Should Gaia worlds be removed ?

[Calvax]

My headcanon for Gaia worlds is that they're relics from a long distant empire that became masters of genetic and ecological engineering. They terraformed worlds with biospheres that emergently adapt to whatever sentient species is nearby. Desert loving species? Land in a forest and watch in amazement as the soil is sucked dry, the plants conglomerate into cactus-like patches and animals swarm through deconstructing the foliage. Tropical lovers? Bacterial spores bloom in the upper atmosphere acting as rain nucleators, massively increasing irrigation of the land.

 

[Wulfram]

Maybe Gaia worlds should be worlds with a large boost (say, 50%?) to their habitability, rather than being their own type?

 

[Mitchz95]

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.

I like this idea! That way there's a time crunch and the planets are more hotly contested.

 

[Cetan]

At first when I saw this topic I thought "no", but after reading it...

Perhaps "Gaia World" shouldn't be a planet type, but a planet modifier. A very hospitable world of a certain type. 100% habitability for your species, 80% for same group preference, 60% for races with other preferences.

 

[romothecus]

Mars is more like the thermosphere than New Mexico.

Exactly. Equatorial summer on Mars might reach 70 degrees / 20 C during the day, but at night it's still -100F / -73C. Saying Mars is like New Mexico is absurd.

 

[Mitchz95]

I can see the rationale for keeping Gaia Worlds around as a source of conflct and competition, but in my experience that conflict can easily be replicated (and made more meaningful) by simply reducing the number of conventional habitable planets in the galaxy. That way, instead of scrapping over an extra 20% habitability, you're focusing on size/tiles, distance from your existing colonies, etc.

 

[schedim]

I can see the rationale for keeping Gaia Worlds around as a source of conflct and competition, but in my experience that conflict can easily be replicated (and made more meaningful) by simply reducing the number of conventional habitable planets in the galaxy. That way, instead of scrapping over an extra 20% habitability, you're focusing on size/tiles, distance from your existing colonies, etc.

I think it is more because simplicity and adrehereance to tropes than actual strategic value Gaia worlds are for the stay.

 

[Mitchz95]

I think it is more because simplicity and adrehereance to tropes than actual strategic value Gaia worlds are for the stay.

True, but this is a strategy game, is it not? I'd rather go to war over a major industrial or research planet than one that can accommodate diverse species. Plus, we have gene-modding, so there's not really anything stopping us from plopping those species down anyway.

 

[Strager]

Exactly. Equatorial summer on Mars might reach 70 degrees / 20 C during the day, but at night it's still -100F / -73C. Saying Mars is like New Mexico is absurd.

You are talking about CURRENT temperatures - you aren't taking into account the heat that would be trapped due to the presence of an atmosphere.

 

[romothecus]

You are talking about CURRENT temperatures - you aren't taking into account the heat that would be trapped due to the presence of an atmosphere.

No, Tim Ward was talking about CURRENT temperature:

Well, Mars is a planet whose entire surface emulates New Mexico or Nevada or something,

There is little to no atmosphere on Mars. Nobody is talking about so imaginary Mars+atmosphere.

 

[Strager]

No, Tim Ward was talking about CURRENT temperature:

There is little to no atmosphere on Mars. Nobody is talking about so imaginary Mars+atmosphere.

By "You" I meant a collective "you" that included Tim.

Any discussions about living on the surface of Mars would need to consider the creation of an artificial atmosphere - we couldn't live there without it. "Domed" cities would (one would assume) use temperature controls so the outside climate would be irrelevant (for this discussion).

 

[Kat Tsun]

Exactly. Equatorial summer on Mars might reach 70 degrees / 20 C during the day, but at night it's still -100F / -73C. Saying Mars is like New Mexico is absurd.

Maybe mesosphere in retrospect given it has a bit of atmosphere. Thermosphere is like the Moon.

By "You" I meant a collective "you" that included Tim.

Any discussions about living on the surface of Mars would need to consider the creation of an artificial atmosphere - we couldn't live there without it. "Domed" cities would (one would assume) use temperature controls so the outside climate would be irrelevant (for this discussion).

Make it 1 g and we'll discuss living on Mars with a straight face.

 

[TheAtreides84]

Personally, I never liked the idea of Gaia worlds, since I find it contradictory with the very concept of habitability used in the game.

Habitability reflects the fact that different species have different life requirements based on the habitat they developped in, so some species will develop better in hot, desertic environments, or aqueous environments, or arctic environments, and each of those environments could not suit the next species.

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

That doesn't really make sense from a biological point of view, IMHO, and I think maybe they should be removed for realism's sake.

Thoughts ?

You could argue Earth is almost a Gaia world, because it is suited to relatively large populations of widely different species, from deep sea fishes to arboreal monkeys. Turn that up to eleven, and you have a world with so much biome diversity that it can accomodate even alien species.

