Author Topic: Sol System in Starfire  (Read 7816 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Sol System in Starfire
« on: April 25, 2010, 09:55:38 PM »
Anyone ever done a system sheet for our solar system in starfire?
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #1 on: April 25, 2010, 10:03:52 PM »
An official one?  Not to my knowledge.  

Here's a version of it using the currently envisioned planetary codes for Cosmic.

Type H = Hot (i.e. Mercury-like)
Type B = Barren
Type F = Frozen

An 'm' prefix indictates a moon.  And an 'a' prefix indicates an asteroid belt.




Code: [Select]
Primary Star Type:  Yellow  --> Sol

3 LM -- H  (mass 1) --> Mercury

6 LM -- V  (mass 2) --> Venus

8 LM -- T  (mass 2) --> Earth
           mB --> Luna

13 LM -- B (mass 1) --> Mars

23 LM -- aB --> Asteroid Belt

43 LM -- G --> Jupiter
             mB --> Io
             mB --> Europa
             mB --> Ganymede
             mB --> Callisto

79 LM -- G --> Saturn
             mB --> Tethys
             mB --> Dione
             mB --> Rhea
             mB --> Titan
             mB --> Iapetus

160 LM -- I --> Uranus
               mF --> Ariel
               mF --> Umbriel
               mF --> Titania
               mF --> Oberon

250 LM -- I --> Neptune
               mF --> Triton
 

Offline drakar

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • http://newempirescampaign.yolasite.com
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #2 on: April 25, 2010, 10:05:55 PM »
which version of starfire are you using im sure that i can pull one up that ive seen used for a prior campaign. either that or you could private message procyon as I know he has one for 3eR, GSF, and Ultra
Sappers Forward!
833rd Eng Co Motto
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #3 on: April 26, 2010, 12:42:18 AM »
Drakar I use 3rdR.

Crucis thanks!

I am debating doing a new campaign with Sol as the start.  The players will control different Earth Governments, like many of the Aurora stories.  So I am looking for something to use for that idea.
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #4 on: April 26, 2010, 08:28:30 AM »
Some notes on the make up of Sol

Under the current rules Mars, Luna, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Iapetus, Rhea, Dione and Tethys are all treated as O2 bodies despite a massive spread in size, gravity and atmosphere.  Also the asteroid belt by base rules is assumed by its distance to have about 115 asteroid colonies, note that Ceres is 32% of the mass found in the Asteroid Belt and far larger than any other asteroid.  

Looking at things in detail just reinforces my sense that low mass O2 worlds like Mars should be treated different than the moons of Gas Giants.  A world like Mars because of its higher gravity and better surface temperature is going to be a far more favorable target for colonization.  If anything I think a strong case could be made that a high tech civilization would find Mars a better environment to colonize than a Heavy Gravity World.  

Name    Surface Area
Earth        510,072,000 km²
     Luna    37,930,000 km²
Mars     144,798,500 km²

Asteroid Belt (200 Asteroids with a diameter larger than 100km)   
     Ceres              2,845,795 km²
     Pallas              929,239 km²
     Vesta              878,701 km²
     Hygiea              583,290 km²
     Interamnia, 704    333,707 km²
     Europa, 52         284,487 km²
     Davida, 511         262,256 km²
     Cybele, 65         234,021 km²
     Eunomia, 15         225,527 km²
     Juno                  209,011 km²

Jupiter   
     Ganymede    87,000,000 km²
     Callisto         73,000,000 km²
     Io              41,910,000 km²
     Europa         30,900,000 km²

Saturn   
     Titan    83,000,000 km²
     Rhea    7,337,000 km²
     Iapetus    6,700,000 km²
     Dione    3,952,896 km²
     Tethys    3,568,158 km²
     Enceladus    797,610 km²
     Mimas    490,000 km²
   
Uranus
    Titania    7,820,000 km²
    Oberon    7,285,000 km²
    Umbriel    4,296,000 km²
    Ariel        4,211,300 km²
    Miranda    700,000 km²
   
Neptune
    Triton    23,018,000 km²
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #5 on: April 26, 2010, 10:34:16 AM »
For humor value here is my version of Sol for a game I am thinking about doing, thanks again Crucis.

