Weather Design

[Vultur]

Originally posted by Straybow
The problem is that the most productive farm lands aren't determined by rainfall. Too much is as bad, or worse, than too little.

In fact there will be a random event "Flood" that for rainy/monsonic tile will destroy terrain enhancements...
but it's soon to speak about random events & Co.

[Straybow]

I don't like strategic scale random events. You could easily have floods that damage structures on a local scale, but what kind of flood could destroy enough of them in a 50-100 mile area to count as destroying the improvement in the tile?

I play SMAC with random events off for that reason. The problem is that designers want a random event that will "challenge" the player. How much of a challenge is a drought that cuts harvest in half for one turn in a limited region, given the way the game uses food? So they have to make it kill food production for 10 turns. And so on.

Disasters primarily effect us on the personal level and the local level. It takes a huge one to effect a sizeable section of a state or province. Look at how the destruction of the WTC Towers effected the USofA. It basically killed 1/10th of the GDP for 2002, yet it did not effect 1/10th of the population on a personal level.

Challenge should be built into the model itself, rather than tacked on as an afterthought.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok this may not be the best thread to ask but we have tought of the recourses right? minerals enegry and nutrients....but what about people? they in RL they are needed in every branch of the army....maybe we can have a calculation that X% of the people in a base can be used for military service...and Y% of the X% is vulanterly and after that you get anger people because of drafting...?

[Vultur]

Units will be trained using Base Militia (volunteers) and after using drafting from unemployed people and last between normal workers (require more time to be trained appropriately)
Eccessive drafting will decrease loyalty of your troops and unhappiness.

[DeathByTheSword]

ok great so it is a resource already....good enough for me

[targon]

Does it mean that only Earth-like planets are meant to exist in game? Of course, Earth-like planets (Type M for Trekies) are best for colonization, but other planets may be rich of minerals or have great strategic, scientific or diplomatic value.

[Rasbelin]

Well, I would say that several types of planets as it will be more interesting, challenging, better replay value and simply fun. Or I can't come up with any good reason why there shouldn't be as the planets are different in reality as we all know. And as it looks now, within the next 100 years there's going to be somekind of colonisation on Mars or the Moon, so why couldn't it be that way in StP too? IMO it would be logical and realistic.

[Vultur]

This weather model is only for Earth-like planets so, no giant gas planets, no moonlike planets. Planets can be icy or sandy, but still a bit terraformable. For strange types I don't know how to implement, yet, overall for the lack of superior indications/suggestions.
If anyone has any good idea please post here...

[Leland]

Atmosphereless planets should be easy... no atmoshpere, no weather. Gas giants on the other hand aren't available for colonization so I don't know if their weather conditions need to be modelled in much detail.

But, I do think that Earth-like planets should be the priority for colonization, and moons/gas giants should be more of a resource pool than a place to put people in. So it's reasonable that the weather model is geared towards planets that are livable or at least terraformable.