Post reply

Note: this post will not display until it's been approved by a moderator.

Name:
Email:
Subject:
Message icon:

shortcuts: hit alt+s to submit/post or alt+p to preview

Please read the rules before you post!


Topic Summary

Posted by: alex_brunius
« on: May 31, 2025, 10:19:29 AM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on May 31, 2025, 05:49:51 AM
I'm already thinking of a gas-giant dwelling race, but I was considering a local threat to harvesters more than a fully-fledged NPR.

Aquatic is an interesting idea and the methane-breathers wouldn't be hard to implement. Maybe (after the current version) I take a fresh look at the environmental code and set it up for a wider variety of possible life, including extremophiles.
I think Aquatic is a really cool idea. But some tricky implementation:
- Separate fomula for maximum pop on planets (more water = more pop cap?).
- What about Ice/Temparature? Can they live below the Ice on planets with warm core?
- How should their interaction with "ground" combat work? For a shared planets ideally both a land race attacking the Aquatic biome should get terrain penalty just like the aquatic would get to attack the land race (similar to no atmosphere?). Open up for several biomes/terrain on same planet? What about gas/air race and air biome and interaction with planetary fighters/air combat rework?
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 31, 2025, 05:49:51 AM »

Quote from: nakorkren on May 30, 2025, 10:25:07 PM
While we're talking atmosphere, I'll put in a plug for adding the ability for a species to be aquatic. Why does it matter if we have species that breath methane or water? Because it changes the desirability of specific types of planets. Now those species aren't competing for a fully overlapping set of "optimal" colony sites. This isn't something you can just do in your head cannon; this has to be supported by the mechanic or it doesn't happen.

And if we're being really, really wild, it would be really cool to add lighter-than-air species that could utilize those gas giants we normally ignore unless there's sorium present.

In either case we'd need to think through what that would imply for "terrain" modifiers. Would have to think through how that would work.

Examples in fiction:

Sentient* octopuses in Children of Ruin by Adrian Tchaikovsky (*wildly different than our model of cognition)
Lighter-than-pressurized-gas-on-a-gas-giant mantas in "Manta's Gift" by Timothy Zahn

I'm already thinking of a gas-giant dwelling race, but I was considering a local threat to harvesters more than a fully-fledged NPR.

Aquatic is an interesting idea and the methane-breathers wouldn't be hard to implement. Maybe (after the current version) I take a fresh look at the environmental code and set it up for a wider variety of possible life, including extremophiles.
Posted by: nakorkren
« on: May 30, 2025, 10:25:07 PM »

While we're talking atmosphere, I'll put in a plug for adding the ability for a species to be aquatic. Why does it matter if we have species that breath methane or water? Because it changes the desirability of specific types of planets. Now those species aren't competing for a fully overlapping set of "optimal" colony sites. This isn't something you can just do in your head cannon; this has to be supported by the mechanic or it doesn't happen.

And if we're being really, really wild, it would be really cool to add lighter-than-air species that could utilize those gas giants we normally ignore unless there's sorium present.

In either case we'd need to think through what that would imply for "terrain" modifiers. Would have to think through how that would work.

Examples in fiction:

Sentient* octopuses in Children of Ruin by Adrian Tchaikovsky (*wildly different than our model of cognition)
Lighter-than-pressurized-gas-on-a-gas-giant mantas in "Manta's Gift" by Timothy Zahn

Posted by: Nexus37
« on: May 30, 2025, 01:17:04 PM »

Why add ideology?
To give each race a unique "soul" beyond just stats. Imagine a species that doesn’t just breathe different air, but also thinks, governs, and structures itself differently. A hive-minded race, a theocracy, a nomadic merchant culture — each with its own strengths, drawbacks, and ways of developing.

How it could work:
At race creation or through early development, players could choose (or evolve into) a dominant ideology, such as:

Mystic Theocracy – Faith-based unity, strong morale.

Genetic Hive – Extreme collectivism, enhanced growth or genetic manipulation.

Technocracy – High efficiency and research, but lower adaptability.

Nomadic Culture – Fast colonization, mobile populations.

Merchant Confederacy – Strong trade bonuses, economic dominance.

Each ideology would:

Unlock unique buildings (e.g., Temples, Cloning Hubs, AI Control Nodes, Black Market Ports).

Influence societal behavior (e.g., resistance to unrest, bonus to growth or research).

Modify diplomatic stances (some ideologies are naturally antagonistic to others).

Adjust event probabilities (e.g., hives avoid rebellion, but risk mutations).

Example:
A religious theocracy could unlock a Harmonic Temple providing colony stability and morale boosts. A hive-mind might unlock a Central Clonery accelerating population growth but limiting diversity. These buildings wouldn’t be superior or inferior, just adapted to their societal model.

Optional, not prescriptive:
This system wouldn’t impose predefined modifiers like “Communism = -50% production” — instead, it adds flavor and differentiation. Players could still customize modifiers like they do now, but with an immersive ideological identity behind them.