Michael

Code: [Select]
Sol System
3 LM -- O1  (mass 1) --> Mercury


6 LM -- V  (mass 2) --> Venus


8 LM -- T  (mass 2) --> Earth (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Luna (Size cap 100 PU) (MW = Rich)


13 LM -- O2 (mass 1) --> Mars (Size cap 250 PU)(MW = Rich)(Environment 0.8)  


23 LM --> Asteroid Belt
             O2 --> Ceres (Size cap 32 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Pallas (Size cap 20 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Vesta (Size cap 20 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Hygiea (Size cap 18 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Interamnia 704 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Europa 52 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Davida 511 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Cybele 65 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Eunomia 15 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Juno (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             One Hundred and five other Asteroid Colony sites (Max Size Cap of 16 PU and MW = Rich)
             Note: Ceres can be colonized by two players, each with a cap of 16 PU.

43 LM -- G --> Jupiter
             O2 --> Io (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O2 --> Europa (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O2 --> Ganymede (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Callisto (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Very Rich)


79 LM -- G --> Saturn
             O2 --> Tethys (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Normal)
             O2 --> Dione (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Normal)
             O2 --> Rhea (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Normal)
             O2 --> Titan (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Very Rich)
             O2 --> Iapetus (Size cap 50 PU) (MW = Normal)
             O2 --> Enceladus (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O2 --> Mimas (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Normal)      


160 LM -- I --> Uranus
             O1 --> Ariel (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O1 --> Uriel (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O1 --> Titania (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O1 --> Oberon (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich)
             O1 --> Miranda (Size cap 8 PU) (MW = Normal)


250 LM -- I --> Neptune
             O1 --> Triton (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich)



350 KM --> Kuiper Belt
             KC --> Eris (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Haumea (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Makemake (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Orcus (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Pluto (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Very Rich) (Environment 0.5)
                       KC --> Charon (Size cap 8 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Quaoar (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> Sedna (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             KC --> "Snow White" 2007 OR10 (Size cap 16 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)
             Sixty other Kuiper Colonies are possible (Size cape of 8 PU) (MW = Rich) (Environment 0.5)

             Note: Kuiper Colony (KC) costs $80 per PTU to ship and place, Requires 80 H, 10 Q and has a pure emplacement
             cost of $40.  Kupier Belts can normally hold a number of Kupier colonies equal to LM / 5. Kupier Colonies
             always have a mineral wealth of Rich.  Kupier Colonies have a environmental value of 50%.  A Kuiper or
             Outer Bodies Survey requires 50 Survey Points to complete.
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #6 on: April 26, 2010, 11:18:19 AM »
Quote from: "miketr"
Some notes on the make up of Sol

Under the current rules Mars, Luna, Io, Europa, Ganymede, Callisto, Titan, Iapetus, Rhea, Dione and Tethys are all treated as O2 bodies despite a massive spread in size, gravity and atmosphere.  Also the asteroid belt by base rules is assumed by its distance to have about 115 asteroid colonies, note that Ceres is 32% of the mass found in the Asteroid Belt and far larger than any other asteroid.  

Looking at things in detail just reinforces my sense that low mass O2 worlds like Mars should be treated different than the moons of Gas Giants.  A world like Mars because of its higher gravity and better surface temperature is going to be a far more favorable target for colonization.  If anything I think a strong case could be made that a high tech civilization would find Mars a better environment to colonize than a Heavy Gravity World.  



Michael, there's only so much detail that a p&p game can sustain... at least in its official rules.  ;)

Yes, Mars, Luna, Io, etc. are all treated as O2 (which is Type B for Barren in Cosmic) bodies, though I would point out that Mars is a planet, albeit a small one, while the rest are moons.  

For Cosmic, my definition of what qualifies as a "moon" is any satellite having a radius of 500 KM or greater.  And anything below that gets ignored.  Note that surface area increases in relation to the square of the radius, so there's a considerable difference in surface area between the smallest (500 km radius) moon and the largest, Ganymede.  Still, for the sake of simplicity, they are currently considered the same...  I'm a little wary of adding another step into the sysgen process to start creating moon sizes, even though a few of the largest moons are actually larger than Mercury... which should arguably allow them to have larger pop capacities.



