Author Topic: Aurora II  (Read 57655 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6821
  • Thanked: 1370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Aurora II
« on: October 17, 2010, 02:21:35 AM »
I am playing around with Visual C# at the moment and I like what I see. As playing around with VB led to Starfire Assistant and Aurora, I am considering what type of programme to try to write in order to keep up my enthusiasm for learning C#. My first inclination was some type of Newtonian-based tactical combat. However, this does have some fundamental issues, as I just mentioned in another post, which is why I avoided it for Aurora. So the more I think about this, the more I think some updated, more realistic version of Aurora may be the way to go without going to full Newtonian mechanics. I am open to suggestions about fundamental changes that would be included in an Aurora II, rather than low level features. Bear in mind this is a LONG-term project. At the moment I am considering:

1) A resolution-independent game so it can be played on laptops and desktops with lower resolutions. The WPF (Windows Presentation Foundation) makes this MUCH easier.

2) Centering the game around the System Map and using popups to replace many of the separate windows in Aurora I.

3) Real-time rather than stepped time. Time will be more like Harpoon or Europa Universalis where you can pause it, or accelerate it. This is isn't as different as it sounds because it will be similar to permament automated turns with the sub-pulses equal to the acceleraton rate and no defined increments. I intend to load everything into memory so the program will avoid any database access as time passes. This will improve performance considerably. You should also be able to watch ships move across the map if I can get the graphics working as I intend.

4) Keeping the basic idea of Trans-Newtonian physics to allow naval-style manoeuvers

5) No jump points <shock!>. There would be actual interstellar travel rather than jump points, based on some form of warp drive equivalent. Stars would have a 'hyper limit' beyond which you can enter hyperspace and head for another star system. Systems would all be generated at game start and you would be able to add extra systems during the game as the SM. This adds a lot of flexibility in terms of detecting things at interstellar distances. At the moment I am considering a model where ships enter a 'warp bubble' and are cut-off from the universe until they arrive in your destination system. The arrival location for each ship will be variable but will be somewhere within a certain distance outside the hyper limit, perhaps hyperlimit radius x 20%. The bearing from the destination star would be based on a bell-curve with the most likely bearing being on a direct line to the star system from which you departed. So there would effectively be a 2D toroid around the destination star where you could arrive with the most likely location somewhere close to the hyper limit on a direct line between the departure and destination system, although you might end up on the far side of the system if you were unlucky. Time of arrival would also be subject to some variance due to the 'vagaries of hyperspace'. This means a war fleet is going to arrive in a scattered way over time and will have to assemble before a centralised defending fleet can defeat them in detail. Although it also means the defending fleet may not be certain about further attacking ships arriving. Due to this method of arrival, interstellar commercial shipping would be scattered around a system rather than concentrated on a single route.

Part of the rationale behind the above thoughts is to create the interest of a jump point assault on a much wider scale without having the movement restrictions and AI issues of jump points. Ships would need existing maneuver engines and hyperspace engines would replace jump drives, although these would likely be smaller in relative terms than jump drives as they would be more widespread. Ships without hyperspace engines would be restricted to their current system, or would have to be transported in carriers. Of course, this means no gravitational surveys.

6) Tracking the mass of ships and changing it as a result of fuel consumption, use of ordnance, dropping off cargo. Max speed would change as a result. This will allow more tactical options. Possibly, also have fuel storage tanks that could be discarded, or even strap-on boosters.

7) Area damage from nuclear explosions. Missiles would detonate based on proximity and damage would be based on warhead yield and distance from detonation. This would obviously create some disadvantages to ships travelling in close formation, as multiple ships would be damaged by the same explosion, and give the player some significant decisions with regard to escort deployment. No more 'Empire State' formations. With no jump points to consider, formations would no longer have some of their current disadvantages and I would add extra functionality to make them easier to manage. It will also reduce the need to build missiles on a 4/9/16 warhead basis as only a proportion of warhead strength will be applied against a particular target. Arriving in a new star system could result in a scattered formation so ship design would have to consider whether specialised units that could be separated for some time are better than multi-purpose units than could fight more effectively in isolation. Ships on the offensive would be more likely to be isolated than ships on the defensive so grand strategy may also influence ship design.

