and would be realistic. Double-Stars (is that the right english term?) Are very far apart from each other, so, if you're on a planet circling one Star you would only see the other star as bright as the moon. (plus minus a few magnitudes
So, you could have Two seperat Starsystems with planets, only with a very small distance (should be reached within one turn in moo2-terms)
Starting in a Double-Star-System could be a pick like large home planet.
Me as a student of physics would suggest:
Create Stars very close to each others. That way, it would make sense, and would be realistic. Double-Stars (is that the right english term?) Are very far apart from each other, so, if you're on a planet circling one Star you would only see the other star as bright as the moon. (plus minus a few magnitudes
So, you could have Two seperat Starsystems with planets, only with a very small distance (should be reached within one turn in moo2-terms)
Starting in a Double-Star-System could be a pick like large home planet.
hrm,
Initially I was 100% with Aquitaine on the binary star issue. A flat "No", because there's no compelling gameplay reason to include multistar systems.
First a little background: one of the ideas that will come up for review (probably tommorrow) is the notion that there are a number of Slots in each star system, numbered 1-whatever. Each slot can contain a planet, a gas gaint, an asteriod belt, or just an empty expanse of space--it's just a quick and dirty way of assigning distances to planets for the purpose of semi-logical planet distribution. For example, Radiated worlds are closer to the parent star, Tundra and Gas Gaints are futher out.
Just thought of an idea: let's say you can "colonize" things other than just terristal planets. If you colonize a gas gaint, you make a Gas Gaint Tap that collects Minerals and Energy (otherwise known as Cash). If you colonize an asteriod field, you make a Asteriod Mining Base that collects Minerals. If you colonize a star you make Solar Collector that collects Enegry/Cash in the form of solar power. And finally if you colonize an empty slot (empty space in between planets) you make a Starbase that performs a tiny touch of Research and Industry.
In Slot 0 of every system, we'd always have the parent star. In addition, there'd be a *small* chance of generating smaller companion stars in the planet slots. These stars would have no gameplay effect beyond making Radiated worlds more likely in the planet generation phase and giving the player another slot beyond Slot 0 to build Solar Collectors.
good idea? dumb idea? i dunno.
Initially I was 100% with Aquitaine on the binary star issue. A flat "No", because there's no compelling gameplay reason to include multistar systems.
First a little background: one of the ideas that will come up for review (probably tommorrow) is the notion that there are a number of Slots in each star system, numbered 1-whatever. Each slot can contain a planet, a gas gaint, an asteriod belt, or just an empty expanse of space--it's just a quick and dirty way of assigning distances to planets for the purpose of semi-logical planet distribution. For example, Radiated worlds are closer to the parent star, Tundra and Gas Gaints are futher out.
Just thought of an idea: let's say you can "colonize" things other than just terristal planets. If you colonize a gas gaint, you make a Gas Gaint Tap that collects Minerals and Energy (otherwise known as Cash). If you colonize an asteriod field, you make a Asteriod Mining Base that collects Minerals. If you colonize a star you make Solar Collector that collects Enegry/Cash in the form of solar power. And finally if you colonize an empty slot (empty space in between planets) you make a Starbase that performs a tiny touch of Research and Industry.
In Slot 0 of every system, we'd always have the parent star. In addition, there'd be a *small* chance of generating smaller companion stars in the planet slots. These stars would have no gameplay effect beyond making Radiated worlds more likely in the planet generation phase and giving the player another slot beyond Slot 0 to build Solar Collectors.
good idea? dumb idea? i dunno.
Maybe my approach to this project is over-simple, but my game design bible has two rules, and the first one is Keep it Simple, stupid.
I see no compelling reason to include second stars as anything except eye candy, and I'm not going to assign official resources to doing that. It falls squarely into the category of stuff that I'd gladly throw in if somebody out there contributed the graphics down the line.
I see no compelling reason to include second stars as anything except eye candy, and I'm not going to assign official resources to doing that. It falls squarely into the category of stuff that I'd gladly throw in if somebody out there contributed the graphics down the line.
Surprise and Terror! I am greeted by the smooth and hostile face of our old enemy, the Hootmans! No... the Huge-glands, no, I remember, the Hunams!
The jury's still out in my own head on wether or not it's a good idea. Just two quick points:
1: Presumably we could re-use the galaxy star graphics for the companion stars, and leave the task of making more detailed star pics open to general contribution.
2: The "colonys" not attached to planets (Solar Collectors, Gas Giant Taps, etc) would be very simple things...no population, no facilties/buidings, no classifications...just a set amount of resources added to the empire per turn in exchange for a small up-keep in Food. It's simlair in concept to those thingies you could build over distance resources in SMaC or Sid's Colonization.
The idea is born from the fact that I don't like how moo2 or moo3 treats gas giants. In moo2, they just kinda hang there doing squat until you get that bs planet creation technology. In moo3, they are treated like ordinary planets, which is just viciously wrong.