As for the asteroid belt and Ceres, Pallas, Vesta, etc., I actually have suggested that AB's be handled differently.  Instead of 2 or 5 OP's per sH, roll 1d10 per AB, with the result being the number of "planetoids", like Ceres, Pallas, etc.  And it is only on those limited number of bodies that you could colonize.  Those planetoids would be of the type that is proper for their location.  That is, Sol's AB would be Type aB, as it is in the Rocky Zone (though just barely).  But an AB in the Ice Zone would be coded aF.  Those planetoids would be only be able to support an Outpost, since even the largest planetoid is smaller than the smallest (by Cosmic's definition) moon. (Note that there are two upsides to this planetoid concept.  1. There are many fewer populations to track.  2. You know exactly where each of those 1-10 planetoids are for defensive purposes.)


As for Mars vs gas zone moons, it is worth pointing out that currently, Mars can support a larger Settlement level population, while those moons can only support Colony level populations.  I think that that's a significant enough population difference.  Having said that, if Rocky Zone Type B planets and Moons were to remain as Type B and mB (for Barren), what would you code (and term) Gas zone moons? (Note that I use the prefix 'm' for all moons, hence the code mB for Barren moons.)




However, there is one point that you've missed here, and that's that it's not really a Mass 1 Mars-like planet that you should be pointing to for improved habitability, but the larger Mass 2 and 3 Type O2's ... and particularly those that are relatively close to the outer border of the liquid water zone.  There is arguably a substantial difference.  

First of all, M2/3 O2's would have gravities much more similar to T/ST planets.  M2/3 O2's would quite possibly have retained their magnetospheres, which would protect their atmospheres from being stripped away from solar winds and help protect them from radiation.  Their atmospheres would probably be reasonably dense ... denser than Mars' rather thin atmosphere which has been largely stripped away due to a lack of a magnetosphere.  Oh, it's likely that these atmosphere would still not be breathable to T/ST races, as there wouldn't be any plant life to produce and sustain higher levels of oxygen.

Also, IF those M2/3 O2's are relatively close to the outer edge of the liquid water zone, the planetary temperatures may be fairly tolerable ... oh, not in a let's go out and bask in the sunshine sort of way, but maybe tolerable in a throw your breathing mask on and a winter coat, and you might be able to walk out on the surface without wearing a full blown spacesuit.  (Just speculation, mind you...)

Also consider that there may be a region of "tolerability" just sunward of the LWZ, where it might be a little too warm to sustain liquid water in the open or produce life, but have an overall "environment" that was at least tolerable for colonists.

Obviously, such a type of world would be vastly different from Venus.  Venus starts by being a little too close to the sun to even be in this region of tolerability, but it also has the problem of having no magnetosphere, which has allowed the solar winds to strip off the lighter gases from its atmosphere, leaving only the heavier ones ... such as CO2, which has resulted in its immensely dense (something like 100 times that of Earth) and deadly atmosphere.  

It's been theorized that Venus may have had a magnetosphere at some point.  But at some point in its distant past, Venus was struck not once but twice by large objects that mostly stopped its rotation ... its "day" is about 240 earth days ... and thus caused its magnetosphere to disappear.  Thus, it's possible that perhaps Venus' deadly environment is due to extremely bad luck as much as its location.  This isn't to say that if it did rotate more normally and retained an atmosphere that it would be habitable.  But if it did rotate normally, have a magsphere, and retain an atmosphere, it might at least be something like a very warm desolate world, or at worst, just a large Type H Mercury-like world.


I've actually been considering adding a new planetary type for Cosmic ... Type M for Marginal.  A "Marginal" planet would be a Mass 2 or 3 planet that existed just outside of the LWZ, either sunward or outward of the LWZ. (I actually have a version of the planetary formation zone table that includes these "warm" and "cool" zones where Marginal planets could exist.)  Thus, Type M's could be just a little too warm or a little too cool to be truly habitable T/ST worlds.  But they would be very tolerable worlds and would be more hospitable to colonization to the traditional Type B (aka O2) planets and moons, and would support up to a Small population, though they would fall into the "non-habitable" category, since they cannot produce life.  (And since it's my intention that "non-habitable" worlds cannot grow to simplify bookkeeping, populations on Type M's would also not grow except thru colonization.)