The above are just a few initial thoughts as this is a project that will take a year or more. This will not be a conversion of Aurora to C# but rather a new game that resuses a lot of the database tables and logic from Aurora. For example, I have already written the C# code that loads all the system information (Systems, Stars, Planets, etc.) from my current game into C# objects. This is something that Aurora only does for a single system on the Systen Map whereas my new C# program has all information from all systems in memory. I will probably handle such things as orbital movement on much smaller time-scales. In fact the current 5-day increment will most likely be subsumed into the general passage of time with things happening at different rates. Perhaps construction every 24 hours and population growth every week for example. The game is going to take longer to load and there will be a Save function but it should be quicker to run.

I'll use this thread to keep everyone updated as work progresses. This doesn't mean the end of Aurora though as I will continue to add functionality and release updates. It is unlikely I will make any major upgrades that require a large investment of time though.

Steve
 
The following users thanked this post: Neceros

Offline Nibelung44

  • Commander
  • *********
  • Posts: 302
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #1 on: October 17, 2010, 03:31:52 AM »
That's a courageous undertaking, to say the least, congrats on this move!

I would say that in 2011 and onward, you should really allow player to mod almost everything. It means separating the data base from the saved games files, first and foremost. And then it means opening the database to modding. Either with a tool allowing access, or you propose functions like 'export DB to text' and the reverse 'import text files to DB', whatever floats your boat.

In any case, seeing that an unique file contains both the DB plus all saved game is nearly an heresy for me  ;D Plus the fact that you can't mod anything.

And basic graphics please. I'm not asking any more than having the possibility of seeing a 2D bitmap for each ship on the ship design window and ship rosters, and a smaller, stylized icon on the space map. Even symbols are ok, as in Harpoon.
 

Offline procyon

  • Captain
  • **********
  • Posts: 402
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #2 on: October 17, 2010, 06:29:23 AM »
This sounds good.  I've tried Aurora and like it, just not enough for it to out compete our current games.

Thoughts from someone with VERY limited experience.

You could require grav surveys.  Just base the 'hyper drive' use for a destination on exact pinpoint of the other system's gravity well in respect to the current system.  This would require detailed analysis of gravatic acceleration and transition from many points at quite a distance from the primary to gain accurate data for using the drive.
Would make jumping in grav ships to the other system in the first waves early on VERY important, otherwise how are your ships going to get home.  Can't just build and send battlewagons, you'll need to look after the little guys or build that capability into your warships.
And shooting those little guys could be more important at that point than fighting the big boys.  Patrol forces to deal with surveys would be VITAL.

Like the area damage from nukes, but not sure how you plan to apply it.  If nukes damage over an area, you might look at AMM's based on larger warhead sizes as they wouldn't require direct (or close) hits.  One big nuke might be able to take out an entire salvo if they are clustered.  Might force folks to feel out the opposition as to how they shoot down missiles and could make 'energy' weapons more valuable in combat.

Like the idea so far.  Anxious to see where it goes. 
Might just have to make time for a 'video' game after all.....

... and I will show you fear in a handful of dust ...
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6821
  • Thanked: 1370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #3 on: October 17, 2010, 06:59:55 AM »
You could require grav surveys.  Just base the 'hyper drive' use for a destination on exact pinpoint of the other system's gravity well in respect to the current system.  This would require detailed analysis of gravatic acceleration and transition from many points at quite a distance from the primary to gain accurate data for using the drive.
Would make jumping in grav ships to the other system in the first waves early on VERY important, otherwise how are your ships going to get home.  Can't just build and send battlewagons, you'll need to look after the little guys or build that capability into your warships.
And shooting those little guys could be more important at that point than fighting the big boys.  Patrol forces to deal with surveys would be VITAL.

Good suggestion. Not sure exactly how I would implement it but the idea that grav surveys could substantially reduce the 'scatter' from a jump makes a lot of sense. Surveyed systems at both ends would be best. If neither system is surveyed, I guess there could even be a chance you could end up in the wrong destination system :)

Quote
Like the area damage from nukes, but not sure how you plan to apply it.  If nukes damage over an area, you might look at AMM's based on larger warhead sizes as they wouldn't require direct (or close) hits.  One big nuke might be able to take out an entire salvo if they are clustered.  Might force folks to feel out the opposition as to how they shoot down missiles and could make 'energy' weapons more valuable in combat.

