Should Gaia worlds be removed ?

[balmung60]

I don't think that non-gaian worlds lack variation in climate, especially with latitude. However, they have a highly dominant biome (I could have sworn that this was even stated somewhere in-game). For example, arctic worlds aren't 100% arctic, but rather arctic is the dominant biome by a large margin (and with the other cold biomes likely making up most of the remainder), even though you might find a temperate or even hot desert band near the equator. That they're reduced to the single, dominant biome is something of a gameplay abstraction.

 

[Tim_Ward]

So in other words, an arctic planet is what, a planet whose entire surface is a uniform temperature that emulates earth's arctic circle?

Well, Mars is a planet whose entire surface emulates New Mexico or Nevada or something, and Venus is a planet whose entire surface emulates the inside of a oven filled with poison. So, honestly, I don't think it's that implausible.

If an arctic planet is just a planet whose average temperature is equivalent to earth's arctic circle, then that means that parts of the planet must be perfectly habitable for species who are accustomed to warmer temperatures, just by virtue of an average on a temperature gradient requiring both warmer and colder temperatures.

An article planet is a planet whose warmest equatorial regions are equivalent to the article circle, and whose coldest regions are far colder. A species who lived there would think of their equatorial regions (assuming the planet's axial tilt is the same as ours) the same way we think of the poles: a remote and inhospitable part of the planet that they can only live in with special equipment. Somewhere like earth would be out of the question for them, without special technologies.

Also? Two words: ice age.

Double also: a biome is about more than temperature - tiaga and steppe are both biomes, and they're both fucking cold. An 'artic world' could be as diverse as earth in terms of environment, just a hell of a lot colder.

The reality is that no planet is uniform in temperature, and especially any planet which falls within Earth's temperature gradient is going to support diverse biomes thanks to water's reaction to temperature. A slightly colder or slightly hotter planet just may have more of one than the others.

If you put earth where mars was, it'd be an ice ball except for a few regions during summer, which would be what we'd call slightly warm.

Which is why biome planets are a silly star-warsian trope, and I was disappointed in them the moment I heard about them. But it's not a deal-breaker. Gaian planets just fail to make sense within the abstraction they have created, because it references mechanics that other planets utterly fail to represent. Latitude is a factor which makes Gaian planets great for everyone, but other planets don't have latitudes which result in temperature gradients? What? Why not? Why are we supposed to accept one explanation when the entire rest of the game handwaves that explanation away?.

The tile system is abstract as fuck. I don't think it's even supposed to represent distinct regions, because otherwise why would people be evenly distributed across the surface? There appear to be no cities.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

Well, Mars is a planet whose entire surface emulates New Mexico or Nevada or something, and Venus is a planet whose entire surface emulates the inside of a oven filled with poison. So, honestly, I don't think it's that implausible

Except that's wildly inaccurate. Conditions on Mars vary quite a bit.

An article planet is a planet whose warmest equatorial regions are equivalent to the article circle, and whose coldest regions are far colder.

Actually the equatorial belt has plant life, it just has large ice caps. Try reading the in-game descriptions of the planets.

 

[Strager]

Personally I think there should be a Gaia type for each of the planet groups - This way Arctic and Desert pops don't share the same Gaia preferences. That "beach" picture Wiz showed looks absolutely miserable for my Arctic Dwelling species....

 

[Mitchz95]

Personally I think there should be a Gaia type for each of the planet groups - This way Arctic and Desert pops don't share the same Gaia preferences. That "beach" picture Wiz showed looks absolutely miserable for my Arctic Dwelling species....

I think that kinda defeats the purpose of Gaia Worlds. But a more neutral portrait would certainly be better. Ditto for Ringworlds.

Maybe replace Gaia Worlds with City Worlds? Most are controlled by Fallen Empires, after all, and the random ones we find scattered around the galaxy can be left over from a previous Precursor civilization.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Well, Mars is a planet whose entire surface emulates New Mexico or Nevada or something, and Venus is a planet whose entire surface emulates the inside of a oven filled with poison. So, honestly, I don't think it's that implausible.

Mars is more like the thermosphere than New Mexico.

Venus is more habitable. It has a habitable band in the upper atmosphere, but besides that, it's near 1 g. Gravity is the most important thing for habitability because it's more or less impossible to modify.

 

[Darkstar616]

I like them simply because they're "perfect" worlds, an anomaly to fight over especially if they have max tile space.

 

[OBRkenobi]

And then you have Gaia worlds which suit absolutely everybody, whether they come from a desert planet, or an ocean planet.

What the hell do you think the Earth IS. *facepalm*

 

[schedim]

Trying to explain Gaia worlds and current tile system in anything related to IRL science is futile and, may I say, quite besides the point (actually said something else but restrained myself). The Gaia world is the epitome of the one world biome trope and that is what the current game uses.
The question perhaps shouldn't be about the Gaia worlds existence, but if we want a tile-based biome system instead (or another "realistic" system).

