Quote:
Renegade 13 said:
One thing in SEV I'd absolutely love is something that other people have suggested previously: Very detailed planetary/solar descriptions. For example:
Name: Sol III
Gravity: 1.00 standard G's
Atmospheric Composition: 74% Nitrogen, 22% Oxygen, 3% Carbon Dioxide, 1% Other gases
Planetary Conditions: Optimal
Planetary Surface: 77% Water, 17% Landmass, 6% Polar Ice Caps
...and so on, and so on. These wouldn't necessarily even affect how your race is able to thrive (or not) on the planet, or use it for resources, but it would add a lot of realism and its just plain more interesting that way!
|
Why wouldn't it? You could determine a planet's habitability based on these numbers. Or even on the part of the planet that is useable by you. This would limit the number of people capable of living on there in much the same manner as atmosphere type currently does. Worlds would then be classified as gaseous or solid, I suppose.
Hell, you could even get aqautic worlds.
Thusly, a Land dwelling race would be able to colonise the land parts of a world, and you'd have population restrictions based on the availability of land.
This means that while you could colonise practically any solid world, you'd be better suited to colonising those worlds that have a greater amount of land.
In addition, subsequent research of Ice colonisation, and possibly aquatic colonisation would open up those areas of the worlds for habitation, thus increasing the population limit. Also, you could restrict the ocean, or surface areas for aquatic races, based on atmosphere, since aquatic life is going to need domes on the surface, but not undersea, and vice versa.
Additionally, I would like to see domes removed for races not needing to breathe, since it makes no sense for an android race to be restricted to domes with no atmosphere in them because they can't survive in atmosphere.
Regarding star system description, I think it should be flexible, depending on the state of the star system at the time.
Also, again regarding planets, it would be nice for star systems to possess habitable bands, and for the worlds in these bands to have better planetary conditions than those outside of it. This should affect the planets themselves, too. Those planets further out should have more polar ice caps and land than water, as well as planetary conditions.
Those planets closer to the star should have considerably worse planetary conditions but only land. So while land would indeed be abundant, it would be abundant in less hospitable places.
Because of this, giving the planet a distance from the star(s) would be required. Also, giving the stars a strength factor, which of course increases the total system star strength, would be required to set the habitable band.
Also, the description of a dyson sphere, which is what I assume sphereworlds are, is that it is a massive interlocking set of platforms, and while it wouldn't block out the sun completely, it should at least decrease its strength for the rest of the star system, meaning the habitable zone would be shifted inwards.
To deal with the ramifications of this, you could in fact create multiple 'bands' based on how far the world is from the habitable zone, and the further it is, the worse the initial planetary conditions, and the faster any change in this will be over time. So although you could conceivably alter planetary conditions using climate control facilities for a world a stone's throw from the sun, getting rid of them to build other things would mean that this work would rapidly be undone by nature.
In the same vein, you could increase the stars per system limit to 3, and it would be a good idea to limit their construction to be at the centre of the system, so it just doesn't look weird (also, creating a star at a distance of say, Mars, in an already existing system would destroy the system, which would be silly. Anyway, the 9 innermost sectors should be the space limited for this.
Also, construction of more stars, while it would increase the effectiveness of solar collectors in that system, would rather dramatically shift the habitable zone, so while in a system with mostly distant worlds this would be a good thing, it wouldn't be so good for systems with worlds closer up to the habitable zone.
On the worlds themselves, there would be gradual shifts in planetary conditions and in the amount of liquid water or ice. It seems strange that there can be ice worlds in a trinary star system where there are 3 intense stars. If anything, they should be barren desert worlds, possibly with the water locked in clouds that never rain, like Venus, but maybe without the poison.
Also, through this, one could change an ice world to a rock and water world. Using terraforming facilities or ships, you could push for the species' ideal habitation type, though it would have to be kept there for all time, to stop nature from taking its course. Having a starbase in orbit that not only defends the planet but also keeps it snowballed sounds like an achievable tech.
Also, in regards to Atmospheric percentages that were presented in the above quote, I would suggest that allowing a race to breathe the atmosphere if there is at least a 30 or 35% presence of their required atmosphere. For the hell of it you could throw in 'Atmosphere toxicity' as an attribute that could be resolved by the atmosphere convertors alongside the normal atmospheric makeup.
For example, an atmosphere with say, 40% oxygen would be breathable by humans if it weren't for, say, the chlorine gas that makes up another 20%.
Also, on a different subject, there needs to be a better reason to capture a planet, than there currently is. Right now, in SE4, it seems so much easier to just kill everyone and repopulate with your own people. I think this should be addressed.
Also, if the combat is indeed going to be real time, may I suggest that Imperium Galactica 2 has an excellent method of doing this. It is fully 3D as well, and doesn't require extravagant system requirements to be this way, as the ships have low poly counts.
Weapons have recharge times as well, and there are also fighters. Above a planet, the battlements on the planet are also capable of hitting the starships. And while I realise that the idea of having satellites and starbases orbit during the battle sounds a good idea, the reality is that the orbit speed suggested is likely to fast for the time period the battle supposedly occurs in. Perhaps a movement every couple of turns would be better representative of this.
Wow, long first post.
Re: SE5, Tell Aaron what\'s on your Wish List
Asteroids Champion!
Linear Mode
