Better Planet Types

[SacremPyrobolum]

The current planet classifications don't make a whole ton of sense. Any human should be able to not only survive but thrive on an alpine, tundra, or desert planet. And why are continental planets considered to be all green? We live on a continental planet and it has desert, tundras and mountains. And why is a Gaia planet good for everyone when it is obviously just a lager continental planet?

Plant types should be distinct from one another based on their breathable atmosphere, not their geography (which I doubt would be planet wide). And Gaia planets should be divided based on the type of atmosphere it has like regular planets.

 

[Azuraal]

You need better argument than "It's more realistic".
It's a game, not a simulation and i don't see how would it benefit gameplay.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

You need better argument than "It's more realistic".
It's a game, not a simulation and i don't see how would it benefit gameplay.

Alright, so how about we add a minigame whenever you want to colonize. I mean it's a game right, not a simulation.

Or how about quick-time events for fleet battles. It doesn't make any sense, but its a game so its fine.

I don't know why I have to explain this, it should be excruciatingly obvious to anyone who has ever picked up a controller or mouse but player immersion is a big part of the enjoyment of games. That means at times making things "realistic" to keep the player immersed. A change like this won't effect gameplay but it will effect immersion and it will do so with no drawbacks to any of the current systems. It would be a texture swap and name change.

 

[Helix900]

If we're talking planet types here, I want to be able to "terraform" a planet into an AI planet as a Tech Ascendancy empire. That would be so cool.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

Alright, so how about we add a minigame whenever you want to colonize. I mean it's a game right, not a simulation.

Or how about quick-time events for fleet battles. It doesn't make any sense, but its a game so its fine.

I don't know why I have to explain this, it should be excruciatingly obvious to anyone who has ever picked up a controller or mouse but player immersion is a big part of the enjoyment of games. That means at times making things "realistic" to keep the player immersed. A change like this won't effect gameplay but it will effect immersion and it will do so with no drawbacks to any of the current systems. It would be a texture swap and name change.

I use my imagination to immerse myself first, then use the game mechanics to have fun.

If I had to sit and work out 'right, is the purple grassed but moutainous planet more habitable than the ocean desert planet' each time a new one appeared I'd stop enjoying this game. It would feel like work.

Sorry but I agree with first poster - if your only argument is 'it's more realistic', it's a shallow one. What would be the benefit to the enjoyment of the game

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

I'm trying to think of any Alpine, Arctic or Tundra civilization that thrived without significant trade and interaction with nations from more temperate climates.

Inuit maybe, for a limited degree of thrive?

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

I use my imagination to immerse myself first, then use the game mechanics to have fun.

If I had to sit and work out 'right, is the purple grassed but moutainous planet more habitable than the ocean desert planet' each time a new one appeared I'd stop enjoying this game. It would feel like work.

Sorry but I agree with first poster - if your only argument is 'it's more realistic', it's a shallow one. What would be the benefit to the enjoyment of the game

There is literally an icon in green, yellow, or red next to systems that tells you what kind of colonization planets it has. You have a colony planner you can use to filter planets by habitability and send out colony ships. You can look at the planet itself and determine how suitable it is for your species. You would have had a lobotomy to be hindered in any way by the planets changing color or name.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

There is literally an icon in green, yellow, or red next to systems that tells you what kind of colonization planets it has. You have a colony planner you can use to filter planets by habitability and send out colony ships. You can look at the planet itself and determine how suitable it is for your species. You would have had a lobotomy to be hindered in any way by the planets changing color or name.

If your just palette swapping planets from green to purple, grey mountains to red mountains, azure oceans to orange ones, you have a strong argument and I'd agree that a cranial defect would be the only way you'd fail to work out what to do.

But your OP literally says that humans could thrive in other biomes such as deserts and tundras etc.

1. Is this unique to humanoid species?

2. What about other aliens types? Can they thrive on other planet types? How does that fit with current mechanics? How do you determine whether your species can live on red rocks, but not blue ones?

3. How do you determine which planet has what habitability type and how that ties into other species? How do you implement diverse planet types without altering the 9 planet habitability system?

If it's based on atmosphere, how is this different to the system we have now (other than what we name as habitable?)

 

[Drowe]

The current planet classifications don't make a whole ton of sense. Any human should be able to not only survive but thrive on an alpine, tundra, or desert planet. And why are continental planets considered to be all green? We live on a continental planet and it has desert, tundras and mountains. And why is a Gaia planet good for everyone when it is obviously just a lager continental planet?

Plant types should be distinct from one another based on their breathable atmosphere, not their geography (which I doubt would be planet wide). And Gaia planets should be divided based on the type of atmosphere it has like regular planets.

While this is realistically true, it is not a very good idea from a gameplay perspective. Basing habitability on climate makes it easy to distinguish between various planet types without going into too much detail.

What could work would be to move habitability from the planetary level to individual tiles. Small worlds would have very little diversity in climate so you could use most tiles from the start, larger planets may have tiles that are uninhabitable by your species in the beginning, and basically serve as tile blockers (in addition to tile blockers that already exist, although should be somewhat less common).

There are three ways to use tiles with an unsuitable climate. First, either gene mod your species or use a species that is adapted to this climate. Second some early game society techs can make the tiles usable but pops there do have an upkeep cost because they need specialized gear to work there and may be less happy. Third, you can terraform those tiles to your preferred climate if you have the terraforming technology to do so. This option should be very expensive and time consuming, but can make the whole planet usable without having to terraforming it before colonization. The possibility to terraform before colonization should remain as is, as it should be cheaper to terraform an Arctic planet into a continental one instead of starting your colony on the one tile you can use and then terraform each individual tile. Ideally there should be the option to queue up all tiles for terraforming to avoid a clickfest.

