Concern about the 7 planet types and a proposed solution

[Eldorian]

Some time ago, I was convinced by a thread on this forum that the only change that actually needs to be made is as follows:

A) Swap the position of Tundra and Arctic.
B) Swap the position of Arid and Desert.
C) Done. You now have a "wet" vs "dry" and a "hot" vs "cold" divide.

As a bonus, Arctic and Desert are next to one another for extremophiles to enjoy.

Basically what I wrote in the OP if you split arctic into ice and glacial and rename some stuff. I prefer savanna to arid (only because arid basically means desert), and wetland for tropical and glacial for arctic (so you don't reference latitudes when naming planets. Arctic is also northern hemisphere biased).

edit: That idea is basically what I want to accomplish with minimal effort.

edit: Or maybe not, I may have gotten confused as to the default order by now =P

 

[Sellt]

The basic problem here is that the arrangement of the planets as they are doesn't make sense. Right now a tropical species also likes desert. Which really is quite strange. And with the changes proposed here it would much lessen the weirdness.

It still would be a circle. It still would follow the same rules of the game as put in right now. It basically only changes the picture of the planets.

These changes wouldn't break anything already in place... only the pictures/models of the planets.

 

[Kliwarrior]

Some time ago, I was convinced by a thread on this forum that the only change that actually needs to be made is as follows:

Even simper: Continental <-> Tropical
With this I would be more than happy (even if I can live without it )

 

[Eldorian]

Even simper: Continental <-> Tropical
With this I would be more than happy (even if I can live without it )

Yeah, this whole discussion is mostly fluff. The actual planet types could be called 1 thru 7 and it wouldn't affect game play as far as I can tell. Unless there are research cards that are based on homeplanet, which I'm unaware of.

 

[parkerg12]

The problem here is that there is no logical solution because climate does not work like the games model. a hot wet world ? could easily be a desert world with a lot of steam in the atmosphere towards the equator , but lush jungles at the poles.....(depending on rotation) and orbit and if there is a moon ....shit can get crazy...
so lets make some laws
Laws for a planet with an earth like orbit and rotation - with water based ecosystems
1- hotter at the equator colder at the poles
2- the quantity of water does not need to be evenly applied
3- elevation can be used as a wild card to change temperature
4- water can be in any total quantity on a planet

Now don't get many started on non-water based ecosystems
or if you vary the planet sizes .... because that would get way to complicated

so what does this means for stellaris-

if you wanted to have a realistic system there would be no such thing as a Jungle world or a wetland world or even a plain arid world.
there would be planets that have a mix of different tiles which each tile being host to a different climate.

planets are not homogeneous systems !!!!!!!

thus by simplying into a system that is easy to understand and apply fairly you get good gameplay which is why the current system is used (at least I think)

so is there logical inconsistences in the system YES, Could it be better "debatable(ing)"