Excellent point. It would certainly solve the massed salvo issue :). I don't think it would take too much coding effort to allow ships to specify a 'spreadout' effect for their salvos so that missiles would move apart during flight before converging on the target. I will give this some thought when the time comes to look at missile combat.

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #4 on: October 17, 2010, 07:44:14 AM »
-That should also include realistic Warhead strengths.
Nukes would deal more damage in Atmospheres, the thicker the more damage, but also be limited to the impact space, so no armor penetration, making mirvs more important.

-I think Jumpgates could actually still be possible, to accelerate Travel and have a specific destination. It would be the peak of technological development and allow a race to boost it's economy between any two systems, and thus consume enormous amounts of resources, and require a lot of development and planning. Rare, natural wormholes could still be allowed, working like normal travel, but not requiring hyperdrives.

-If you have jump carriers, why not allow attachment on a wider scale, not only fuel canisters, but things like weapon platforms that can be detached, but only have limited batteries without the carrying ships generators.

-I think if your going to redo everything anyways, why not improve shipbuilding? One could, like in current commercial 4x games, put his ships together on a grid, (I think 3d grids would be too much) and decide what is more protection worthy and fragile and thus go inside. Most weapons would obviously have to be outside.

MIRVs should be able to have various bomblets, like flares, decoy missiles, and actual damage dealers, or maybe deploying small laser satellites, and armor piercing missiles that require energy weapon tech.
Shields could be specialized to specific damage distributions, a Bubbleshield would take more damage from missiles, but due to more covered space be more efficient versus beams, and maybe one could build Guard ships that protect multiple ships under a huge shield bubble.
Armor penetration could also factor that stuff in, if armor is hardened and coherent, maybe hits might deal less damage to it, but deep damage templates could deal more damage after penetrating the outer shell.


-Most important off all, wouldn't the combat distances be different? Currently, point blank range is 10k kilometers, I don't thing a nuke in open space would damage anything that that distance.

-Also, you could revise engines, with a ship ship packing a high efficiency cruise engine for slow, but cheap flights, and a few additional overcharged engines for inefficient, but fast combat maneuvers. You could even have a weaker hyperflight, say, with only double speed, without a bonus to evasion, so you can have more refined flight and movement calculations in combat without having problems like in that other recent thread.

- Life simulation, Free O2 hints at natural wildlife, which might be dangerous, but could also be a factor of economy and tourism. Races might require water, toxic gases, or other stuff to survive (like we breath oxygen), or even radiation (if you think thats too far off, which it isn't, I guess increased modability might allow that).

-Populace sum; war always results in unrest, different economy types might result in quicker growth, but also the possibility of recession.
Genetic modifications might result in unrest, same as high unemployment.

- Conventional Materials. Those could be available in higher spread, and be required for the economy; given that ships calculate fuel and other stuff that is essentially also weight, players could build their ships partially from conventional materials to be cheaper and faster, but also a lot less durable.

-And finally make beam weapons do something versus atmosphere. it doesn't need to be much.

Edit: As for small things, more diplomacy maybe? feints? Intrigues? Reverse psychology?  ;)

*frenetic jubilation* well, whatever you do, it will quite possibly be great. I just hope I live to see the day X-D
Good luck, keep on making people waste their time. :D
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 02:30:59 PM by UnLimiTeD »
 

wilddog5

  • Guest
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #5 on: October 17, 2010, 08:19:20 AM »
I think you should keep jump points but change them so that they are allot more rare and rather than instant travel that act as high speed corridors so a hyper equipped ship might go anyware between 2X-10X normal hyper speed. They should also require an extensive grav survey (travel to all system bodies much like Geo survey does now) to map the systems grav fields in both of the end point systems to find the corridor.

jump gates should also stay allowing a ship to travel very fast along them like jump points but even faster (artificial tunnel is more smooth / kept clear of spacedust) and rarer but rather than being a starting tech they are a found tech (like plasma torps), should only link to 1 other gate and be fixed for that gate (no traveling the universe like SG1), should take a long time to build 50+ years at the start and have to be found with active sensors. There could also be unlinked gates that you could link with research / xeno teams?

