Opening Warp holes

[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...

[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.

[douglas]

Yes.

[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?