We could just use one galaxy if it really comes to it, but I want at least one full one!Rocketman said:
-
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.
Rocketman said:
Going faster than the speed of light is already impossible, so would it make much difference whether the top speed was 2c or 3000000c?
Actually, that is really just theoretical, based that light is the base on which everything is relative.Reveilled said:Going faster than the speed of light is already impossible, so would it make much difference whether the top speed was 2c or 3000000c?
But for the sake of the mod, can we travel the speed of light... please????
Also, looking back on the moutains as shallow space idea, since they will have ports and will be controled, moutains should represent minor systems (with land), while major planets will be provences. But this is more of a re-cap then an idea. Also, my idea for finalized weather conditions is:
Snow -> Meteor Shower
Ice -> Asteroid Group
Storm -> Worm Hole
Again, just a re-cap to spark debate.
Is it possible to make circular provinces? If so, how about something like this (not the whole map, just a guess as to how solar systems could be done):
Green would be 'land' and blue, 'water'.
Stars would only show up on the 'physical' map view, as bright dots in the center of each system.
Green would be 'land' and blue, 'water'.
Stars would only show up on the 'physical' map view, as bright dots in the center of each system.
That's one way to do it, only you'd have to march through each ring, plus how would you colonize the jovian planets? They are nothing but gas. I thought we'd only use terra planets, and they'd be an idividual planet so you could skip outter planets to strike deep in the heart of an empire.
Case in point is the WH40k scenario in Armegeddon, the enemy forces bi-passed the minor systems to attack Armegeddon because it was the major planet.
But it needs to come to consensus....
Case in point is the WH40k scenario in Armegeddon, the enemy forces bi-passed the minor systems to attack Armegeddon because it was the major planet.
But it needs to come to consensus....
I Was thinking more like this the stars gas planets and suns are PTI and each individual planet is one province or major planets might be four representing four hemispheres no fancy space land provinces
That was the original idea, but I think we decided that shallow space should be land provences that way land units are still useful. Land units, then, really reflect more of the smaller ships and landing troops then full armies, while the big kahona ships (Super Star Destoryers) would be out in deep space being too big to fit in between planets and their moons or what not... just take it as it comes to you.Mezzo said:I Was thinking more like this the stars gas planets and suns are PTI and each individual planet is one province or major planets might be four representing four hemispheres no fancy space land provinces
But, really, very little has been set in stone.
Mr. Capiatlist said:
Well, there's the moons of the gas giants, some of which are bigger than Mercury.
It could also represent, for example, gas-giant-moon-based defenses to block enemy fleets from doing just that. It'd be better to engage the enemy in the frozen wastes around the gas giants than right above the capital planet, eh?
I think, though, that we could have the moon(s) represented; but I don't think it should be a ring.Rocketman said:
Rocketman said:
The only problem I see there is that if we went with the land/water idea there, you'd only be able to build ships on Pluto. On the other hand, I do like the idea of circular provinces like that.
To get this started again:
About the land/where thing:
I would suggest having the map as Mezzo suggested above, only adding land-bridges (you know, Kent-Calais sort of thing, little rocks in the water) between planets in the same solar system. That way, land units can still move from planet to planet, and still have a bit of usefullnes, and ships can be built on all planets.
About the land/where thing:
I would suggest having the map as Mezzo suggested above, only adding land-bridges (you know, Kent-Calais sort of thing, little rocks in the water) between planets in the same solar system. That way, land units can still move from planet to planet, and still have a bit of usefullnes, and ships can be built on all planets.
That is a good idea too, but I thought their usefulness would be two-fold if we use Reveilled's idea of having "mountain" terrain between planets of the same galaxy, that way your "land" units can go out and wreak havok in the short range, yet cannot transverse to another galaxy. If we do the single galaxy idea; KoM's idea is far better. So, I think it comes down to the pivital vote:King of Minors said:
One Galaxy or two?
My vote is for one, it will be easier and it means we can have more planets and planets can have multiple provs...
Please put your vote in bold
I love it when things are unanimous!
I assume this includes the minor galaxies, they were pointless anyway...o
Mezzo, just find a picture of the face-on view of the milky-way, put Sol (our solar system) somewhere near the edge then stick planets where ever you want, make it all purty. (I don't mean a map, I mean like one of those concept drawings).
I assume this includes the minor galaxies, they were pointless anyway...
o Mezzo, just find a picture of the face-on view of the milky-way, put Sol (our solar system) somewhere near the edge then stick planets where ever you want, make it all purty.
(I don't mean a map, I mean like one of those concept drawings).
This is my wallpaper, and also one of the largest pictures of the Milky Way I could find. You could base the map off of this.
And since we're going with one galaxy, I give my full support to King of Minor's "straits" idea.
And since we're going with one galaxy, I give my full support to King of Minor's "straits" idea.
Heh heh.
One or two things to note about the (real) concept drawing is that The Sun is about a third of the way in (as I believe it says in the Nasa link), so it sould probably be in the second-most outer arm (orientation doesn't matter, though), and that provinces should probably get smaller as the map moves closer to the core, due to a larger density of stars and planets.
This would have the upside of effectively putting a relatively primitive Earth in a backwater area of the Milky Way which will be seen by much of the galaxy to be populated by what I like to call space-hillbillies.
One or two things to note about the (real) concept drawing is that The Sun is about a third of the way in (as I believe it says in the Nasa link), so it sould probably be in the second-most outer arm (orientation doesn't matter, though), and that provinces should probably get smaller as the map moves closer to the core, due to a larger density of stars and planets.
This would have the upside of effectively putting a relatively primitive Earth in a backwater area of the Milky Way which will be seen by much of the galaxy to be populated by what I like to call space-hillbillies.