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

> From: John and Roxanne Leary <realjtl@sj.bigger.net>
> Sean Bayan Schoonmaker wrote:

> > Resources, resources, resources. There are many instances of places
not
> > worth living in that are often fought over.
> > 
> > Schoon

  None spring to mind other than, say, North Sea oil rigs, which is
analogous to habitat domes.  I personally wouldn't want to live in, say,
Siberia or the Amazon, but they are habitable.	And even so, they are
not
as developed as, say, France, simply because you have to invest
resources
to exploit them, and the investment is a lot larger in a place that has
to
be terraformed even to the moderate extent that Siberia or the Amazon
would
require.
  Of course, you may not have a choice--the only balonium deposit in
your
territory is in a particularly unpleasant environment.	Okay, do you
build
a dome and exploit the mines right now; or do you spend the credits to
terraform the place and wait for however many years it takes to develop
a
breathable atmosphere, etc., before you start digging for balonium?

> 
>      Schoon has hit the nail on the head.   nothing else matters,
> the availability of resources and the desire to acquire them is 
> what drives all the action.

You are talking about strategic importance; I am talking about climate
and
terrain, to give it flavor.  You could have a "large Indonesia" planet
which is wealthy or broke, but for either you're going to use more GEV's
and fewer track-laying vehicles than you would in some other situations;
you're just a lot less likely to fight over the place with no resources.