More moons would be great.

I think that the could vary from Smal over Medium to Big.

Then they ad 0,1,2 Population if explored to the planet.

Also the ammount of them could vary.

Photon_Ventdesdunes wrote:
Agreed, When it will be possible, to have more moons is a good idea. With maybe a scale depending of the size of the planet and it's type.



Tiny 0-1

Small 0-2 (Mars has 2 moons, Phobos and Deimos (fear and terror))

Medium 0-2

Large 0-2 or 3

Huge 0-3



With for example a multiplier *5 for gas planet. And not a moon but a bigger body which can look like a tiny tiny planet in asteroides.

This idea sounds great

eltro102 wrote:
But Pluto actually has no moons, as it orbits a barycenter (center of gravity basically) outside its surface, with Nix and Hydra orbiting that too.

Technically that is true of all planetary bodies. Most of them, however, tend to have that barycenter inside their own mass.



However, the IAU has yet to formalise a definition for binary dwarf planets, and as such Charon is officially classified as a moon of Pluto, along with the other three (Nix, Hydra, and S/2011 P 1)

Q: Is Pluto's satellite Charon a dwarf planet?

A: For now, Charon is considered just to be Pluto's satellite. The idea that Charon might qualify to be called a dwarf planet in its own right may be considered later. Charon may receive consideration because Pluto and Charon are comparable in size and orbit each other, rather than just being a satellite orbiting a planet. Most important for Charon's case as a dwarf planet is that the centre of gravity about which Charon orbits is not inside of the system primary, Pluto. Instead this centre of gravity, called the barycentre, resides in free space between Pluto and Charon.

http://www.iau.org/public/pluto/

Draco18s wrote:
*Cough*

Do I need to point out Pluto again? Pluto is now "too small" to be considered a planet and it has four moons! One of which is almost as large as the planetoid itself.

But Pluto actually has no moons, as it orbits a barycenter (center of gravity basically) outside its surface, with Nix and Hydra orbiting that too.

TheManInRoomFive wrote:
So the idea is to implement something like this: (First number is max number of moons, the second is the probability for it to have at least one.)

Tiny: 0, 0%

*Cough*

Do I need to point out Pluto again? Pluto is now "too small" to be considered a planet and it has four moons! One of which is almost as large as the planetoid itself.

I've been reading the suggestions, and thought it was a good idea to have systems with more than one moon, but I think 4 is a bit too much even with that kind of percentage.



And also if you're going to do that, there should probably be a tab to see what kind of things you have on the moon of the system. It's really tough to scroll through 30+ systems to find the one moon that gave +10 xp to ships or something else.

I have had similar thoughts, my idea goes along size of the planet being important (Again to make larger planets more important). Just look at our own solar system, there are planet that have not and one that has 60+. Agreed most of these moons are useless, and therefore the number of moons should be dramatical smaller. Right now it seems that a planet has 50% chance to have a moon, and that's it.

So the idea is to implement something like this: (First number is max number of moons, the second is the probability for it to have at least one.)

Tiny: 0, 0%

Small: 1, 10%

Medium: 2, 33%

Large: 3, 40%

Huge: 4, 50%

Now then the addition of additional moons should be a set percentage maybe 10%. This would mean that every third medium planet will have a moon, but only one out of 30 will have 2. Similarly every second Huge planet will have a moon, but only one out of 20 will have 2, one out of 200 will have 3 and one out of 2000 will have 4. The percentages can of course be worked upon, but I hope that i have made the idea somewhat understandable.

A planet receiving a moon is nothing more than chance isn't it? That piece of rock just has to get caught in the planet's gravity and be locked in there.. over the course of billions of years, surely there have to be some planets with several moons and some without. Bigger planets - gas giants - should of course have a bigger chance of having multiple moons as they have a much higher gravity. Also, the inner planets should have less chance as there's a lot of influence it'd have to escape before actually reaching an inner planet and getting caught in it's gravity.

Calico wrote:
The Earths Moon is quite irregular in itself. It's way larger then most moons in the Solar System, the other 5-6 bigger ones are all Moons of Gas Giants. It's highly likely that our Luna is like a one in a thousand chance for a Terrestial Planet.

This is also true.

Also, Pluto isn't a Planet anymore.

Lies.

