Opening Warp holes

[Smolf]

I'm playing in a star system where not all system are connected to each other. I have just researched stellar manipulation to lvl 3 and got Gravitational Quantum Resonator I. It states that it can open a warp point out to a system 100 light years away. Is their any way to measure the distance between one of my star systems and the closest neighboring system?

No need to waste a lot of resources on inferior components.

Thx
Smolf

[Combat Wombat]

I believe that the squares on the quadrant map represent light years.

[Fyron]

When you order a ship to open a warp point, you can see the distance between the systems by selecting the source system, then hovering the mouse over the target system.

The only other way to determine the distance between systems is to calculate it, unfortunately. Each square on the galaxy map is 10 light years. Diagonals count, so 10 squares in a direct diagonal line is not 100 LY, but instead 100 * sqrt(2) LY (at most).

[Combat Wombat]

Yeah thats what I said.

[Atrocities]

This NEEDs to be in the FAQ if it is not already. This is a valuable TIP. Do you mind if I add it to the tip section as well?

[Fyron]

I have no objections to anything I post being added to the Newbie FAQ or the tips and tricks thread.

[Strategia_In_Ultima]

I don;t think this is just for the NEWBIE FAQ, I think it should also be added to the FAQ for more experienced players (if there is such a document/thread). I don't think many people know this.

[Fyron]

The Newbie FAQ is somewhat as a misnomer, since it is a reference for practically everything in the game. Even experienced players can learn quite a lot from it. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif

[Slick]

I've been working on an update off and on for the last couple of months. Every time I sit down to work on it, it seems I get inundated with RL... It's coming. (yeah, we've heard that before)

[Smolf]

Anyway thx for the quick response. Now it's time to unleash doom on my (soon to be vanquished) enemies.

[Smolf]

Ohh... I nearly forgot. Now we are talking about adding stuff to the FAQ, then I got some questions about sphereworlds and ringworlds.

What's the difference, where in the system are they created and can you create more than one ringworld/sphere world in a system?

And one more thing? I read in the FAQ and the data file that if I create a planet from a asteroide field, then it will be a random type planet/atmosphere type? Is there some way to control which type is created? I'm playing a game, where it's only possible to colonize your home planet type, so it's a waste of resources to create a different type of planet (Unless I wait for someone to colonize it and then conquer it with ground troops... But that seems like a long shot).

These different topics would be a good idea to mention in the FAQ... I would write it, but I don't know the answers :-(

[Randallw]

Ringworlds and Sphereworlds are created around a star. I don't know the specifics but I believe Spheres hold twice as much as Rings. You can only create one sphere or ring per system, and also note you need a star in the system to create new planets.

[Smolf]

What if I already got planets and star(s) in the system? Is it still possible to create a ring/sphere-world?

And can I create a ringworld around each star in a system???

Do you mean that a sphereworld is larger than an ringworld or just got larger cargohold?

I got lots of questions, so don't run away :-)

[douglas]

Smolf said:
Ohh... I nearly forgot. Now we are talking about adding stuff to the FAQ, then I got some questions about sphereworlds and ringworlds.

What's the difference, where in the system are they created and can you create more than one ringworld/sphere world in a system?


The difference is that sphereworlds can hold twice as much of everything as ringworlds, including facilities, population, and cargo, and require much more advanced stellar manipulation tech and twice as much gravity plating/hyper-density cables to build. They are created around stars, and you can build as many in a system as there are stars in that system. If there are no stars in a system, you can create a star and build a ring/sphereworld around it, but you cannot create a star in a system that already has a star or ring/sphereworld. All the components involved in building the ring/sphereworld must actually be at the same location as the star, not just in the same system or anything like that; this means that in the stock game you will have to build lots of starbases with space yard ships to accomplish the task.

Smolf said:
And one more thing? I read in the FAQ and the data file that if I create a planet from a asteroide field, then it will be a random type planet/atmosphere type? Is there some way to control which type is created? I'm playing a game, where it's only possible to colonize your home planet type, so it's a waste of resources to create a different type of planet (Unless I wait for someone to colonize it and then conquer it with ground troops... But that seems like a long shot).


You cannot control or influence the result of creating a planet, but you can keep destroying and recreating it until you get the result you want. Each time you convert a planet back to an asteroid field and then back to a planet, the type and atmosphere are rerandomized.

[Fyron]

By "created around stars," they mean, created in the same sector that the star is in, and the star is removed when the RW/SW is created. A RW/SW completely replaces the star.

Note that a RW/SW does _NOT_ count as a star, for any purpose. This means:

1) You can not create new planets in the system (unless it had two stars).
2) You can not use any SM components that require a star (such as nebula creation, black hole creation, or star destruction).
3) Components and facilities that depend on stars (solar resource facilities for crystalline races and solar collectors) will not work if the star is replaced by a RW/SW.
4) You can not create a new star in a system if a RW/SW is present. So, you could not create a RW/SW, then create a second star, then create a new RW/SW.
5) Events that affect stars can no longer occur, since the RW/SW is a planet.

