Why do hot planets have such a low colony cost

[tobijon (OP)]

I currently have a game with several planets very close to stars (including mercury), where the temperature is around 360 C, and the colony cost is 2.7. Isn't that a little low? The colony cost for planets under the minimum temperature goes up much faster, mars -70 with 2.7, that's only 60 C from the species minimum. Europa at -164 has 6.41 but is still closer in temperature than mercury.

[Steve Walmsley]

I currently have a game with several planets very close to stars (including mercury), where the temperature is around 360 C, and the colony cost is 2.7. Isn't that a little low? The colony cost for planets under the minimum temperature goes up much faster, mars -70 with 2.7, that's only 60 C from the species minimum. Europa at -164 has 6.41 but is still closer in temperature than mercury.

When a planet is tide-locked, the colony cost for temperature and the population capacity are both divided by 5. This is to simulate the population living in the area between the hot and cold sides, where temperatures are less extreme. Mercury is actually in 3:2 resonance, but treated as tide-locked in Aurora for simplicity and making the sol system a little more interesting.

http://aurora2.pentarch.org/index.php?topic=8495.msg101987#msg101987

[tobijon (OP)]

ah, I knew I must be missing something, that makes sense, without the tidal lock it would be around 13