Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Planet Star Heat and Solorian Growth

Last response: in Video Games
Share
April 29, 2005 2:28:45 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I recently started playing the Solorians for the first time. I did some
searches and found that their growth formula has changed from the
guides that are available.

Shown below is the new Solorians growth forumula. I have also shown a
table showing the type of star, heat, and planet climate. Lastly, I
recently finished a game and used the CSV information to produce a
report with planets start heat.

If you have problems viewing this, change to Fixed font. (upper right
hand corner when viewing at google groups)

*** New Formula quoted by Tim ***
If starheat > 90 Then
'// 17.6% growth rate MAX next to temp 100 stars //
'// 16.1% growth rate next to temp 91 stars //
dGrow = (0.20 + (starheat) / 30)) * .05
Else
'// 6% growth rate next to temp 90 stars
'// 2.6% growth rate next to temp 30 stars
dGrow = (0.20 + (starheat) / 90)) * .05
End If

If starheat < 30 Then
'// Cooler than 30. . . forget about it. . .
dGrow = 0
logout meBaseT.id, "Star too cold!"
End If

*** Star Type Table ***
TYPE STAR HEAT PLANET CLIMATE
BROWN DWARF 0-14 0-29
NEUTRON STAR 0-18 0-33
WHITE DWARF 2-22 0-37
BLUE DWARF 6-26 0-41
BINARY RED 10-30 0-45
ORANGE 14-34 0-49
ORANGE YELLOW 18-38 3-53
YELLOW 22-42 7-57
NEUTRON YELLOW BINARY 26-46 11-61
RED WHITE 30-50 15-65
RED YELLOW BINARY 34-54 19-69
YELLOW / YELLOW BINARY 38-58 23-73
WHITE 42-62 27-77
WHITE / YELLOW BINARY 46-66 31-81
WHITE / WHITE BINAR 50-70 35-85
YELLOW WHITE 54-74 39-89
YELLOW TRINARY 58-78 41-91
GREEN 62-82 45-95
BINARY GREEN 66-86 49-99
RED GIANT 70-90 53-100
BLUE GIANT 74-94 57-100

*** CSV Information ***
CSV information from game at Drew's called Nuttin Fancy
# of Avg Min Max
Brown Dwarf 13 5.76 0 13
Neutron Star 34 8.29 0 18
White Dwarf 23 12.69 3 21
Blue Dwarf 19 15.94 8 26
Binary Red 31 19.51 10 30
Orange 33 23.66 14 32
Orange Yellow 23 29.73 21 38
Yellow 33 31.12 23 41
Neutron Yellow Binary 35 34.22 26 45
Red White 16 37.75 30 49
Red Yellow Binary 21 44.76 36 54
Yellow/Yellow Binary 20 48 38 58
White 30 52.76 43 62
White/Yellow Binary 22 57.5 47 65
White/White Binary 16 58.93 51 68
Yellow White 20 61.15 54 73
Yellow Trinary 22 67.9 58 77
Green 24 71.58 62 81
Binary Green 25 74.68 57 85
Red Giant 19 79.84 71 90
Blue Giant 9 79.22 74 92

Average star heat for the universe is ~40

It appears by the stats that Blue Giants are very rare. If a Blue
Giant exists, the start heat range of 74-94 is quite large. Lets say a
couple of stars are Blue giants and they do find them selves above 90.
What are the chances that the Solorians are even next to it.

With the information at hand, I conclude that the max growth for
Solorians is below 6% given the current host. As a side note, there
seems to be more undocumented changes happening that are not part of
the host change log. Or have there always been these changes but the
VGA community on the whole is getting more experienced. Not bashing
just sharing what I see.

Porthos
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 4:26:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I'm a first time Solorian player too, and have also played against them
once. There has been a lot of comment on Solorian growth in other
threads, and a general feeling that they are too powerful, so I guess
the reduced growth rate is a weakness to compensate for a perceived
lack of flaws.

However, I'm not convinced they are quite as powerful as some others
seem to think.

In my current game, I see exactly one star that is over heat 88 - it is
heat 92 (and naturally on the far side of the galaxy.) Confirming your
numbers, Porthos, there are many more cold stars than hot. I see some
160 stars out of 500 with under 30 heat compared to only 74 that are
heat 70 or higher, only 24 of which are heat 80+. I'm finding growth
rate is really around 5% to 5.3%. In my opinion, the Solorian growth
rate was a bit excessive prior to the most recent host change, but the
new rate is a little extreme in the opposite direction.

As for the race in general, as I said: not the ultrapowerful race some
people claim. I think the designers did a good job on this race; I
really like the concept of intergalactic locusts stripping worlds bare
and leaving scorched earth in their wake. The racial abilities and
ships fit the design concept nicely.

I think they do have some flaws that offset their benefits. Even
entering mid-game, fuel is an issue, though nothing compared to early
game. It is also a flaw (from tactical standpoint) to have to end
movement over a discrete point - a star - in order to refuel.
Micromanagement is an issue, heh heh. Not being able to user hulls and
plans of other races, and others being unable to use Solorian hulls is
a good flaw, especially from a diplomatic perspective - I've seen most
alliances born out of a desire to trade hulls. Also, they are not a
particularly happy race, which influences growth and income.

What are their outstanding advantages? Efficient type 2 fighters? A
couple hulls that can hyperjump and have decent warp speed? Base
chunnel ability?

I've heard orbital miners and labor camps and the ability to lay mines
touted as unfair advantages. Lots of races have these. Moreover,
other races can trade for technologies to bolster their racial flaws,
which Solorians cannot do.

Pulsar? It is TL7 after all - you'd expect it to be a decent hull.
And it's a bit more spendy than some races' primary capital ship, many
of which are pretty nice hulls too.

Income. There are so many races with excellent income generating
abilities.

No, I think the only real advantage was the accelerated growth, which
has been over-repaired.

(A few more tweaks to this race and they may start looking like EE
Lite...)

I'd suggest slightly raising the growth rate on stars with heat in the
70 to 90 range. Perhaps stars under 50 should not have any growth.

Overall, I think they are a good race, and not an instant winner.

Now if there were some way to raise star heat they really would be
trouble...
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 7:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

ACME wrote:
>What are their outstanding advantages? Efficient type 2 fighters? A
couple hulls that can hyperjump and have decent warp speed? Base
chunnel ability?

