Opinion on Space feature for Civ 3

[phaydor]

As a Civ player for many years, I found that the playing in space feature in Call to Power 1 was awesome! It added a whole new dimension to warfare, and was it was just plain fun to rain down terror and destruction from on high with space bombers. I also think that the creators of Call to Power 1 didn't go far enough with the concept(they couldve added spy satelite units). I also think that CTP 2 sorta sucked because they decided to remove that feature. I'm wondering what other people think. Should a space feature be added in Civ 3? Or is it just a waste of processing power?

[Sitting Bull]

The Star Ladder was my favorite. Nanite factories were incredibly powerful, a game-stopper though. But maybe that's ok, because it was fun. It came too late in the game to make much difference, more of a convienience I think.

[JosefGiven]

I liked the idea of the space-sphere level, but I thought the graphical representation didn't work. Let's see if I can explain.

The view in CtP is isometric, in the same vein as Civ II, SMAC, etc. Therefore, something hanging above a ground tile should appear to be visibly above it.

In CtP, the graphics for your space-stations/colonies whatever they're called, are drawn directly over the top of the tile they're 'hovering' over, so they look like they're hanging over a tile a few steps closer to the view-point of the player.

Did I explain that well enough? Has anyone else noticed this?

Anyway, if this (merely cosmetic) problem is fixed, I don't see why it shouldn't go into Civ III (Space-Bombers were one of the few CtP specific units that I actually liked, they kind of reminded me of Imperial TIE bombers, y'know? ).

Orbital Space exploration is much more feasable than the idea of settlements on the bottom of the sea, for crying out loud. Mind you, let's have it so that your space colonies can only reach a very limited maximum size, and merely act as repair facilities/orbital factories...Who wants to spend their life in orbit? It's also better than the 'Extended Original' concept in ToT. If a Civ comes up with this here Hyper-string Theory, then why can't it visit every bloomin' planet in the universe?



------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

[EnochF]

Too many people actively dislike space cities. I don't think adding them to Civ3 is the right decision.

But I definitely want the game to be customizable enough for me to add space cities if I want.

Perhaps they could arrange a system for multiple "levels" to colonize, rather like ToT... as long as they keep it simple.

The Star Ladder was the coolest thing in CTP.

[MrFun]

Meanwhile, I am chanting, "NO space! NO space! NO space! NO space!"

[bagdar]

I was one of those people who didn't like space cities. Space Warfare is a good idea, and it was nice that ctp had it, but I think sky-cities are useless. Besides, this is a question about how far the tech tree of Civ III goes. I think it is very much unlikely that it'll go that far.

[Roman]

I am vehemently opposed to the tech tree of Civ 3 reaching into the future at all. Therefore I hope there will be no space cities, or anything of the sort. Of course I have nothing against say spy sattelites or a space station that helps your research (slightly, but cost a lot - no concrete examples given, ehm), because these already exist. However, that does not require a separate space layer to implement.
Obviously, I am sure it will be possible to modify Civ 3 to be a space based strategy game for those who so desire. It has been already possible with Civ 2, so it will be again.
For me, though, no future techs!!!!!

[Cyclotron]

I agree that multiple shells are a good idea... has anyone thought of and undersea shell, for Subs or mines, if applicable?

I am also opposed to far future techs and cities in space, but sattelites should be included, as well as a possible wonder (ISS, GlobeSat, etc). Combat units in space are a bit much... but ICBMs could certainly use the space level to travel.

What if nukes took two turns to hit... one to launch into the space layer, and one to move and then descend? This would allow anti-missle systems to exist and even STAR WARS (not the movie) type anti-missile defences, via sattelite.

No future techs!!! When exactly do you plan to stop the tech tree... Before Human Cloning or Genetic Manipulation? Before Fusion? Before 'Mechs? Before Nanotech? Before Cybernetics? Before Neural Interfaces?

All of these things we either are doing or can do, with the exceptions of Nanotech & Neural Interfaces which will come into there own in a few years...

What you might consider future tech is in fact not-yet-implemented modern technology... I agree that CIV3 shouldn't go too far (Like SMAC), but at-least as far as CTP2.

Additionally, I have always hated the FUTURE ADVANCE technology... my style of play is always towards a small but well-maintained civ that has an edge in tech. I hated having to change my entire military strategy (Quality over Quantity), in Civ2 because I was losing my tech edge that I worked for because all I could get was "Future Tech".

As for Space Cities, no... they were unrealistic, but there deffinatly should be orbital research stations/military bases, and orbital tactics should be implemented (America today, is working on Scramjets that leave orbit to re-enter over its target)

But include Sea Colonies (limit max. pop based on tech, or special city improvements), they are feasible today... and on a planet with less land mass, would already be in use.

