Different Suns?

Now that we have galactic wars.. and the game is funded... are there going to be a variety of different suns - everything from brown dwarfs to blue giants to spice up the stellar land scape?

Cool idea, might have different gravity restrictions too.

Binary star systems would look really cool.

I hope that different planets have different amounts of energy/metal sources.

Maybe a planet orbiting a bright star can generate heaps of power through solar plants, while a planet orbiting a dim star would have to jump straight to a more advanced power generation system.

TA dabbled with that, making some planets better for wind power than others and stuff like that.

Stars have already been stated to be a visual for the map... cant really interact with it (aside from gravitic slingshoting). So I think that having different sun types is very plausible. Cant speak for the gravity.

If they have basic physics in the game, then slightly changing the gravity would be reasonably easy. I would love to see different suns with different effects on the solar system.

That and they should also add differnt types of suns have a high or lower chance of having certain types of planets (eg a (insert colour here) sun might have a high chance of having more gas giants orbiting it) but thats just my 2 cents on this matter.

I am very much hoping for a generous variety of celestial objects in PA. I would also very much love to see binary systems, with double stars, planets, or other craziness. Variety here is a good thing. It makes things much more interesting.

Don't forget the downside part for balance, like higher radiation.
Also, lava planets maybe only exist near blue giants.
With binary stars you even could consider the position of the stars and the planet.
Are the line through the stars and the planet's tangent parallel, the brightness is at its peak.

If they do have other stars, please, Uber, please, no green stars.

My inner astronomy nerd is angered every time I see one in SoaSE. There's no such thing as a green star.

This.

As current astrophysics goes binary systems are actually more common and singular star systems. Unfort. many games over looks this and stick with single star systems. I would -LOVE- to see dual or even triple star solar systems. Imagine it...two shades of differing darkness on the surface of a moon...

Haha I totally agree. SoaSE is fantastic but that bugs me every time. There is plenty of awesome grounded in reality without having to pick random colours.

I would love to see binary star systems, and various kinds of stars for us astonomy geeks. Red giants, blue supergiants, sol like stars, brown and white dwarfs, pulsars and neurtron stars, even protostars!
They wouldnt have to have effects on the gameplay nessesarily, but I could envision the class of star being linked to the kind of generated solar system.

Examples:

1) A solar system with a Red Giant stage star would mean that the planets could be cooked planets that have signs that they used to be tropical.

2) A protostar could have a lot of lava planets which are in their early stages of formation with a lot of asteroids to colonise and fight across (or use as KEW)

3) As mentioned in other posts, Binary star systems could have pros and cons for solar generation or have much shorter (or non existant) night cycles.

4) This would be in contrast to protostars which havent achieved fusion yet and are glowing through heat alone, and brown dwarfs which are all but dead and have more frozen planets

5) Neutron stars and/or Pulsars would be awesome to see - if it were decided that stars did have impacts on gameplay I would envision it as being the EM interference of radar (intermittent in time with pulses?) - and the tremendous gravity such stars possess could certainly be worked into orbital mechanics. Perhaps KEW could have shorter travel times due to faster slingshots around the star. It could also have significant impacts on the gravity on the star facing side of the planet, making the timing for launching rockets off planet a factor, either preventing launches when facing away from the star or reducing the cost and time of a launch when facing the star.

I would be happy if the differences didnt directly impact on gameplay like I suggested with the neutron stars but I think having the aesthetic of the star match in with the planets generated would be awesome

I like the suggestions about different types of (plausible) star and potentially the star type having some effect on the types of planet in the system.

I'm not really in favour of star type affecting gameplay other than that.

Different star types isn't a major priority for me but it'd be a nice touch.

I agree - The more I think about it the more I prefer the idea of the stars only being aesthetic and being linked to planet types rather than having a direct impact on gameplay. Plenty of things higher on my list but it would be nice for the aesthetic

My main concern is that it's a lot of work to implement all this. Where as I think they are all great suggestions and I really like the idea of it effecting gameplay and the way the procedural worlds are generated is really neat. Variety is the spice of life and it would make for a really different game every time. Though I guess there would need to be some element of control over how each game would be generated.

I must be realistic though and say that it's more likely that the Devs would only consider adding something like this as an additional once they made the bulk of the game. They would likely have to consider it at the beginning and allow for it in the engine so that they could then implement it at the end if there are time and resources are available to do so.

what about having the ability to known moons or small planets into suns and maybe even cause them to go supernova and destroy the solar system? the Uber guys did mention about wiping out entire solar systems in the galactic war vid they made.

It should be far easier to just crash your planet into theirs. And most planets would not do serious enough damage to a star to make it supernova, you could make a gas giant crash into a star and get a plain nova, maybe...

I don't like 'LOL I'm losing so we all lost' buttons.

you cant make a gas giant move let alone crash into anything because its mostly 'gas' hence the name

Yeah I recall something like that, wonder how they would implement it? unless by wiping out whole solar systems they meant that you would scour them with warfare and KEWs leaving them uninhabitable and they didn't mean we would be blowing them up.

I remember them talking about the odds of moving a planet being remote, which makes sense. Even if you wanted to slap rockets all over one side of it, there in likelihood wouldn't be the resources on a planet to take on a project like that, nor would you be able to outfit enough power plants on that planet to run them.

As for nova's and super novas, hitting it with planets wouldn't do it. Gas giants as dwarlord mentioned cannot be shifted due to size and composition (no real surface to build on!)

Even if you could move one somehow, our Jupiter is only 1/50th the density of our sun. Being mostly Hydrogen it would only provide the sun with more fusion fuel. Maybe cause a wobble in it's axis for a while and a lot of solar storm activity. You have to bear in mind that planets around stars are just leftovers from star formation.

Stars can be in binary systems at close range tearing material off each other with their gravity or be in orbit around a black hole having material torn off them over millions if not billions of years without becoming unstable so I highly doubt a planet would give a star cause for pause.

Were star killing a thing in game (and I'm not sure it would be a good game mechanic) it would have to be some kind off sci fi tech (like quantum busters in Peter F Hamilton's Commonwealth saga).

Incorrect. Particularly on that last point.