requirements question on planet size/type/environment

[vorenhutz]

The requirements 0.2 doc defines the following planet sizes:
? Planetoid: Pluto sized. Barely a planet. Can be colonized.
? Small: Mercury sized. Can be colonized.
? Medium: Earth, Venus, Mars. Can be colonized.
? Large: Earth x 1.5. Can be colonized.
? Massive: Earth x 2. Can be colonized.
? Asteroid Field: A ring of debris around a star. An Asteroid Mining Base can be built here.
? Gas Giant: Jupiter, Saturn, Neptune being examples. A Gas Giant Tap can be built here.

And the planet types:
? Terran Earth-like. Normally holds an abundance of life.
? Ocean Covered with liquid water. Life abounds.
? Swamp Venus seen through the eyes of pulp science fiction writers. Humans would find the atmosphere unbreathable, the flora/fauna hostile and poisonous.
? Toxic The real life Venus. Sulfuric and harsh on humanity, paradise to certain strange breeds of life.
? Inferno Hell in Space. Much like Toxic, except hotter with a lot more lava. Carbon based life doesn?t thrive here.
? Radiated A barren world bombarded with Radiation from a nearby star or in some cases a planet with an independently radioactive surface. Life as we know it doesn?t exist, some wildly different species live here anyway.
? Barren Luna. A dead world by our standards, space-borne organisms often use these rocks as breeding grounds.
? Tundra Earth minus much of its water and heat. Staunch life can still thrive here.
? Desert Earth minus much of its water. Pulp science fiction ideal of Mars and Arrakis (Dune) are examples. Temperatures can vary wildly with the time of day, still within the range of liquid water. Terran life is mildly comfortable here.
? Gaian Gaia worlds are, despite the name, not exclusively paradise for Terran dwellers. They are sentient planets designed by long-forgotten ancient creators to reshape themselves to the whims of their inhabitants. Exceedingly rare, extremely valuable-- some cultures worship Gaian planets as gods.
and also the following environmental conditions:
If the planet?s environment = the race?s EP then environmental conditions are Optimal.
If the planet?s environment is one away from the race?s EP, then environmental conditions are Adequate.
If the planet?s environment is two or more away from the race?s EP, then environmental conditions are Terrible.
If the planet?s environment = Gaian then the environmental conditions are Superb, regardless of EP.

Now my question is wouldn't it make more sense to have gas giants and asteroids be planet types (rather than sizes) and also invent a new environmental condition 'inhospitable' which would apply to these types?

[pd]

[...] wouldn't it make more sense to have gas giants and asteroids be planet types (rather than sizes) and also invent a new environmental condition 'inhospitable' which would apply to these types?

i aggree, but i don't like the 'inhospital'-idea. i think of races which could live on those planets.

[vorenhutz]

sure, but environmental conditions are relative to race. Some races might have Terran=inhospitable. Currently humans are the only race (v0.2).

[drek]

I wrote that part of the document (with Nightfish's valuable help), so lemme splain:

Asteriods are too small to be anything but dead rocks--not enough gravity to hold an atmosphere. When a "planet" is an asteriod field, it's type and size are both set to "Asteriod Field".

Gas Giants are too large to anything but Jupiter/Saturn-esque types of places. When a planet is sized at Gas Giant, it's type is also "Gas Giant".

btw, Nightfish anticipated Gas Giants being used as a race's EP, though it won't be implemented in v.2. Basically, Gas Giant races use a slightly different set of rules...they exist outside the wheel of EP.

[vorenhutz]

Hmm ok. So gas giants are always the same size? Won't that make the gas giant race rather boring to play? Compare Jupiter with neptune, no way they're the same size.

[iamrobk]

Hmm ok. So gas giants are always the same size? Won't that make the gas giant race rather boring to play? Compare Jupiter with neptune, no way they're the same size.

Well, it's just the way it is. It could be said that Earth-like planets are all the same size too, then.........

[guiguibaah]

Actually, an example of a Tundra planet could be the moon of Europa. From what I learned in Astronomy, it is a planet (well, moon of jupiter) that is completely encased in ice.

Now the interesting thing about Europa - is that Ice acts as a great insulator. Combine that with the theory that Europa is believed to be undergoing larger tectonic activity than Earth, due to the waxing and waning of gravitometric forces as it passes through jupiter's orbit.

What this means, is that the ice may be encasing a giant ocean that is being heated underneath by large geothermal vents.

... not unlike the very bottom of Earth's oceans.

Now it would probably be hell to drill through that sort of ice - believed to be miles and miles thick... But it would be heck of a lot more hospitable than a barren world. After all, you've got water, and plenty and plenty of it.

Although it must be really dark under all that ice....

- - -

Also, for toxic, one could argue the moon of Titan - it has an atmosphere, but the atmosphere is sulpuric in nature, heavy in carbon... something like that...

Anyhow

[noelte]

Gas Giants are too large to anything but Jupiter/Saturn-esque types of places. When a planet is sized at Gas Giant, it's type is also "Gas Giant".

I don't think, it is needed to hammer this into stone. I agree that tiny gas giant make no sense, but Huge and large do.

Ronald.

PS: I get more brave, if Aq. isn't around

[vorenhutz]

I like the relative sizes idea because the sizes of planets and stars vary over such HUGE scales.


edit: Doh, I pressed Edit instead of reply on this message. Destroyed most of it. Returned to using Drekmonger instead of drek account.
--drek

Btw: replying to say this would be an excellent way of doing things. Great idea.

[pd]

but we'll have problems with displaying this. besides this the aim we are going for isn't realsim.

[vorenhutz]

I'm not saying it needs to be displayed... at least not on a linear scale

[pd]

but we already are displaying planet sizes in a linear way ;)

[drek]

I don't think, it is needed to hammer this into stone. I agree that tiny gas giant make no sense, but Huge and large do.

Ronald.

PS: I get more brave, if Aq. isn't around

Heh. Me too.

Anyway, while we weren't going for 100% realism, in real life a Gas Giant has hundred times more surface area than Earth, and a thousand times the volume--a completely different scale. The largest size type we have is only twice as large as Earth.

Basically, I really hated the way Gas Giants were handled in Moo3, so I decided to revert back to the Moo2 system. Gas Giants shouldn't behave by the same rules as a rocky world.

We could have differently sized Gas Giants, but it's not vital unless the player can *do something* with Gas Giants. In v.2 they are inert objects.


[I believe in my orginal draft I had Super-Gas Giants and Companion Stars as "planet types". Nightfish and Fearless Leader nixed them for the v.2 draft, for the reason that they didn't add to game play.]

[utilae]

I think gas giants should be multiple sizes. Its just more flexible that way, and offers more variety.

[Tyreth]

I don't think, it is needed to hammer this into stone. I agree that tiny gas giant make no sense, but Huge and large do.

Ronald.

PS: I get more brave, if Aq. isn't around

Heh. Me too.

FreeOrion secret rule No. 8: Ye shall not be afraid to be humiliated by, or humiliate, the FreeOrion leadership