Question for any devs. Is the wormhole station linked to spacestations? Or is it a different mechanic?
Last edited:
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
Since at least three other people have explained why you are wrong, I will just give a counter example to your "it's what we have been doing our entire history" line: The ISS.
And Mir as well. And that space station the Chinese are going to do.
It's also as valid an assumption for the likely path of alien life as "alien life is wildly different from any life we know of, or can imagine". We simply don't know.
Now, as to the rest - yes it is restricted, though perhaps not to the extent you seem to think, there's a pretty decent range of potential types of life form that would find Venus face meltingly hot and poisonous, doesn't mean they're all water-based oxygen breathing life forms: all the description of the toxic world says is that this particular world is so ridiculously hostile that literally nothing can live there.
The final part, that it is boring, is subjective. To me, there are two different game play dynamics you get when you have when you have species that like radically different types of planet vs species that like basically the same types of planets. In the first, you get pretty much every planet ending up colonised and empires co-existing in almost the same spaces; In Space Empires V it's not uncommon to see empires of rock dwellers and gas giant dwellers sharing pretty much the same territories, but with the gas giant guys on all the gas giants and rock guys on all the rocky planets. Whereas if you've got fewer planets, you tend to see sparser colonization with more well defined territories. I tend to prefer the latter. Everything we've seen from Stalleris so far indicates that the latter is also what they're going for: some worlds are just uncolonizable, colony caps early game, etc.
- 4
And yet venus atmosphere is 96% CO2 a harmless gas. It's mostly the pressure and temperature that would kill anything going close to the surface (and even makes the CO2 goes supercritical, if it wasn't enough already), which kinda fits with the in game description that nothing will ever live there (i'm assuming Venus will be a "toxic world" in game), even with the best space suits in the world, and would make terraformation pretty much impossible.
Then what about Titan ? Titan is toxic. For us anyway. It's a planet where liquid methane fall from the sky. But maybe there some weird methane based lifeforms hiding in the ocean (very unlikely i know) ?
More likely we could probably be able to set up a colony there with adequat spacesuits and habitat, unlike venus where anything we would throw at it would become a blob of matter. So how do you do the distinction with these 2 very different kind of toxic planets ? Having a set of variables in game to determine the planet's "qualities" would allow for much better game mechanism since every planet would literally be different and not just a generic template.
My point is that toxic is vague, everything in the solar system except earth is toxic for us for a variety of reason.
Just as "barren world" we saw in another screenshot. the Moon is barren, Mercury is barren too. We would probably be able to set up a colony on the moon and happily jump on its surface (wait we actually did the latter), but this is something that we won't do on Mercury because anything close would probably melt.
Those definitions are already too vague for what we know. And in my mind really restrict the gameplay around very simple concepts that doesn't actually portrays what we know about space, this is what i find kinda sad.
- 10
- 3
- 1
Well, PDS devs have cited several times that B5 was a source of inspiration and influence, so yeah.
- 3
Well, that and the clouds of sulphur dioxide, that acid rain that only doesn't reach the surface because of the intense heat makes it evaporate, the metallic "snow" that appears to be some kind of lead sulphide and the chlorine in the upper atmosphere. God knows what nastiness is in the soil. Scientists agree; Venus wants to wipe it's ass with your curtains.
It is, look at the graphic of the toxic world in the DD screenshot, then go back and look at Venus in the Solar system screenshot in one of the earlier DDs. They're the same.
Toxic World world is probably short for "Really Very Toxic World, Don't Even Bother".
Master of Orion 3 did it this way. It turns out, you didn't care about any of that stuff, just whether it was in the green, yellow or red habitation ring. Can I put my dudes on this world, and if I do how much will they hate it? That's what you want to know. Not "Survay report: Bellerophon IV. This world appears superficially habitable, with 0.87g, 19% O2 in the atmosphere and large bodies of surface water. But the bizarre biology of the local flora means that the atmosphere also contains at least 37 chemical compounds never before encountered by science and each of which is spectacularly fatal to humans. The 300 mph winds may also prove challenging to colonization efforts. The soil is laced with arsenic, and there's only a weak magnetic field so the surface is wildly radioactive. In summery: no."