VARRAKK wrote:
Just do it simple.

0-3 moons



The moons can provide certain bonuses to System. FIDS/Population (for the onces habitable)/bonuses/tech.

Yep I agree.



I like the temple system in use at present. I would like it kept, I would it expanded as a chance to find pirate/smuggler cache (one time plus to dust) or a native colony that adds to food. Maybe more moons would create more liklihood of finding a temple. Something like 1 moon-15%. 2 moons-30%. 3 moons-45%.



I am actually in favour of having moons for special perks, and not as new colony opportunities. For me it is too complicated.

Just do it simple.

0-3 moons



The moons can provide certain bonuses to System. FIDS/Population (for the onces habitable)/bonuses/tech.

Draco18s wrote:
FYI, the Earth is very irregular for having only a single moon, even for a planet of it's size (look at Mars, it's got TWO! Or Pluto, Pluto has four!)

The Earths Moon is quite irregular in itself. It's way larger then most moons in the Solar System, the other 5-6 bigger ones are all Moons of Gas Giants. It's highly likely that our Luna is like a one in a thousand chance for a Terrestial Planet.

Also, Pluto isn't a Planet anymore.



BTT It's higly unlikely that most Planets have Moons that compare to our Luna. Sure, Mars has two Moons, but they are more like Asteroids then our Moon. So i'll go with the Dev's on this one, cause the chance of having a "good, valuable" Moon are slim at best. Only Gas Giants have Moons that count for something.... IF there is a increase of Moons only Gas Giants should get more. Terrestial Moons are usally very very small and aren't really usable for anything.

Agreed, planets with multiple moons and different moon types/sizes sounds good.



Would also have to agree with Gyomb regarding moon terraforming and moon improvements. Doesnt have to be loads of new improvements, just a few more. And if there were different moon types maybe some of the planet improvements could apply to moons of a similar type as well (obviously with less of an impact).

I like how moons play a effect on planets (like surveying, finding temples, using them). But right now theirs only ONE MOON for ALL the planets, and I think this is something that needs to be looked into.



If we can have different number of moons (not from 0-1) that would make the universe look less 'stale' and more 'different' as you go on from each system. It would also be nice to have different sizes of moons (small, medium, large) as not all moons are the same size (just look at the earths moon, its bigger then pluto!).

moons would essentially be treated like small planets (terraformation; bigger ones

having a chance to already have an atmosphere => the already mentioned terran/ocean/jungle moons

I'm not sure that would be a good idea. Starting to terraform small cosmic objects starts to feel a little micromanagementish.



In the meantime I was disappointed by the moon improvements (only two, really expensive improvements - the dusty one is advantageous only with more than 3 moons) so I would really like to see more moon improvements (and with a cheaper upkeep).

I Also agree, somthing else that would be nice would be planets with rings, this could give a bonus to the planet like "garden of eden" where it has industrial uses or perhaps even a negitive affect in defence because enemy fleets could hide in the rings

Gaurav251 wrote:
I like how moons play a effect on planets (like surveying, finding temples, using them). But right now theirs only ONE MOON for ALL the planets, and I think this is something that needs to be looked into.



If we can have different number of moons (not from 0-1) that would make the universe look less 'stale' and more 'different' as you go on from each system. It would also be nice to have different sizes of moons (small, medium, large) as not all moons are the same size (just look at the earths moon, its bigger then pluto!).

This has been suggested on summary list under Game Play > General > More moons/Asteroids which also includes the composition of them as they can behave as planets

John_Smith wrote:
I concur. But planets without moons should be present too We have Mercury and Venus after all.

Well, yeah. I'm just saying that there isn't a size -> number of moons ratio. Tiny planets only getting a single moon is no more "realistic" than every planet only getting 0 or 1.



Now; whether or not a 50km wide chunk of space debris (check Nix's size) is large enough to be worth building a temple on or not is a different question.

Draco18s wrote:
FYI, the Earth is very irregular for having only a single moon, even for a planet of it's size (look at Mars, it's got TWO! Or Pluto, Pluto has four!)

I concur. But planets without moons should be present too We have Mercury and Venus after all.

FYI, the Earth is very irregular for having only a single moon, even for a planet of it's size (look at Mars, it's got TWO! Or Pluto, Pluto has four!)