 

[Mitchz95]

You could argue Earth is almost a Gaia world, because it is suited to relatively large populations of widely different species, from deep sea fishes to arboreal monkeys. Turn that up to eleven, and you have a world with so much biome diversity that it can accomodate even alien species.

That's kind of the whole problem. The concept of Gaia worlds existing as their own planet class contradicts the existence of planets like Earth, which are bundled into the Wet climate. Either Gaia is too hospitable, or Continental isn't hospitable enough.

 

[Almond_Brown]

As some have pointed out, by "realism", I meant that the idea of an idealistic "Garden of Eden"-like world, where every species in the universe can live in perfect symbiosis seems difficult to believe.

To me, planet types and habitability are the abstracted representation of many factors, like temperature, athmospheric conditions, biosphere, etc... that determine the living conditions for each species.

Having a world where every natural condition are perfectly fit for every single sentient living form in the universe seems very unplausible to me.

I don't kwow if others have felt this way, but every time I discover a Gaia world, I don't get the feeling of an achievment, instead, I think "Oh no, not this unrealistic thing again !" and I find it quite immersion-breaking.

One assumes you mean sentient species right? Otherwise the Earth is known to have

"Number of species on Earth tagged at 8.7 million. Most precise estimate yet suggests more than 80% of species still undiscovered. There are 8.7 million eukaryotic species on our planet — give or take 1.3 million"

known species on board its single Biome currently.

 

[TheAtreides84]

That's kind of the whole problem. The concept of Gaia worlds existing as their own planet class contradicts the existence of planets like Earth, which are bundled into the Wet climate. Either Gaia is too hospitable, or Continental isn't hospitable enough.

Well, I think that a Gaia world is simply one with more extreme variations. For example, really large insects can't anymore survive on Earth because of the unsuitable gas mix in the atmosphere. On a Gaia world the mix is so various than it can be filtered and manipulated to accomodate even them.

 

[romothecus]

Any discussions about living on the surface of Mars would need to consider the creation of an artificial atmosphere - we couldn't live there without it. "Domed" cities would (one would assume) use temperature controls so the outside climate would be irrelevant (for this discussion).

No, that's totally absurd. The feasibility of even domed structures or other sealed habitats is still directly related to the environment you're trying to seal against. Just look at heating bill differences around Earth - and then increase them exponentially because we're talking about orders of magnitude higher differences in temperature.

Sealed domes on Mars or the Moon are conceivable. Sealed domes on Venus or Jupiter really aren't.

 

[Kat Tsun]

No, that's totally absurd. The feasibility of even domed structures or other sealed habitats is still directly related to the environment you're trying to seal against. Just look at heating bill differences around Earth - and then increase them exponentially because we're talking about orders of magnitude higher differences in temperature.

Sealed domes on Mars or the Moon are conceivable. Sealed domes on Venus or Jupiter really aren't.

You wouldn't need sealed domes on Venus (or Mars). You also wouldn't be able to live on the Moon either, at least not permanently.

Ideally you'd have altered the atmosphere to be a shirt sleeve (or rather, naked/parka) environment, which is the only practical way to ensure any form of permanent habitation. Bunker living would just result in mass genocide (or at least mass hospitalization, though that's arguably worse) the moment someone arrives with a new or weird strain of the flu. Because you've invented an environment that is (hopefully) completely closed and mostly sterile to reduce strain on resources.

It'd be somewhat similar to showing up and coughing in a SCID's bubble, or in the case of Earthmen and Venusians, the Spanish meeting the Aztecs? Bad news all around.

Also Jupiter can probably just have a planet built inside it tbh. Bonus points would be it proving Flat Earthers were right about one thing.

 

[Strager]

No, that's totally absurd. The feasibility of even domed structures or other sealed habitats is still directly related to the environment you're trying to seal against. Just look at heating bill differences around Earth - and then increase them exponentially because we're talking about orders of magnitude higher differences in temperature.

Sealed domes on Mars or the Moon are conceivable. Sealed domes on Venus or Jupiter really aren't.

That's why I added the "for the purpose of this discussion" - of course the temperature actually matters in terms of costs etc. - but to the person living in that dome the climate would presumably be tailored for their biology.

 

[Mitchz95]

Well, I think that a Gaia world is simply one with more extreme variations. For example, really large insects can't anymore survive on Earth because of the unsuitable gas mix in the atmosphere. On a Gaia world the mix is so various than it can be filtered and manipulated to accomodate even them.

I might be wrong, but wasn't it the atmospheric pressure that allowed for the really big insects and not the gas mixture?

Anyway, atmosphere is irrelevant here. All planets have the same air, it's just the temperature and humidity that's up for debate. Earth has every range of both. The only real difference between Continental and Gaia is the amount of surface water, and since terraforming the former into the latter has no effect on the number of tiles even that difference dwindles to nothing.