Re: [GZG][FH] Planet types (was Re: Locations of Stars)

	I hope that by "planet types" you mean habitable planets. For a
campaign I
was writing a planet, indeed all planets, were described by 4 varibles;
size of population and/or military bases it could support (very abstract
measure of surface area), a habitability rating from 0 to 10 (zero
lifeless
rock, 10 Eden, Earth currently about 6) which determined maintaince
costs,
an industry rating to indicate how industrially developed the planet was
and a resource rating which multiplied industry rating to give
production.
	If you want to be more specific then there are several factors
to
consider. This is not just for habitable planets

	1) Size - small and you have no atmosphere, really big and you
have an
atmosphere with pressure that crushes you. Small and you usually have no
molten core to give you a protective magnetic field, really big and the
pull of gravity gives nearby moons molten cores and magnetic fields.
Small
and its real easy to get into orbit, even for PA, really big and you'll
never get off. What size forces can be deployed here and how many people
could possibly live there?
	2) Atmosphere - the amount you have is important as is its
composition. No
CO2 and plants (as we know them anyway) won't grow, too much and you
have
Venus. No 02 and your troops can't breave, too much and every time you
fire
a weapon you get an explosion and a fire. The amount of atmosphere will
affect the preformance of conventional aircraft and GEVs. The amount of
oxygen will affect to preformance of nonPA troops (except perhaps Gurkas
who are used to low air pressures abd less oxygen).
	3) Tempreature - partly a function of how far from a star and
partly the
nature of the planets atmosphere. Absolute Zero doesn't do working
parts,
including people, much good. Then again you wouldn't do much better on a
place like Venus.
	4) Stability - if the surface of the planet is constantly
changing, and by
this I also mean by meteor impact as well as planetquakes, flooding
oceans
(like on Europa), ice packs, glaciers, volcanos etc, it might make
buliding
on it impossible and thus render the planet totally useless. Troops
might
refuse to use fortifcations and entrenchments. Keeping stores becomes
far
more difficult and casualties amongst men and equipment are bound to be
higher under such conditions.
	5) Resources - what does the planet have that you can use?
	6) Population - how many people/creatures live there? What sort
of
people/creatures live there.
	
	Obviously this last might take some time depending on how
involved you
want to be. At first all you need to tell the player is the size of the
planet. As the player approaches and spends time studying a planet then
the
more they will learn needing perhaps only one roll each turn. Of course
you
could be really keen and pregenrate all the star systems you are likely
to
need (and then see all 80 go to waste as the campaign gets taken over by
one than seems simpler and has had 3 changes to the tech system and 2 to
the economic in just 3 turns. Oh well thats my whinge).
	I might be pessamistic but I really don't see combat being
limited to
"habitable" worlds, for a number of reasons, and for that reason I think
you have to be able to handle all types of planets, not just habitable
ones.

	Tony.
	twilko@ozemail.com.au

At 12:41 28/11/98 -0500, you wrote:
>  Several people have mentioned "planet types" while discussing the
detail
>level for the Official History of the Future(tm).  I thought I'd pitch
this
>out and then expend all thrust on evasive maneuvering 8) :
>  John Barnes, in the March 1990 Analog, has an article on "How to
Build a
>Future".  Among other things, he postulates that there are just a few
type
>of planets:
>
>1.	Wet Mars (smaller and cooler than Earth, a scattering of
islands);
>2.	Utah (big, dry, huge mountains, livable seacoasts);
>3.	Cold Indonesia (cooler than Earth, with small continents and
large
>islands, habitable in the tropics and lower temperate zones);
>4.	Odd ones that don't fit a category.
>
>Now, he got these from random number generation across a spreadsheet
for
>the "six randomizing factors that went into each planet" (and if anyone
>knows what he's talking about, especially parameters and how to
determine
>how many resource areas there are, e-mail me) so there's no reason that
we
>have to stick with those types he came up with.  We might, however,
decide
>on a few basic planet types that are habitable without terraforming. 
Note
>that I am not suggesting "a jungle planet"--any real habitable planet
is
>going to have a range of climates.  Nor am I trying to limit
creativity--if
>you want a weird planet, design it.  I just don't feel that every
single
>planet has to be totally different from every other one; and I don't
want
>to have to design from scratch every time just to have a feel for what
it's
>like.
>   (Compare: "You're entering a star system.  In the habitable zone
there
>is a (roll one die) Large Indonesia type planet" versus "In the
habitable
>zone there is...um, how about design a Kra'Vak flotilla for me while I
>design the planet you're landing on?")
>   There are only a few basic climates and a few basic terrain types so
it
>shouldn't be hard to design five or so classes of world ("geotypes"?)
that
>will guarantee every combination is readily available.
>
>
>