Atmosphere - Page 3

raynor · #21 January 31st, 2001, 03:14 PM

quote:
Originally posted by woodelf:
Quick question on Atmospheric Converters; is the time required the same for all size planets? Wouldn't it make sense for a Huge planet to take longer than a tiny moonish sized one? If this isn't happening now, could it be modded to happen? I'm not fresh on my atmospheric science, but that seems realistic.

Yeppers. Same time for all size planets. Some folks recommend that you just build the plants on large and huge world for that very reason. If you spend the resources building the plant on a tiny world, you just get 4 extra facilities. If you build it on a huge world, you get 20!

Building the plants on anything but a 'none' atmosphere world takes too long. Much easier to just capture enemy empire colonists who breathe the right atmosphere and transplant them.

[This message has been edited by raynor (edited 31 January 2001).]

rdouglass · #22 January 31st, 2001, 03:16 PM

Woodelf, yes the time for atmospheric conVersion is the same reguardless of planet size. Its just that your "return on investment" is lower with smaller planets. I personally don't convert any planet other than huge and large.

As to the theory that Gas Giants have a diamond core, I'm having a hard time understanding that. If that was the case, wouldn't the earth's core also be diamond? IIRC, the earth has an iron core 'cause iron has a specific gravity (I think that's the term) greater than carbon. Its not as if we have no carbon on this planet. If that's the case, wouldn't the core (of any celestial body) be made up of the "heaviest" element in the planet makeup? Isn't that why a rock sinks and hydrogen gas floats upward? I'm definitely not a chemistry expert but my common sense leads me to believe that's the way it should be.

I know this thread is going off target and probably should be elsewhere, but I definitely am curious as to the answer...

EDIT: Oops, sorry raynor. Didn't mean to "double post" your answer. We seem to be on at the same time a lot lately...

[This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 31 January 2001).]

[This message has been edited by rdouglass (edited 31 January 2001).]

raynor · #23 January 31st, 2001, 03:19 PM

As long as everyone is in a frenzy over realism, I say that gas giant troops should get a 1000% bonus when attacking non-gas giant troops. Because the gravity on a gas giant has to be at least 10x that on the other worlds, they should be able to kick butt against their wimpier 1 standard G colonists/troops.

(Never mind that troops are more like cargo items stored in the planet that have nothing to do with colonists and are therefore atmosphere non-specific...)

raynor · #24 January 31st, 2001, 03:21 PM

'Tis Okay, RDouglas--just so long as you agree with me.

Large and Huge... Whoop! Great minds think alike.

rdouglass · #25 January 31st, 2001, 03:25 PM

Raynor, I'm not sure about that. Yes, G Giants have a much greater gravity hence the species should be vastly stronger. Yet all the "troop" pictures seem to be "mechanized" and inside vehicles. That, in theory, should negate any advantage. If troops were set up like SE3 where they had infantry, then yes, I agree. However, I have seen no infantry in SE4. Of course, they may very well be ther and I haven't seen them - I rarely ever invade planets, I take 'em with Puppet Political Parties..

Jubala · #26 January 31st, 2001, 03:56 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Puke:
<snip!> man, i hate it when they release Version 2.0 of the universe just because sales on the first edition were dropping off, and all your knowledge goes out of date.

ROFLMAO

Good one Puke.

Krakenup · #27 January 31st, 2001, 07:40 PM

quote:
Originally posted by raynor:
[b]As long as everyone is in a frenzy over realism, I say that gas giant troops should get a 1000% bonus when attacking non-gas giant troops. Because the gravity on a gas giant has to be at least 10x that on the other worlds, they should be able to kick butt against their wimpier 1 standard G colonists/troops.

Actually, Jupiter's surface gravity is about 2.5 G's due to its high density. Saturn, Neptune and Uranus, OTOH, are between 0.9 and 1.2 G's or about Earth normal. The high G worlds would be huge rock and ice planets not gas giants.

[This message has been edited by Krakenup (edited 31 January 2001).]

apache · #28 January 31st, 2001, 08:20 PM

Um, where did you get that 'surface gravity' information? I hope you realize that gravity is a function of mass, not density. There also is absolutely no scientific information about the 'surfaces' of any gas giants, just theories.
Also, to whomever made the comment about liquid being denser than solid, you are incorrect. Some solids, based on their freezing processes are less dense than their liquid counterparts (like water). But for most elements and compounds, solid is the densest state.

rdouglass · #29 January 31st, 2001, 08:27 PM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Um, where did you get that 'surface gravity' information

From my old high school chemistry days. I think that you meant "specific" gravity that I used. And again I'm not sure if that is the correct term to use. However, what I meant was that since things like iron are more "dense" than other things, the more "dense" elements / compounds should be at the center. Its what makes steel float in mercury.... That should IMO rule out the "diamond core" theory unless carbon is the "densest" element in the planet's composition.

SunDevil · #30 January 31st, 2001, 09:08 PM

Apache:

Do you work for NASA?