I recently got the game & went about trying to fix some weirdness I was seeing with a seeming lack of extreme planet distribution while playing yor. That led to noticing BUG1 some planets that should be extreme not being listed as <IsExtreme>true</IsExtreme>. This page lists six extreme planet types (Barren, Frozen, Radioactive, Toxic, Heavy, Unstable) with the last two noted as a future thing. PlanetTraitDefs has two of those lacking the isextreme tag &some others I suspect are campaign/event specific with the last two looking like they are slated for a future update & the first two not being tagged extreme in the xml.
That led to what I feel might be a secondary BUG2 problem being unnoticed on account of having so few extreme worlds for civs that can colonize extreme worlds from the getgo. Specifically the relativeweight for extreme planets is so low they are still kinds rare even if you do something like abundant stars rare habitable abundant extreme . Out of 33 entries in the xml only the first 18are obviously worlds before trailing off into durantiumclouds asteroids & campaign/event specific things only 4 are tagged as isextreme (should be 6).Those 18 worlds have a cumulative relativeweight of 307 (334 total) & the four that are tagged isextreme they only add up to 50 points of relativeweight with the two that should be but are not tagged adding another 50 but I don't think problems end there since it doesn't seem to be a straight percentage based on 307/334 noted earlier.
- AquaticWorld: relativeWeight: 15
- CorrosiveWorld relativeWeight: 15
- FrozenWorld: relativeWeight: 30 (NOTTAGGED isextreme>true)
- BarrenWorld: relativeWeight: 20 (NOTTAGGED isextreme>true)
- ToxicWorld: relativeWeight: 10
- RadioactiveWorld relativeWeight: 10
- Heavy: future thing?
- Unstablefuture thing?
Leaning towards brevity, the standard habitable worlds have relativeweights of 15/12/8/20/12/30/30/10/25/20/25 plus honorable mention of 30 & 20 for the not isextreme tagged frozen & barren.
I think something is off with distribution of relativeweight causing almost no extreme planets no matter how the sliders are set or the extreme planets slider is not working as expected. Before I went about mucking with those I wanted to fix the missing two isextreme tags just to see how far off they might be from reasonable After fixing the two isextreme omissions I started a new game as the terrans with the following Galaxy settings:
Galaxy:Gigantic, Sector: several, Star:abundant, Habitable rare, Extreme abundant, resource occasional
That galaxy is about as far into being = a hypothetical worst case scenario for any race who needs to research extreme colonization but it resulted in a mere 9 extreme worlds out of 168 total habitable worlds with basically maybe one in the sector where I started. That 18-19% ratio seems extremely low given the galaxy settings.
Going with that percentage I dug up MAYBEBUG3 bumped the relativeight on Aquatic Corrosive Toxic & radioactive up to 18% & made a new galaxy with the same settings for the terrans again. This resulted in 281 worlds with 18 being extreme/ ~15% of the galaxy seems low considering how much the galaxy settings sliders were set to stack the deck.
So I repeated it with the terrans & 30 relativeweight for all six.. That gave me 191 planets with a more respectable 14 that still felt like it falls short.
At this point I had to get more drastic & set all six to relativeweight40 with the min planet quality lowered or raised to 3 & the max raised to 23 or left wherever it was if higher. That left me with a disappointing 243/17 but extreme world PQ was all over the map as expected.
bumping to 60 did not result in the majority extreme that I expected. This gave 248 planets with 17 of them being extreme ones being
Starting to suspect that getting a good distribution of extreme worlds might involve a second xml file or a need to add a bunch more extreme planet types to clog the odds in a FiFo assignment I bumped relativeweight to 85 & the terrans tried again. This time I got281 planets with 17 of them being extreme. While I feel confident in my ability to look for a second xml file or create several more extreme planet types in planettraitdefs I think that this is probably more bug than a failed modding doodle because the ratios of habitable to extreme seem to be so far off from expectations.