[Roman]

I must reiterate my strong opposition to futuristic technologies. While I can swallow if just about anything in Civ 3 and still buy the game, future tech is the only thing which would get me thinking before doing so.
In Civ 3, I define future tech as anything that we cannot currently do with our level of technology without further research. For example, nanotech exists to a degree in that we can now built miniature chemical reaction chambers on a chip or a CD, but we cannot make nanobots that replicate themselves, build things, etc. Hence, as far as I am concerned, nanotech is out for Civ 3, since the technology is not advanced enough in its current state to be important enough for inclusion into Civ 3. Otherwise it would be impossible to provide the rationale for stopping the tech tree at any particular point, as already at present we have the theoretical basis for technologies that could eventually in the distant future mature so much as to enable us to do prractically anything.
As far as genetic engeneering and cloning is concerned, these are current technologies, but the only possible effect I can see them having on the game in their present state is increasing food production. Perhaps these could lead to a tile improvement "genetically modified plant farm" which would increase food production (and possibly unhappiness).

[madad]

I think Civ3 should have a heavy space element to the game. In Civ2 the idea that nothing happened as far as space between the Apollo Program and building a spaceship that can travel the star's is just plain silly!!
Some things I would like to add:
Much more detailed stuff using satellites.


Spy satellites: Get updates of enemy states - troop movements etc.

Telecommunication: Increase effect of television, trade etc.

Scientific research satellites: Increase science production

Explorer satellites: send to explore space
For example as soon as Astronomy is discovered - the largest and closest planets in the solar system are discovered. When space technology is made availiable such satellites can be sent out to get details on such planets - as size, gravity, atmosphere etc. Added to this a more advanced satellite could map the planet - say when radar becomes available.
Launch vehicles: rockets -> space planes etc
Space port improvement to a city or region
Orbitals:
Have different kinds of orbital, say one which is purely commercial, privately-owned etc. and ones which are owned by the civilisation. Allow orbitals to have several functions - Ie. become a bit like space cities.
I reckon on cap of population should be applied - but changed over time. Allow improvements to be made to orbitals etc. There shouldn't be a fixed limit on the number of orbitals or population in space - just penalties when too many are produced.
Colony bases:
Factors such as atmosphere, etc should be considered. Behave like normal cities

[MrFun]

Then see if you can get a group of people to create a game called Space Civilization.

I just did not like the idea of having orbital cities in Call to Power without any game time to develop them and to wait 40 turns to produce one space unit at that late point in the game.

Where is the time for space and orbital cities??????

[Grumbold]

Orbital cities as CtP represented them are a complete nonsense and I'm glad they played no part in CtP2. Orbital stations, civilian and military satellites, Hubble like telescopes and zero-G orbital laboratories would be much better.

I'm expecting Civ-3 to have a far more appropriate ending than Civ II. Building a successful interstellar spaceship capable of carrying 40,000 people is not appropriate when they are ignoring all the intermediate space steps necessary to develop the technology.

[DrFell]

I agree with Roman that there shouldnt be millions of silly futuristic techs available. I prefer the approach of civ2, introducing a few techs we could realistically have and be able to use in the next 20 years (I still want civ3 to finish in 2020). If you want to add such techs, the game should be customisable enough that they can be added with ease. I always saw civ as being mainly a historical and modern day game. I think adding too many 'sci-fi' techs would really spoil that.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by phaydor on 02-06-2001 03:17 PM Should a space feature be added in Civ 3?

No

quote: Or is it just a waste of processing power?

Yes

[Theben]

I think Madad makes a good point- if the game allows players to build a huge spaceship capable of traveling to another solar system in a few years, why does so little else occur in space?

The answer IMHO is not to add huge layers to the space portion of the game (spy/war sats, orbital space stations, high altitude combat aircraft, and maybe 1 or 2 orbital spacecraft capable of combat is all), but either to remove that victory condition or instead make the journey to Mars instead of Alpha Centauri. Since this should only take a 1-2 years to complete, the victory should be achieved when the spaceship is launched.

But, as always, the game should be customizable so that players who want space combat can get the level they desire. Others will want to remove it completely.

RE: future techs- perhaps future tech can be set to give the receiving civ some kind of bonus. FE, a 1% bonus to the major aspects of the game (food, mineral, and trade production, and Att/Def in combat) per future tech. That way it won't be a total waste for gameplay (who cares about points anymore?). In addition, they could have one or more random events occur down the future tech line: FE, a real cure for cancer (huge boost to happiness and/or growth), environmental sustainability (all pollution eliminated and boost to happiness), maybe the tech to build Utopia, like a Wonder (removes all negative modifiers of your current SE/govt, maybe a game victory). These would occur at random intervals down the FT line and may or may not occur in your game, starting at about FT #15. Give a reason to research FT w/o having to come up with stupid names for unknown techs.

