Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy?

On Feb 2, 7:36 pm, Amaranthine <Michael.Richardson.2... RemoveThis @gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 2, 4:20 pm, KlingonKommand <P... RemoveThis @nurk.fnord> wrote:
>
> > The proposal:
> > ==========
> > Master.exe simply sets planets' climates to their star heat on turn 1. I
> > mean, they've had billions of years to come to equilibrium, right?
>
> I like this.
>
> Does high stress increase temperature though, or is that only for a
> Crystal ?

I have no trouble making temp of a planet = starheat at turn 1.
I would also like Master also set favored climate for each race, and
probably set the Starheat to the same value, (except the Solorian who
would be way too strong with a sarheat of 100).
Solorian should get favored temp only, they already have special 5
turn rules to setup better starheat planet, and they can move their HW
at will.

Lord Lancelot
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy? 

On 3 Feb., 00:20, KlingonKommand <P... RemoveThis @nurk.fnord> wrote:

> Master.exe simply sets planets' climates to their star heat on turn 1. I
> mean, they've had billions of years to come to equilibrium, right?

Then it also needs billions of years after a collapsed galaxy will
come to rest so that one can think again to gain VPs at Unicron,
too.

Seriously: The drift is really annyoing. At least one should able to
project the drift to see how long a planet stays in the farming
window.

GFM GToeroe
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy? 

> ==========
> Master.exe simply sets planets' climates to their star heat on turn 1. I
> mean, they've had billions of years to come to equilibrium, right?

And then mankind changes everything in a century. I don't think the
current climate change is desired either:P Everybody asks for more
realism and when you have it you don't like it ;P

Sebastian
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy? 

> And then mankind changes everything in a century. I don't think the
> current climate change is desired either:P Everybody asks for more
> realism and when you have it you don't like it ;P
>
> Sebastian

Very true. There should be a few elements in the game environment that
are not manipulable by the player and put simply cause 'pain in the
ass'. IMHO some 'nice bads' from Planets3 are still missing: the ion
storms.

Phaidros
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy? 

*evil grin - trying to think like Tim*

Think about this:

Normally every planet-star system is in its equilibrium (let's assume
that for simplicity), and than mankind (or birdkind, stormerkind and
so on) comes and unbalances the equilibrium, depending on the industry
built on the planet. The climate can go up or down, depending on the
specific effects (which we don't need to know here).

Speaking in game rules - just a first idea:

If the sum of (factories, (labour) farms, (labour) mines, public and
military spaceport, and some other buildings of course) reaches a
certain limit (a spaceport counting more than a single farm of
course), there's a chance (in every turn) that the climate changes. If
the temperature goes up or down should be chosen the first time when
the climate changes (that's might be the difficult part here). But
there's a little chance that the direction of the temperature drift
can change also.
(Note: If farms are not only cropping farms but also stock-farming
then the methane 'exhaust' of stock is indeed a bad influence to
climate)

Certain buildings should be able to stabilize the climate (lower the
chance) of course. Terraformer can do this perfectly, but some other
buildings should have a similar (but smaller effect), and these should
be available to everyone. Also there should be the possibility to
spent money to save the earth .. hum... the planet I mean *g*. Perhaps
like the crime thing (where the player cannot choose to spent money).
Hmm, the chance might also depend on the race: Think about the Feds
and then about the Borg or Stormer.

The effects should be not dramatic, at least not more than it is now.
But it would be a bit more rational and understandable - and
preventable also.

Flynx
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy? 

On Feb 6, 5:04 am, Flynx <gigaf....DeleteThis@gmx.net> wrote:
> *evil grin - trying to think like Tim*
>
> Think about this:
>
> Normally every planet-star system is in its equilibrium (let's assume
> that for simplicity), and than mankind (or birdkind, stormerkind and
> so on) comes and unbalances the equilibrium, depending on the industry
> built on the planet. The climate can go up or down, depending on the
> specific effects (which we don't need to know here).
>
> Speaking in game rules - just a first idea:
>
> If the sum of (factories, (labour) farms, (labour) mines, public and
> military spaceport, and some other buildings of course) reaches a
> certain limit (a spaceport counting more than a single farm of
> course), there's a chance (in every turn) that the climate changes. If
> the temperature goes up or down should be chosen the first time when
> the climate changes (that's might be the difficult part here). But
> there's a little chance that the direction of the temperature drift
> can change also.
> (Note: If farms are not only cropping farms but also stock-farming
> then the methane 'exhaust' of stock is indeed a bad influence to
> climate)
>
> Certain buildings should be able to stabilize the climate (lower the
> chance) of course. Terraformer can do this perfectly, but some other
> buildings should have a similar (but smaller effect), and these should
> be available to everyone. Also there should be the possibility to
> spent money to save the earth .. hum... the planet I mean *g*. Perhaps
> like the crime thing (where the player cannot choose to spent money).
> Hmm, the chance might also depend on the race: Think about the Feds
> and then about the Borg or Stormer.
>
> The effects should be not dramatic, at least not more than it is now.
> But it would be a bit more rational and understandable - and
> preventable also.
>
> Flynx

i like the drift, it represents seasons. farming year round might be
desireable but the drift adds realism like seasons on earth. some
seasons you cant farm and thus this is representative in the drift. i
like the drift idea, but it may be a bit too much of a drift. perhaps
a drift of 5 degrees in either direction, as opposed to the 10 or 15,
i do like the idea that on turn 1 the star heat and temp match, before
drift can take place, so many times ive seen 18 degress on a star heat
of 65. way too far off. additionally though ive noticed the drift
stays on the high end of the spectrum once a base is built. perhaps
instead of mining and base structures adding heat to the planet. it
could be reflected in the amount of drift instead. some races like the
stormers prefer it cold. but if they add structures to the base they
know for fact its going to get warmer. having a penalty for building
structures is kinda lame but still makes sense. id rather like to see
the structures result in a drift as opposed to an increase in
temperature.

Proto.
 >> Stay informed about: Planetary climate drift - a proposal to make everyone happy?