Hey ACME,

I've never played the race, but their advantages appear to also
include:
* wide farming range
* good troop strength/conversion rates
* good contra gathering (125 PSI)
* can build all base defenses (with shield special noted, of course)
* labor camps
* SML plus superweapons
* great fighters that are not expensive to form into very effective
wings against fighters or ships
* hyperjumping pod ships
* three kinds of mines
* good list of devices
* can live on asteroids (can't they?)

>I've heard orbital miners and labor camps and the ability to lay mines

touted as unfair advantages. Lots of races have these. Moreover,
other races can trade for technologies to bolster their racial flaws,
which Solorians cannot do.

Good point about the trading.

And lots of races have orbital miners, camps "or" multiple mine types.
But do many have all of these things? I think only the EE and the Sols
have all of these things (and EE has only 2 mine types vs. the Sol's
3). And the EE are certainly not as well rounded in other respects.
It's the combination that makes it powerful.

>Pulsar? It is TL7 after all - you'd expect it to be a decent hull.
And it's a bit more spendy than some races' primary capital ship, many
of which are pretty nice hulls too.

OK, but its cheap mineral-wise and engine-wise. Plus, there are few
real warships out there with hyp and triple-digit warp speeds.

Anyway, I really can't say whether they are weak or strong, but they do
appear to have a number of advantages, and also appear to be more "well
rounded" than other races, lacking any obvious glaring weakness (apart
from perhaps growth, now) - which tends to lessen somewhat the hull
trading ban - though I agree that would certainly have an impact on
diplomatic possibilites.

-- Karnak Prime
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 29, 2005 8:46:26 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I don't think the VP point system is altogether fair for some of the
races. Some races excel at victory points like the Rebels and other
don't fair as well. Those with a lot of VP don't necessarily have the
best positions.

I just finished a game where the Lizards had very little victory
points. Ten times less then the top player. This certainly didn't
reflect the outcome since they dominated from mid-game but didn't have
the Native vote.

If you use growth for VP, again some races have an advantage like the
Robots and Xtals...

Porthos
Anonymous
April 29, 2005 10:25:58 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Howdy all...

Yes this topic has been discussed heaps.

Having only played in 4 games.....

2 in close proximity to the Solorian.
One game I was against him...and still am just.
And yes they are strong, wealthy, well equiped, lots a minerals...etc
etc...is sitting on several over 85 stars.
He had 1 ally...the Privs...which I have managed to wipe out his HW
twice now by fluke...but he got the takings...
However I have up to 3 allies helping me and only blind luck...him
blind to my minefields has
given us any damage against him where a number of his high speed warp
warships blew up....Pulsar n fighters r a prob.
The nexus is cheap for them.....Dont forget affordable for them
exotics, tech etc.
Mind you I am not playing well in this game....no prisoners....lol

Another game the Solorian is my ally,, yes very advantageous having him
as your ally..'almost' feel guilty as playing the EE in both games. He
has mentioned a not so good effect on his growth rate with the latest
host. Maybe it will balance the race.
Maybe it will take it too far and make their stuff to expensive for
them...have 2 wait and c.

Cheers.
Emperor Leeroy.
ps..Did I mention in both games the Solorian is the debatable leader in
VP, Population and Military strength.
Except for another game where the EE got a Fed and Bird HW early...lol.
Luv the result of the prison camp mods....not so productive
now...should balance the effects of HW capture better.

As for diplomatic hull trading...you just have to repair the ship each
turn...or as in a really early game of VGAP that I played some 10 years
ago, get your ally to dedicate ships to you where you command them or
give him commands to do for u..such as tow your ships around......mine
this planet etc.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 3:54:19 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

ACME schrieb:

> I think they do have some flaws that offset their benefits. Even
> entering mid-game, fuel is an issue, though nothing compared to early
> game. It is also a flaw (from tactical standpoint) to have to end
> movement over a discrete point - a star - in order to refuel.
> Micromanagement is an issue, heh heh. Not being able to user hulls and
> plans of other races, and others being unable to use Solorian hulls is
> a good flaw, especially from a diplomatic perspective - I've seen most
> alliances born out of a desire to trade hulls. Also, they are not a
> particularly happy race, which influences growth and income.

In the past as non Solorian I have used their hulls and I think they can
do the same. I must only repair each turn the ships.

> What are their outstanding advantages? Efficient type 2 fighters? A
> couple hulls that can hyperjump and have decent warp speed? Base
> chunnel ability?

Yes all are good advantages IMHO.
Good fighters for such a price are always an advantage.
A good warp speed and a "middle" hyp range on many of their ships is an
advantage, cause they can so quickly move out of Grav Wells and -mines.
An enemy must so prepare against both possible movements.
They can chunnel their Base to the front lines to support their ships
and chunnel them back in safety areas if they see an enemy fleet.

And you forgot some advantages in your posting, like a cheap scout with
good scan range (350) which can fly with 190 warp speed and hyp of 380
LYs. This ship have a Bioscanner too, which allow them to quickly find
the natives in the early game where most other races must fly to the
worlds to check this. For some races it is nearly impossible to catch /
destroy the scout and so the Sols know what's going on, Information is a
great advantage.

The SML with it's great range which destroy all free flying wings, pods
and smaller ships or damage the ships. That with such a great range and
no protection against it, must only see / scan a target in range and
some LYs arounbd it are "hit".

"Defence" through mines against hypers (Grav Mines), warp ships (Barbs)
and Fighters (Lasers).

But you forget some disadvantages too.
No good carrier.
Short range of the fighters.

> No, I think the only real advantage was the accelerated growth, which
> has been over-repaired.

No, I think others about their advantages, but it maybe that it is now
over-repaired. And mostly not a single advantage make a race
overpowered", it is a combination of advantages.

From a running VP-based game at turn 41 take a look at the "Top 10
Empire List" which follows and the new VPs generated. The leading two
are Solorians.
If I see this I can only say it seems not to hard for a Solorian to get
a great number of colos. So IMO a change there was necessary, but if
so high that is an other question.