Crucis
 

Offline drakar

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 9
    • http://newempirescampaign.yolasite.com
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #7 on: April 26, 2010, 11:22:09 AM »
In your system layout I would like to remind you of the Trojans in Jupiter's orbit that would have almost an equal number of colonization possibilities as those of the main belt.
Sappers Forward!
833rd Eng Co Motto
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #8 on: April 26, 2010, 11:58:49 AM »
Honestly, drakar (and miketr), I don't think that you really should be putting any PTU's on anything much smaller than Ceres or Pallas or Vesta.  At worse, may be 1 or 2 PTU's for those little rocks.  Remember that each PTU is about 50,000 people.  Putting about 800,000 people (16 PTU) on one of those little rocks is a little ridiculous.
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #9 on: April 26, 2010, 01:19:30 PM »
Crucis:

Without getting drawn into a big debate on why Venus and Mars are the way they are I do find the comments on the magnetic fields for the two worlds interesting.  The problem with talking about that is we are not sure exactly why Earth has a Magnetic field.  Some believe that its because of the Moon and its tidal effects on the earth.  A large body like the money might have prevented Venus from being tide locked to the sun.  We could go on an on.

I agree that system generation needs to be kept simple.  Your comment on the larger grave worlds that fail to make T/ST is an interesting one.  My issue with that is that I feel that we gravity control it would be simpler to overcome the negative effects of low gravity physiology than that of high gravity. My assumption is that with Starfire type tech artificial gravity generation would be possible.  So on lower gravity worlds where housing was setup artificial gravity could be created.  You could do the same for higher gravity worlds but the difference is what happens when people leave the controlled gravity environment of the cities / settlements?  From what I have read prolonged high gravity is far more dangerous and debilitating than low gravity is.  

The point on limiting bodies to a diameter of 500 kilometers or larger is an interesting one.  I suspect that people want more room to expand.  How about that for each asteroid belt you roll the d10 for the number of planetoids in the size class able to support 16 PU settlement.  Plus a pack of 4 PU habitats scattered throughout the belt on bodies larger than a diameter of 100 kilometers?  That would get you Five Times the Light Minute Distance from the Primary little bodies for rocks.  So for Sol it would be Ceres, Vesta and Pallas able to have 16 PU populations and 115 more 4 PU populations for a total population of 508 PU in main asteroid belt; 25,400,000 people.

What about the Kuiper bodies?  Some of them are very large and in terms of surface temp no worse off than moons of the Ice worlds.

As to generating size of moons, I agree that going wild with lots of tables could and would be counter productive.  I was looking for more of a spread in size between Luna, Mars, Ceres and Europa which are all treated right now as the same thing.

Draken

It depends on where the cut off size is for populations the Trajon rocks and ice balls past the main belt are fairly numerous but not very large over all.  Only a few are larger than 200km in diameter.
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #10 on: April 26, 2010, 02:15:45 PM »
Quote from: "miketr"
Crucis:

Without getting drawn into a big debate on why Venus and Mars are the way they are I do find the comments on the magnetic fields for the two worlds interesting.  The problem with talking about that is we are not sure exactly why Earth has a Magnetic field.  Some believe that its because of the Moon and its tidal effects on the earth.  A large body like the money might have prevented Venus from being tide locked to the sun.  We could go on an on.

Yes, I agree that it's possible that the Moon may be a factor in the presence of Earth's strong magsphere.  Of course, if we were to accept that as a requirement, then all T/ST's without moons would have to be downgraded to something like Marginal worlds or Type B (O2) worlds.

Also, Venus isn't totally tidelocked to the sun ... yet, though it's certainly on its way to being so... ;)

Anyways, the presence of magsphere seems very critical for a planet to a) retain anything close to a breathable, non-super-dense atmosphere, and b) to provide protection against various forms of radiation from space that could be harmful to life.

Quote
I agree that system generation needs to be kept simple.  Your comment on the larger grav worlds that fail to make T/ST is an interesting one.  My issue with that is that I feel that we gravity control it would be simpler to overcome the negative effects of low gravity physiology than that of high gravity. My assumption is that with Starfire type tech artificial gravity generation would be possible.  So on lower gravity worlds where housing was setup artificial gravity could be created.  You could do the same for higher gravity worlds but the difference is what happens when people leave the controlled gravity environment of the cities / settlements?  From what I have read prolonged high gravity is far more dangerous and debilitating than low gravity is.  