will planets have a hyper limit as well given that a planet outside a stars limit could have a enemy fleet arrive in orbit with no chance of defending it self? what about a hyper jammer that prevents enemy ships from entering/ exiting hyper within a certain range (depending on tech) of an equipped planet.

i think i stop for now and let other people think on a few things
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6821
  • Thanked: 1370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #6 on: October 17, 2010, 09:29:14 AM »
I think you should keep jump points but change them so that they are allot more rare and rather than instant travel that act as high speed corridors so a hyper equipped ship might go anyware between 2X-10X normal hyper speed. They should also require an extensive grav survey (travel to all system bodies much like Geo survey does now) to map the systems grav fields in both of the end point systems to find the corridor.

In terms of their rarity and difficulty in mapping, it sounds like what you are describing would bear a strong resemblance to wormholes in the HonorVerse, where only a few systems have them, although they allow instant travel. In fact, something like an Honorverse wormhole junction, even with multiple termini, might be possible under this model. However, it would bring back some of the issues with jump points relating to formations having to compress and the AI. Although in the former case I guess a terminus could cover a wide area so a formation could go through intact.

Quote
jump gates should also stay allowing a ship to travel very fast along them like jump points but even faster (artificial tunnel is more smooth / kept clear of spacedust) and rarer but rather than being a starting tech they are a found tech (like plasma torps), should only link to 1 other gate and be fixed for that gate (no traveling the universe like SG1), should take a long time to build 50+ years at the start and have to be found with active sensors. There could also be unlinked gates that you could link with research / xeno teams?

This would be similar to wormholes above, except they would be artifical rather than natural and have a single terminus.

Quote
Will planets have a hyper limit as well given that a planet outside a stars limit could have a enemy fleet arrive in orbit with no chance of defending it self? what about a hyper jammer that prevents enemy ships from entering/ exiting hyper within a certain range (depending on tech) of an equipped planet.

That shouldn't be an issue because of the variable arrival point in a new system.

Steve

 
The following users thanked this post: waffel

Offline schroeam

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 217
  • Thanked: 4 times
  • "Let's try a new strategy, let the Wookiee win"
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #7 on: October 17, 2010, 09:41:46 AM »
Sounds like a serious undertaking.  I like the changes you've mentioned so far, but I am going to miss the jump points.  I've been a jump point fan ever since I first played Wing Commander.  I think that the model of fleet dispersement is a good way to shift the balance back to the defenders, but I would also like to see a max warp distance before the hyper drives need to reset, or whatever technobabble would need to be used.

I take it Aurora II is going to replace v5.3? 

Anyway, based on the quality of work with SA and Aurora so far I can't wait to see what you come up with.

Adam.
 

Offline UncleBob

  • Petty Officer
  • **
  • Posts: 17
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #8 on: October 17, 2010, 09:55:14 AM »
Quote
Systems would all be generated at game start and you would be able to add extra systems during the game as the SM. 

I kind of like the evolving nature of Aurora.   A direct travel system wouldn't neccessarily mean to abandon that.   We see stars based on their luminosity, and there's quite a well possibility taht we haven't discovered some red dwarfs in our near neighbourhood yet because them tricksters just don't shine enough. 

So, a pre generated game-map where you see everything that has a certain apearant magnitude from the start, with the possibility of lower luminosity stars becoming visible when your ships are close enough (might also involve specialised observation ships or observatories in new colonies) might be pretty fun.   The game map at the start would look pretty dense in the closer vicinity to the starting point, with less and less stars being visible the further you go, until you get a ship there to uncover the dimmer stars you couldn't see from earth. 

Quote
My first inclination was some type of Newtonian-based tactical combat.   However, this does have some fundamental issues, as I just mentioned in another post, which is why I avoided it for Aurora. 

I still think that, when you already start to write from scratch, newtons three laws with a few spherical cows might produce the best result in terms of realism.   Strong enough engines and constant mass would simplify things enough calculus wise, and would provide a great expierience in the style of Attack Vector or Knight Hawk Vector (both boardgames).   Of course, if it's Naval combat in space you want, your solution is the better. 