1 Empire 6 776 ( 60) Solorian
2 Empire 7 572 ( 41) Solorian
3 Empire 12 370 ( 23)
4 Empire 14 328 ( 27)
5 Empire 19 292 ( 27)
6 Empire 4 276 ( 17)
7 Empire 16 254 ( 15)
8 Empire 15 226 ( 8)
9 Empire 3 169 ( 12)
10 Empire 1 147 ( 5)

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
April 30, 2005 7:38:02 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nuffersp@yahoo.com schrieb:
> I don't think the VP point system is altogether fair for some of the
> races. Some races excel at victory points like the Rebels and other
> don't fair as well. Those with a lot of VP don't necessarily have the
> best positions.

I agree with the position. But there is only a fixed number of natives
(10) which can vote. If I count he get each voting from natives (what he
not get, I get 6 from natives ;-)) ) and subtract it from the new one he
get each turn so the leading Solorian (60-10=50) make double of that
what the next non Solorian make (27) each turn.
(Okay, maybe I forgot to write that only the colos and natives give VPs,
1 mio colos 1 VP, 5 mio 2 VPs and 10 mio give 3 points and nothing others.)
So if there is such a great difference in the new VPs made every turn it
must come from colos and it must have to do with the Solorian growth
rate as he can not convert colos from other races or make them from thin
air or so. That's the point.

> I just finished a game where the Lizards had very little victory
> points. Ten times less then the top player. This certainly didn't
> reflect the outcome since they dominated from mid-game but didn't have
> the Native vote.
>
> If you use growth for VP, again some races have an advantage like the
> Robots and Xtals...

Agree that the VP system may not reflect the real military strength of a
race. But it may say something about the colos (growth rate) if the
system is as above and a part of this thread was about the Solorian growth.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:51:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nospam wrote:

> "Defence" through mines against hypers (Grav Mines), warp ships
(Barbs)
> and Fighters (Lasers).

As the solos, I found my own grav mines to be an inconvenience, as they
slowed my own travel away from my worlds (also, the orbital miners used
too much fuel to wander around dropping mines)
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 12:20:03 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I find that mostly experienced players play the Solorians... that makes
them seem more powerful than they are. I've been in games where they
did well, and seen then played poorly... of course, this applies to ANY
race.


My opinion (having played them and many other races too):

They were a little much with the 17% growth rate. No, wait... they
were WAY over the top.

This new lower rate is a little to low, only because the higher Temp
stars don't exist. If they DID exist, then I think that TIM got this
change right.

Even with this lower growth rate, they are still not the worst race out
there, and plenty of people will still play them, including me.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:31:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

ACME wrote:

> What are their outstanding advantages? Efficient type 2 fighters?
on that subject the type 2's are immune to fighter->fighter missiles-

has Tim corrected the VCR bug with these btw?
has the new AI changes to fighters made this more of an advantage?
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 1:34:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The solorians do still get the Green Binary at home, and last I heard
Tim had given it green binary heat as well.
May 2, 2005 4:09:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

Fuel usage is pretty extreme. I'm in my first couple of turns, the
only minelayer ship that they have uses about 400-500 fuel to move 100
lyrs. The drag factor is 925 which really reduces the fuel efficiency
of the ships.

Minelayers
Corona Tech 4 : ship with drag factor of 925
Eclipse Tech 6: 0 movement
Nexus Tech 10: ship with drag factor of 960

The only way a ship can get fuel is by either getting it from the star
heat of the planet they are on or from another Tech 5 ship. The tech 5
ship can not be moved by any means. Not by towing, Jumpgate, etc...

As far as there farming range, I really don't understand why its so
broad. A Solorian growth is based upon the star heat only. At some
point, they heat a planet for every 100k of colonists.

They do have disadvantegs as I have noted. I have never played them
before so I'm sure there are some I have not mentioned.

Porthos
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 8:14:23 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com schrieb:
> nospam wrote:
>
>
>>"Defence" through mines against hypers (Grav Mines), warp ships
>
> (Barbs)
>
>>and Fighters (Lasers).
>
>
> As the solos, I found my own grav mines to be an inconvenience, as they
> slowed my own travel away from my worlds (also, the orbital miners used
> too much fuel to wander around dropping mines)

Sorry, think the Rebels has a gfreater problem there with their ships
and I used lots of Grav Mines which nost lower me great. Only some
micromangement as enable and disable and so on are necessary. So that no
argument for me that is hinder you if you can not manage it.

Don't know the fuel situation of Solorians in a longer game and if you
can beam down to Base and up as you want. But if managed right you don't
need so much fuel I think.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 2, 2005 9:59:42 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

In the sims I have done, the type 2 fighter still is immune to missiles
from other fighters.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 12:20:46 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nospam wrote:
> Sorry, think the Rebels has a gfreater problem there with their
ships.

without a doubt.
> and I used lots of Grav Mines which nost lower me great. Only some
> micromangement as enable and disable and so on are necessary. So that
no
> argument for me that is hinder you if you can not manage it.

true; i dislike micromanagement-hey i'll suggest to Tim auto-disable
gravs with hypers present.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 11:20:52 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com schrieb:
> nospam wrote:
>
>>Sorry, think the Rebels has a gfreater problem there with their
>
> ships.
>
> without a doubt.
>
>>and I used lots of Grav Mines which nost lower me great. Only some
>>micromangement as enable and disable and so on are necessary. So that
>> no argument for me that is hinder you if you can not manage it.
>
>
> true; i dislike micromanagement-hey i'll suggest to Tim auto-disable
> gravs with hypers present.

If you not like MM (=micromanagement) it is your problem and no race
disadvantages and it seems to me that no change on the game is necessary
only on your gamestyle (or what you like or not like) ;-)).

If Tim change it as you wish (what means "present" here), then the next
came and say, "why don't my mines stop the enemy hyping in ?". Reason
they are auto-disabled and they then want a new change.

But it seems to me too, that that is not only your problem but some
other people have it too. Many of the "small advantages" some races have
are not often used cause it needs MM.

