Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: March 01, 2016, 02:37:28 PM »Yes, I was implying exactly that.
Yes, GreatTuna. The quantity of gas in the atmosphere of a planet is, in fact, measured by the partial pressures of that gas. Or perhaps you meant it the other way around. Pressure is measured in "atmospheres", a REAL-LIFE unit based on the pressure at sea level. More intuitive for players.I believe he means that terraformer's output is measured in change in planetary pressure instead of moles or tonnes. It takes the same amount of time to terraform Earth and an asteroid, because the terraformers directly increase pressure.
This game is actually surprisingly realistic once you get over the TN stuff.
Oh, great, now we are using realism argument. In a game where atmospheres are measured in pressure and ships fly in ether which stops them when they're out of fuel :v. Arbitrary speed limits included (though you can't ever get past speed of light).
If you want to terraform Venus that much, go and do it. If you think it's too much effort, go and do not terraform it. If you really, really, REALLY want habitable Venus, you have SM mode. It's not cheating when you are roleplaying.
Now, if technologies are too complex or unwanted - how about just not implementing them? They are very niche and not worth the effort.
You add 0. 1 atm of oxygen and 0. 3 atm of nitrogen. That's how you make them habitable. (add carbon dioxide for warmth).
The astronomical maintenance costs are reflected in colony cost. Ever tried building colony in 6. 0 cc (even with terraforming)? I bet you didn't, with all that 'unrealistic' arguments, but you'll have to either ship a lot of infrastructure or make civilians ship a lot of infrastructure to make anything beyond small-size colony. Same with Venus, but it's hot instead of cold.
Again, game where ships fly in TN-ether prides itself in realism? How about terraformers getting their gases from nowhere, or all objects but comets having perfectly circular orbits?
I never played Aurora because it's "realistic". I played it because it's complex. And I do like complexity, but your kind of complexity is not needed.
You want to lift the 5 ls limit (like there's not enough reasons to use beams over missiles anyway), and you want to add third type of infrastruture (sky cities), two mineable minerals (hydrogen and iron) that are used only for one purpose, and some kind of sinks, modules to be used on Venus and then forgotten.
Note: I'm not against suggesting things like these, but you shouldn't act like they absolutely should be added. Also, realism is boring, we have enough of it IRL.
Oh, great, now we are using realism argument. In a game where atmospheres are measured in pressure and ships fly in ether which stops them when they're out of fuel :v. Arbitrary speed limits included (though you can't ever get past speed of light).
In a game where atmospheres are measured in pressure and ships fly in ether which stops them when they're out of fuel :v.
atmospheres are measured in pressure
it doesn't explode that much.There's the sort of ringing endorsement I like to see on my environmental and life support systems!
Barring a highly innovative means like building a Shell World, I don't see how small bodies like Luna or the moons of Jupiter or Saturn could be made habitable, no matter the time or effort.
In contrast to the game difficulty of terraforming Venus, I find it unrealistic that it is, apparently, far easier and cheaper to build massive colonies on hostile places like the satellites of Jupiter and Titan or Mercury (or Luna, for that matter). In real life, they'd be not only hard pressed to support their own food and life support requirements, the constant maintenance costs would be astronomical. (Not to mention dealing with insane temperatures, radiation, and low gravity.)
Since Aurora seems to pride itself in realism and depth of play, such hand-waving or abstraction bugs me a little. Missiles must always be king and we aren't even allowed to have a beam FC with more than 1.4 mkm range... because, "realism". However, when it comes to terraforming, we must keep things simple... for the sake of simplicity and game play? How does that logic follow?
I'd rather see completely new system than crutches you propose. They add unnecessary complexity.
My 'colonize everything!' attitude has limits, and I don't see much value in spending resources on Venus when there's... 8? other colonizable planets (Mars, Luna, Mercury, 4 satellites of Jupiter and Titan).
However, using orbital habitates or underground infrastructure should work,