Matrix Games Forums

ORIGINAL: Wade1000
Consider, also, that a galaxy consists of billions of stars. In games like this portraying a galaxy each star system represented is likely abstracted to represent an average ,or the best, of millions of stars in it's vicinity.

Abstractions. There are not biliions of stars on the game map like in a real galaxy. Each game star is abstracted to represent (maybe the average of, or best of) tens of millions of stars, maybe representing up to around 100 million stars each in game.

These sorts of games are abundant in ABSTRACTIONS. You should also accept that each planetary structure built represents not one but many on the planet. Maybe also that each ship represents many, depending on the flow of time and the time it takes to build one...unless you want to imagine each ship as super massive, tens of kilometers(miles) to hundreds of kilometers(miles) long. That is how I imagine them. That's how some science fiction does also.

Abstractions...like in a Civilization 4 game a soldier unit might equal 1000 people, a tank or plane unit might equal 100, a water ship unit might equal 10...or 1, depending on the game flow of time and how long it takes to build one.

Each game star is abstracted to represent (maybe the average of, or best of)...

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_dwarf

Habitability
Main article: Habitability of red dwarf systems[/align]


[/align]An artist's impression of a planet in orbit around a red dwarf.[/align][/align][/align]Planetary habitability of red dwarf star systems is subject to some debate.[citation needed] In spite of their great numbers and long lifespans, there are several factors which may make life difficult on planets around a red dwarf star. First, planets in the habitable zone of a red dwarf would be so close to the parent star that they would likely be tidally locked. This would mean that one side would be in perpetual daylight and the other in eternal night. This could create enormous temperature variations from one side of the planet to the other. Such conditions would appear to make it difficult for forms of life similar to those on Earth to evolve.[citation needed]
And it appears a great problem with the atmosphere of such tidally locked planets : the perpetual night zone would be cold enough to freeze the main gases of its atmosphere, leaving the daylight zone nude and dry.
On the other hand, recent theories propose that either a thick atmosphere or planetary ocean could potentially circulate heat around such a planet, or life could survive by migration.[citation needed] Alternatively, a moon in orbit around a gas giant planet may be habitable. It would circumvent the tidal lock problem by become tidally locked to its planet. This way there would be a "day"/night cycle as the moon orbited its primary, and there would be distribution of heat.
In addition, red dwarfs emit most of their radiation as infrared light, while on Earth plants use energy mostly in the visible spectrum. Red dwarfs emit almost no ultraviolet light, which would be a problem if UV is required for life to exist. Variability in stellar energy output may also have negative impacts on development of life. Red dwarfs are often covered by starspots, reducing stellar output by as much as 40% for months at a time. At other times, some red dwarfs, called flare stars, can emit gigantic flares, doubling their brightness in minutes. This variability may also make it difficult for life to develop and persist near a red dwarf star. Gibor Basri of the University of California, Berkeley claims a planet orbiting close to a red dwarf star could keep its atmosphere even if the star flares.

from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Habitabili ... rf_systems

Abundance
There is, however, one major advantage that red dwarfs have over other stars as abodes for life: they live a long time. It took 4.5 billion years before humanity appeared on Earth, and life as we know it will see suitable conditions for as little as half a billion years more.[9] Red dwarfs, by contrast, could live for trillions of years, because their nuclear reactions are far slower than those of larger stars, meaning that life both would have longer to evolve and longer to survive. Further, while the odds of finding a planet in the habitable zone around any specific red dwarf are slim, the total amount of habitable zone around all red dwarfs combined is equal to the total amount around sun-like stars given their ubiquity.[10] The first possibly rocky extrasolar planet with the mass of a Super-Earth that was found at the "warm" edge of the habitable zone of its star is Gliese 581 c, and its star, Gliese 581, is indeed a red dwarf.

ORIGINAL: Wade1000

My comments are usually at the top, above any photos or quote boxes. The quotes are often a large part of what I want to express. Also, A wikipedia page link especially(or other), often will have much of its page with material not immediately relevant to what I want to express. Thus, I will link the page and quote box a section of that page.

Aside from short chat like posts, I also like to some times use forums for expressing ideas and information and see what others have to offer. Just wanted to say that in case my large posts were surprising some people. I enjoy most of the posts of other people and I hope that my posts are enjoyed.

ORIGINAL: lancer
I was wondering how much actual astronomical knowledge is incorporated into the game.

Reason I ask is that Red Dwarf stars make up roughly 70% - 90% of all stars in the galaxy and from looking at the screenshots of the strategic views they appear to be in the distinct minority to the much larger number, and much less common in reality, of yellow, G2 (Sun-like) stars.

I'm assuming this is done to provide a higher incidence of habital planets than would exist given current knowledge. As there doesn't appear to be any setting in the 'New Game' options for tweaking the prevelance of habital planets I figure that this is hard-coded for game play reasons.