That not means, that I'm a fan from MM. Find it realy annoying to change
all the attack settings, names (want an unicue name with the ID in it
and some hints for what it maybe build) from new build ship and wings
and some other things too. But I look at all my stuff near an enemy and
on all of my Bases every turn to decide if I can pod out colos, or have
enough sups for this or that (Ord production, Alchemie..) ... that it is
as I wanted.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 3, 2005 2:21:13 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nospam wrote:

>
> If you not like MM (=micromanagement) it is your problem and no race
> disadvantages and it seems to me that no change on the game is
necessary
> only on your gamestyle (or what you like or not like) ;-)).
>
> If Tim change it as you wish (what means "present" here), then the
next
> came and say, "why don't my mines stop the enemy hyping in ?". Reason

> they are auto-disabled and they then want a new change.

I don't like micromanagement; a test of my ability to remember
thousands of small details is not my idea of a fun passtime; I would
prefer a space strategy wargame where my forces already work together
with a reasonable semblance of common sense, for example, one where,
when i order a fleet of warships to hype out, they send minefield
control a request to clear the way, rather than the current situation,
where they mindlessly waste fuel.

I would hypothetically, like client/host to assume, if there were a
switch in client that could enable such an assumption, (and in my
opinion it's probably a pretty safe bet) that when I(and most other
players) set a ship to hyperspace through one or more of my minefields,
that I really do want it to hyperspace through one or more of my
minefields, rather than stopping short while burning the same amount of
fuel as it would have otherwise.

and as it is already in my power to manually change my minefields to
allow such travel, and as it is already in hosts power to determine
which minefields ships have hit/intersected, I don't expect it's too
difficult for it to check and see if the playerid (the owner) of that
minefield is equal to the playerid of the ship; and if that player has
set a certain bit to '1' rather than '0' it could assume that said
player wanted to disable that minefield.

Which is why i suggested a client switch ( e.g. one of the
governor/mayor switches) in my email to him;

the mines could be disabled (by host or client) from the beginning of
the turn that a ship, w/ hyp turned on, is in them (which would usually
apply to masses of minefields over a base or other planet where a ship
would also typically start its turn, e.g. homeworld)

though this is a disadvantage for players who want to squeeze that
extra warp travel out of ticks 0-100 and leave the minefield before
they warp. It also does not check for minefields which the ship enters
during but not before hyperspace.

or (more difficult) client (or host) could perform a preliminary check
similar to host's routine to determine which grav minefield a ship
hits, and enter a disable command for all friendly minefields the ship
is likely to encounter in that turn

or host could wait until tick 100 (for normal hyping ships, or tick 0
for the two fast-hyping hulls) and disable them, as a replacement for
the current routine which already has to determine if the ship crosses
grav mines, then stops the ships and sends a log message to the player.
This however, is a disadvantage for fast hyp ships on the attack-the
foreign minefields which others hyp through at tick 100 are still
active at tick 0;

of course, for this feature to be truly useful, host or client would
automatically have to keep track of which minefields were disabled for
just this purpose and reactivate them later, if there were no friendly
traffic through them. (and not reactivate those grav-fields
intentionally disabled by the player for other reasons)

Naturally, I'm not suggesting that players should be able to disable
and reenable the grav-fields in the same turn; if any ship can hype
through, all should be able to, otherwise, Tim would already have
simplified the grav mines by making them like the barbitics and lasers
(which don't affect friendly ships at all, IIRC).
Anonymous
May 4, 2005 12:24:26 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com schrieb:
> nospam wrote:
>>If you not like MM (=micromanagement) it is your problem and no race
>>disadvantages and it seems to me that no change on the game is
>
> necessary
>
>>only on your gamestyle (or what you like or not like) ;-)).
>>
>>If Tim change it as you wish (what means "present" here), then the
>
> next
>
>>came and say, "why don't my mines stop the enemy hyping in ?". Reason
>
>
>>they are auto-disabled and they then want a new change.
>
>
> I don't like micromanagement; a test of my ability to remember
> thousands of small details is not my idea of a fun passtime; I would
> prefer a space strategy wargame where my forces already work together
> with a reasonable semblance of common sense, for example, one where,
> when i order a fleet of warships to hype out, they send minefield
> control a request to clear the way, rather than the current situation,
> where they mindlessly waste fuel.
>
> I would hypothetically, like client/host to assume, if there were a
> switch in client that could enable such an assumption, (and in my
> opinion it's probably a pretty safe bet) that when I(and most other
> players) set a ship to hyperspace through one or more of my minefields,
> that I really do want it to hyperspace through one or more of my
> minefields, rather than stopping short while burning the same amount of
> fuel as it would have otherwise.
>
> and as it is already in my power to manually change my minefields to
> allow such travel, and as it is already in hosts power to determine
> which minefields ships have hit/intersected, I don't expect it's too
> difficult for it to check and see if the playerid (the owner) of that
> minefield is equal to the playerid of the ship; and if that player has
> set a certain bit to '1' rather than '0' it could assume that said
> player wanted to disable that minefield.
>
> Which is why i suggested a client switch ( e.g. one of the
> governor/mayor switches) in my email to him;
>
> the mines could be disabled (by host or client) from the beginning of
> the turn that a ship, w/ hyp turned on, is in them (which would usually
> apply to masses of minefields over a base or other planet where a ship
> would also typically start its turn, e.g. homeworld)
>
> though this is a disadvantage for players who want to squeeze that
> extra warp travel out of ticks 0-100 and leave the minefield before
> they warp. It also does not check for minefields which the ship enters
> during but not before hyperspace.
>
> or (more difficult) client (or host) could perform a preliminary check
> similar to host's routine to determine which grav minefield a ship
> hits, and enter a disable command for all friendly minefields the ship
> is likely to encounter in that turn
>
> or host could wait until tick 100 (for normal hyping ships, or tick 0
> for the two fast-hyping hulls) and disable them, as a replacement for
> the current routine which already has to determine if the ship crosses
> grav mines, then stops the ships and sends a log message to the player.
> This however, is a disadvantage for fast hyp ships on the attack-the
> foreign minefields which others hyp through at tick 100 are still
> active at tick 0;
>
> of course, for this feature to be truly useful, host or client would
> automatically have to keep track of which minefields were disabled for
> just this purpose and reactivate them later, if there were no friendly
> traffic through them. (and not reactivate those grav-fields
> intentionally disabled by the player for other reasons)
>
> Naturally, I'm not suggesting that players should be able to disable
> and reenable the grav-fields in the same turn; if any ship can hype
> through, all should be able to, otherwise, Tim would already have
> simplified the grav mines by making them like the barbitics and lasers
> (which don't affect friendly ships at all, IIRC).