Quote
Real-time rather than stepped time.   Time will be more like Harpoon or Europa Universalis where you can pause it, or accelerate it.   This is isn't as different as it sounds because it will be similar to permament automated turns with the sub-pulses equal to the acceleraton rate and no defined increments.   I intend to load everything into memory so the program will avoid any database access as time passes.   This will improve performance considerably.   You should also be able to watch ships move across the map if I can get the graphics working as I intend. 

And at this point I really wonder if it wouldn't be easier to go C++ and use a graphics engine like Irrlicht.   That doesn't mean that you have to do fancy graphics, but such an engine will do half the work for you even in a 2-d environment, and Irrlicht is open source and has quite a good GUI that isn't harder to program than the Microsoft GUI.   It's a lot faster and would provide you with a lot more freedom.   But since you already started coding in C# you probably won't change your mind about it.   I know that I wouldn't. 

Quote
Area damage from nuclear explosions. 

Nukes in space are a bit dubious, because the area effect follows the inverse square law.   I.  e.   you have to be awfully close to have any effect, and formations would have to be -very- close to damage two ships at once.   Using nukes as a missile defence sounds somewhat cost-ineffective, at least if the nukes are realistically priced. 
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 09:57:52 AM by UncleBob »
 

Offline Steve Walmsley

  • Moderator
  • Admiral of the Fleet
  • *****
  • Posts: 6821
  • Thanked: 1370 times
    • http://www.starfireassistant.com
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #9 on: October 17, 2010, 10:08:28 AM »
Sounds like a serious undertaking.  I like the changes you've mentioned so far, but I am going to miss the jump points.  I've been a jump point fan ever since I first played Wing Commander.  I think that the model of fleet dispersement is a good way to shift the balance back to the defenders, but I would also like to see a max warp distance before the hyper drives need to reset, or whatever technobabble would need to be used.

I haven't decided about the exact mechanics of the hyper drives. Perhaps a cooldown period, or max range, or fuel use increasing by the square of the hyperspace distance. Whatever I end up with there will be trade-offs in hyper-drive design and it will have multiple research lines.

Quote
I take it Aurora II is going to replace v5.3? 

No, its much longer term than that. There will probably be several more versions of Aurora before a prototype Aurora II is ready.

Steve
 

Offline UnLimiTeD

  • Vice Admiral
  • **********
  • Posts: 1108
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #10 on: October 17, 2010, 10:39:14 AM »
You could possibly set the goal to reach version 6, nice even number.^^

But I'll quote myself from up there, as I'm really interested in that:
-Most important off all, wouldn't the combat distances be different? Currently, point blank range is 10k kilometers, I don't thing a nuke in open space would damage anything that that distance.

Add: Maybe a new algorithm for planets. Moons, especially few bigger ones, slow down rotations, thus theres longer days and more moderate weather, but stronger tectonics.
Within a reasonable temperature range, reactive, but likely poisonous gases could spawn wildlife, and a biosphere could hold a planets atmosphere in balance, where a human populace on a hostile planet would permanently need terraformers to keep the oxygen content up until the planet is turned into a second earth.
And Chocolate! Every game needs chocolate!  :D
« Last Edit: October 17, 2010, 02:30:08 PM by UnLimiTeD »
 

Offline laz

  • Warrant Officer, Class 2
  • ****
  • Posts: 63
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #11 on: October 17, 2010, 01:50:48 PM »
I think in the long term its definatly a good idea to move on from VB6.

So I welcome this move. Not sure what to suggest at this moment in time but if i have any ideas i'll be sure to post them
 

Offline Garanis

  • Leading Rate
  • *
  • Posts: 6
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #12 on: October 17, 2010, 02:46:55 PM »
Here are a few ideas I've had while playing aurora and reading copious amounts of space fiction (C. J.  Cherryh is the best, and some of these ideas are from her universe)
I've written them in the form of statements.

