Opening Warp holes

[Smolf]

Ohh... I nearly forgot. Now we are talking about adding stuff to the FAQ, then I got some questions about sphereworlds and ringworlds.

What's the difference, where in the system are they created and can you create more than one ringworld/sphere world in a system?

And one more thing? I read in the FAQ and the data file that if I create a planet from a asteroide field, then it will be a random type planet/atmosphere type? Is there some way to control which type is created? I'm playing a game, where it's only possible to colonize your home planet type, so it's a waste of resources to create a different type of planet (Unless I wait for someone to colonize it and then conquer it with ground troops... But that seems like a long shot).

These different topics would be a good idea to mention in the FAQ... I would write it, but I don't know the answers :-(

[Randallw]

Ringworlds and Sphereworlds are created around a star. I don't know the specifics but I believe Spheres hold twice as much as Rings. You can only create one sphere or ring per system, and also note you need a star in the system to create new planets.

[Smolf]

What if I already got planets and star(s) in the system? Is it still possible to create a ring/sphere-world?

And can I create a ringworld around each star in a system???

Do you mean that a sphereworld is larger than an ringworld or just got larger cargohold?

I got lots of questions, so don't run away :-)

[douglas]

Smolf said:
Ohh... I nearly forgot. Now we are talking about adding stuff to the FAQ, then I got some questions about sphereworlds and ringworlds.

What's the difference, where in the system are they created and can you create more than one ringworld/sphere world in a system?

The difference is that sphereworlds can hold twice as much of everything as ringworlds, including facilities, population, and cargo, and require much more advanced stellar manipulation tech and twice as much gravity plating/hyper-density cables to build. They are created around stars, and you can build as many in a system as there are stars in that system. If there are no stars in a system, you can create a star and build a ring/sphereworld around it, but you cannot create a star in a system that already has a star or ring/sphereworld. All the components involved in building the ring/sphereworld must actually be at the same location as the star, not just in the same system or anything like that; this means that in the stock game you will have to build lots of starbases with space yard ships to accomplish the task.

Smolf said:
And one more thing? I read in the FAQ and the data file that if I create a planet from a asteroide field, then it will be a random type planet/atmosphere type? Is there some way to control which type is created? I'm playing a game, where it's only possible to colonize your home planet type, so it's a waste of resources to create a different type of planet (Unless I wait for someone to colonize it and then conquer it with ground troops... But that seems like a long shot).

You cannot control or influence the result of creating a planet, but you can keep destroying and recreating it until you get the result you want. Each time you convert a planet back to an asteroid field and then back to a planet, the type and atmosphere are rerandomized.

[Fyron]

By "created around stars," they mean, created in the same sector that the star is in, and the star is removed when the RW/SW is created. A RW/SW completely replaces the star.

Note that a RW/SW does _NOT_ count as a star, for any purpose. This means:

1) You can not create new planets in the system (unless it had two stars).
2) You can not use any SM components that require a star (such as nebula creation, black hole creation, or star destruction).
3) Components and facilities that depend on stars (solar resource facilities for crystalline races and solar collectors) will not work if the star is replaced by a RW/SW.
4) You can not create a new star in a system if a RW/SW is present. So, you could not create a RW/SW, then create a second star, then create a new RW/SW.
5) Events that affect stars can no longer occur, since the RW/SW is a planet.

#5 is in addition to the affect Douglas mentions in the next post.

[douglas]

An odd little quirk of the replacement is that building a ring/sphereworld around a star that is going to explode as a random event (you get warned 30 turns in advance in the log if you have a presence in the system then) prevents the explosion from actually happening.

[Smolf]

Imperator Fyron said:
By "created around stars," they mean, created in the same sector that the star is in, and the star is removed when the RW/SW is created. A RW/SW completely replaces the star.

Note that a RW/SW does _NOT_ count as a star, for any purpose. This means:

1) You can not create new planets in the system (unless it had two stars).
2) You can not use any SM components that require a star (such as nebula creation, black hole creation, or star destruction).
3) Components and facilities that depend on stars (solar resource facilities for crystalline races and solar collectors) will not work if the star is replaced by a RW/SW.
4) You can not create a new star in a system if a RW/SW is present. So, you could not create a RW/SW, then create a second star, then create a new RW/SW.
5) Events that affect stars can no longer occur, since the RW/SW is a planet.

Is it possible to create a new star in a system, which already has one or more stars but no RW/SW? This way you could "prepare" a system for a massive RW/SW creation process. Very useful if you are playing with a very limited number of colonizable planets (and of course got a lot of spare resources).

If the answer to the question above is yes, is there then any limit on how many stars a system can support?

Can any of you tell me the number of possible facilities, cargo space, population limits on RW and SW? I'm a little curious because it's a big investment in resources to create these worlds and I'm not sure it's worth it?

Do any of you use stellar manipulation or do you instead go for total conquest? I'm playing against a friend by email and one of the victory conditions is having a 300% better score than him. So will I get more points by expanding/conquering or by improving my "infrastructure" with new planets? I haven't found a post, which describes how your score are measured, so I'm not sure what to do.

I like the stellar manipulation best, because it's like playing som manic god. "I created a world, I didn't like the result, I destroyed it again muhahahaha.... (evil laughter)"

[Frederick_d_Ohlmann]

No, you cannot create a star if there is already star or RW/SW. The only thing you can do in some mods is creating a RW, destroy it (you cannot do it with stock planet destroyer) then use the asteroid to create huge world (NOT a constructed world)

[douglas]

Smolf said:
Can any of you tell me the number of possible facilities, cargo space, population limits on RW and SW? I'm a little curious because it's a big investment in resources to create these worlds and I'm not sure it's worth it?

Ringworlds have 100 facility spaces, 32000 max population, and 64000 cargo space. Sphereworlds have double that amount for each of these. If you took the Advanced Storage racial trait, that adds 20% to all three of these numbers. If you somehow acquire a ring/sphereworld with the wrong breathers on it, that only cuts the numbers in half. Ring/sphereworlds have the type and atmosphere of the race that created them, and start with optimal conditions and 150% for all three values.

Smolf said:
Do any of you use stellar manipulation or do you instead go for total conquest? I'm playing against a friend by email and one of the victory conditions is having a 300% better score than him. So will I get more points by expanding/conquering or by improving my "infrastructure" with new planets? I haven't found a post, which describes how your score are measured, so I'm not sure what to do.

From the stickied FAQ thread, "Score is calculated as follows: Every point of minerals, organics, and radioactives, generated counts as one score point. Every point of research and intelligence generated counts as one score point. Each kt of your ships and bases counts as 10 points. Each level of researched techs counts for 200 points. No points for units/pop/colonies/systems. (Ruatha) Mothballed ships don't count to score."

I'd say do both. You should always try to have a military about as large as you can support, and it would be a waste to not use it. Meanwhile, planet creators and destroyers don't cost all that much to maintain compared to a few good warships, and their long-term benefits are extremely good. Ringworlds cost a bit more to make, but if you can spare the resources from your war effort, they can be worth it in the long run.

[NullAshton]

Aw, no points for my 2000+ units? Probally more by now...