I know that there are many possible ways to manage this. But I like to
hold the control and as long as I can use the old way if I want it is
okay for me if there come some new switches in the client. Think that
all can be done in the client for your own ships as the client know
where the own minfields are and which ship travels with hype. But not
sure about. If Tim change the host (or maybe rules) I fear that he may
"over react" or open some new buggs or loopholes by the implementation.

What's with grav wells, you may own some too. They are harder to manage
as they not appear at the map like the minefields and can move too.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 1:34:52 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nospam wrote:

> Don't know the fuel situation of Solorians in a longer game and if
you
> can beam down to Base and up as you want. But if managed right you
don't
> need so much fuel I think.
>
> Bye-Bye JoSch.

below, I'll multiply engines times drag to ease rating:

Flare (unarmed scout) tech 1. L1 class hyperjumper. max fuel tank
100. 1/3 kt fuel per starheat per turn, so it's a minimum 4 turns for
full refuel. full tank is just enough for 2 350 ly jumps w/ T1
hyperdrive, and no improvement until HD tech 6.

drag is 20, 1 engine, (or 0.2 engines)
mass is 30, max warp is 190, , so it can generally cruise around with
warp indefinitely.

conclusion: pretty good with warp engines, but refuels very slowly; hyp
not real useful without hull tech 5 collection array, or warhop (HD
tech 9).


spectrum: (tech 2, 4s, 4P) max fuel tank 100. 1.2 kt fuel per
starheat per turn- so it can refuel in one turn, at an 81 heat star.
drag is only 80, 4 engines .8*4=3.2 engines eqivalent fuel usage.
eventually, 120 warp speed. no hyp

it has 15 pod bays, so this makes up somewhat for not being able to
move pods separate from ships. an effective colonizer. .

prominence: (tech 3, capital ship : 6L 4S 4 P) max fuel tank 310, 1 kt
fuel/starheat / turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 5
engines fuel usage. mass 90. eventually 105 warp speed. no hyp. only
two engines limits the selection of weapons effective with this hull.

corona: (tech 4, utility ship, 4L, 5S, 8P) max fuel tank 2000, 5 kt
fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 74
engines fuel usage for 500 kt! max speed 110. no hyp. thank god it
has the ground chunnel, because travel is a killer!
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 4:55:07 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:

> below, I'll multiply engines times drag to ease rating:
>
> Flare (unarmed scout) tech 1. L1 class hyperjumper. max fuel tank
> 100. 1/3 kt fuel per starheat per turn, so it's a minimum 4 turns
for
> full refuel. full tank is just enough for 2 350 ly jumps w/ T1
> hyperdrive, and no improvement until HD tech 6.
>
> drag is 20, 1 engine, (or 0.2 engines)
> mass is 30, max warp is 190, , so it can generally cruise around with
> warp indefinitely.
>
> conclusion: pretty good with warp engines, but refuels very slowly;
hyp
> not real useful without hull tech 5 collection array, or warhop (HD
> tech 9).
>
>
> spectrum: (tech 2, 4s, 4P) max fuel tank 100. 1.2 kt fuel per
> starheat per turn- so it can refuel in one turn, at an 81 heat star.
> drag is only 80, 4 engines .8*4=3.2 engines eqivalent fuel usage.
> eventually, 120 warp speed. no hyp
>
> it has 15 pod bays, so this makes up somewhat for not being able to
> move pods separate from ships. an effective colonizer. .
>
> prominence: (tech 3, capital ship : 6L 4S 4 P) max fuel tank 310, 1
kt
> fuel/starheat / turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 5
> engines fuel usage. mass 90. eventually 105 warp speed. no hyp. only
> two engines limits the selection of weapons effective with this hull.
>
> corona: (tech 4, utility ship, 4L, 5S, 8P) max fuel tank 2000, 5 kt
> fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 74
> engines fuel usage for 500 kt! max speed 110. no hyp. thank god it
> has the ground chunnel, because travel is a killer!
consider also that the Corona usually sits 2-3 turns anyway while
mining and ground-chunneling.

Solar-Wind (Tech 4, hyper-freighter, 3S, 3P) max fuel tank 100, 1.28
kt fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at 78 heat star.
equivalent 1.8 engines usage, 115 kt, makes it a fairly efficient warp
traveller. full tank is enough for one jump w/ tech 2 or 3 HD, and it
only needs 40 or 78 starheat to make another next turn. Consistently
benefits from higher HD techs, up to the warhop, at HD Tech 9.
It's very fuel-efficient, IMO; less useful as a colonizer, w/ 1/5 the
supply cargo tonnage and only 2 pods, but much more useful as a
military support, with 50,000 ord and 20,000 repairs and hyp to keep up
with higher hull tech warships and assaults.

solar collection array-(tech 5, vulnerable, immobile fuel station-1L 3S
7 PD) max fuel tank 15,000, enough to fuel any single one of the other
ships, though not necessarily a fleet. collects fuel at 30 kt per
starheat per turn.

Eclipse starbase (tech 6-towable space station 20L 10S 10P) must be
towed-as fuel usage is not changed proportionally to towed ships mass
or drag-making it a fairly efficient warp-travel driven warship,
assuming it's not without escort/tug. IMO, fairly strong warship and
utility ship, for its fuel efficiency when towed. lack of engines
limits the selection of weapons available to this ship.