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

While this is realistically true, it is not a very good idea from a gameplay perspective. Basing habitability on climate makes it easy to distinguish between various planet types without going into too much detail.

What could work would be to move habitability from the planetary level to individual tiles. Small worlds would have very little diversity in climate so you could use most tiles from the start, larger planets may have tiles that are uninhabitable by your species in the beginning, and basically serve as tile blockers (in addition to tile blockers that already exist, although should be somewhat less common).

There are three ways to use tiles with an unsuitable climate. First, either gene mod your species or use a species that is adapted to this climate. Second some early game society techs can make the tiles usable but pops there do have an upkeep cost because they need specialized gear to work there and may be less happy. Third, you can terraform those tiles to your preferred climate if you have the terraforming technology to do so. This option should be very expensive and time consuming, but can make the whole planet usable without having to terraforming it before colonization. The possibility to terraform before colonization should remain as is, as it should be cheaper to terraform an Arctic planet into a continental one instead of starting your colony on the one tile you can use and then terraform each individual tile. Ideally there should be the option to queue up all tiles for terraforming to avoid a clickfest.

This is a better suggestion, though if you have a planet with multiple biome tiles I guess you'd need to rename continental to lush?

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

the type of planet indicates its major habitable bands, and presumably temperature and moisture.

there is far more variation than just 'the mountains' - an 'alpine' planet will presumably have low atmospheric pressure, it will have consistent very low temperatures, and while humans may be able to live there - they won't thrive like a being born to it, that might have crops that thrive in such an environment, and exotic ways of gaining energy, and superior methods of dealing with the temperature....

A Gaia planet is so hospitable to life - perhaps even malleable, changing itself to suit its occupants - that anyone can thrive there.

 

[Drowe]

This is a better suggestion, though if you have a planet with multiple biome tiles I guess you'd need to rename continental to lush?

Not really, just use the predominant biome as description. I don't expect paradox to implement this any time soon if ever, since the current system works just fine. But if they did decide to do it, then that's an approach they could take.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

If your just palette swapping planets from green to purple, grey mountains to red mountains, azure oceans to orange ones, you have a strong argument and I'd agree that a cranial defect would be the only way you'd fail to work out what to do.

But your OP literally says that humans could thrive in other biomes such as deserts and tundras etc.

1. Is this unique to humanoid species?

2. What about other aliens types? Can they thrive on other planet types? How does that fit with current mechanics? How do you determine whether your species can live on red rocks, but not blue ones?

3. How do you determine which planet has what habitability type and how that ties into other species? How do you implement diverse planet types without altering the 9 planet habitability system?

If it's based on atmosphere, how is this different to the system we have now (other than what we name as habitable?)

All that needs to be done that would make the game more immersive would be to replace geography with atmosphere type. So continental planets = oxygen atmosphere, desert planet = carbon dioxide atmosphere.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

How would that be more immersive? The planet types give you an idea of what the planet is like, rather than the invisible gas you breathe..

 

[Sheriff Godwin Law]

All that needs to be done that would make the game more immersive would be to replace geography with atmosphere type. So continental planets = oxygen atmosphere, desert planet = carbon dioxide atmosphere.

But is that more enjoyable, does that make it a better game?

I can imagine a race of tundra dwelling crab men, jungle dwelling pig men, space elves in a beautiful arboreal paradise. I understand different environments on a visceral level and they immediately help add identity to my species. I have a hard time imagining what difference breathing carbon dioxide would even have. They'd have evolved with a aerobic and anaerobic respiration process that's dramatically different, and that's it.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

How would that be more immersive? The planet types give you an idea of what the planet is like, rather than the invisible gas you breathe..

Because, like I said, there is no reason humans, or any space aged civilization, should not be able to thrive on a planet which has geography different from what they are used to. I used human as an example but this is true for most if not all species. What would serve as a much better justification for not being able to colonize a planet is that you can't breath the air without equipment.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

But is that more enjoyable, does that make it a better game?

I can imagine a race of tundra dwelling crab men, jungle dwelling pig men, space elves in a beautiful arboreal paradise. I understand different environments on a visceral level and they immediately help add identity to my species. I have a hard time imagining what difference breathing carbon dioxide would even have. They'd have evolved with a aerobic and anaerobic respiration process that's dramatically different, and that's it.

Having life bearing planets be entirely one biome is stupid. It leads to a Planet of Hats situation which is a boring and played out trope. You don't have an entire race of jungle dwelling pig men, you have pig men, some of which are jungle dwelling. It is a mistake too many sci-fi universes make where the aliens are all part of on monolith culture.

 

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Because, like I said, there is no reason humans, or any space aged civilization, should not be able to thrive on a planet which has geography different from what they are used to. I used human as an example but this is true for most if not all species. What would serve as a much better justification for not being able to colonize a planet is that you can't breath the air without equipment.

Right. Because an oxygen atmosphere at 0.5 atmospheres and -20C on a warm day is really conducive to a civilization thriving.

 

[Drowe]

Realistically speaking, it is very unlikely for life to evolve in a carbon dioxide atmosphere, at least not complex life. Oxygen is highly reactive and most reactions with oxygen release energy. Since all life requires energy, there is little chance for a planet without a significant percentage of oxygen to ever have more than microbic life. Even plants need oxygen, otherwise they die without sunlight. As in all plants would die soon after sunset.

 

[SacremPyrobolum]

Right. Because an oxygen atmosphere at 0.5 atmospheres and -20C on a warm day is really conducive to a civilization thriving.

If you are referring to the arctic I would remind you that RIGHT NOW as in the period where we do not have hyperdrives that break physics we have outposts in those areas. With the technology in Stellaris we would have no problem colonizing such an ice heap as long as we could breath.