 

[Bugnr01]

Gravity is the most important thing for habitability because it's more or less impossible to modify.

Thats what "the venus faction" always argue. It is impossible to modify but rotation speed and axes are impossible to modify too and matter a hell lot more for habitability because of their high effect on temperture distriputation, weather, just the whole climate. And thats the point where venus is really bad.

Back to topic. I would like more imersion at the biome front (different tiles per planet) and therefore i dont like the gaian "one tile to fit them all" approach, but from a gameplay point of view i think they are both fine (one climat planets and gaian worlds).

 

[lilsaihah]

Wouldn't this be fairly simple to write a mod for?

 

[schedim]

Wouldn't this be fairly simple to write a mod for?

Depends if it is possible to relocate the Habitability bonus system from global to tile based. Otherwise it is mostly a muck with UI and generation.

And then balance, that is going to be a ... she-dog.

 

[Mitchz95]

Wouldn't this be fairly simple to write a mod for?

I made one that removes Gaia Worlds (see my signature). If you mean a mod that changes the tile system to use multiple biomes, I don't know if that's possible.

 

[lilsaihah]

Depends if it is possible to relocate the Habitability bonus system from global to tile based. Otherwise it is mostly a muck with UI and generation.

And then balance, that is going to be a ... she-dog.

Sorry I just meant the OP post. If you want to remove Gaia just remove the chance to spawn Gaias at game start and set the chance to get the Gaia terraforming card to 0.

 

[Kat Tsun]

Thats what "the venus faction" always argue. It is impossible to modify but rotation speed and axes are impossible to modify too

They aren't, technically speaking, they're just kinda impractical. Gravity isn't impossible either but problem of finding and exporting enough mass to increase Martian gravity to 1 g would be obviously more difficult than anything associated with terraforming Venus, including "moving an ice moon" and "spinning up the planet".

Venus with no modification to its rotation or axes, but with atmosphere hospitable to human life, would be like living in the North, though. I mean Alaska, where the Sun shines at midnight a couple months a year and disappears for three or four months a year, but it's a bit closer so it would be a bit warmer and more temperate. Hardly "really bad", it would be really cloudy and rainy I guess. The climate would alternate from temperate, to humid/tropical, to temperate, to a snowy winter, repeat, etc., over about four months. So that means people's wardrobes would be bigger?

Wouldn't this be fairly simple to write a mod for?

Trivially so, I think. You'd just edit planet_classes.txt under the "pc_gaia" entry? That's the file where planet spawn rates live AFAIK.

 

[schedim]

Sorry I just meant the OP post. If you want to remove Gaia just remove the chance to spawn Gaias at game start and set the chance to get the Gaia terraforming card to 0.

Ah, ha ... I was just lost in space as I have been toying with this as an mod idea.. ;-)

 

[Es57]

What the hell do you think the Earth IS! *facepalm*

Well, you may be right for climate, but not for athmosphere.

For example, an alien species breathing ammonia instead of dioxygen could not live on earth (at least not without an artificial breathing equipment).

Or maybe you are suggesting that Gaia worlds have multiple athmospheres at the same time ?

 

[Peko?]

Well, you may be right for climate, but not for athmosphere.

For example, an alien species breathing ammonia instead of dioxygen could not live on earth (at least not without an artificial breathing equipment).

Or maybe you are suggesting that Gaia worlds have multiple athmospheres at the same time ?

At the moment all habitable planets are described as having nitrogen oxygen atmospheres. Gaia planets don't need several different atmospheres as all species have similar requirements.

 

[Horn]

You can find my posts about MoO3 in other places, so I won't get into it here.

Suffice to say, for all MoO3's flaws, its habitability system was not one of them.

Habitability system in MoO3 was one of best that i ever seen. Terraforming was not so god on other hand. The most important thig was: ALL planets was colonizable! The biggest flaw imho in Stellaris is reliance only on oxygen breathing life forms. It oversyplifies things. I loved idea of crystaline creatures or inteligent species living in gas giants. There should be possible choises during species creation about optimal temperature, gas needed for breathing, gravity maby etc.? Gaia world should be concept for this particular species, for other races these settings may be as well hell. This will lead to natural alliances (for xenophiles) or competition (xenophobes/militarist) for species tolerating same climate, also cause hatred against species terraformig worlds from something they love to somthig that will kill them. You may invest millions of credits to make all planets in your territory habitable for your species, or uplift/invite other races to fill empty planets.

 

[Tokolosk]

What about making Gaia worlds adapt to the first species to colonise it? If I'm a tropical species and colonise a Gaia then it slowly, over time, changes to be a 100% habitability Tropical World. Effectively it becomes a +20% habitability world. Other species on the other end of the spectrum will then get that bonus too.