Re: Are gas giants really an advantage?
 

I did count the moons (fored to be non atmosphere - tiny) and did count the "moon hosts" that are forced to be huge.

Yep, ice planets are the ones that look like a diagonal line.
Gas giant frequency of larger sizes compensates their lower number, but nothing compensates lower number of ice planets. Ice dwellers will allways be in dissadvantage.

Re: Are gas giants really an advantage?
 

If you play with neutrals/comps or dumb humans (neutrals are best cause they are neutral) you can trade them 2 ****ty ships (1 engine meet requirements) for whatever colony tech they have and then go wild.

Also i am leaning more towards rock now. I used to be a gas junkie but i guess that more planets that are smaller mean if you lose one it isn't such a loss. And ruins, ahhhhhhhhhhh.

Re: Are gas giants really an advantage?
 

Ok I revised again my graphic and realized of the error I had made when counting moons.
Here you have it, more than half of the tiny planets are none atmosphere.

To answer the topic question, I made some calculations by multipliying the number of each size of planet by the number of facilities it gives and adding them.
Here are my conclussions:

Without Domes:
Methane-Ice 477.33 facilities (4.69%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide-Ice 500.44 facilities (4.92%)
None-Ice 619.11 facilities (6.09%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide - Rock 800.89 facilities (7.88%)
Methane-Rock 824 facilities (8.10%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide/Methane - Gas Giant 854.22 facilities (8.40%)
None-Rock 928.67 facilities (9.13%)


Considering domes:
Methane-Ice 901.42 facilities (5.12%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide-Ice 919.91 (5.22%)
None-Ice 1014.8 facilities (5.76%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide/Methane - Gas Giant 1366.8 facilities (7.76%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide - Rock 1471.8 facilities (8.35%)
Methane-Rock 1490.3 facilities (8.46%)
None-Rock 1574 facilities (8.93%)

The difference between Methane and other atmospheres is that they have 1 more small-rock and one less small-ice planet. Maybe a bug in sectorabilities.txt, it gives a slight advantage to methane-rock and a slight dissadvantage to methane-ice.

Advantage of rock-none is compensated by the fact that they'll have less non-domed planets when researching extra colonization techs (no none-gas giants), and that they will not be able to use atmospheric mod plants on gas giants for the same reason.

Note that gas giants are comparatively better if we don't consider domes.
This advantage is compensated by the comparatively lower number of domed facilities in large and huge planets.
Difference between atmospheres and none is also acentuated (still putting rock-none in first place above gas giants), since there will be no domed moons that make up a good part of the domed space.

So in conclusion:
The best combination in the early game is allways rock-none. That advantage goes away once extra colonization techs and atmosphere converters come into play.
Then best ones are rock and then gas if domes are allowed (as usual), if not gas and then rock.
Ice planets are always a large dissadvantage, none-ice is better than other-ice.

Re: Are gas giants really an advantage?
 

Yes, that graphic makes much more since that the Last one. There are *alot* of moons out there :-)
Thanks for all your hard work and analysis!

<blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Andrés Lescano:
Ok I revised again my graphic and realized of the error I had made when counting moons.
Here you have it, more than half of the tiny planets are none atmosphere.

To answer the topic question, I made some calculations by multipliying the number of each size of planet by the number of facilities it gives and adding them.
Here are my conclussions:

Without Domes:
Methane-Ice 477.33 facilities (4.69%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide-Ice 500.44 facilities (4.92%)
None-Ice 619.11 facilities (6.09%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide - Rock 800.89 facilities (7.88%)
Methane-Rock 824 facilities (8.10%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide/Methane - Gas Giant 854.22 facilities (8.40%)
None-Rock 928.67 facilities (9.13%)


Considering domes:
Methane-Ice 901.42 facilities (5.12%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide-Ice 919.91 (5.22%)
None-Ice 1014.8 facilities (5.76%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide/Methane - Gas Giant 1366.8 facilities (7.76%)
Oxygen/Hydrogen/C Dioxide - Rock 1471.8 facilities (8.35%)
Methane-Rock 1490.3 facilities (8.46%)
None-Rock 1574 facilities (8.93%)

The difference between Methane and other atmospheres is that they have 1 more small-rock and one less small-ice planet. Maybe a bug in sectorabilities.txt, it gives a slight advantage to methane-rock and a slight dissadvantage to methane-ice.

Advantage of rock-none is compensated by the fact that they'll have less non-domed planets when researching extra colonization techs (no none-gas giants), and that they will not be able to use atmospheric mod plants on gas giants for the same reason.

Note that gas giants are comparatively better if we don't consider domes.
This advantage is compensated by the comparatively lower number of domed facilities in large and huge planets.
Difference between atmospheres and none is also acentuated (still putting rock-none in first place above gas giants), since there will be no domed moons that make up a good part of the domed space.

So in conclusion:
The best combination in the early game is allways rock-none. That advantage goes away once extra colonization techs and atmosphere converters come into play.
Then best ones are rock and then gas if domes are allowed (as usual), if not gas and then rock.
Ice planets are always a large dissadvantage, none-ice is better than other-ice.<hr></blockquote>

Re: Are gas giants really an advantage?
 

For some reason i keep playing on Ice planets.
My previous atmosphere was Co2.
Now it is methane.
nice..... the lowest number of facilities, lol