Thank you for everything you’ve created already
Posted by: Nexus37
« on: May 30, 2025, 01:08:43 PM »

One idea to further enhance immersion and racial diversity in Aurora would be to introduce alternative terrain variants that adapt to the respirable gas of the native species.

For example:

A planet with high methane concentration and jungle terrain could display as Methanic Jungle for a methane-breathing race.

The same terrain would be a standard Jungle if inhabited by an oxygen-breather.

This could be extended visually and descriptively, without necessarily impacting gameplay unless desired.

The goal isn’t to drastically change mechanics but to reflect the unique perception and adaptation of each race to their environment. A "forest" seen through the lens of a methane-breathing species may be something radically different in structure and composition—yet functionally still a forest.

It could be handled either:

By modifying how terrain is displayed based on the species’ BreatheID.

Or by generating terrain variants tied to atmosphere composition during system generation (e.g., allowing 'methanic forest' when oxygen levels are low and methane is high).

This would open up narrative and strategic depth:

Two species might compete for a planet with drastically different visions of what makes it "habitable".

Terraforming wars would feel more personal, with alien ecologies at stake.

Would this be feasible within the current framework or terrain generation logic?
Posted by: Louella
« on: May 30, 2025, 12:35:23 PM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on May 30, 2025, 12:24:29 PM
Quote from: Louella on May 30, 2025, 12:18:32 PM
The problem is that they are confined to a handful of planetary environments, as most of them require a minimum O2 amount. E.g. to get "Forested Mountain" on a planet requires oxygen in the atmosphere, at concentrations that are toxic to methane-breathers.

So right now, there's no methaniferous swamp planets, or methanic jungle planets. Those aren't possible. So you get desert mountain, cold desert mountain, etc. Only a handful of environments are currently possible for methane-breathing species.

This would be an easy enough DB-only change, I think, since the terrain code just uses whatever options are in the DB and selects one that's valid for a given body.

You might try making such modifications, although that comes with the usual caveat that you can't report any bugs with a modified DB.

Honestly, my bigger worry would be availability of planets, since I think oxygen-atmosphere planets are a lot more common than methane or any of the other dangerous gases. Methane-breathing NPRs might struggle because of this.

the planetary terrain is set in the DIM_PlanetaryTerrain bit of the database, and it has a column for MinimumOxygen, so right now, it's part of the code to check the oxygen amount in the planets atmosphere.

Though, you could set that column to read all zeros, and that might work.

In that case, then "methanic jungle" would be implicit, in that any methane-atmosphere planet with Jungle terrain, would logically be a methane jungle.

And yeah, methane planets are fairly uncommon, especially in warmer orbits.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: May 30, 2025, 12:24:29 PM »

Quote from: Louella on May 30, 2025, 12:18:32 PM
The problem is that they are confined to a handful of planetary environments, as most of them require a minimum O2 amount. E.g. to get "Forested Mountain" on a planet requires oxygen in the atmosphere, at concentrations that are toxic to methane-breathers.

So right now, there's no methaniferous swamp planets, or methanic jungle planets. Those aren't possible. So you get desert mountain, cold desert mountain, etc. Only a handful of environments are currently possible for methane-breathing species.

This would be an easy enough DB-only change, I think, since the terrain code just uses whatever options are in the DB and selects one that's valid for a given body.

You might try making such modifications, although that comes with the usual caveat that you can't report any bugs with a modified DB.

Honestly, my bigger worry would be availability of planets, since I think oxygen-atmosphere planets are a lot more common than methane or any of the other dangerous gases. Methane-breathing NPRs might struggle because of this.
Posted by: Louella
« on: May 30, 2025, 12:18:32 PM »

Quote from: Steve Walmsley on May 30, 2025, 11:54:55 AM
Quote from: nuclearslurpee on May 30, 2025, 10:09:05 AM
IIRC, methane-breathing races were possible in VB6 Aurora. Not sure why they did not make the jump to C#, possibly Steve did not feel they added enough to gameplay. A methane-breathing race functions the same as any other, just with different names for safe and toxic gases. I do agree it would be interesting from a diplomatic perspective when oxygen and methane-breathing races interact.

I think the mechanics did make the jump. Each species has a breathable gas, but its always set to oxygen. The colony cost does take into account which gas is breathable, as oxygen becomes a dangerous gas if you are a methane breather.

I've just never got around to adding (and testing) the necessary UI and NPR modifications to fully introduce it.

I did an experiment the other day, and created a methane-breathing species via editing the database. Oxygen is toxic at low concentrations to them. Methane is breathable at high amounts (my species was set as breathing 0.25atm methane). I modified the species entry in FCT_Species to change the BreatheID to 3.

It seems to work just fine.

The problem is that they are confined to a handful of planetary environments, as most of them require a minimum O2 amount. E.g. to get "Forested Mountain" on a planet requires oxygen in the atmosphere, at concentrations that are toxic to methane-breathers.