Pulsar-(tech 7 warship/carrier 10L 10S 8P) max fuel tank 107. at 3.88
kt/starheat/ turn, it's fully refuelled at 27 starheat. equivalent
warp fuel usage as 2 engines makes it quite efficient and also has max
warp speed of 105. max mount of 60 still leaves PPC's available, IIRC,
making this dangerous warship (considering the T2 fighters it can carry
are some of the most efficient) also quite independent of fuel
concerns, as a warp traveller. must have tech 4 (5 is better) HD to
jump, warhops most effective with fuel, others consume too much to use.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 5:26:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > below, I'll multiply engines times drag to ease rating:
> >
> > Flare (unarmed scout) tech 1. L1 class hyperjumper. max fuel tank
> > 100. 1/3 kt fuel per starheat per turn, so it's a minimum 4 turns
(more likely 8)
> for
> > full refuel. full tank is just enough for 2 350 ly jumps w/ T1
> > hyperdrive, and no improvement until HD tech 6.
> >
> > drag is 20, 1 engine, (or 0.2 engines)
> > mass is 30, max warp is 190, , so it can generally cruise around
with
> > warp indefinitely.
> >
> > conclusion: pretty good with warp engines, but refuels very slowly;
> hyp
> > not real useful without hull tech 5 collection array, or warhop (HD
> > tech 9).
> >
> >
> > spectrum: (tech 2, 4s, 4P) max fuel tank 100. 1.2 kt fuel per
> > starheat per turn- so it can refuel in one turn, at an 81 heat
star.
> > drag is only 80, 4 engines .8*4=3.2 engines eqivalent fuel usage.
> > eventually, 120 warp speed. no hyp
> >
> > it has 15 pod bays, so this makes up somewhat for not being able to
> > move pods separate from ships. an effective colonizer. .
> >
> > prominence: (tech 3, capital ship : 6L 4S 4 P) max fuel tank 310,
1
> kt
> > fuel/starheat / turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. (8 more
likely) equivalent 5
> > engines fuel usage. mass 90. eventually 105 warp speed. no hyp.
only
> > two engines limits the selection of weapons effective with this
hull.
> >
> > corona: (tech 4, utility ship, 4L, 5S, 8P) max fuel tank 2000, 5 kt
> > fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns (8 more likely).
equivalent 74
> > engines fuel usage for 500 kt! max speed 110. no hyp. thank god
it
> > has the ground chunnel, because travel is a killer!
> consider also that the Corona usually sits 2-3 turns anyway while
> mining and ground-chunneling.
>
> Solar-Wind (Tech 4, hyper-freighter, 3S, 3P) max fuel tank 100, 1.28
> kt fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at 78 heat star.
> equivalent 1.8 engines usage, 115 kt, makes it a fairly efficient
warp
> traveller. full tank is enough for one jump w/ tech 2 or 3 HD, and
it
> only needs 40 or 78 starheat to make another next turn. Consistently
> benefits from higher HD techs, up to the warhop, at HD Tech 9.
> It's very fuel-efficient, IMO; less useful as a colonizer, w/ 1/5 the
> supply cargo tonnage and only 2 pods, but much more useful as a
> military support, with 50,000 ord and 20,000 repairs and hyp to keep
up
> with higher hull tech warships and assaults.
>
> solar collection array-(tech 5, vulnerable, immobile fuel station-1L
3S
> 7 PD) max fuel tank 15,000, enough to fuel any single one of the
other
> ships, though not necessarily a fleet. collects fuel at 30 kt per
> starheat per turn.
>
> Eclipse starbase (tech 6-towable space station 20L 10S 10P) must be
> towed-as fuel usage is not changed proportionally to towed ships mass
> or drag-making it a fairly efficient warp-travel driven warship,
> assuming it's not without escort/tug. IMO, fairly strong warship and
> utility ship, for its fuel efficiency when towed. lack of engines
> limits the selection of weapons available to this ship.
>
> Pulsar-(tech 7 warship/carrier 10L 10S 8P) max fuel tank 107. at 3.88
> kt/starheat/ turn, it's fully refuelled at 27 starheat. equivalent
> warp fuel usage as 2 engines makes it quite efficient and also has
max
> warp speed of 105. max mount of 60 still leaves PPC's available,
IIRC,
> making this dangerous warship (considering the T2 fighters it can
carry
> are some of the most efficient) also quite independent of fuel
> concerns, as a warp traveller. must have tech 4 (5 is better) HD to
> jump, warhops most effective with fuel, others consume too much to
use.


Nexus (tech 10 warship 20L 30S 10P) max fuel tank 12000. at 44.4 kt
fuel/starheat/turn, it will fuel itself faster (270 starheat-turns)
than a collector array does. however, this takes a minimum of 3 (6
more likely) turns. with 22 engines and 960 drag however (an
equivalent of 211 engines) all trying to push 4000 kt, it better be
hyperjumping. It's got enough fuel to use any of the L3 capable
hyperdrives, and jump many more times consecutively than any other
solorian ship.

I realize that the fuel usage isn't simply
(drag/100)*#engines*mass*(engine burn profile at this velocity)
per light year, but it seems apparent to me that # engines is a simple
multiplied factor, and warp drag factor is a % similar to attack bonus
and evasive bonus, hence I've multiplied those two-the ones I believe
to be linear-together.

Also realize that the minimum refueling times I've referenced were at
the extremely unlikely star heat of 94, the maximum found; for the
practical number, i've multiplied those times by two.