Mercury's day time surface temperature is "only" about 400c, about twice as hot as a common oven less than half of what space craft experience during re-entry; I don't imagine constructing liveable enclosed habitats on the surface would be much beyond an advanced civilisation. The night side is less than -200 below and some craters on the poles may be deep enough to be in perpetual darkness; we could build habitats there and be more worried about being frozen to death than being burned alive.
Why anyone would want to bother is another question entirely.
I prefer vague definitions, actually. Without being specific about what makes a toxic world toxic the game can potentially encompass far more planet types than it could if it came up with some metrics about atmosphere and temperature and so on. There's more to habitability than just atmosphere composition and temperature.
Last edited:
- 11
- 1
Cheers for the DD Jormungandur and further deets Grekulf 
. lol at the 'first' . These Spaceports and the unique resources sound interesting - a good way of further personalising worlds by limiting how many modules can be put on it. Would be cool if it's possible to start off with a 'border' spaceport that's more defensively focussed, and as the empire and planet expands slowly convert it into more of an economic thing that's appropriate to the planet it orbits (which sounds like it is, all being well ).
. lol at the 'first' . These Spaceports and the unique resources sound interesting - a good way of further personalising worlds by limiting how many modules can be put on it. Would be cool if it's possible to start off with a 'border' spaceport that's more defensively focussed, and as the empire and planet expands slowly convert it into more of an economic thing that's appropriate to the planet it orbits (which sounds like it is, all being well ).
Will it be possible to move the spaceports from one planet to another (possibly by means of some module which allows it?)
Furthermore is it possible to build into said spaceport planet busting weapons? Atm the best model for a death star would be such a space-station...
Furthermore is it possible to build into said spaceport planet busting weapons? Atm the best model for a death star would be such a space-station...
- 1
Just a small thing but, I noticed the button 'terraform' in one of the screenshots. Yea nearly every game uses it. But i Think it is not very fitting if there isn't any Terra, or you aren't from there. Which i guess most wount be.
Therefor I think the term 'Planetform' would be much better for this.
Therefor I think the term 'Planetform' would be much better for this.
- 12
Terraform means making something like Earth. Planetform would mean making something like a planet, which would be pretty vague. If you want to find a non-earth centric term you'd have to use a word meaning "to make something suitable for life" rather than "making something like a planet"
- 1
Speaking of Babylon 5:
1) Can we have populations on our space stations?
2) Can we make space ports over uninhabited worlds?
- 1
I like that you criticized a viewpoint that assumed an Earth based terminology, but are just fine with Chiron based terminology. Planetform's obvious drawback as a term is that it presupposes you will re-engineer planets to be covered in intelligent fungus, which is not likely for non-fungoid life forms.
On the topic, though, I do hope an intelligent or semi-intelligent Planet like life form makes an appearance as an easter egg anomaly.
This game is looking really good. I love the illustrations. The resource concept is good, really looking forward to how the trade system works. My favorite part is the modules for the space stations. I am hoping for some tough decisions regarding those.
Lastly, the science vessel "Courageous Plumage" is very well named. Whoever came up with that, you have my compliments.
Lastly, the science vessel "Courageous Plumage" is very well named. Whoever came up with that, you have my compliments.
Will we be able to "scrap" or decommission modules on spaceports and replace them with more useful ones as the situation changes?
For example, a spaceport may need defensive upgrades when it is on the frontier, but as the frontier expands and the spaceport is no longer in immediate danger I may wish to change the spaceport from a defensive focus to an economic focus.
For example, a spaceport may need defensive upgrades when it is on the frontier, but as the frontier expands and the spaceport is no longer in immediate danger I may wish to change the spaceport from a defensive focus to an economic focus.
If we capture a spaceport from another empire, can we use (not build) the modules that they have put on it that we cannot due to our ethos or scientific reasons, or will they be rendered useless?
