Register a SA Forums Account here!
JOINING THE SA FORUMS WILL REMOVE THIS BIG AD, THE ANNOYING UNDERLINED ADS, AND STUPID INTERSTITIAL ADS!!!

You can: log in, read the tech support FAQ, or request your lost password. This dumb message (and those ads) will appear on every screen until you register! Get rid of this crap by registering your own SA Forums Account and joining roughly 150,000 Goons, for the one-time price of $9.95! We charge money because it costs us money per month for bills, and since we don't believe in showing ads to our users, we try to make the money back through forum registrations.
 
  • Post
  • Reply
Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
What does the Shield Capacitor do? The description is pretty vague, does it work the same way it worked in MoO2?

And while I'm already delurking, thanks for this amazing LP. I'm not good enough to engage in voting or writing cool in-character snippets, but I enjoy reading all your posts, and the posts of the contributors in the thread.

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
Voting for Subspace Physics because those techs are always the most interesting.

Also voting for limited Jumpgates, and colonizing Montone.

Jumpgates seem like they would be mos useful linking systems from different clusters together, while not giving enough benefits to be worth their high costs when linking systems from the same cluster.

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
These are all great write-ups nweismuller. These really give those minor races some character. I assume there's no in-game civilopedia or the like that further describes them? You're working with nothing more than their portrait and the bonus they give to the larger empires? If so, it's very impressive.

And this is certainly a good upgrade of old MoO2 mechanics, where minor races were just 3 primitive pops that could only be used as above-average farmers.

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
You say that young galaxies are life-rich but mineral-poor, with the reverse in old galaxies. But shouldn't this be the other way around? I'm 80% sure it was young=more minerals and old=more habitable planets in MoO2, and I think the explanation was that young planets usually haven't formed a biosphere yet, while old planets lost some of their easily mined minerals to erosion and other chemical processes.

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

Cat Mattress posted:

The game is not necessarily very realistic.

I wouldn't have brought it up if I wasn't sure that MoO2 did it the other way around.

I'm looking at the (New) Master of Orion wiki, and it seems like in this game, habitable planets are far more likely to appear in average age galaxies, with old and young galaxies being equally suited or unsuited to life? The table is not very easy to read, but that's what I'm getting from it.

https://masteroforion.gamepedia.com/Galaxy

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE

MechaCrash posted:

For the galaxy age thing, I agree that the chart is a motherfucker to read and it'd be nice if they summarized it with "here's how age relates to biomes and richness" and then give you the detailed breakdown, but actually summarizing things instead of looking like a calculator sneezed on a spreadsheet is a lost art. :v: I may have the ages backwards, but if I do, so does the official wiki on a page that doesn't appear to be linked from anything.

Someone must have made a copy/past error, because in the wiki I linked, there's no difference between young and old galaxy age.

On the other hand, this is a post on reddit by a NuMoO developer, and it seems to support my initial theory:

quote:

Here you go, direct from MoO's lead designer:

quote:

Galaxy Age influences the average temperature of the stars in the Galaxy, and this in turn affects the planets orbiting around them.

Young Galaxies are filled with high temperature stars, and their newly formed planets hold a wealth of abundant minerals and other riches. However, the high intensity burn of these newly formed white and blue stars washes their planets in powerful ionizing radiation, making most of them nearly uninhabitable.

Average-Aged Galaxies have moved past the furious blaze of their young age into a steady burn, resulting in lower average star temperatures across the map. These gentler giants radiate much less noxious energies, and some of their older, more fully matured planets have started to develop an atmosphere that may one day harbor life.

Among these Orange and Yellow stars, mineral richness is slightly less abundant, but the average biomes have become much more hospitable.

Old Galaxies are rife with Orange and Red stars that have burned long and steady. Planets with life-rich biomes are plentiful, but in the long ages since their conception their crusts have mostly been depleted of minerals. Barring the oddity of a forgotten White Dwarf or a stray mineral-rich asteroid belt, these galaxies feature far more viable breeding grounds than mining strips.

So the end result is:

Young - Higher average mineral richness but lower quality biomes

Average - A decent mix of mineral richness and better quality biomes

Old - Weaker overall mineral richness but much better when it comes to biome quality

https://www.reddit.com/r/masteroforion/comments/4i690v/galaxy_age_explanation/

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
No, thank you for making this excellent LP!

Adbot
ADBOT LOVES YOU

Torrannor
Apr 27, 2013

---FAGNER---
TEAM-MATE
We need to terraform a planet to be the future home of humanity apart from all the artificial habitats!

Edit: Now that I properly read your post, and realized that this is the MoO thread... I'd still really like to see the end of this LP, although I'm much more engaged with the Star Dynasties LP.

Torrannor fucked around with this message at 16:27 on Apr 23, 2023

  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • Post
  • Reply