#5 is in addition to the affect Douglas mentions in the next post.

[douglas]

An odd little quirk of the replacement is that building a ring/sphereworld around a star that is going to explode as a random event (you get warned 30 turns in advance in the log if you have a presence in the system then) prevents the explosion from actually happening.

[Smolf]

Imperator Fyron said:
By "created around stars," they mean, created in the same sector that the star is in, and the star is removed when the RW/SW is created. A RW/SW completely replaces the star.

Note that a RW/SW does _NOT_ count as a star, for any purpose. This means:

1) You can not create new planets in the system (unless it had two stars).
2) You can not use any SM components that require a star (such as nebula creation, black hole creation, or star destruction).
3) Components and facilities that depend on stars (solar resource facilities for crystalline races and solar collectors) will not work if the star is replaced by a RW/SW.
4) You can not create a new star in a system if a RW/SW is present. So, you could not create a RW/SW, then create a second star, then create a new RW/SW.
5) Events that affect stars can no longer occur, since the RW/SW is a planet.




Is it possible to create a new star in a system, which already has one or more stars but no RW/SW? This way you could "prepare" a system for a massive RW/SW creation process. Very useful if you are playing with a very limited number of colonizable planets (and of course got a lot of spare resources).

If the answer to the question above is yes, is there then any limit on how many stars a system can support?

Can any of you tell me the number of possible facilities, cargo space, population limits on RW and SW? I'm a little curious because it's a big investment in resources to create these worlds and I'm not sure it's worth it?

Do any of you use stellar manipulation or do you instead go for total conquest? I'm playing against a friend by email and one of the victory conditions is having a 300% better score than him. So will I get more points by expanding/conquering or by improving my "infrastructure" with new planets? I haven't found a post, which describes how your score are measured, so I'm not sure what to do.

I like the stellar manipulation best, because it's like playing som manic god. "I created a world, I didn't like the result, I destroyed it again muhahahaha.... (evil laughter)"

[Frederick_d_Ohlmann]

No, you cannot create a star if there is already star or RW/SW. The only thing you can do in some mods is creating a RW, destroy it (you cannot do it with stock planet destroyer) then use the asteroid to create huge world (NOT a constructed world)

[douglas]

Smolf said:
Can any of you tell me the number of possible facilities, cargo space, population limits on RW and SW? I'm a little curious because it's a big investment in resources to create these worlds and I'm not sure it's worth it?


Ringworlds have 100 facility spaces, 32000 max population, and 64000 cargo space. Sphereworlds have double that amount for each of these. If you took the Advanced Storage racial trait, that adds 20% to all three of these numbers. If you somehow acquire a ring/sphereworld with the wrong breathers on it, that only cuts the numbers in half. Ring/sphereworlds have the type and atmosphere of the race that created them, and start with optimal conditions and 150% for all three values.


Smolf said:
Do any of you use stellar manipulation or do you instead go for total conquest? I'm playing against a friend by email and one of the victory conditions is having a 300% better score than him. So will I get more points by expanding/conquering or by improving my "infrastructure" with new planets? I haven't found a post, which describes how your score are measured, so I'm not sure what to do.


From the stickied FAQ thread, "Score is calculated as follows: Every point of minerals, organics, and radioactives, generated counts as one score point. Every point of research and intelligence generated counts as one score point. Each kt of your ships and bases counts as 10 points. Each level of researched techs counts for 200 points. No points for units/pop/colonies/systems. (Ruatha) Mothballed ships don't count to score."

I'd say do both. You should always try to have a military about as large as you can support, and it would be a waste to not use it. Meanwhile, planet creators and destroyers don't cost all that much to maintain compared to a few good warships, and their long-term benefits are extremely good. Ringworlds cost a bit more to make, but if you can spare the resources from your war effort, they can be worth it in the long run.

[NullAshton]

Aw, no points for my 2000+ units? Probally more by now...

[Fyron]

Smolf said:
I like the stellar manipulation best, because it's like playing som manic god. "I created a world, I didn't like the result, I destroyed it again muhahahaha.... (evil laughter)"

That's one of the best features of the Space Empires series. Don't like the galaxy? Rebuild it! The only thing you can not do is move systems around to spell out your name... Or move planets around for the same purpose. http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif

[Smolf]

douglas said:
I'd say do both. You should always try to have a military about as large as you can support, and it would be a waste to not use it. Meanwhile, planet creators and destroyers don't cost all that much to maintain compared to a few good warships, and their long-term benefits are extremely good. Ringworlds cost a bit more to make, but if you can spare the resources from your war effort, they can be worth it in the long run.



One related question about the planet destroyers. The description says that the component is destroyed when used. Is it possible to repair it or do I have to retrofit my ship? It seems too easy/simple if I can just repair it.

