Is there any need to terraform to Gaia?

[adam]

So with the new colonization options, I can't see any real reason to colonize to a Gaia planet
Being a generic human race, which are suited to Continental planets, all of those planets have a 100% Habitability rating, so I can't see the need to spend additional resources colonizing to Gaia

[Paxrydon]

Gaia planets have 100% habitability for all 9 types of planets which can be prefered by the various stellaris races. Ringworlds, though very rare, are also 100% habitable for everyone. If you have populations in your empire with different planet preferences, continental, desert, alpine, etc, it makes sense to terraform to a planet type which suits everyone (gaia). If you only have 1 race in your empire it's not as important. With vassal integration and migration treaties that won't last forever.

What I think; 1 planet preference in your empire? Terraform to that. 2 planet preference in your empire of the same type (wet, dry, cold)? Depends on who you want do be the dominant race on that planet. 2 or more planet preference not of the same type? Gaia should be considered.

[Azunai]

gaia transformation is a roleplay gimmick with very little practical use in game. it's cool to be able to do it, but not required at all.

[kesat]

No there is no need to terraform any planet into a Gaia Planet. Usually, as soon as you have the required techs, you'll have other options to colonize any planet without problems, e.g. due to increased habitability, alien species or just by gen engineering.

But it's still quite nice to terraform a bunch of planets to gaia planets, just because you are able to do it ;)

[Taritu]

Gaia worlds are mostly useful for migration, so you can get races that normally don't fit on your planets. But gaia transformatin is so expensive, comes so late, that it's rarely very useful.

[Makolic]

If what every is saying it makes sense if your into opening migration deals. But I've never understood the habitability part. Most of the ratings don't match humans at all. I know it's sci-fi. But if it was basing of from us the Continetal would be high, savanna second place, and tropical in third. We can handle artic with technology, but it wouldn't be as wide spread. Ocean worlds would be harsh on breathing do the high water content in the atmoshpere. But it wouldn't be so harsh that humans would have to genetically alter themselves to live there.

There is also no toxic or radioactive planets. Which would make sense, in consideration that not all planets will have a magentic field. So perhaps life could evolve for those enviroments. But I read to much into it.

[kesat]

Originally posted by Makolic:

But if it was basing of from us the Continetal would be high, savanna second place, and tropical in third. We can handle artic with technology, but it wouldn't be as wide spread. Ocean worlds would be harsh on breathing do the high water content in the atmoshpere. But it wouldn't be so harsh that humans would have to genetically alter themselves to live there.

Yes, the habitability doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense, if they would differentiate in climate (continental, desert and so on) vs. atmosphere (or any other planetary circumstances). Climate as a measure for efficiency (pretty much current habitability) vs. atmosphere as a restriction to colonization.

There is also no toxic or radioactive planets. Which would make sense, in consideration that not all planets will have a magentic field. So perhaps life could evolve for those enviroments. But I read to much into it.

Did you mean, that there are not toxic and radioactive planets in Stellaris (toxic are actually in the game)?

Because those two planet types don't really exist in terms of scientific definition, but only as sci-fi classification. Any planet which has a deadly atmosphere (by human standards) would be toxic, and every planet is basically radioactive.

And of course life could be able to evolve under any of these circumstances anyway. And there are non-carbon based lifeforms in stellaris already - but they are just not eligible as empires or advanced civs.

[Makolic]

Originally posted by kesat:

Yes, the habitability doesn't make much sense. It would make more sense, if they would differentiate in climate (continental, desert and so on) vs. atmosphere (or any other planetary circumstances). Climate as a measure for efficiency (pretty much current habitability) vs. atmosphere as a restriction to colonization.

This part would have made more sense. For instance an oceanic world would have a higher atmospheric pressure. But a desert one would have a lower pressure. But as far as biomes it doesn't make a whole lot of sense considering continental has all the biomes.

Did you mean, that there are not toxic and radioactive planets in Stellaris (toxic are actually in the game)?

Because those two planet types don't really exist in terms of scientific definition, but only as sci-fi classification. Any planet which has a deadly atmosphere (by human standards) would be toxic, and every planet is basically radioactive.

And of course life could be able to evolve under any of these circumstances anyway. And there are non-carbon based lifeforms in stellaris already - but they are just not eligible as empires or advanced civs.

Well sort of yes. But some worlds are more radioactive then others. Such as a planet with no magnetic field would have higher UV and Gamma radiation then our world does. But not only is it sci-fi it's als theorized IRL. Microbiology has been found to exist in some incredible enviroments. So what's to say that some form of carbon life didn't evolve to handle Higher UV radiation. Like instects on this game.
Or a life form that lives in toxic enviroments that has high level of acidic atmosphere's. We've found biological life in sulfuric acid pools before on earth.

But it's also strange how all they aliens look so similar in terms as well as to think the majority of intelligent life would be carbon based. In theory it's who knows. In sci-fi you can have a multitude of intelligent life that could be made silicate, phosporus, or a number of other elements we have yet to discover. :) You could even have a life form that's based on titanum.

[adam]

Thanks all
Would be nice if the Gaia planet gave a happiness bonus or something

[Exarch_Alpha]

It´s a luxury tech made for people who play on Huge maps. Everyone else will want their games over loooong before terraforming of that type is common. FFS I´m almost out of energy in the entire first century.

[RodHull]

Originally posted by Exarch_Alpha:

It´s a luxury tech made for people who play on Huge maps. Everyone else will want their games over loooong before terraforming of that type is common. FFS I´m almost out of energy in the entire first century.

Granted im playing a huge map but im sitting on over 3k energy credits and its only 50 odd years into the game, just found a trader enclave as well so now its like free energy whenever i need it.

[POOO!]

I don't mean to hijack your question, but I have a question related to it.

How do you get the required credits needed? I have pretty much every tech needed and I just want to terraform one just for the hell of it but I'm capped out at 9000 and I dont' know how to increase it. I've looked everywhere, but there is no information that I can find on how to do this.

[Paxrydon]

The max energy cap is at 10000. You need to research all of the power hubs, power plants, and ship reactors when they pop up under the "physics" research. All together this'll get you up to what you need.

Power Plants II, III, IV, V
Power Hubs I, II
Ship Reactors II, III, IV, V

Someone who knows all of the stats can tell you exactly how much energy storage each of these boost your cap by, but each one gives either 250 and 500 increases.

[POOO!]

Ok thankyou. I usually don't bother with upgrades to the power hubs. That's probably what I'm missing. It's also missing from the information from most of the guides and wiki's I've seen.

[kaiyl_kariashi]

AND you need both terraforming resources, since each one reduces the terraforming cost by 25% (total of 50%).

Terraforming to Gaia costs 20k base. So with both resources it takes 10k energy to make one.