A thought on killing planets

Daynarr · #1 January 23rd, 2001, 11:12 PM

quote:
Originally posted by DirectorTsaarx:
Baron, Spoo, Alpha:

From the "Settings.txt" file:

Planet Value Percent Loss After Owner Death := 10

Would tweaking this number help solve the problem? I'm assuming that "Owner Death" means as soon as the original population of THAT PLANET has been killed off, not when the entire empire is destroyed...

Obviously, there'd have to be another factor added in to reflect damage to conditions from other weapons; maybe just add the existing "damages planet conditions" ability to all weapons, not just radiation bombs?

Well, yes this value represents the % of resources lost on colony that has been destroyed with bombing. Also, this is the only value that should NOT be changed by bombing. The conditions on planet should deteriorate instead and perhaps the planet shouldn't be colonizable for a number of years. IIRC from mining facilities descriptions, these facilities mine resources deep under the surface of planet. Why should a bombing of planet's surface have any effect on the amount of resources on planet? I know that losing resources is some sort of penalty for destroying colonies instead of capturing them, but IMO the penalty should be something else.

Barnacle Bill · #2 January 23rd, 2001, 11:36 PM

In Stellar Conquest there was a simple rule that if you eliminated a population above a certain size via bombardment, the planet became uninhabitable.

You could keep it just that simple, or flesh it out with details like:

1) Every time the planet is bombed and population dies, it inflicts a set damage to planetary conditions. If this goes negative, the planet is uninhabitable and anybody left dies.

2) In conjuction with #1, a ship system which can slowly improve planetary conditions from orbit. Perhaps this would be called a "decontamination module" and only improve planets with negative conditions.

3) Radioactivity could be tracked separately as a planet charactoristic. "Conditions" would refer to climate. The "habitability" or some such would be equal to conditions minus radioactivity, and would be the actual number used to determine population growth (I still think that domed populations should act as if conditions are 0, the actual conditions being applicable only to those who can breath the atmosphere, and atmosphere converters reducing the conditions to 0 as they approach the actual change in atmosphere). If radioactivity is >100 the planet is still uninhabitable until deconned per #2. There would be a decon facility which could reduce radioactivity on a planet which is still habitable. I recommend against creating any racial trait that lets you live on radiated planets, as people with that trait would just nuke ever planet until it glows.

Daynarr · #3 January 24th, 2001, 01:06 AM

quote:
Originally posted by Barnacle Bill:
3) Radioactivity could be tracked separately as a planet charactoristic. "Conditions" would refer to climate. The "habitability" or some such would be equal to conditions minus radioactivity, and would be the actual number used to determine population growth (I still think that domed populations should act as if conditions are 0, the actual conditions being applicable only to those who can breath the atmosphere, and atmosphere converters reducing the conditions to 0 as they approach the actual change in atmosphere). If radioactivity is >100 the planet is still uninhabitable until deconned per #2. There would be a decon facility which could reduce radioactivity on a planet which is still habitable. I recommend against creating any racial trait that lets you live on radiated planets, as people with that trait would just nuke ever planet until it glows.

Well, I have a suggestion how to do this. If a planet has sustained a certain amount of damage it will become radioactive. Radioactive means that the planet will have new attribute 'radioactive' just like 'blockaded' is and that all population on it will die. Also, it will stay radioactive for a certain amount of years (depending on total amount of damage taken) until the radiation in atmosphere (and surface) drops to acceptable levels by natural means. Colonizing that planet will be possible but only by building domes (even if you could breath the atmosphere) because the domes would provide you with protection from radiation. When the radiation drops, the population will leave domes and the planet can be used like normal colony (if you can breathe the atmosphere, of course). Of course, the time needed for radiation to decrease to acceptable levels is very long so some anti-radiation facilities and ship components could be used to speed it up. The races with higher Environmental Resistance could be able to use radiated planet sooner (that would make THIS trait worth something).

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 23 January 2001).]

Daynarr · #4 January 24th, 2001, 01:07 AM

Oppsie, double post.

[This message has been edited by Daynarr (edited 23 January 2001).]

apache · #5 January 24th, 2001, 04:46 AM

Radiation decreasing "naturally"? Do you know how long that would take? This is way beyond the time scope of the game. A Hiroshima-style bomb takes about 60 years for radiation to decline to non-hazardous levels. The latest Hydrogen bombs take on the order of 1000 years for the radiation to decrease to non-hazardous levels.
To impart a high radiation level to a planet would make it totally uninhabitable for the rest of the game if the only way to decrease this radiation was by natural means. And destroying a planet then rebuilding it would have no effect on the radiation levels.
Besides, a civilization this advanced surely has developed technology to live with deadly radiation by some means. Maybe all their walls are 5 feet of lead, maybe something else.
Either way, I don't think there should be a way to make a planet completely uninhabitable. With enough resources and raw power, any area can be terraformed to liveable conditions, especially if a dome can be constructed.

Daynarr · #6 January 24th, 2001, 04:29 PM

quote:
Originally posted by apache:
Radiation decreasing "naturally"? Do you know how long that would take? This is way beyond the time scope of the game. A Hiroshima-style bomb takes about 60 years for radiation to decline to non-hazardous levels. The latest Hydrogen bombs take on the order of 1000 years for the radiation to decrease to non-hazardous levels.
To impart a high radiation level to a planet would make it totally uninhabitable for the rest of the game if the only way to decrease this radiation was by natural means. And destroying a planet then rebuilding it would have no effect on the radiation levels.
Besides, a civilization this advanced surely has developed technology to live with deadly radiation by some means. Maybe all their walls are 5 feet of lead, maybe something else.
Either way, I don't think there should be a way to make a planet completely uninhabitable. With enough resources and raw power, any area can be terraformed to liveable conditions, especially if a dome can be constructed.

That is true, but the planet is not bombed by nuclear bombs like we have. The radiation should be much smaller that the one in Hiroshima. Actually 'radiation' I mentioned was generalized and should represent the overall damage to life cycles on that particular planet. E.g. damaged Ozone layers in atmosphere for Oxygen planets, large destruction to plant and animal life on planet that would reduce its habitability, lots of dust and other particles that would go into atmosphere and create greenhouse effects etc. (Speaking only about Oxygen, but some other damage would occur on all other atmospheres that would have similar effect.). All this would not be covered by planetary conditions because they mostly cover the stuff like earthquakes, storms and hostile life forms on planet, so something else is needed. Actually 'radiation' would be more like uninhabitable, and assuming that the damage to the planet is not that high that it won't recover over time (in theory it takes MUCH less time for eco-system to recover from bombardment by 'normal' weapons then from radiation based weapons). The domes would be needed to support colonists on such planet (also that is that 'advanced' technology way to protect themselves from radiation, because there is NO other way to protect themselves from food, water and air polluted by radiation or other means, but in living in an isolated environment-domes).
The 'radiated' doesn't have to be called like that (radiation is just a part of it). I could be something called by some other name (like uninhabitable).

apache · #7 January 24th, 2001, 06:26 PM

I understand what you are saying, but all that ecosystem stuff really does fall under planet conditions. But I do agree with your assessment that a planet with really bad conditions should force the colonists to live in a dome, regardless of atmosphere type. Perhaps some planet with 'Harsh' or worse conditions would force the building of a dome on the planet until conditions improve above that level.
Of course, the problem is that no planet naturally occurs as a 'Harsh' planet. They are all 'Unpleasant' or better. This I would like to see changed. Planets should naturally occur as 'Deadly' or 'Harsh'.