So if (and this is a big IF) gas giants are in the game, I'd like to be able to do a little something with them. And if we have the mechanism for "colonizing" a gas giant with a resource collector, it's easy peasy to extend the concept to include companion stars, asteriod fields, and maybe empty slots. (Plus it gives us a little range of techs to eventually include in the tree beyond just the generic new ship part/new facility rut.)
hrm, that was more than two points, and they weren't so quick.
1: Presumably we could re-use the galaxy star graphics for the companion stars, and leave the task of making more detailed star pics open to general contribution.
2: The "colonys" not attached to planets (Solar Collectors, Gas Giant Taps, etc) would be very simple things...no population, no facilties/buidings, no classifications...just a set amount of resources added to the empire per turn in exchange for a small up-keep in Food. It's simlair in concept to those thingies you could build over distance resources in SMaC or Sid's Colonization.
The idea is born from the fact that I don't like how moo2 or moo3 treats gas giants. In moo2, they just kinda hang there doing squat until you get that bs planet creation technology. In moo3, they are treated like ordinary planets, which is just viciously wrong.
So if (and this is a big IF) gas giants are in the game, I'd like to be able to do a little something with them. And if we have the mechanism for "colonizing" a gas giant with a resource collector, it's easy peasy to extend the concept to include companion stars, asteriod fields, and maybe empty slots. (Plus it gives us a little range of techs to eventually include in the tree beyond just the generic new ship part/new facility rut.)
hrm, that was more than two points, and they weren't so quick.
I'm mostly ambivelent towards binary stars, just posted my idea in response to continued interest in including them, and also to give a preview of my idea on how "colonizing" gas giants and asteriod belts should work. If counting heads, I abstain.
Just wondering though:
if companion stars are functionally nigh-equivelent to gas giants (meaning little or no additional code/gameplay hassles) and the graphics already exist (burndaddy's galaxy star sprites) why not include them just for the hell of it?
That was my thinking anyway--it doesn't really cost anything and at least a few people seem to want it. Adds a touch of believablity to star systems as well.
On the other hand, I don't care.
Just wondering though:
if companion stars are functionally nigh-equivelent to gas giants (meaning little or no additional code/gameplay hassles) and the graphics already exist (burndaddy's galaxy star sprites) why not include them just for the hell of it?
That was my thinking anyway--it doesn't really cost anything and at least a few people seem to want it. Adds a touch of believablity to star systems as well.
On the other hand, I don't care.
We know that there are systems with more than one star in real life. They usually turn into black holes. So I think they will have quite an effect on gameplay.
You imagine if our solar system had two or three stars. What effects would the extra gravity, heat and radiation have on earth? And then theres the potential risk of the stars turning into blackholes.
I think it would not just make our game that much more different from the rest, but imagine playing a game and finding for once, that you discover a system with two stars and not just one (like you always find).
If it's not that difficult to do and theres some gameplay value for having them (positives and negatives), then we might as well do it, have systems with more than one star.
If anything I would like to see the following messages:
Turn-150 "The two stars in the Sol system have become unstable and in 10 turns will form into a black hole."
Turn-160 "All colonies in the Sol system have been lost due to a black hole that has formed from two unstable stars."
So the Sol system would become a blackhole, that would be cool, oh and if there were risks like that, it would be very interesting indeed.
You imagine if our solar system had two or three stars. What effects would the extra gravity, heat and radiation have on earth? And then theres the potential risk of the stars turning into blackholes.
I think it would not just make our game that much more different from the rest, but imagine playing a game and finding for once, that you discover a system with two stars and not just one (like you always find).
If it's not that difficult to do and theres some gameplay value for having them (positives and negatives), then we might as well do it, have systems with more than one star.
If anything I would like to see the following messages:
Turn-150 "The two stars in the Sol system have become unstable and in 10 turns will form into a black hole."
Turn-160 "All colonies in the Sol system have been lost due to a black hole that has formed from two unstable stars."
So the Sol system would become a blackhole, that would be cool, oh and if there were risks like that, it would be very interesting indeed.
1: Realism aint got nutton to do with it. We are modeling a space opera with an eye fixed on good gameplay.
2: Systems with 2 or more stars don't usually turn into black holes. Blackholes are thought to be created in the aftermath of supernovae. Many suspected black holes are in binary systems only because there's no way easy to detect a blackhole otherwise.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=335 Third paragraph.
2: Systems with 2 or more stars don't usually turn into black holes. Blackholes are thought to be created in the aftermath of supernovae. Many suspected black holes are in binary systems only because there's no way easy to detect a blackhole otherwise.
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/questi ... number=335 Third paragraph.
scientists dont even look toward binary/trinary star systems for signs of life. the gravitational pulls and solar winds (gamma rays) make life there so unlikely there is no point in looking. imagine the eratic orbit of a planet in a trinary star system like alpha centari's.
im sure it would make for pretty graphics and all but, pretty graphics doesnt make a game playable.
im sure it would make for pretty graphics and all but, pretty graphics doesnt make a game playable.
and then there was dirt!