Could be an idea for the expansion pack. Terraforming is pretty much the holy grail of space sims in my opinion, not using terror stars.

Against the ruin of the world, there is but one defense:
the creative act.

terraforming is a neat idea but it is a pipe dream at our present level of tech. Could we do Mars? Yes, but it would take hundreds if not thousands of years. It would be a public works project that would require far longer than most nations last. By the time we finished we would more than likely be colonizing other star systems for far less money and time.

Civilizations are scaled as Category I,II and III. Cat I is the ability to manipulate energy on a global scale. We aren't even there yet. Cat 2 is the ability to manipulate energy on a system wide scale. In other words we can do just about whatever we want to do in our own solar system. Cat III is manipulation on a galactic scale, near godlike power.

As a Cat II we could work on Venus but it is still a long term project. It rotates the wrong way. That would have to be reversed. It has no tectonics (no Moon) and it is a virtual, lead melting, hell.

But hey, I am all about suspension of disbelief so bring it on

Terrans don't start with Stellar Cartography. Everyone else does.

The aliens, however, don't know where the GOOD planets are and still have to send out scouts.

Franco fx, today, at this time, we could terraform Venus. And given a choice between Venus and Mars, Venus is a better target because anything done to Mars isn't going to last for long. It's too small to hold a human appropriate atmosphere.

Venus not having a moon isn't even an issue. If it was, then it would also count against Mars, because Mars has two asteriods that are spiralling in to their death. Second, they aren't large enough to help stabilize Mars (the #1 reason people want a world to have a good moon). Third, terraformers often speak of needing a large moon to help make larger tides. On Earth, 1/3 of the tide's strength/effect comes from just the Sun. The other 2/3'rds come from our Moon. Tides are useful to your marine environments, as well as just generally helpful at creating currents in any body of water. No sizable moon just means a lessening of the tides, not a complate lack of them. So we don't have to have a large moon for tide creating. Nor do our terraformed worlds need a large moon like ours, because we aren't talking about having life evolve on the planetary body over hundreds of millions of years. As conditions become favorable, you drop in likely fits, thus cutting down on the whole general evolution thing (you know, because this is an actual intellegently guided project).

Tectonics are not driven by the Moon. Our moon helps our earth stay active, but that's because it is so big. Our moon gravitationally flexes our planet, but tectonic action is the result of heat convection in the liquid (outer) core of a world. In addition, we have no reason to believe that Venus is a tectonically dead planet. It's a lot closer to the Sun, so the Sun's gravitational effects on Venus is stronger (ie, it causes more gravitational stressing) and its core could get that extra boost of pressure/heat from that alone. We really need more study of Venus before we can definately say yes or no. Heck, we've just discovered that Mars may still be tectonically active; it's much smaller, and has no sizable moons to speak of!

Venus rotating backwards is also not an issue. The first colonists that live there would get over everything rising in the wrong direction. The children would think that is the natural order, and everyone else was backwards.

Again, Venus is an easier job of creating a real terraformed world. By moving it out and/or shading it, you'd start to process of bleeding off its excess heat. This will cause its atmosphere chemistry to start changing. A "bit" later, you crash a few of the big water ice meteors and comets on it. A "bit" later, you drop in some hardy single celled specks of life to help complete the transformation. Tick Tock, ring! Now, drop in your final seasoning of whatever you want to be there, and you have a nice bit of world.

Again, at this time, we have all the tools and knowledge to actually do the project. But it would take so long for the process to occur, we have no interest in it. That isn't to say in a few hundred years that our children might not start the project. It would be a good government workfare program. Governments are like that. They don't need to have real results, just some momentary percieved results (ie, keeping people employed rather then being idle, etc etc etc).

Are you hinting that Venus is a COLD planet? I always though that Venus was how Earth could end if the Greenhouse effect become too strong.

No, sorry if it read that way. I was saying regardless of the extreme, altering a planet to make it more habitable is easier than interstellar travel.

And I think the terraforming angle is missing the point. We could put millions of people on any planet. They just couldn't walk outside. Building domed cities, underground cities, sub-oceanic cities are all easier than getting the people there in the first place.

Regardless, the point is it's a game and I think players should be able to play on maps with more habitable worlds if they want. If it's a perfomance issue, limit the total number of habitable worlds. But on a small map, every planet could be habitable and it would have less habitable planets than a typical huge galaxy. Hey, no shame if it's a performance issue!