generally then, they will be delayed several turns refueling
throughout.
Anonymous
May 5, 2005 7:12:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> > jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com wrote:
> >
> > > below, I'll multiply engines times drag to ease rating:
> > >
> > > Flare (unarmed scout) tech 1. L1 class hyperjumper. max fuel
tank
> > > 100. 1/3 kt fuel per starheat per turn, so it's a minimum 4
turns
> (more likely 8)
> > for
> > > full refuel. full tank is just enough for 2 350 ly jumps w/ T1
> > > hyperdrive, and no improvement until HD tech 6.
> > >
> > > drag is 20, 1 engine, (or 0.2 engines)
> > > mass is 30, max warp is 190, , so it can generally cruise around
> with
> > > warp indefinitely.
> > >
> > > conclusion: pretty good with warp engines, but refuels very
slowly;
> > hyp
> > > not real useful without hull tech 5 collection array, or warhop
(HD
> > > tech 9).
> > >
> > >
> > > spectrum: (tech 2, 4s, 4P) max fuel tank 100. 1.2 kt fuel per
> > > starheat per turn- so it can refuel in one turn, at an 81 heat
> star.
> > > drag is only 80, 4 engines .8*4=3.2 engines eqivalent fuel usage.
> > > eventually, 120 warp speed. no hyp
> > >
> > > it has 15 pod bays, so this makes up somewhat for not being able
to
> > > move pods separate from ships. an effective colonizer. .
> > >
> > > prominence: (tech 3, capital ship : 6L 4S 4 P) max fuel tank
310,
> 1
> > kt
> > > fuel/starheat / turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. (8 more
> likely) equivalent 5
> > > engines fuel usage. mass 90. eventually 105 warp speed. no hyp.
> only
> > > two engines limits the selection of weapons effective with this
> hull.
> > >
> > > corona: (tech 4, utility ship, 4L, 5S, 8P) max fuel tank 2000, 5
kt
> > > fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns (8 more
likely).
> equivalent 74
> > > engines fuel usage for 500 kt! max speed 110. no hyp. thank god
> it
> > > has the ground chunnel, because travel is a killer!
> > consider also that the Corona usually sits 2-3 turns anyway while
> > mining and ground-chunneling.
> >
> > Solar-Wind (Tech 4, hyper-freighter, 3S, 3P) max fuel tank 100,
1.28
> > kt fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at 78 heat star.
> > equivalent 1.8 engines usage, 115 kt, makes it a fairly efficient
> warp
> > traveller. full tank is enough for one jump w/ tech 2 or 3 HD, and
> it
> > only needs 40 or 78 starheat to make another next turn.
Consistently
> > benefits from higher HD techs, up to the warhop, at HD Tech 9.
> > It's very fuel-efficient, IMO; less useful as a colonizer, w/ 1/5
the
> > supply cargo tonnage and only 2 pods, but much more useful as a
> > military support, with 50,000 ord and 20,000 repairs and hyp to
keep
> up
> > with higher hull tech warships and assaults.
> >
> > solar collection array-(tech 5, vulnerable, immobile fuel
station-1L
> 3S
> > 7 PD) max fuel tank 15,000, enough to fuel any single one of the
> other
> > ships, though not necessarily a fleet. collects fuel at 30 kt per
> > starheat per turn.
> >
> > Eclipse starbase (tech 6-towable space station 20L 10S 10P) must be
> > towed-as fuel usage is not changed proportionally to towed ships
mass
> > or drag-making it a fairly efficient warp-travel driven warship,
> > assuming it's not without escort/tug. IMO, fairly strong warship
and
> > utility ship, for its fuel efficiency when towed. lack of engines
> > limits the selection of weapons available to this ship.
> >
> > Pulsar-(tech 7 warship/carrier 10L 10S 8P) max fuel tank 107. at
3.88
> > kt/starheat/ turn, it's fully refuelled at 27 starheat. equivalent
> > warp fuel usage as 2 engines makes it quite efficient and also has
> max
> > warp speed of 105. max mount of 60 still leaves PPC's available,
> IIRC,
> > making this dangerous warship (considering the T2 fighters it can
> carry
> > are some of the most efficient) also quite independent of fuel
> > concerns, as a warp traveller. must have tech 4 (5 is better) HD
to
> > jump, warhops most effective with fuel, others consume too much to
> use.
>
>
> Nexus (tech 10 warship 20L 30S 10P) max fuel tank 12000. at 44.4 kt
> fuel/starheat/turn, it will fuel itself faster (270 starheat-turns)
> than a collector array does. however, this takes a minimum of 3 (6
> more likely) turns. with 22 engines and 960 drag however (an
> equivalent of 211 engines) all trying to push 4000 kt, it better be
> hyperjumping. It's got enough fuel to use any of the L3 capable
> hyperdrives, and jump many more times consecutively than any other
> solorian ship.
and jump further

> I realize that the fuel usage isn't simply
> (drag/100)*#engines*mass*(engine burn profile at this velocity)
> per light year, but it seems apparent to me that # engines is a
simple
> multiplied factor, and warp drag factor is a % similar to attack
bonus
> and evasive bonus, hence I've multiplied those two-the ones I believe
> to be linear-together.
>
> Also realize that the minimum refueling times I've referenced were at
> the extremely unlikely star heat of 94, the maximum found; for the
> practical number, i've multiplied those times by two.
>
> generally then, they will be delayed several turns refueling
> throughout the game.

Finally, no one debates that the solar ragnarok is a fuel hog;
it's 3000kt and burns equivalent of 80 engines. with a max fuel of
7000kt, earning 33.3 kt of fuel per starheat/turn, it can fuel itself
up in a minimum of 3 turns (6 is more likely). and then it HAS to use
those engines if it's going to move. If you're going to build it, it's
more useful to just build it in orbit of where you plan to use it
(using tactics discussed elsewhere), so it's fuel usage isn't really an
issue.

to review: the solorian ships which have the most trouble with fuel are
the Prominence, the Corona, and the Ragnarok;


the corona, and eclipse are the race's only source of minerals, and
both are effectively dependent on towing by the Pulsar; the prominence
will suffice to tow, but the Nexus is too large, expensive, and too
much of a fuel-hog to use as a tug.

The fuel efficient ships are the Flare, the freighters, and the pulsar.
The Nexus is fairly efficient when hyperjumping.


So on the whole, this review has decreased my impression that the
solorians are hampered by fuel. I still believe the ships are
significantly more expensive than comparable ships, if any can be
called comparable.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 12:16:53 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

jasonnorthrup@yahoo.com schrieb:
> nospam wrote:
>
>
>>Don't know the fuel situation of Solorians in a longer game and if
>
> you
>
>>can beam down to Base and up as you want. But if managed right you
>
> don't
>
>>need so much fuel I think.
>>
>> Bye-Bye JoSch.
>
>
> below, I'll multiply engines times drag to ease rating:

I'm not sure if this is correct multiple with the engines. If only the
warp drag, mass of the ship and the given fuel usage of one engine are
multipled by the way to get the fuel usage for a way.

