Here are some ideas on terraforming. MoO2 had a simple mechanic where you gradually edged closer to a Terran planet (and, eventually, a Gaian). You could terraform even gas giants, but, for some strange reason, not toxic planets, which meant you had to have your opponents occupy them so you could smash them to smithereens with a planet killer and then re-assemble them into large barren worlds, which you could then finally colonize, terraform, gaiaform... I think terraforming could take a slightly different approach in Space Sector, depending on the amount of atmosphere around: Worlds with no atmosphere: you need technology to build a "world-house roof", i.e. a shell enclosing the entire planet which keeps a habitable atmosphere in. Advantage: once you can built it (and, being a planet-sized mega-structure, it should be expensive), you get habitable conditions immediately. Drawback: if an attacker bombs a hole into your shell, you lose the habitable conditions immediately. Worlds with some atmosphere: you need to fix the stellar flux (up or down) and the water content (up or down) to get a habitable world. While I like the original MoO2 dynamic of gradual approaches, here's another idea: what if terraforming wasn't a fixed "cost", but would vary from one planet to the next. To find out what the cost would be, you would have to install a "terraforming research facility" on the planet, which would investigate and come up with something like: "The terraforming of Sol IV will cost 1200 production points, and has a 80% likelyhood of resulting in a Terran type planet. With 20% likelyhood, it will result in a Desert type planet". Then, the player would decide if s/he wants to take the offer at the present time, or not. Improved technology would increase the chances of a positive outcome (and perhaps also reduce the cost). Worlds with too much atmosphere: gas giants and such could not be terraformed, but again, you could construct a shell (a "supramundial shell"), but this time colonize the outside of it! How so? If you build a shell around Jupiter (with a radius of about 1.6 Jupiter radii), the gravity on the surface of the shell (from Jupiter underneath) would be about 1 Ge. You could add an atmosphere on top of the shell and would get an enormous habitable surface (about 318 times larger than the surface of the Earth). Of course, if you have some gas giant dwellers living in the atmosphere of the gas giant, they will not be happy about this... Such shells should be very expensive macro-engineering projects, but with huge benefits once built. Finally, I think it would be interesting to have the possibility to build "space colonies", for example, giant Banks-type orbitals (rotating rings of which the inner surface could be colonized, like the Ringworld but smaller and without a star at the center). Again, macro-engineering, expensive, but with huge benefits.
Great thread Matthias, I also feel that that terraforming is an area that could use some adjustments and enhancements. Moo2 did well enough on this for it's time but I feel that the mechanic was not balanced well and allowed for too rapid of an expansion at times. I posted the below on a different thread, it is a starting point for my position on the matter but would very much welcome your observations or comments as I believe your level of expertise on the subject exceeds my own. "An observation regarding terraforming (Planetary engineering) Moo2 had an adequate mechanic here, especially for the time but perhaps it could be refined further with the goal being to diminish the possibility of one faction running away with the game. In Moo2 once you researched this, you were allowed to terraform a planet repeatedly and in sequence. The cost escalated as you did so but perhaps it might be better to have this field researched by level. For example, first level terraforming would allow you to increase planet value by exactly one level, further terraforming would be contingent on additional research. It might also be beneficial if no leader brought this tech when hired. (as in the case of this leader showing up too early the game can be thrown off balance). There are other ways to refine this as well. Only planets with some type of atmosphere could be terraformed Gravity can play a role (Think of Mars, even if you terraform it you still have the problem of the planet not being able to hold the atmosphere) Only un-inhabited planets can be terraformed Etc. Another aspect here is the Gaia transformation found in Moo2. This I did not like the way presented, it added to late game boredom for me when virtually all my planets were Gaia. Perhaps this transformation, (If included), should be limited to certain pre-existing conditions only. In general, I think a few adjustments to Moo2 terraforming mechanics could extend the early and mid game while also creating a game flow that diminishes the chances of one faction becoming dominant too quickly."
Excellent points! This is a clever and simple idea. It would require that the planet has some "default" state (its initial type/climate), and the further you want to take it away from that, the more technology / production / science / cost you will have to sink into it. I also think that a planet should slowly revert to the default if it is not inhabited anymore. Perhaps one could even think about having a pollution system (from industry) which degrades habitable planets, i.e., if you pollute a planet too much, it might change from Terran to Desert or so. So terraforming and pollution would pull a planet in opposite directions, and a player would have to balance the two. This might lead to "industrial worlds" where you don't care about pollution (and they stay Barren anyway), and some "garden worlds" where you produce food, where you have recreation and research, etc. I also agree with this - having all planets (except toxics...) terra- or gaiaformed makes for a very boring universe. Another way to get around this might be to make "terraforming-capability" a planet special. This would force the player to concentrate efforts to a few, good planets.
