[Re-Poll Part 2]: Environmental Effects

Continued from:
Re-Poll: Environmental Effects (Go here first please people.)

This thread is for discussion of the Bacon Biome only - try to post in the primary thread please

1. Economic Modifiers - Bonuses for certain biomes or planets - e.g. a slight metal boost per mex in metal/lava/mountainous biomes.
   
2. Energy Generation - Geothermal Energy plants, Solar Arrays that generate more energy closer to the sun, Wind Turbines for windy planets, Tidal generators for planets with deep seas and wind. TA stuff basically.
3. Natural Disasters, Minor Player-Triggered - Say you set fire to a forest and the enemy has an army in it. Does that army take some damage?
4. Natural Disasters, Major Player-Triggered - Say you nuke a volcano - does it explode?
   
5. Natural Disasters, Periodic - Predictable disasters, such as the Lava level rising and falling on Lava Planets. Things like Acid Rain might fall into this category.
6. Natural Disasters, Random - You know that Volcano/Tornado is going to blow at some point in the next half-hour - who knows when?

The problem with anything random, is that it is random.

Tried not to let my bias influence the OP I do agree of course my good man.

The poll is only missing a vote against all option, you know, for the people who like that kinda thing.

I know, I decided not to include one since the Obstructive Terrain/Destructibles (the first option) would be silly to be against, unless you like playing on bowling balls.

You forgot movement modifier. Apart for the obvious, like water and ground, personally I would like to see big units slowing down across Forest, and Bots on sands.

Actually, Bots could be able to traverse medium and low waters.

This is a continued poll - follow the post in my OP

Your (multiple-) polls are too smart for me

You didn't have a "no environmental effects" poll option. That skews the results big time. And by big time, I mean the poll is almost completely useless. "Who agrees with me?" The answer options are, "yes," "kind of," and "big time." See? Everyone agrees with me!

That being said... I'm not so sure how I feel about certain planet types generating more metal. That will reduce the strategic depth. When spawning, you simply have to choose the one planet type that give you more metal. I don't really like that. It's the exact same reason why metal planets have metal spots rather than place 'em anywhere.

So now he has to extend (and continue) this poll, again

Also Brian did you see the thread this is continued from? The one I ask people to go to first in my OP in this thread? It's got the option for things to stay as they currently are/will be, and I explicitly ask people to vote for that even if they don't want any of the other effects.

I agree with your concerns over Metal abundance variation. That would need to be balanced by Energy being more abundant/powerful on the planets that had low Metal. E.g. Tropical/Earth/Desert would have lots of light for Solar, or water for Tidal.
Obviously we're talking orders of +1 metal per spot/+50-100 per T1 Energy Generator or something similar, not orders of magnitude greater metal/energy on certain planets.

The only kind of environmental effects I would care for are some sort of geothermal plant / hydrocarbon equivalent, and terrain modifiers for unit movement, which should be completely based on the units, not arbitrarily applied to terrain. Example, giving units a max slope so that there are some hills that impassible to some units but passable to others.