[AMF]

The weird thing about creating planets to me (aside from the WHOLE darn concept) is that the resulting planet has the same min/org/rad percentages as the asteroid. I would think it should be random or worse, until you get to a pretty high level of stellar manip so you can have stellar manip that makes sure, somehow, that it moves the juicy bits to the surface of the newly made planet.

[Fyron]

Destroyed components can indeed be repaired. "Destroyed" is the same as "damaged" as far as a component goes.

[Zaamon]

Yes, you can repair that when used. And use again, and again, and...

[Smolf]

Hmm... so if I build a repair ship and base it in an asteroide field then I could create/destroy planets with the appropriate technology until I'm satisfied with planet type etc?

[douglas]

Just stick a repair bay on the planet creator/destroyer, and you're good to go forever. With a repair bay, the destroyed-on-use aspect of the stellar manipulation component merely restricts you to using it once per turn. Of course, you might still have to worry about supplies, but I imagine if you've got fairly advanced stellar manipulation tech you've probably got the quantum reactor too.

[AMF]

Smolf said:
Hmm... so if I build a repair ship and base it in an asteroide field then I could create/destroy planets with the appropriate technology until I'm satisfied with planet type etc?



Hey, that sounds like a neat trick. I'm usually trying to colonize new planets as fast as I can, hadn't thought about demolishing and rebuilding until I found the one I liked best...I bet you could even do it in one turn, so long as you gave the demolish order before the build order...

[Fyron]

You might want to have the planet creation ship move a sector away, then back before creating the planet.

Unfortunately, I do not think simultaneous movement games let you issue the create planet order unless your ship is orbiting an asteroid. If there are two asteroids in the system, have the planet creator always end its turn on a nearby asteroid. Have the planet destroyer orbiting the world you are trying to optimize. Order it to destroy planet. Order the planet creator to move to that sector, create planet, then move back to the asteroid it started on. Works best if you have quantum reactors or a lot of solar sails, since you will be using a ton of supplies...

[douglas]

Doing the demolish/rebuild in one turn requires either both components on the same ship, or the planet creator moving away and back before doing its thing. You could try doing it with two ships without moving first, but then the create order might be executed first and fail because there's no asteroid field there.

Edit: Planet destruction orders require that the ship already be in orbit of the planet it's going to destroy. Planet creation orders can be issued at any time and will apply to whatever asteroid field the ship happens to be in when the order reaches the top of the queue. I don't know how it chooses which asteroid field if there happen to be multiples present (if, for example, you destroyed both a planet and its moon).

[Smolf]

Can medium and smaller size gas planets be created? I'm not sure that I have seen gas planets smaller than large?

[Smolf]

And one more thing... I have found a system with no planets or stars. The description of the system says that: "a star has begun the process of forming in this system". Can I create a star in this system?

[Suicide Junkie]

There are (rare) medium gas giants, but there are no small or tiny gas giants in the stock game.

[douglas]

Smolf said:
And one more thing... I have found a system with no planets or stars. The description of the system says that: "a star has begun the process of forming in this system". Can I create a star in this system?


That's just flavor text. You can create a star there.

[Smolf]

Suicide Junkie said:
There are (rare) medium gas giants, but there are no small or tiny gas giants in the stock game.



Too bad for me. That could be one reason for not choosing a gas planet homeworld. You lose all the smaller asteroid fields... (If you play with the rule, that only allows colonizing home planet types).

I remember something about a post a few years ago concerning starting planet type. Which type were most common, which type were largest etc. I wonder if they thought about stellar manipulation???

[Slick]

Imperator Fyron said:
You might want to have the planet creation ship move a sector away, then back before creating the planet.

Unfortunately, I do not think simultaneous movement games let you issue the create planet order unless your ship is orbiting an asteroid. If there are two asteroids in the system, have the planet creator always end its turn on a nearby asteroid. Have the planet destroyer orbiting the world you are trying to optimize. Order it to destroy planet. Order the planet creator to move to that sector, create planet, then move back to the asteroid it started on. Works best if you have quantum reactors or a lot of solar sails, since you will be using a ton of supplies...



You can actually. In simultaneous games it's wierd with Stellar Manipulation. Some components let you give the order after a move order (like creating planets in this case) and others don't like closing a warp point. Regarding closing warp points, I think you just need to be on "a" warp point to give the order, not necessarily "the" warp point you intend to close before you can issue the order.

[douglas]

Regarding closing warp points, you have to start the turn on the warp point you intend to close. You can give the order from any warp point, but it won't work if you're at a different warp point when it reaches the top of the queue. You can't even warp through and close it from the other side without waiting a turn.

[AMF]

douglas said:
Regarding closing warp points, you have to start the turn on the warp point you intend to close. You can give the order from any warp point, but it won't work if you're at a different warp point when it reaches the top of the queue. You can't even warp through and close it from the other side without waiting a turn.



You're sure about this?

[douglas]

Yes.