I disagree about orbiting planets. I do think this would look cool, but it would add a level of complexity that I think would be more of a pain than a bonus.

Settling the moon is a cool idea though. Having a special double planet type for planets that have a planet-sized moon seems like it has a lot of possibilities.

While this may be nice, it's not practical in this scale.  First off the planets that are showing are representation of planets and there are usually maximum 5 planets per star, this includes "Sol" or the sun...  With that being said that means 3 planets and all the dwarf planets left out.  Also while it would be cool to see 15 moons orbiting a gas giant, it's also not pratical and doesn't really add much to the game at this point.  If one were going to add this to the game that would mean a star system instead of being 8-10 tiles in diameter would need to be 20-30 tiles in diameter if not larger.  To me this would take away from the game and make galaxies much smaller than they could be.

The map is 2D as has been discussed on multiple threads, 3D maps can be very confusing and can be extremely hard to play or navigate by point and click.  The game is designed to be relatively easy to navigate and play.  Show me a 3D game that is easy to point and click anywhere with in the map, without typing in coordinates...  The one good suggestion is the background stars slowly rotating that should be easy enough to add in and doesn't do much for the game.  Planets orbiting the stars means more work for the system and doesn't add a whole lot to the game.  Again this would be nice but is it needed?  I thought stars and planets do rotate already on an axis???

Don't think this would add much to the game.

Okay this is a game, not space fact, it would be nice for comets, there are many other things that make this game great beyond more space clutter...

As to colonizing moons:  given that everything presented is an ABSTRACT measure, and not a 1:1 correlation, it's long been said by lore that some of the value of a colonizable planet is the value that come from the moon.   That is, a Value 10 planet with a large moon actually probably is a Value 8 planet, but 2 additional ratings come from the utility provided by the Moon.

the same can be said for why we only see 2-5 planets in a solar system ever.  Some of the value of the unseen planetoids is subsumed in the ratings for the existing habitable planets.

I think the number of planets in a system (and annexed planetoids, satellites, dwarf planets, asteroid belts, and other celestial bodies) should be handled by the game settings (density and types). Naturally this would also affect the human solar system (the real one), as long as it still is somehow close to the real thing because it would look weird if we played human with Earth and Jupiter only (according to the settings). 

I agree the best solution for satellites (m00ns) is to have them attached and orbiting to their planet.

Just like the m00n orbits around Earth right now, so it should be for all the other m00ns (we're talking of Jupiter and Saturn right now but it should work the same for all planets and m00ns, again, according to the density settings).

I also agree that the thing be managed at planetary system level. Which means the m00ns are considered to be part of the planet and the playercolonizing a planet has colonized the whole system (m00ns included and here we could use some technology to drag the m00n's resources with more efficiency to the planetary structures).

The fact here is that we've got a 2d game based on strategy more than arcades (I take SOTS2 as reference). It is turn-based, and if you are one level below the competition you must at least add a level of depth.

To me a level of depth is making space somehow realistic. I think you're figuring it to be harder than it really is. 

The game is turn-based so it's all about dciding the TIME unit and then, according to this TIME unit, decide how many units are needed for a planet to be in one hex or in the next one (following its unseen orbit around its star). Faster (closer) planets move more hexes but if you target a planet with movement or action the ship would still get there in that turn because the system takes that motion into account when calculating movement range. 

Question: How long in TIME is a turn? How far can a ship travel in the timing interval? That is how you end up calculating how many hexes a planet can travel in that time interval, according to its orbit. And it doesn't necessarily need to be a WIDE movement (obviously ships move faster than planets, a lot faster!) 

The m00n is orbiting around a planet that is not moving. The sun is spinning on itself and it's not moving. The comets and asteroid belts are not moving or rotating... the galaxy image beneath the hex layer is not moving.

But AFTER the turn processing is complete you will see space is dynamic because a planet could have changed hex, that comet will have moved, the galaxy background beneath the hex layer will have changed by a very very tiny bit (which implies the spyral is rotating). 

This is very important... it's not a cheap suggestion with no consequences.

It will spell whether or not this game is complete fantasy or it has at least some accuracy. The Universe should be dynamic, it's not a painted crap onto a hex layer.

There are TACTICAL and TECHNOLOGICAL aspects that will be unlocked if this is developed in this way and we're obviously neglecting a huge opportunity in depth if we keep it 2d and totally static. 

EDIT: Read carefully: the first thing is to assess the time scale, then the movement scale which should include a dynamic universe. 

I agree but you see this has little to do with graphics and a lot more with strategy. 

Imagine a scenario with the REAL Solar System involved and an alien race coming forward to conquer it from outer space.

The player in this which is, ideally, a tutorial, must stop the alien race playing as humans. So essentially, the player must defend Earth.

One thing is the Earth, Mars, the Asteroid Belt and Jupiter are in the same place every single time and another, completely different thing is if they are in a different place of the orbits when the game starts.

If you conceive a long term of development (this is still the alpha stage) as a chance to impact the design, and envision the creation of magnetic fields as a Masking/Jamming factor, that factor would never be the same and that is a tactical aspect of a deeper gameplay. 

The Aliens AI will turn visible as soon as they pass Jupiter's humongous magnetic field but jupiter will never be in the same place in respect with Earth. Both the AI and the players will have tactical options at hand. 

A Dynamic Universe allows more choices, more technologies, deeper thinking and a much higher longevity. It's got nothing to do with graphics. 

A turn is a week, and 1 tile is a parsec.  Obviously solar systems aren't to scale.  But really, what would making the planets move around the stars add to the gameplay?

It is between difficult and impossible to write on these forums if I have got to wait 24 hours before I can write a new post. This is really incredible..,  absurd and illogical.

it's the first time I am on a forum with such rule. 

I have already answered the question on the gameplay but it's essemtially a matter of quality. A sloppy DEV house will build a static universe, a serious DEV house will build a dynamic universe because that's how the Universe is. 

We already have a 2d universe and you also want to make it static? 

I would recommend StarRuler 2 it is a 3d universe.

But I just bought the Alpha... that can't be a previous spam/botter... I need to catch up and i can barely post... uff... 

Anyway let's hope the DEVs know what they're doing. I already am unhappy at the 2d space format... and a dynamic universe would at least make some sense. Hex game... looks like material for matrixgames. Lots of titles... poor longevity. 

Was there a Dev streaming yesterday? Anyone has a youtube link about it?