I like the idea that terraforming costs are not equal to every planet but have to be scouted first by some sort of building/device. This would individualize planets in an elegant way. Maybe these costs should also differing by race. Nonetheless the type of planet in combination with available terraforming techs should still be the most influential cost factor so that the races still have to compete for colonization of the same planet types.
I really like this idea, it is an elegant and effective solution that would not require the Devs to re-invent the wheel. In my opinion this should be given serious consideration and explored further
Nice discussion so far. I very definitely agree that terraforming should be more intricate/interesting/difficult than it was in MOO2 (and most other space 4X games). This is actually the approach that the new MOO game used. Too much pollution would degrade your planet to worse biome ratings. It was an interesting idea, but having played a few rounds of new MOO, I feel the system didn't have enough teeth. The anti-pollution techs and "cleanup projects" worked a little too well, and I never really felt threatened by having too much industry. (It didn't help that in the first game, I played the Silicoids, who prefer Inferno worlds. You CAN'T make those any "worse".) I like the idea that only a few good planets - the jewels of your empire - could be fully terraformed. Making "terraforming-capable" a special is definitely one idea. On the other hand, you could still leave it where any planet can potentially be terraformed... but for many (perhaps even most) planet types, the effort involved could be too prohibitive to be worth it (at least for EVERY planet in your empire). And it might still fail or produce a different result than you intended. The way I see it, the "planetary science" or "biology" techs could be just different stages of making worlds more habitable to your species. In some ways (with MOO2 techs like Soil Enrichment), it's already like that - you're doing things to make a world's soil or air or gravity better even if you're not outright changing the biome rating. The lower-level techs could simply be the beginning of the process. What might be interesting would be if these techs were divided into two schools/approaches. One where you're enhancing and transforming the world (Soil Enrichment, Weather Control, outright Terraforming, etc), while the other focuses on artificial habitats (Biospheres, Hydroponics, etc). The first approach takes a lot of effort and is not feasible for every planet and can be undone by pollution... but if you stick with it, it can ultimately result in a great planet to rival your homeworld. The second approach, while nowhere near as "effective" as best-case terraforming, is a lot easier, can't be undone by pollution, and can squeeze some use out of even the most hellhole worlds. And if we're keeping the research system where you can only choose one advance per level... ; ) (Another idea along this line is assigning an empire's ability to adapt a world two different ratings: Terraforming vs. Habitat Construction. If the above dual-path system is implemented, then every time you gain a Planetary Science (or whatever) tech, you get a point for whichever side you picked. The more Terraforming points you have, the more drastically you can alter a world's biome rating - if you're willing to pay the cost and roll the dice. The more Habitat Construction points you have, the more elaborate your biospheres, orbital stations, and other artificial habitats can be (even if they will never be as good as a full Terran planet). The actual techs you pick would act almost like perks to make a planet or artificial habitat specifically more useful.) As for Gaia worlds, counterbalancing those could be as easy as remembering that all of humanity's ideas of a utopia have always turned out to be unworkable in the real world. If we keep the "pollution degrades biomes" idea, then we could make Gaia planets FRAGILE. They would be fantastic places for your people to live and breed, but any real pollution would spoil them (bitterly ironic, if the planet is also Ultra-Rich!).
I really like this idea, pitching "green" vs. "technofix" approaches should add uniqueness and character to each game, and it seems to work well with the "decision"-based tech tree that is envisioned now for Space Sector. You could think of other areas where this might work, like decisions on propulsion types - at some point, while you could start running down the alleys other Civs have gone before (e.g., because you recently stole a low-level habitat tech while you have been emphasizing biotech terraforming throughout the game), its just not worth it as sticking to your grown body of knowledge would seem more promising in the long run. EDIT: I imagine this: "Sir, our incapable scientists have failed in their attempt to terraform the planet Argus IV. Instead of a Terran class, the planet has evolved a broiling steam atmosphere, killing two population units in the process. The colony had to be abandoned. Another five population units are awaiting your further instructions in makeshift escape ships in orbit around Argus IV...".
"Well then, send all available transports to re-locate the survivors to our new colony on Lothos II... as for the scientists give them a new task. Leave them on Argus IV without any protective equipment so we can study the effects of this atmosphere in greater detail" (Murhahaha!) All kidding aside, there are two things I like here. The proposal to include more than one approach to terraforming is intriguing. The concept of variable results is also quite intriguing. For me, this would be more fun and immersive without adding any significant extra management for the player.