[Roman]

Indeed, the future techs when the tech tree runs out should give you some small benefit to production, or trade, etc. This is to prevent people switching off their research once they come to the end of the tech tree. The techs should also have exponentialy increasing cost of research. This has been discused in another thread (Future - the same old boring topic).

[Chronus]

Hmmm ... this is tough. I agree with Madad in regard to the space thing. However, obtaining the techs to reach the stars means accomplishing A LOT of future techs; a feature many people do not seem to want.

Nevertheless, there should be some type of grand project/goal to try to accomplish. Space is usually the reasonable choice since it's still an unrealized dream (in regard to colonizing planets, better space travel, etc.) that gets closer to being a reality. What other kinds of "space goals" are there that are within reason of accomplishing? Perhaps space isn't the way to go for a grand project. CTP2 players: is the Gaia project a worthy and fun pursuit? Other ideas?

As far as a science victory goes, I would like to see the completion of the first Interstellar Explorer vessel to be the goal, using worm-hole manipulating technology to bridge the vast distances. And Worm-Holes, and our ability to create/manipulate them is NOT science-fiction... it is being done (including time travel on a sub-atomic scale!), it needs refinement (currently worm-holes that can "transport" an object larger than a sub-atomic particle swallow themselves... using anti-matter, we might soon be able to create more stable and larger worm-holes)

CTP space cities were awful. A space layer would be cool to work with (eventually I removed space colonies from CTP) for sats and later tech type craff (space planes or even blackbirds for that matter). But no cities please. Here's an idea for the science victory. Like Contact. Build a sophisticated enough computer system to decypher alien messages and build one of those giant transportation devices like in the book/movie.

[Roman]

Wormholes exist on subatomic scales only for a good reason. The energy required to create a wormhole increases exponentially with size. I read in "Scientific American" that to create a wormhole large enough for a small spaceship to fit through would require more energy than is available in the entire universe even assuming 100% conversion efficiency from matter-antimatter reactions. True, energy requirements can be reduced by "thinning" the wormhole, but the relationship is only inversely proportional. Moreover, it has also got the effect of making the wormhole less stable.
I am not saying that in the future we will not devise some way to cheat Relativity, but that is speculation and hopefully will not be included in Civ 3.

Please, no future techs.

[Biddles]

Can I ask a serious question (to which I expect a serious answer, not a hail of abuse):

Why do so many people hate the idea of future techs?

I disagree with crap like 'wormhole technology' near future techs like superconductor (which does exist today, just not at room temperature, but with new ceramics Room temp superconductor isn't too far) should be included (IMHO).

Could someone answer this seriously please, I'd really like to know.

[Roman]

Ok, a serious answer. If my previous posts seemed abusive, I appologise, they were not intended to be. Maybe I am too forceful in presenting my opinion, though, I usually try to explain myself.

By the way, I am not a technophobe by any measure. In fact, I admit to being somewhat of a science freak, regularly reading "Scientific American" various scientific books (especially about physics) and science news, but not science fiction.

The problem with future techs is that although I can usually ppicture how they work (with the notable exception of complete fallacies such as the "Fusion Tank" from Ctp 2), I cannot identify with them in a historical context like I can with the rest of the civ game. To top it off, including future technologies would automatically mean decreasing the depth of the tech tree and more depth is something I would like to see.
Moreover, we have nowadays got many techs in their infant stage, some of which will mature into something wothwhile and some of which will not make it very far and will be forgoten by history. It is currently impossible to know which ones will mature and turn out to have practical uses without prohibitive costs. Any such predictions are pure speculation, especially once predictions stretching far into the future or those concerning interstellar travel (Just look at the predictions from 1950s and 1960s - virtually everyone thought that by 1970 we will have colonies on the moon and humans will have landed on Mars. Now it is 2001 and Mars landing is planned for around 2020, while nobody is seriously considering moon bases, let alone colonies). I would prefer Civ 3 not to speculate on these issues and instead give me technologies that are already available and useful in their present form without requiring furter research to reach any level of practicality, technologies that are proven and hence I can relate to them. For me the inclusion of future techs would take fun out of a game that has its mechanics rooted in human history.
Yet another thing is thing is that people in games companies are not scientists and tend to do a stuningly bad job at guessing which techs will become important in the future, and an even worse job at what applications these techs will have. They should not be blamed for it since it is indeed a difficult job (for example in 1950s both USA and the Soviet Union wanted to build nuclear powered planes) and that's one of the reasons why I think they should avoid it.

Hope that answers your question biddles. If you want more information feel free to ask.

[Roman]

A copy of my previous post on how future techs should be implemented.

