A thought on killing planets - Page 4

Daynarr · #31 January 24th, 2001, 01:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barnacle Bill:
3) Radioactivity could be tracked separately as a planet charactoristic. "Conditions" would refer to climate. The "habitability" or some such would be equal to conditions minus radioactivity, and would be the actual number used to determine population growth (I still think that domed populations should act as if conditions are 0, the actual conditions being applicable only to those who can breath the atmosphere, and atmosphere converters reducing the conditions to 0 as they approach the actual change in atmosphere). If radioactivity is >100 the planet is still uninhabitable until deconned per #2. There would be a decon facility which could reduce radioactivity on a planet which is still habitable. I recommend against creating any racial trait that lets you live on radiated planets, as people with that trait would just nuke ever planet until it glows.

Well, I have a suggestion how to do this. If a planet has sustained a certain amount of damage it will become radioactive. Radioactive means that the planet will have new attribute 'radioactive' just like 'blockaded' is and that all population on it will die. Also, it will stay radioactive for a certain amount of years (depending on total amount of damage taken) until the radiation in atmosphere (and surface) drops to acceptable levels by natural means. Colonizing that planet will be possible but only by building domes (even if you could breath the atmosphere) because the domes would provide you with protection from radiation. When the radiation drops, the population will leave domes and the planet can be used like normal colony (if you can breathe the atmosphere, of course). Of course, the time needed for radiation to decrease to acceptable levels is very long so some anti-radiation facilities and ship components could be used to speed it up. The races with higher Environmental Resistance could be able to use radiated planet sooner (that would make THIS trait worth something).

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 23 January 2001).]

Daynarr · #32 January 24th, 2001, 01:07 AM

Oppsie, double post.

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 23 January 2001).]

apache · #33 January 24th, 2001, 04:46 AM

Radiation decreasing "naturally"? Do you know how long that would take? This is way beyond the time scope of the game. A Hiroshima-style bomb takes about 60 years for radiation to decline to non-hazardous levels. The latest Hydrogen bombs take on the order of 1000 years for the radiation to decrease to non-hazardous levels.
To impart a high radiation level to a planet would make it totally uninhabitable for the rest of the game if the only way to decrease this radiation was by natural means. And destroying a planet then rebuilding it would have no effect on the radiation levels.
Besides, a civilization this advanced surely has developed technology to live with deadly radiation by some means. Maybe all their walls are 5 feet of lead, maybe something else.
Either way, I don't think there should be a way to make a planet completely uninhabitable. With enough resources and raw power, any area can be terraformed to liveable conditions, especially if a dome can be constructed.

Daynarr · #34 January 24th, 2001, 04:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Radiation decreasing "naturally"? Do you know how long that would take? This is way beyond the time scope of the game. A Hiroshima-style bomb takes about 60 years for radiation to decline to non-hazardous levels. The latest Hydrogen bombs take on the order of 1000 years for the radiation to decrease to non-hazardous levels.
To impart a high radiation level to a planet would make it totally uninhabitable for the rest of the game if the only way to decrease this radiation was by natural means. And destroying a planet then rebuilding it would have no effect on the radiation levels.
Besides, a civilization this advanced surely has developed technology to live with deadly radiation by some means. Maybe all their walls are 5 feet of lead, maybe something else.
Either way, I don't think there should be a way to make a planet completely uninhabitable. With enough resources and raw power, any area can be terraformed to liveable conditions, especially if a dome can be constructed.

That is true, but the planet is not bombed by nuclear bombs like we have. The radiation should be much smaller that the one in Hiroshima. Actually 'radiation' I mentioned was generalized and should represent the overall damage to life cycles on that particular planet. E.g. damaged Ozone layers in atmosphere for Oxygen planets, large destruction to plant and animal life on planet that would reduce its habitability, lots of dust and other particles that would go into atmosphere and create greenhouse effects etc. (Speaking only about Oxygen, but some other damage would occur on all other atmospheres that would have similar effect.). All this would not be covered by planetary conditions because they mostly cover the stuff like earthquakes, storms and hostile life forms on planet, so something else is needed. Actually 'radiation' would be more like uninhabitable, and assuming that the damage to the planet is not that high that it won't recover over time (in theory it takes MUCH less time for eco-system to recover from bombardment by 'normal' weapons then from radiation based weapons). The domes would be needed to support colonists on such planet (also that is that 'advanced' technology way to protect themselves from radiation, because there is NO other way to protect themselves from food, water and air polluted by radiation or other means, but in living in an isolated environment-domes).
The 'radiated' doesn't have to be called like that (radiation is just a part of it). I could be something called by some other name (like uninhabitable).

apache · #35 January 24th, 2001, 06:26 PM

I understand what you are saying, but all that ecosystem stuff really does fall under planet conditions. But I do agree with your assessment that a planet with really bad conditions should force the colonists to live in a dome, regardless of atmosphere type. Perhaps some planet with 'Harsh' or worse conditions would force the building of a dome on the planet until conditions improve above that level.
Of course, the problem is that no planet naturally occurs as a 'Harsh' planet. They are all 'Unpleasant' or better. This I would like to see changed. Planets should naturally occur as 'Deadly' or 'Harsh'.

Sinapus · #36 January 26th, 2001, 02:49 AM

Okay, I fiddled around with the damage amounts and then ran some simulator missions using a ship with a neutron bomb component.

Found that no matter what the damage setting, a Neutron Bomb I would always kill 1 million people and inflict damage to the planet equal to what I had set the amount to kill 1 population to. When I loaded up a Neutron Bomb II, it killed two million people and inflicted damage to twice that ratio.

So, raising that damage level up to keep ships with beam weapons from killing off colonies will still let all you genocidal beasts who insist on butchering entire colonies to do so with neutron bombs.

So.. what should it be raised to? 100? 200? 500? 1000?

------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough
to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a
pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors
come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless
eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your
associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Emperor Zodd · #37 January 26th, 2001, 03:07 AM

I have mine raised to 20.
Someone posted awhile back and said if you raise it higher than 20 it screws up the AI.

Daynarr · #38 January 26th, 2001, 04:54 AM

Sinapus, even if you put damage at 1000, when you fire with level 1 DUC at planet you will make 1000 point of damage and kill 1M of population. THAT has to be changed; if you go below minimum, damage should be ignored.
Btw. I use 50 points for a while now and no problems with AI so far.

Sinapus · #39 January 26th, 2001, 04:30 PM

quote:
Originally posted by Daynarr:
Sinapus, even if you put damage at 1000, when you fire with level 1 DUC at planet you will make 1000 point of damage and kill 1M of population.

Eeeep.... Okay. Drat, I didn't test it with other weapons.

quote:
THAT has to be changed; if you go below minimum, damage should be ignored.
Btw. I use 50 points for a while now and no problems with AI so far.

Okay, here I was thinking it would simply not kill off a population point until it reached that point threshold. Foo.

So much for that brilliant plan.

------------------
--
"What do -you- want?" "I'd like to live -just- long enough to be there when they cut off your head and stick it on a pike as a warning to the next ten generations that some favors come with too high a price. I would look up into your lifeless eyes and wave like this..." *waggle* "...can you and your associates arrange that for me, Mr. Morden?"

Commander G · #40 January 26th, 2001, 07:21 PM

All this talk of uping the damage requirement to kill population may make Weapon Platforms much too powerful because you cannot target Weapon Platforms specifically. If it takes longer to wipe out the population, a few weapon platforms (starting tech) with long range weapons such as Torpedos could pulverize a fleet, using the damage resistant civilians as a sort of armor.

Has anyone tested this modification with Weapon Platforms?