RE: Spaceflight
1.  Hyperspace jumping is a very interesting topic conceptually.  I'll throw out some points/possibilities that I think are especially intriguing. 
  • Crew Disabled during hyperspace jumps -- IE if people enter hyperspace without being sedated or drugged, they go insane or are mentally disabled.  Ostensibly the field emitted by the hyperdrive interferes with human neurons.  Other species are not necessarily so affected.
  • Ships exit hyperspace at an extremely high velocity, in the range of 100000 kps or more, and have to re-engage the hyperdrive for a few milliseconds to dump velocity.  This requires that the crew be skilled in hyperspace jumps so that they can control the ship soon after exiting hyperspace
  • Hyperspace velocity is inversely proportional to proximity to a gravity well.  Hyperdrive energy drawdown is directly proportional to proximity to a gravity well.  So engaging the hyperdrive on the surface of a planet or close to a star will not propel the ship more than a little bit, but will eat loads of energy.  In order to dump velocity, the ship has to dump its capacitor into the hyperdrive when it has gotten closer to the gravity well in normalspace.
  • Ships in hyperdrive move in 'packets' which are drawn towards each other.  A ship with a larger mass that jumps ahead of a smaller ship will draw that smaller ship forward a small amount.  Similarly, a small ship that jumps just ahead of a large ship will be drawn back , effectively slowing it down.
  • Hyperspace jumps require good knowledge of the target starsystem's trajectory.  If a hyperspace jump is mistargeted and the ship overshoots the target gravity well, it may simply continue forever with nothing to draw it out of hyperspace.
  • Sometimes hyperjump scout pilots are endowed with a bit of a 'sixth sense' whereby they can sense gravity wells while in hyperspace.  This can lead to the discovery of 'dark objects' such as extinct solar fragments, dark planets, lonely gas giants, or failed star systems.
2.  In-system travel
  • If a ship engages its engines, its crew must strap down to withstand the change in inertia.  If the movement is sudden or unexpected, as in an emergency, crew members may be injured or killed.
  • Ships travelling at high velocity need good sensors and navigational shielding to stop rocks and debris from damaging the hull.
  • Ships travelling in normal space at relativistic velocities will show up on sensors behind their actual position.  Likewise, sensor echoes take time to propagate.

I'm fighting a case of stomach flu, so I'll have to finish this later. . .
 

Offline Kurt

  • Global Moderator
  • Rear Admiral
  • *****
  • Posts: 878
  • Thanked: 2 times
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #13 on: October 17, 2010, 04:17:48 PM »
Steve -

Very interesting.  The one thing I would comment on now is something that I've considered for a long time about Aurora.  I haven't really said anything about it because it is fundamental to the way that Aurora worked and couldn't be changed, so why talk about it?

At any rate, think about this.  Aurora is currently, in terms of space ship movement and combat, a weird hybrid of a strategic game and a tactical game.  This has the advantage of being unique, and because it has strengths from both styles.  It also has the problem is that it isn't one or the other.  It is tactical in that you (the user) must designate weapon/fire con/missile/targets for each ship, but strategic in that you can't actually control movement except indirectly.  I ran into this when I tried to stage an ambush in one of my campaigns by surrounding the target from outside its detection range, and then moving inward and cutting it off if it ran.  This ultimately didn't work because I didn't have fine enough control of how my ships moved. 

I would suggest moving one way or the other.  Either strategic or tactical.  If you want to control every facet of the game, then retain the current weapon/fire con/missile/target system for each ship and give the player greater control over the movement of the individual ships.  If you want more of a strategic focus, then make the base "unit" a squadron.  Individual ships would plug into the squadron, which could be given various formation, movement, and attack orders. 

Given Aurora's extreme detail focus, requiring individual weapons to be designed from basic systems, it would probably be easier to go for a tactical focus rather than strategic, but that's up to you. 

Kurt
 

Offline Vanigo

  • Lt. Commander
  • ********
  • Posts: 295
Re: Aurora II
« Reply #14 on: October 17, 2010, 04:25:45 PM »
- Life simulation, Free O2 hints at natural wildlife, which might be dangerous, but could also be a factor of economy and tourism. Races might require water, toxic gases, or other stuff to survive (like we breath oxygen), or even radiation (if you think thats too far off, which it isn't, I guess increased modability might allow that).
I don't think wildlife is worth modeling particularly closely, but generating some biosphere data could be interesting, especially how it could interact with terraforming. Biospheres do quite a bit to shape the atmosphere and albedo of the planet they're on, and interacting with the biosphere would make for an interesting addition to terraforming. Life-bearing worlds would have a couple extra steps in system generation to represent how the native life shaped the planet, generally doing good things like increased oxygen levels and moderated temperature - but on the flipside, sometimes the local biochemistry might release chlorine into the atmosphere.
 

 

Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52