So right now, there's no methaniferous swamp planets, or methanic jungle planets. Those aren't possible. So you get desert mountain, cold desert mountain, etc. Only a handful of environments are currently possible for methane-breathing species.
Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 30, 2025, 12:01:07 PM »

Quote from: Nexus37 on May 30, 2025, 11:40:45 AM
I fully understand the importance of keeping the system flexible — it allows players to shape their races however they like, and that’s a huge strength of Aurora. However, I believe that giving each race the option to develop a unique internal structure or environmental interaction model could enrich the strategic and narrative depth of the game, without necessarily removing that flexibility.

For instance, imagine two hive-mind civilizations. One could operate under a strict caste-based system with slow decision-making but high stability, while another could be more decentralized, adapting quickly but prone to internal conflict. Mechanically, these differences could be expressed through modifiers affecting command efficiency, research focus, or morale. The gameplay experience would then not only reflect different aesthetics or lore, but truly different ways of functioning.

In short, I think it's not about forcing rigid templates, but about offering optional frameworks that help players give their creations real personality — while still allowing those who prefer full control to customize everything manually.

Thanks again for the discussion — it’s a pleasure to exchange ideas about such a deep and inspiring game.

There used to be 'government types' in the game, but I removed them. Instead, I added a variety of other options such as production rate, growth rate, population density and research speed that can be set at the species level, plus all the environmental tolerance modifiers and the various characteristics, such as Xenophobia, Militarism, Determination, etc. This allows you to create whatever 'government type' you want by using a combination of those options.

Posted by: Steve Walmsley
« on: May 30, 2025, 11:54:55 AM »

Quote from: nuclearslurpee on May 30, 2025, 10:09:05 AM
IIRC, methane-breathing races were possible in VB6 Aurora. Not sure why they did not make the jump to C#, possibly Steve did not feel they added enough to gameplay. A methane-breathing race functions the same as any other, just with different names for safe and toxic gases. I do agree it would be interesting from a diplomatic perspective when oxygen and methane-breathing races interact.

I think the mechanics did make the jump. Each species has a breathable gas, but its always set to oxygen. The colony cost does take into account which gas is breathable, as oxygen becomes a dangerous gas if you are a methane breather.

I've just never got around to adding (and testing) the necessary UI and NPR modifications to fully introduce it.
Posted by: Nexus37
« on: May 30, 2025, 11:40:45 AM »

I fully understand the importance of keeping the system flexible — it allows players to shape their races however they like, and that’s a huge strength of Aurora. However, I believe that giving each race the option to develop a unique internal structure or environmental interaction model could enrich the strategic and narrative depth of the game, without necessarily removing that flexibility.

For instance, imagine two hive-mind civilizations. One could operate under a strict caste-based system with slow decision-making but high stability, while another could be more decentralized, adapting quickly but prone to internal conflict. Mechanically, these differences could be expressed through modifiers affecting command efficiency, research focus, or morale. The gameplay experience would then not only reflect different aesthetics or lore, but truly different ways of functioning.

In short, I think it's not about forcing rigid templates, but about offering optional frameworks that help players give their creations real personality — while still allowing those who prefer full control to customize everything manually.

Thanks again for the discussion — it’s a pleasure to exchange ideas about such a deep and inspiring game.
Posted by: nuclearslurpee
« on: May 30, 2025, 10:09:05 AM »

  • IIRC, methane-breathing races were possible in VB6 Aurora. Not sure why they did not make the jump to C#, possibly Steve did not feel they added enough to gameplay. A methane-breathing race functions the same as any other, just with different names for safe and toxic gases. I do agree it would be interesting from a diplomatic perspective when oxygen and methane-breathing races interact.
  • We already have the flexibility to model a lot of this by modifying various racial traits, which works fine for roleplay. I think this is better than forcing specific modifiers for a dropdown-selected government type. One player may want "communism" to have a 50% production malus, another may want it to give a 2x bonus. Why implement a system that forces one or the other when what we have now is a much more flexible system?
Posted by: Nexus37
« on: May 30, 2025, 09:53:15 AM »

Hello,

I’m a novice player and I’m amazed at how deep and unique Aurora is. I truly appreciate the work and vision behind it. However, I would like to respectfully make a few suggestions after spending some time exploring the mechanics.

1 – Mandatory Respirable Gas: Oxygen

Currently, races can only breathe oxygen, which I find a bit limiting. Why not allow players to choose other breathable gases (like methane, ammonia, etc.) during race creation? A reference table could show which gases are toxic or deadly to others, adding depth and consequences to terraforming.

For example: A methane-breathing race invades an oxygen-rich planet and starts terraforming it to its own atmosphere. The original oxygen-based inhabitants would then be forced to react quickly before the planet becomes uninhabitable to them — creating a new layer of strategic urgency and environmental warfare.

Is there a technical reason this isn’t possible, or has it simply never been explored?

2 – Lack of Internal Politics or Government Models

I was also wondering why there isn’t a system for internal politics or government types. Something abstract, like a series of sliders or traits (similar to Shadow Empire), could add variety, bonuses, and internal tensions. It would make each empire feel more distinct beyond just technological or military differences.

I know Aurora is already a massive achievement. It’s the deepest game I’ve ever played in this genre, and I’m genuinely grateful to have discovered it. Thanks for all the work and dedication that went into it — and best of luck moving forward.

Kind regards