Indeed, the future techs when the tech tree runs out should give you some small benefit to production, or trade, etc. This is to prevent people switching off their research once they come to the end of the tech tree. The techs should also have exponentialy increasing cost of research. This has been discused in another thread (Future - the same old boring topic).

[Grumbold]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 02-08-2001 07:33 AM ... To top it off, including future technologies would automatically mean decreasing the depth of the tech tree and more depth is something I would like to see. ...

Somehow I had always overlooked that point before. You are absolutely correct. On the basis that the Tech tree must be of a finite size and Firaxis are not going to want to make that so huge that technologies dominate the game, I would rather see historical periods fleshed out in more detail. For instance there are now strong signals coming from Firaxis about at least two types of tank, Early WWII and modern. Personally I would rather see technology space allocated enabling there to be even a third historical tank type or a modern solar collector improvement rather than a fusion tank or power plant. Generic 'future tech' that provides a small improvement
but does not take up tree space can then be a reward for fast developers without making less expert gamers
feel inadequate for winning the game without completing the main tree.

[MrFun]

What I really did not like about space cities in Call to Power was that it was too late in the game to improve and develop them.

And that it took 30 to 40 turns to produce one space unit while it took 50 turns to improve the space city so it can produce a space unit quicker!

As I said before - WHERE IS THE TIME FOR SPACE CITIES SO LATE IN THE GAME??

[bagdar]

aha, 2 problems:

1-tech tree
2-ending date

I think both of these should remain UNchanged.

Ergo, No Space Cities. :P

[Fredric Drum]

IMO there is one problem with space cities (and undersea cities) in CTP (and CTPII): By the time you have the technology to build them they won't be of much use, because you're already too far ahead of the other nations. In CTP, for instance, I've only ever built one undersa city.. and that was just to "have done it", I didn't actually use it for anything. In fact this is true for more than just space and undersea cities. Units like the Kraken and Dreadnaught (and to a lesser extent the Fusion Tank and Hover Infantry) have never served me any good. They're ok when you pursue a line of research and peace (paradoxically), but let's face it.. most of the time you go for conquest (at least I do), and then you really don't need anything better than tanks and artillery.. by the time you've invented the fusion tank you rule the world and don't really need those hi-tech weapons.

Fred

Roman
I guess we'll just have agree to disagree, and I too don't mean to offend (the Technophobe comment was not a serious comment... we all are on an on-line forum after all...). But perhaps the level of disagreement is being exagerated by examples of future tech found in most 4x games.

I do not want wild show-stopping techs/units... no fusion tanks, but how about one with a mass-driver for a cannon (after superconducters and advanced power storage has been researched), I don't want space cities, but I would like an orbital aerospace carrier... I don't want krackens, but how about "uplifted" dolphins... I don't need a body exchange, but how about cloned tissue and organs?

I want future techs that are plausable (I know worm-holes are just theoretical, but I was talking about the Science Victory... which needs to be a show stopper) and could be implemented now or within the next couple of decades if we just decided to spend the resources on it. Additionally they should not provide you with huge advantages, instead they should be kept in line with the progression throughout the game.

My problem with those who don't want any future techs, is that much of what they would dismiss as sci-fi, is in fact a reality today...

I aslo agree that a denser tech tree is a great thing (the pics of the tanks and jets give me a good feeling about the game), but I don't think you need to sacrifice that in order to add plausible "future techs". If the game's historical tech tree is say 200 deep... just make 25 of those plausible "future techs".

So in the final analysis, I am not for Future Techs, but I strongly support "Near-Future" Techs.

[Roman]

Trachmir,

I suppose I could swallow some of these "near future techs" you propose being included in the game provided they did not "thin" the tech tree, etc., etc. Examples of bearable techs include as tissue engineering, stem cell organ cultivation and a few similar techs. They are after all almost available now.
What I cannot foresee, though, is what new units, or city improvements would such techs give you. All I can think of is them providing some form of generally applied benefit to your civ. It would be much more acceptable for me to have some near future techs in the form of wonders like civ2 had the Human Genome Project (when it was still future).
Near future will not bring radically different weapons systems that we can predict now that they are coming. For example, there will still be fighters in 20 years, more advanced, but still present. At most, they might be complemented by UAVs.

Of course, I would prefer future techs to be non-specific and follow a course I briefly outlined above and that is more accurately described in the thread "Future - the same old boring topic".

PS.
Anti-Balistic missile defence (like SDI in Civ2) is not a future tech. The Anti-Balistic Missile Treaty permitted the US and the Soviet union to build one such system each but only to cover a circular area of 150km in radius. The Soviet Union has built such a system around Moscow, while USA did not use the opportunity. To this day the missile ring around Moscow remains the only ABM system in the world, though as we all know USA has now decided to build a much bigger version, banned by the ABM Treaty.