Dynamic Systems

I disagree about orbiting planets. I do think this would look cool, but it would add a level of complexity that I think would be more of a pain than a bonus.

Settling the moon is a cool idea though. Having a special double planet type for planets that have a planet-sized moon seems like it has a lot of possibilities.

The Kepler space telescope is picking up many new exoplanets and it's likely that there's more objects than we thought there were at the beginning of the study. I think it's important to simulate things properly that means many more m00ns (Titan Enceladus, Europa, Io, Callisto, Miranda and a few others of the big ones) should be in. We also have the minor objects, the asteroid belt between Mars and Jupiter should be taking the shape of an orbit not of a hex or a mass of hexes without form nor logics. 

I havent' seen much yet of the game but it looks like the map is a 2d. It does have a colored background so now if that background is made to spin on its center (the center of the bg image) very slowly beneath the grid, this will simulate the stars on the grid orbiting around the center of its galaxy. It's really just eyecandy but the planets orbiting around their stars isn't. Stars and planets should actually spin. 

There are a number of tactical possibilities when they come in proximity with one planet next to the other ( I said the magnetospheres but there could be tsunamis, people rioting because of superstition, powerful magnetic storms, random events, etc) not to mention the required technologies. I know it's an added level of complexity but I'd rather leave things done superficially to SOTS2 and other minor games, I'd like GCIII to really be a blast instead. A good design beats in fun a micro-managing nightmare designed to distract you from a bad design (That makes the game twice as bad). 

The deeper the better and if we don't do it at Alpha Stage it's too late to get it done after the release. 

See it as a more organized view of real space the way we know it.

The asteroids could be place for ambush because of magnetic disturbance cloaking vessels. Other bodies of the Kuiper belt (the EDGE of any system should have something similar) would be a sensor-barrier and a border between one system and the next). There's comets... they ALSO must orbit the stars... lot of work to do. 

Perhaps in due time but I hope it's taken. 

While this may be nice, it's not practical in this scale.  First off the planets that are showing are representation of planets and there are usually maximum 5 planets per star, this includes "Sol" or the sun...  With that being said that means 3 planets and all the dwarf planets left out.  Also while it would be cool to see 15 moons orbiting a gas giant, it's also not pratical and doesn't really add much to the game at this point.  If one were going to add this to the game that would mean a star system instead of being 8-10 tiles in diameter would need to be 20-30 tiles in diameter if not larger.  To me this would take away from the game and make galaxies much smaller than they could be.

The map is 2D as has been discussed on multiple threads, 3D maps can be very confusing and can be extremely hard to play or navigate by point and click.  The game is designed to be relatively easy to navigate and play.  Show me a 3D game that is easy to point and click anywhere with in the map, without typing in coordinates...  The one good suggestion is the background stars slowly rotating that should be easy enough to add in and doesn't do much for the game.  Planets orbiting the stars means more work for the system and doesn't add a whole lot to the game.  Again this would be nice but is it needed?  I thought stars and planets do rotate already on an axis???

Don't think this would add much to the game.

Okay this is a game, not space fact, it would be nice for comets, there are many other things that make this game great beyond more space clutter...

Maybe...mini faded versions of them on tiles that don't have a impact on the five planet limit but are still visible. That could work.

As to colonizing moons:  given that everything presented is an ABSTRACT measure, and not a 1:1 correlation, it's long been said by lore that some of the value of a colonizable planet is the value that come from the moon.   That is, a Value 10 planet with a large moon actually probably is a Value 8 planet, but 2 additional ratings come from the utility provided by the Moon.

the same can be said for why we only see 2-5 planets in a solar system ever.  Some of the value of the unseen planetoids is subsumed in the ratings for the existing habitable planets.

I think the number of planets in a system (and annexed planetoids, satellites, dwarf planets, asteroid belts, and other celestial bodies) should be handled by the game settings (density and types). Naturally this would also affect the human solar system (the real one), as long as it still is somehow close to the real thing because it would look weird if we played human with Earth and Jupiter only (according to the settings). 

I agree the best solution for satellites (m00ns) is to have them attached and orbiting to their planet.

Just like the m00n orbits around Earth right now, so it should be for all the other m00ns (we're talking of Jupiter and Saturn right now but it should work the same for all planets and m00ns, again, according to the density settings).

I also agree that the thing be managed at planetary system level. Which means the m00ns are considered to be part of the planet and the playercolonizing a planet has colonized the whole system (m00ns included and here we could use some technology to drag the m00n's resources with more efficiency to the planetary structures).

The fact here is that we've got a 2d game based on strategy more than arcades (I take SOTS2 as reference). It is turn-based, and if you are one level below the competition you must at least add a level of depth.

To me a level of depth is making space somehow realistic. I think you're figuring it to be harder than it really is. 

The game is turn-based so it's all about dciding the TIME unit and then, according to this TIME unit, decide how many units are needed for a planet to be in one hex or in the next one (following its unseen orbit around its star). Faster (closer) planets move more hexes but if you target a planet with movement or action the ship would still get there in that turn because the system takes that motion into account when calculating movement range. 