That may be true (the comments about high grav, etc.).  The problem it creates though is then you start having to pay attention to mass 2 vs mass 3 Type B planets, with Mass 3 B's being less hospitable to Mass 2 races ... not terribly unlike dealing with habitables.  But if it's easier to deal with lower gravity than higher gravity, don't you then create a situation where M2 races would see M3 B's as less than hospitable (maybe downgrading from Desolate to Extreme?) but M3 races would not have the parallel penalty for seeing Mass 2 B's as less hospitable.  There are balance issues here that cannot be ignored.  It would also be rather ... strange ... if M3 races saw M2-B's in the same way that M2 races saw M3-B's, because then how do you explain it if M2 and M3 races were to see M1-B's in the same way?  It creates a rather strange conundrum. It seems easier to me to assume that if some sort of artificial gravity tech does exist and is used to make non-habitable populations more hospitable, then it's better if it works equally well in either direction so that there are no balance issues.






Quote
The point on limiting bodies to a diameter of 500 kilometers or larger is an interesting one.  I suspect that people want more room to expand.  How about that for each asteroid belt you roll the d10 for the number of planetoids in the size class able to support 16 PU settlement.  Plus a pack of 4 PU habitats scattered throughout the belt on bodies larger than a diameter of 100 kilometers?  That would get you Five Times the Light Minute Distance from the Primary little bodies for rocks.  So for Sol it would be Ceres, Vesta and Pallas able to have 16 PU populations and 115 more 4 PU populations for a total population of 508 PU in main asteroid belt; 25,400,000 people.

115 more little populations?  YUCK!  The idea is to reduce the number of economic records, not increase them.  And of course, players want room to expand.  If you told them they could colonize the surface of the sun, some would do it.  At some point, you have draw lines in the sand.  And the idea of tracking dozens of tiny little individual populations repulses me.  Frankly, I think that there are far too many people being allowed to colonize asteroid belts as it is.  Asteroid belts are just giant strip mines to me, not places to dump tens of millions of colonists.

Also, there's the logical problem that says if you can start dumping colonists on those tiny little rocks in the asteroid belts (other than the significant planetoids), why can't you do the same thing with moons with radius' smaller than 500 km?  If that were the case, then Jupiter might have upwards of 50 or more little moons.  At some point, lines have to be drawn for the sake of game simplicity, bookkeeping simplicity, and outright sanity.

(I'm sure that some could say, why not treat all those small moons like a pool?  Sure, you could do that... but then you also end up with the arguments about where do all those mini-OP's exist when some enemy enters the system?  And does each of those mini-OP's have to be conquered separately?  And is each of them a potential source of interrogation into to any conqueror?  Frankly, this is all too much of a pain.  )


Quote
What about the Kuiper bodies?  Some of them are very large and in terms of surface temp no worse off than moons of the Ice worlds.

I fully intend to just ignore them as being worthless slushballs that are far too cold and distant from their star to be productive or profitable places to dump down mining outposts.




Quote
As to generating size of moons, I agree that going wild with lots of tables could and would be counter productive.  I was looking for more of a spread in size between Luna, Mars, Ceres and Europa which are all treated right now as the same thing.

Frankly, I believe that they're all treated the same because to do otherwise would require an additional level of detail that would have a ripple effect on some other rules (such as population limits) and increases in complexity.  However, it would be possible to basically have to different general sizes of moons (not counting twin planets).  Size 1 could represent most of the 500+ km moons in our solar system.  And Size 2 moons could be those very few moons, such as Ganymede, that are approaching the same size as smaller Mass 1 planets.

However, doing this creates the aforementioned problem in the population limit tables.  Right now, for Desolate and Extreme populations, the distinction is simple ... planets vs. moons.  But if this additional layer of size is added, you then have to consider having 3 size categories...  Small Moons, Large Moons and Small (Mass 1) planets, and Large (Mass 2/3) planets.  

I have considered doing something like this, but haven't really felt the pressing need to do so.  A few players such as yourself have expressed a desire for additional detail in this regard, but I haven't seen any huge outcry for it.  Still, I don't completely dismiss doing something along these lines.
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #11 on: April 26, 2010, 02:54:28 PM »
Quote from: "crucis"
Quote
What about the Kuiper bodies?  Some of them are very large and in terms of surface temp no worse off than moons of the Ice worlds.

