Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: March 01, 2016, 02:37:28 PM »Yes, I was implying exactly that.
Posted by: swarm_sadist
« on: February 16, 2016, 08:19:34 PM »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.
Posted by: Tekkud Mountainjewels
« on: February 16, 2016, 04:39:19 PM »Quote from: GreatTuna link=topic=8127. msg83567#msg83567 date=1450502078
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.
Quote from: GreatTuna link=topic=8127. msg83567#msg83567 date=1450502078
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).
Quote from: GreatTuna link=topic=8127. msg83567#msg83567 date=1450502078
In a game where atmospheres are measured in pressure and ships fly in ether which stops them when they're out of fuel :v.
Quote from: GreatTuna link=topic=8127. msg83567#msg83567 date=1450502078
atmospheres are measured in pressure
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.
This game is actually surprisingly realistic once you get over the TN stuff.
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: December 19, 2015, 07:29:12 AM »You do need to heat it 40 degrees hotter than the 462 degree surface temperature before it spontaneously combusts at 4%, so there's a massive safety margin.
Posted by: doulos05
« on: December 19, 2015, 07:20:39 AM »it doesn't explode that much.There's the sort of ringing endorsement I like to see on my environmental and life support systems!
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: December 19, 2015, 06:43:00 AM »It's only like 4% oxygen so it doesn't explode that much.
Posted by: doulos05
« on: December 19, 2015, 02:06:33 AM »Not sure it's smart to take hydrogen and oxygen, pressurize it to 71 bars and then heat it to Venusian temperatures...
Posted by: MarcAFK
« on: December 19, 2015, 12:27:38 AM »I've only scanned this topic, but this kind of in depth discussion about game mechanics is why I love aurora. I had an idea for a modification of the terraforming system that would be a little more interesting but not add too much micromanagement however I've lost the details.
Anyway, why even bother terraforming Venus? People should be able to live there without all that silly modification.
The current record for survival at extreme air pressure was set with a hydrogen oxygen mixture at simulated depth of 701 meters below sea level. That's 71 atmospheres, almost Venusian. The temperature would suck though.
Anyway, why even bother terraforming Venus? People should be able to live there without all that silly modification.
The current record for survival at extreme air pressure was set with a hydrogen oxygen mixture at simulated depth of 701 meters below sea level. That's 71 atmospheres, almost Venusian. The temperature would suck though.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: December 18, 2015, 11:14:38 PM »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.
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.
Quote
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.
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).
Quote
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.)
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.
Quote
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?
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.
Posted by: doulos05
« on: December 18, 2015, 09:34:06 PM »I think you're overestimating just how habitable Venus is. Saying "Venus is perfect except for the atmosphere." is like saying "This house is perfect except for the cracks in the foundation." I think it's perfectly conceivable that, in a universe where we have unlocked the secret of interstellar travel, we would choose to skip over Venus because it's easier to just leave Sol. Having said that, I'd certainly be interested in techs that expanded the terraforming minigame. One specializing in each gas would be cool, but perhaps a bit much...
Posted by: Thundercraft
« on: December 18, 2015, 08:24:48 PM »I'd rather see completely new system than crutches you propose. They add unnecessary complexity.
I could get behind revamping terraforming to a new system if it added some depth. But, any way you look at it, such a change would add to complexity.
Perhaps having to mine new elements and dealing with such may be asking too much. But how is my Suggestion 3 adding too much complexity? All this requires is having a few new Terraforming things to research at higher tech levels, which would unlock new terraforming commands like "CO2 Sink" and "Methane Sink", allowing you to remove specific gases noticably faster than normal (and without having to build a fleet of giant terraforming ships).
If that's too complex or unwanted, you can still skip such research options and pretend that they don't exist.
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).
That was my understanding: That Venus just isn't worth the effort. But, as I said, that's not realistic. Humanity would not completely give up on Venus because it's a bit more difficult than Mars. We'd at least try. The habitability potential is just to good to ignore.
You point out that Mars and several other places in the Solar System are "colonizable". However, there's a big difference between "colonizable" and "habitable". The former means it is suitable to build a colony on. The latter literally means "suitable for human dwelling." It's the difference between a mere outpost that relies heavily on imports and creating a new home to spread to - to recreate the surface of Earth - an environment ideal for humans which has almost limitless room for population growth and could easily become self-sufficient.
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.
Mars and Venus are the only realistic terraforming options in the Solar System. Aside from Earth, they're the only ones in the Goldilocks Zone that are also even remotely close to the right gravity.
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?
Granted, Aurora does a wonderful job with a lot of planetary details like gravity, atmospheric composition, greenhouse effect, even albedo. But to keep terraforming itself rather simple and abstract seems, to me at least, like stopping just short of the goal posts.
Posted by: GreatTuna
« on: December 18, 2015, 04:33:26 PM »Hm.
As stated, the system is pretty abstract. Gases like carbon dioxide, methane and safe greenhouse are increasing temperature, anti-greenhouse reduces temperature, toxic gases like methane are... well, toxic, and very toxic gases, like fluorine, are very toxic. Also, greenhouse factor can't go beyond 3, limiting cold planets. And... that's it pretty much.
I'd rather see completely new system than crutches you propose. They add unnecessary complexity.
As for 'how to terraform Venus' topic, I usually leave one shipyard to build terraformers constantly until it's terraformed OR just skip the planet entirely, sometimes leaving automines. 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).
As stated, the system is pretty abstract. Gases like carbon dioxide, methane and safe greenhouse are increasing temperature, anti-greenhouse reduces temperature, toxic gases like methane are... well, toxic, and very toxic gases, like fluorine, are very toxic. Also, greenhouse factor can't go beyond 3, limiting cold planets. And... that's it pretty much.
I'd rather see completely new system than crutches you propose. They add unnecessary complexity.
As for 'how to terraform Venus' topic, I usually leave one shipyard to build terraformers constantly until it's terraformed OR just skip the planet entirely, sometimes leaving automines. 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).
Posted by: Prince of Space
« on: December 18, 2015, 11:08:37 AM »However, using orbital habitates or underground infrastructure should work,
Has anybody actually tried using underground infrastructure on Venus? The release notes for 6.40 indicate that UI only works for bodies whose gravity is too low. I just SMed in some UI on Venus and the game treats it like regular infrastructure. The planet still require 2500 infrastructure (or underground infrastructure, apparently) per 1 million population.
Posted by: Garfunkel
« on: December 18, 2015, 09:04:11 AM »The entire terraforming process is highly abstracted. I wouldn't mind if Steve was inspired and revamped it with more detail. On the other hand, the way it is currently allows you to use handwave the process to fit the story you're telling or whatever you want. Personally I never use GH/Anti-GH gasses but the actual "real" stuff but that's me.
Posted by: sublight
« on: December 18, 2015, 08:15:46 AM »Just a quick note to say that using a basic infrastructure colony to run terraforming facilities on Venus doesn't work. The colony cost of a world increases the agricultural workforce requirement to the point that even a small colony with a negligible service industry will have zero free manufacturing workers to run facilities/factories when the colony cost approaches 15.
However, using orbital habitatesor underground infrastructure should work, and you could easily re-imagine either as your floating cloud cities of Venus.
Edit: See Prince of Space's post further down.
However, using orbital habitates
Edit: See Prince of Space's post further down.
