Do you want to add the weather in the game?

I am all for weather effects. I however would kind of prefer to focus them on a planetary wide scale. Rather than weather being a random unpredictable element, I would like to see planets that are just always snowy, always stormy, always bombarded by ions. I realize this direction is a bit of a simplification and all that, but I think it just fits better with the focus of the game.

It's about battling for planets, not about the weather. Use weather as something to provide a wider variety of planetary types rather than making it a smaller scale and unpredictable distraction from the planetary/system theme of the game itself.

Tropico 4 wasn't multiplayer, and neither that or Civ 5 had a random, unpredictable, unpreventable, unavoidable event that would result in your immediate death if it occurred. There is no strategy in such an event.
...
Compared to you fighting one guy on your planet only to suddenly have some guy on another planet who hadn't even encountered an enemy yet suddenly die because of a stray meteor landed on him or an earthquake hit his power generators and caused a chain reaction. No strategy = no fun, regardless of how aesthetically cool it is.[/quote]
Civ 5 has random events that can be potentially crippling. I was hit by a random event that had something to do with poor metallurgy, causing all my Swordsman to suddenly drop to half strength, and I was in the middle of a war. That could've been disastrous. Another I was in a Space Race and suffered a random event that reset research of a vital tech, and my opponent launched his Spaceship only a few turns before mine would've been completed.

SO WHAT!? It's only a game! If you're that paranoid and petty that a random event will ruin your life, then don't play, or just turn the option off, crybaby!

Regardless, there probably wouldn't be any natural disasters that could lose a player a game.

When I suggested meteor showers, I didn't mean random planet-killing sized meteors. I meant meteor showers that could only inflict minor damage to units and buildings, and only destroy the most low-tech and/or fragile ones. They're intended to be realistic, minor hazards -- they couldn't possibly kill a full-HP Commander. Also, the risk-vs-reward of meteor showers would be that they pepper an area with easily reclaimable Metal/Mass. So, ideally, the meteor shower would impact near the player's base, not on it, and provide a short-term resource windfall.

Most natural disasters would inflict that level of damage -- minimal to moderate -- the greater the risk the greater the potential rewards. For example, perhaps an ion storm could inflict damage and temporarily knock out power, or it could grant the player unlimited Energy, temporarily.

These are just suggestions and possibilities -- it'll be up to Uber to choose if and how to implement them.

Well now you have gone the other direction. If they are so ineffective what is the point of them at all? Looks? maybe. But I will go back to my original statement of spend the time on the core game itself instead of developing fancy yet irrelevant stuff.

I agree with this, to paraphrase what I have said in another thread:

I would envision weather working is as modifiers that affect both sides equally. An ice planet could have blizzards reducing the speed and viability of aircraft. It could be periodic or a constant effect so long as it happened to both sides equally.

There is already the strong possibility of terrain set conditions like no land craft on a water worlds and gas giants, and there is an element of randomness already present in the game with proceedurally generated planets and solar systems.

Weather could be a "soft" modifier on strategy rather than the "hard" modifiers on strategies that Gas/Lava/Water planets bring. It could add to the way players within a match approach different planets and in that respect I think it could add to the game in a meaningful way without smashing balance.

I agree with this statement as a general rule, but I have seen this response being thrown at ideas a bit much lately. Uber I think are capable of deciding what is and is not worth spending time on in the development of a game. They have shown as much with the rejection of space combat as an aspect of the game, despite many people requesting it initially (much less lately as most people now know it is officially out).

It isnt helpful to a discussion, nor is it relevant to dismiss an idea on the basis that Uber dont have time to do it with everything else they are working on. I would rather see an idea rejected or developed based on its own merits (or lack thereof).

I don't really see a problem with planet wide effects like a stormy planet (eg. only half radar and ground units invisible from space) for an ice planet (eg. no naval and walking units go slower to keep themselves balanced). It is a consistant affect you would factor into your tactics and most importantly it wouldn't randomly change.

I'd be totally good with weather only being an aesthetic effect(it certainly helps Starcraft maps be a little more interesting).

If it were to have any game-play repercussions then it should be global to the planet/moon/whatever and effect everyone equally, no random Hail storms tearing up my base and leaving the other guy relatively untouched(didn't like those maps in TA either).

I agree, any weather impacts on gameplay, whether periodic or constant should be a planet wide effect which affects all players on that world equally. Otherwise it is a recipe for frustration.