I fully intend to just ignore them as being worthless slushballs that are far too cold and distant from their star to be productive or profitable places to dump down mining outposts.

As to temp they are no colder than many of the Ice worlds Moons; after all 60 Kelvin vs. 40 Kelvin isn't much of a difference.

Keep in mind that the hydrogen, ice-water and hydrocarbons such as methane much in abundance on those rocks would be very valuable for a space faring society.  A number of the inner moons such as Titan, Callisto and Ganymede are in a large part made up mostly of frozen water.

As you said you do need to draw a line.

As to tracking all the little bodies in the asteroid field recall my solution in many games is not to allow anything other than Terran worlds to be colonized.  ;)

Michael
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #12 on: April 26, 2010, 03:14:54 PM »
Quote from: "miketr"
Quote from: "crucis"
Quote
What about the Kuiper bodies?  Some of them are very large and in terms of surface temp no worse off than moons of the Ice worlds.

I fully intend to just ignore them as being worthless slushballs that are far too cold and distant from their star to be productive or profitable places to dump down mining outposts.

As to temp they are no colder than many of the Ice worlds Moons; after all 60 Kelvin vs. 40 Kelvin isn't much of a difference.

Keep in mind that the hydrogen, ice-water and hydrocarbons such as methane much in abundance on those rocks would be very valuable for a space faring society.  A number of the inner moons such as Titan, Callisto and Ganymede are in a large part made up mostly of frozen water.

As you said you do need to draw a line.

As to tracking all the little bodies in the asteroid field recall my solution in many games is not to allow anything other than Terran worlds to be colonized.  :wink:

Frankly, I happen to like the "concentration" method of minimizing non-habitable colonization ... that is, trying to make rocky zone colonization far more profitable than non-rocky zone colonization.  What I'm been thinking about in the past couple days is taking a step back to how SM#2 dealt with environmental modifiers as opposed to how Ultra handled them.  In Ultra, it appears that an intentional decision was made to make the ROI's for desolates and particularly extremes better compared to IU ROI's to further promote Desolate and particularly Extreme colonization, even at distances greater than 0 StMP.  The thought popped into my head ... "why?"   Why not just look at it in reverse... make Desolate and Extreme colonization ... particularly Gas and Ice zone colonization rather less profitable, even in-system, than IU's ...to promote rocky zone colonization over gas and ice zone colonization.  Such a decision wouldn't prevent gas and ice zone colonization ... just make it far less desirable for economic reasons.  You still might put those little "listening post" OP's in the far reaches of a star system, but in far more limited numbers and with far smaller populations.

Of course, if promotion of rocky zone colonization is the goal, then it would become important to have the mineral content values for planetary types actually IN the Rocky Zone produce higher returns than those in the gas and ice zones.
 

Offline crucis

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 247
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #13 on: April 26, 2010, 03:28:21 PM »
Quote from: "miketr"
As to temp they are no colder than many of the Ice worlds Moons; after all 60 Kelvin vs. 40 Kelvin isn't much of a difference.

Michael, actually, I'd thought about this general question a few months back, when someone wondered about why the Moon and Gas Giant moons were of the same type, but gas giant moons and Ice giant moons were not of the same time, given all of the relative temperature disparities.  After all, the temperatures of some gas giant moons are closer to the temps of Ice Giant moons than those of the Moon.  Sort of makes one wonder why rocky zone Type mB (O2) moons should be treated 100% the same as gas zone Type mB (O2) moons, doesn't it?  Maybe gas giant zone O2 moons need to have a different type than rocky zone O2 moons, so that they can be valued differently. (Rolls eyes at self for thinking about more reasons to create additional complexity...  :roll:  )
 

Offline miketr (OP)

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • m
  • Posts: 61
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Sol System in Starfire
« Reply #14 on: April 26, 2010, 04:42:43 PM »
Reducing the return on investment for colonization of Ice worlds and even gas giants would be a good idea.  

On the topic of gas giants its fairly clear from observations of some stars that what makes up a gas giant needs some updating from 3rdR.  A number of examples of so called 'Super Jovians'  some in fairly proximity to the star have been noted along with things like Brown Dwarfs in larger numbers as we get better at detecting them orbiting larger starts.  Brown Dwarfs along with Red Dwarfs should be fairly common in space.

Michael