Question: How long in TIME is a turn? How far can a ship travel in the timing interval? That is how you end up calculating how many hexes a planet can travel in that time interval, according to its orbit. And it doesn't necessarily need to be a WIDE movement (obviously ships move faster than planets, a lot faster!) 

The m00n is orbiting around a planet that is not moving. The sun is spinning on itself and it's not moving. The comets and asteroid belts are not moving or rotating... the galaxy image beneath the hex layer is not moving.

But AFTER the turn processing is complete you will see space is dynamic because a planet could have changed hex, that comet will have moved, the galaxy background beneath the hex layer will have changed by a very very tiny bit (which implies the spyral is rotating). 

This is very important... it's not a cheap suggestion with no consequences.

It will spell whether or not this game is complete fantasy or it has at least some accuracy. The Universe should be dynamic, it's not a painted crap onto a hex layer.

There are TACTICAL and TECHNOLOGICAL aspects that will be unlocked if this is developed in this way and we're obviously neglecting a huge opportunity in depth if we keep it 2d and totally static. 

EDIT: Read carefully: the first thing is to assess the time scale, then the movement scale which should include a dynamic universe. 

Okay Z-74, first off some of the features you describe could add to the game, I agree, but at what cost?  I'd rather have more depth to the game versus higher detail as your describing.  Too many games now days brag up graphics and realism but, have no depth, you stopped being challenged after an hour or two.  I'd rather have a game that keeps you on your toes, is constantly making you want to cheat to get ahead for many hours/weeks/months versus an hour or two.  Maybe that's me...   

I think Stardock is doing things correct, and I continue to support their choices...

I agree but you see this has little to do with graphics and a lot more with strategy. 

Imagine a scenario with the REAL Solar System involved and an alien race coming forward to conquer it from outer space.

The player in this which is, ideally, a tutorial, must stop the alien race playing as humans. So essentially, the player must defend Earth.

One thing is the Earth, Mars, the Asteroid Belt and Jupiter are in the same place every single time and another, completely different thing is if they are in a different place of the orbits when the game starts.

If you conceive a long term of development (this is still the alpha stage) as a chance to impact the design, and envision the creation of magnetic fields as a Masking/Jamming factor, that factor would never be the same and that is a tactical aspect of a deeper gameplay. 

The Aliens AI will turn visible as soon as they pass Jupiter's humongous magnetic field but jupiter will never be in the same place in respect with Earth. Both the AI and the players will have tactical options at hand. 

A Dynamic Universe allows more choices, more technologies, deeper thinking and a much higher longevity. It's got nothing to do with graphics. 

Homeworld and Sword of the Stars, for two.

A turn is a week, and 1 tile is a parsec.  Obviously solar systems aren't to scale.  But really, what would making the planets move around the stars add to the gameplay?

I don't know about Homeworld, but in Sword of the Stars it's only particularly easy to move ships or fleets to or from specific points (the planets, or systems if you prefer, and any ships or fleets in deep space on the map). It was a bit more convoluted to get a ship to an arbitrary point on the map for purposes such as parking a deep scan vessel in deep space to watch your enemy's fleet movements. Granted, the majority of the time you just want to send ships and fleets to planets or other ships and fleets, which was a fairly easy point and click system. If you want to go to an arbitrary point on the map rather than a place where there's already something present, it gets rather more difficult, especially since you don't have particularly fine control over how far your ships move in a single turn.

It is between difficult and impossible to write on these forums if I have got to wait 24 hours before I can write a new post. This is really incredible..,  absurd and illogical.

it's the first time I am on a forum with such rule. 

I have already answered the question on the gameplay but it's essemtially a matter of quality. A sloppy DEV house will build a static universe, a serious DEV house will build a dynamic universe because that's how the Universe is. 

We already have a 2d universe and you also want to make it static? 

What are you talking about? There is no such rule here.

I think you are confusing "sloppy" with "not having a high enough budget to do it" and/or "not thinking it would add to the game". Also, the devs already addressed the topic of realism back during the development of GalCiv 2. Sure, that post doesn't address everything you are asking for, but its essential message is still the same: too much realism can make a game less fun.

I would recommend StarRuler 2 it is a 3d universe.

There might be a post limit because he just created the account. Some forums do that if they've had issues with spam bots or virulent haters in the past. I know of at least one that forces any new account into read-only for a couple days to prevent someone who's been banned from immediately creating a new account to continue whatever they were banned for.

But I just bought the Alpha... that can't be a previous spam/botter... I need to catch up and i can barely post... uff... 

Anyway let's hope the DEVs know what they're doing. I already am unhappy at the 2d space format... and a dynamic universe would at least make some sense. Hex game... looks like material for matrixgames. Lots of titles... poor longevity. 

Was there a Dev streaming yesterday? Anyone has a youtube link about it? 

http://www.twitch.tv/stardock/b/553512308