> Flare (unarmed scout) tech 1. L1 class hyperjumper. max fuel tank
> 100. 1/3 kt fuel per starheat per turn, so it's a minimum 4 turns for
> full refuel. full tank is just enough for 2 350 ly jumps w/ T1
> hyperdrive, and no improvement until HD tech 6.
>
> drag is 20, 1 engine, (or 0.2 engines)
> mass is 30, max warp is 190, , so it can generally cruise around with
> warp indefinitely.
>
> conclusion: pretty good with warp engines, but refuels very slowly; hyp
> not real useful without hull tech 5 collection array, or warhop (HD
> tech 9).
>
>
> spectrum: (tech 2, 4s, 4P) max fuel tank 100. 1.2 kt fuel per
> starheat per turn- so it can refuel in one turn, at an 81 heat star.
> drag is only 80, 4 engines .8*4=3.2 engines eqivalent fuel usage.
> eventually, 120 warp speed. no hyp
>
> it has 15 pod bays, so this makes up somewhat for not being able to
> move pods separate from ships. an effective colonizer. .
>
> prominence: (tech 3, capital ship : 6L 4S 4 P) max fuel tank 310, 1 kt
> fuel/starheat / turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 5
> engines fuel usage. mass 90. eventually 105 warp speed. no hyp. only
> two engines limits the selection of weapons effective with this hull.
>
> corona: (tech 4, utility ship, 4L, 5S, 8P) max fuel tank 2000, 5 kt
> fuel/starheat/turn, so full refuel at min. 4 turns. equivalent 74
> engines fuel usage for 500 kt! max speed 110. no hyp. thank god it
> has the ground chunnel, because travel is a killer!

What shall the list of ships tell me ?

Wait 9 turns and you can build Warhoops in the Flare and with it you can
hyp 3 times and left 25KT fuel and should be possible to move to a star
for refuel. And before you fly only by warp as it do other races without
hypers too. Or end every turn about a star and you get some fuel.

IF I make no error a Nexus can make 2666 KT fuel per turn on a starheat
60 world. Why do you not wrote about this ship ? More as any other race
can make per turn on a Base or with one ship I think.
The Corona make 333 KT fuel per turn on such a star and with this fuel
it shall be possible to fly some turns special if you use a cruising
speed and not top speed and maybe a fuel-ET.
Or the Pulsar, refilled every turn on a starheat 28 or above star and it
have only a warp drag of 50 !!!

So if you plan some turns ahead you should nearly always have enough
fuel at your home space except maybe the start of a game.

Okay, for a "quick and dirty game" where you start from the beginning on
to attack your enemies then maybe some shortage. But after some time you
should have build enough ships (maybe without equipment) which can make
fuel and be used on the later build warships.

As you know you can only refuel at stars you make a fault if you often
land empty in free space. And the Solorians must only reach a nearby
star and wait some time for refueling. But other races may become there
more problems if the planet surfaces are stripped empty. They must first
build a Base and some mines and let them run some turns before they get
enough fuel to fly on. And that include that they have enough colos on
the ship to let the mines run, sups and money to build the mines.

My opinion after looking at a players guide for the Solorians and at
starview for the ships. But maybe wrong as I not played the Solorians.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 6, 2005 2:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

One possible idea for Griffin and Tim is have the Solarain growth rate
based on the star type itself instead of star heat

In addition, have the starting world of the Solarian HW be a Blue
Giant. (Max Growth)

ZPG for Solarians on Blue Dwarf and below.

Very little pop growth for Solarain on Binary Red.

But what the Solrarins really want are Binary Greens, Red Giants, and
Blue Giants.

In this case, one of the reservations about future 3rd party races
increasing the star temp would be removed, but there should definately
not be a race that changes star type in a direction benifital to
Solarains.
May 10, 2005 6:13:42 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

I think your proposal has some merit.

I have scanned 72 planets in a galaxy of 500.

1 planets in 80+ starheat
Highest star heat is 85 (blue Giant).
5 planets in the 70-79 range
66 planets 69 and below

1 Blue Giant
2 Reg Giants
4 Binary Greens
May 10, 2005 4:06:50 PM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

First, I'm not complaining. I want to understand how to maximize
growth for the race. I read the current guides and host changes to
make sure I understood the changes.

After reviewing the material, I chose to play them. After playing them
for only a few turns, I noticed that some of the guides were out of
date as far as star heat is concerned.

Based upon your information and the information I supplied:
Planets with star heat over 90: 1 + 1 planets / 500 + 72 + 28 + 172 =
2 / 772 planets

I will let you calculate the % of star hear > 90. With that
information I conclude, that the Solorion growth rate is generally
below 6%. This is based upon the information contained within this
thread.

If this is how the Solarions are going to be, its my choice to play
them or not. Just trying to get whole picture.

Porthos
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 12:11:40 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

nuffersp@yahoo.com schrieb:
> I think your proposal has some merit.
>
> I have scanned 72 planets in a galaxy of 500.
>
> 1 planets in 80+ starheat
> Highest star heat is 85 (blue Giant).
> 5 planets in the 70-79 range
> 66 planets 69 and below
>
> 1 Blue Giant
> 2 Reg Giants
> 4 Binary Greens

What shall me tell that ?




In a new game at turn 5 now, I know from 28 stars the starheat:
the hottest have 89 then come 87, 84, 83 and 82 and this are 5 over 80
starheat (2 Red Giants + 3 Blue Giants)
4 have 7x starheat
3 have 6x starheat
2 have 5x
3 have 4x
5 have 3x
2 have 2x
2 have 1x
2 have 0x starheat.

So around 17,8 % of the stars have a starheat over 80 and 32,1% are over
69 starheat, is that not enough or should it be around 50% of the stars
with star heat above 69 ??


From my other game, data grid show me from 172 stars the heat:
1 with 91 star heat (Blue Giant)
8 with 8x (4 Red G., 1 Blue G., 1 Green Binary and 2 Green)
20 with 7x
23 with 6x
22 with 5x
28 with 4x
27 with 3x
20 with 2x
15 with 1x
8 with 0x star heat

You can make the % on your own, but it seems that I have much more hot
stars in my game as you in yours.

But there are some races in game which like it more cool and they can
not change the climate like the Aczanny, farming range from 5-55 and no
terraformer or ship for this. So what shall they make if there come more
hotter stars in game, as the climate try to go near the star heat ? Make
their food from thin air only why some Solorians(-player) are complaining ?


If I have understand it right, big hot stars burn out very quicker
(Million years instead of milliarden years like Sol burn) and so it is
no wonder that they are seldom after some time.

Bye-Bye JoSch.
Anonymous
May 11, 2005 11:30:17 AM

Archived from groups: alt.games.vgaplanets4 (More info?)

The solarian growth rate is not simply average of growth they have on
all planets, but instead their population WEIGHTED average of such
planets.

How high the highest star heats are near their starting location matter
a lot more to Solarain growth rate than # of cold planets.
!