Other types of biochemistry

[Lady Protector Tiffanni]

Ammonia, Methane and other hydrocarbons would be interesting to see a more diverse set of planets that would be hostile to others (0%) chance but for those of that biochemistry 100%. I think it would be good to have a more robust and diverse set of planets than what we currently have.

 

[Mitchz95]

Absolutely +1.

 

[Lady Protector Tiffanni]

Also in this I'd like to seen phenotype images of more diverse things. Though still biologically possible since those fluids still act as water to some extent but be a bit more creative for other biochemistries.

 

[smjjames]

When scanning a toxic world, there is a chance to find that it has an ammonia biosphere, and there are silicon based lifeforms. So, in a sense, biochemistries other than water do exist, but there are no sapient ones.

There is also a planetary event with acient terraforming equipment which has a chance to transform the colony into a toxic world with ammonia biosphere. So, it kind of implies that ammonia based sapients existed at some point.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

While ideas like this are cool, I always have to consider that they'd break a major aspect of the game (conquest/cohabitation) between species of different patterns, and the game's larger design isn't going to very good at replacing that with something else/

 

[Rip Off Productions]

I'd agree if it also came with a massive rework to how planets are categorized; bracking down into 3 major categories: the (Average)Temperature, Humidity(with subtype for different liquid types; Water, Ammonia, and so on), and Atmosphere Composition(mix of Oxygen, CO2, Nitrogen, and Methane? maybe a few other exotic ones too?). and maybe a "radiation level(s)" stat as well.

this determines which type of life can originate and most easily live there(Habitability would become a vast spectrum instead of these big leaping chunks in the ratings), and the "general classifications"(the 9 types we know now) will be vary broad labels based on the ratios of these stats mixed to gather(example >75% humidity at a below freezing temperature for that given liquid results in an "Arctic" world, while the same Humidity at between the melting point and the boiling point results in and "Ocean" planet).

 

[ConcidiusTullius]

Perhaps something akin to the Pyrians from Andromeda. They occupied a different position in the cosmos as the methane (i think it was methane) atmospheres they needed was not sought by the rest of the galaxy. Aliens that diverge that far from normal may be hard to place in. They could always be an outsider faction akin to the invaders or nomads.

 

[Me_]

While ideas like this are cool, I always have to consider that they'd break a major aspect of the game (conquest/cohabitation) between species of different patterns, and the game's larger design isn't going to very good at replacing that with something else/

Meh. It's so easy to get a species of different preference via conquest/uplifting, I think it's an overvalued counter-argument.

 

[Tokolosk]

I like the idea!

I find the habitability mechanics a bit arbitrary, ie: Stellaris habitats = Earth climate zones. Earth pretty much has every habitat in the game - I find it weird that a whole planet could be Savanna, or a whole planet would be Tundra, etc.

In my honest opinion each planet should have zero to X amounts of each tiles. A large 25 tile earth-like planet might have 6 ocean, 5 tropical, 4 Savannah, 3 tundra, 2 arctic, 2 ice, 2 alpine, 1 desert and 0 of the rest.

A tropical species would have 100% habitability in 5 tiles, 80% in close climates, 40% in climate mismatches and 0% in hostile environments. Thus, a 25 tile planet might only have 16 tiles usable before it impacts happiness. Gaia planets could then convert to be 100% the preference of the colonising species - making them extremely valuable.

This, together with the OP's suggestion, could change the dynamics of expansion, terraforming and habitability quite a bit.

 

[Gorton]

I always found the concept of habitability a little dumb, to be honest.
Let's think about humans on earth for a moment: Where are humans?
Absolutely everywhere is the answer.
We shouldn't be living in a lot of the places we do, but we are, because of technology and intelligence.

A species that's managed to develop the ability to travel in space can't put down a warm dome for their continental sensitivities, or just idk wear clothes like we do ?

It's really dumb, and i'd say that if you colonised a less habitable planet the result should be increased cost, for colonising, for building etc. This would simulate the need for technology to allow your species to live there. You could even have a new title blocker of areas that are simply not possible or economically feasible for your people to live there.

As another point, continental have equal penalties to say arctic as they do savannah, despite a great deal of humans today still being adapted to savannah.

The entire concept needs reworking imo. It's a little worldbreaking when you also consider that the tundra people have exactly the same problems with colonising a desert that people who live on a continental planet who are more used to higher temperatures, especially when you take the aforementioned point that many humans today still live in those conditions with barely any technology at all.

 

[faljen_isus]

I always found the concept of habitability a little dumb, to be honest.
Let's think about humans on earth for a moment: Where are humans?
Absolutely everywhere is the answer.
We shouldn't be living in a lot of the places we do, but we are, because of technology and intelligence.

A species that's managed to develop the ability to travel in space can't put down a warm dome for their continental sensitivities, or just idk wear clothes like we do ?

It's really dumb, and i'd say that if you colonised a less habitable planet the result should be increased cost, for colonising, for building etc. This would simulate the need for technology to allow your species to live there. You could even have a new title blocker of areas that are simply not possible or economically feasible for your people to live there.

As another point, continental have equal penalties to say arctic as they do savannah, despite a great deal of humans today still being adapted to savannah.

The entire concept needs reworking imo. It's a little worldbreaking when you also consider that the tundra people have exactly the same problems with colonising a desert that people who live on a continental planet who are more used to higher temperatures, especially when you take the aforementioned point that many humans today still live in those conditions with barely any technology at all.

humans are an extremely adaptable species even without considering species intelligence

 

[Gorton]

With what context do you give that? We don't have any other examples, so right now we're baseline.
Why won't other species be adaptable?

Besides that, we wouldn't survive in many environments on earth without intelligence. I live in the UK, and if we did not have the intelligence to make fire or clothing we would most certainly die, and the UK is pretty mild when it comes to winters and bad weather compared to a lot of other places in the world.

I will grant you that humans are generally good with other environments rather than what we're supposed to be for (Africa) and we're certainly better than a lot of other animals on earth with general problems: better at healing, both superficial and larger wounds, we don't simply die when injured as many other mammals will do.

 

[Tokolosk]

Another aspect of the OP's idea is that it would increase (at least in my case) the wonder of possible life outside of what we know is possible.

Paradox, make us wonder! Currently other species are all based on things we know: animals we know, plants we know, etc. Make other types of life forms. Make me wonder and go "omg that's cool" and "wtf is that!?... better be careful!".

 

[faljen_isus]

you dont mention that with the development of tech humans lost a lot of traits that aided in survival in various harsh environments, and it is my belief that if our tech that allows us easier living in different environments gets lost that humans living in those parts will adapt (sooner or later)

that adaptation would come at a severe cost but it would come to pass - the process would in turn result in a variant of humans probably severely different than anything we see today