Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Home of discussions about Ultra Starfire (5th edition) and its predecessor Galactic Starfire (4th edition).

Moderators: SDS Owner, SDS Members

Forum rules
1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Re: Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Postby Crucis on Sun 02 Aug 2009 19:47

Dwarf? What planet type is that?
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Postby Cralis on Sun 02 Aug 2009 21:10

PracticalM wrote:I guess i just don't care that much about variety. I do know that changing the G and I planets away cause the exotic races to need rebalancing.

To me since most of the Os were not that important for economic purposes beyond setting a population in the system. I don't care about the names. H B and F don't have any more meaning to me than any other letter. They don't even seem to correspond to realistic planet types (which really just separate into 3 types Super Terrestrial, Terrestrial, or Dwarf).


Actually, H B F directly correspond to one thing: temperature.

One of the things that have astronomers and astrophysicists brewing is how to classify planets should we get enough details to do so. One thing they found is that barren worlds (those without atmosphere) will typically have similar characteristics in each zone they are in. The difference between those zones is temperature. The difference in temperature determines what elements survive and which are vaporized and/or swept away.

(H)ot worlds would be like Mercury. High metal content, very little gas. Any trace of an atmosphere would burn away because the planet is too small to keep it. (B)arren worlds would be between the two extremes. They have a higher composition of metals yet have potential for water and gaseous materials - even potential for atmosphere. Kind of like our moon, or Mars. (F)rozen worlds would be those with temperatures in the -100s C, such as those around type-I planets. These have a completely different composition that is mostly gases with a high proportion of noble gases. They generally lack an atmosphere because it is frozen and they are too small to maintain it.

Yes we are arbitrarily naming them, but for a reason. Each would support different kinds of exotic life, and each would realistically be different.
Image
User avatar
Cralis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 11232
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27
Location: Oregon, USA

Re: Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Postby krenshala on Wed 05 Aug 2009 22:02

1. I'm a big fan of the H,B,F designation to replace the O* versions -- primarily because I can never remember which is O1 without looking it up (I always think O1 is like Mercury, but even now I'm not sure if it is). The mnemonic of (H)ot, (B)arren and (F)rozen just makes more intuitive sense to me, and would have completely avoided the problem of knowing which type is what when I was new to SF (back in the ISF days right about the time 3rdR came out).

2. Personally, I list the mass with the type** so adding the 'm' prefix goes against my preferences. It does, however, make it clear when referring to a moon instead of a planet.

3. My preference is for the zones to be replaced with Hot and Cold, with the Habitable Zone as part of the Hot zone. Gas Giants would always be "mass 4" using this system since the mass of G worlds isn't used anywhere outside moon generation, even if you are using Unusual Life races ... I can go into more details on my method if people are interested (I'm still working on the fine details and probably need to tweak the mass table after I get the last quirks out of my system generation program and get a statistically valid sample size in the database).

4. As with 3 above, I redid the moon generation, with values based on zone location and mass, regardless of planetary type. I think it gives better results than the original, while maintaining the rough moon numbers (although V worlds may have more moons than they should with this system ... I still need to verify things).


** When designating system bodies I use <type><mass> (e.g., Sol is: H1, V2, T2, B1 (2?), A1, G2, G1, G1, F1) with moons being mass 0, big moons mass 1, and twins the mass of the 'parent' world (with the usual caveats on twin planet mass per the rules).
-- krenshala
None survive the harvest!

Yeah, I'm finally back (again)! Sometimes, life (and 13yo son's) don't leave you time to play SF and earn a paycheck. :/

No, really! Matt actually made me an admin here!
krenshala
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 2776
Joined: Thu 02 Jul 2009 17:13
Location: Austin TX, NorAm, Sol III

Re: Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Postby Crucis on Wed 05 Aug 2009 23:11

krenshala wrote:1. I'm a big fan of the H,B,F designation to replace the O* versions -- primarily because I can never remember which is O1 without looking it up (I always think O1 is like Mercury, but even now I'm not sure if it is). The mnemonic of (H)ot, (B)arren and (F)rozen just makes more intuitive sense to me, and would have completely avoided the problem of knowing which type is what when I was new to SF (back in the ISF days right about the time 3rdR came out).


Exactly. The HBF mnemonic is much more intuitive. I think that the O1/O2 types from ISF were really just an artifact from the 2e strategic rules, New Empires, wherein there was only a single type for all such worlds... type "O". God knows what "O" stood for (beyond perhaps "oxygen-less"). HBF is so much easier to remember then O1, O2, and now O3. I admit that I do remember what O2's are. My problem is remembering the diff between O1's and O3's. But with H and F it's easier .... H for Hot, and F for Frozen. Nice and easy.



2. Personally, I list the mass with the type** so adding the 'm' prefix goes against my preferences. It does, however, make it clear when referring to a moon instead of a planet.


... which is really the point of the 'm' prefix ... to make it clear that the body in question is, in fact, a moon.


3. My preference is for the zones to be replaced with Hot and Cold, with the Habitable Zone as part of the Hot zone. Gas Giants would always be "mass 4" using this system since the mass of G worlds isn't used anywhere outside moon generation, even if you are using Unusual Life races ... I can go into more details on my method if people are interested (I'm still working on the fine details and probably need to tweak the mass table after I get the last quirks out of my system generation program and get a statistically valid sample size in the database).


I'd suggest still sticking with the Rocky, Gas, and Ice zones. But the idea of a single mass for all gas giants is intriguing. And along those lines, you could have a separate, single mass for all ice giants, as well.



4. As with 3 above, I redid the moon generation, with values based on zone location and mass, regardless of planetary type. I think it gives better results than the original, while maintaining the rough moon numbers (although V worlds may have more moons than they should with this system ... I still need to verify things).


** When designating system bodies I use <type><mass> (e.g., Sol is: H1, V2, T2, B1 (2?), A1, G2, G1, G1, F1) with moons being mass 0, big moons mass 1, and twins the mass of the 'parent' world (with the usual caveats on twin planet mass per the rules).



I've always designated system bodies as "<type>-<orbit>" in my sysgen programs... Different strokes...
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Sysgen Series: Planet Types

Postby BillW on Mon 10 Aug 2009 19:20

I definitely like the idea of using H, B and F instead of O1, O2 and O3. Even though I am used to the O# designation, as Matt said, it makes no sense to a new player. A new player shouldn't have too much trouble remembering the initials for Hot, Barren and Frozen. :)
As far as the mX designation it does make it easier to tell that a body is a moon therefore I like it.
User avatar
BillW
Vice Admiral
Vice Admiral
 
Posts: 765
Joined: Tue 14 Jul 2009 22:31
Location: Pittsburgh, PA

Previous

Return to Ultra Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests