Space: Why not?

[Pedrun]

When i first played CTP i loved the idea of space despiting the limited gameplay (it worked just to make cities and to move units faster) and it unbalances the game helping who gets there first. But i got really angry when they took it off from CTP2.
And I stil think it is a good idea. If we make a few changes in the concept and ithe gameplay.
What others people think?
How could we turn it in a another strategical level like it happened in the sea?

[Jeje2]

Personally I hope that CivIII will be past and present.
The future is in SMAC, so I can live whitout future in CivIII.

[Cyclotron]

I think any addition of space techs should not include moving ground units by space... this is the most unbalanced part.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Pingu:]

I think space is really important, but the balance was best in SMAC, with space facilities being built as improvements. The idea that you can build mines on the moon or asteroids is great, and the rest... Orbital Defense pods were such a good and simple idea. Good stuff.
I hope this is the way that space is done in Civ3.
Going as far as CTP did with space expansion seemed unrealistic to me, although a great way to become the ultimate military power. space bombers and swarms are fun to use, but all in all I'd rather they weren't there.

Pingu:

[Grumbold]

The flat map basis of Civ games just doesn't work in space. Orbits, trajectories and rotational speeds suddenly become important stuff you cannot easily represent. Nuclear weapons and lasers become irrelevant once you can chuck big rocks at each others cities. Cheap and easy to do once you can reach the asteroid belt or put a maglev on the moon. If they want to do "space" it would have to be as city improvements or just a separate conceptual screen listing space factories and labs built. Even then space war would be hard to do properly.

[Mokael]

I'm against space. And against future. Civ should be what it always was -- past and present, "reconstruction" of human civilization, if you will. Let SMAC be the space expansion of the CIV.
As for CPT1/2 -- nice try ...

[tniem]

I am against space and the future because their would be no way to create a map for it.

My biggest beef with SMAC is that you travel across the galaxy build a new civ and you cannot even send a ship to the nearest moons. If your going to make space travel you need to allow to mulitple places. How in the world are they supposed to make a map that would allow you until 2500 explore space which of course is what is really theoritical. There just isn't a way to include space travel in Civ III, so please don't try and go with a half hearted effort simply for marketing.

Future tech. Who Future tech. Are you talking about. We are now living my Grandparents future tech. In everyday life. (They where born starting in 1866 to 1873). Or my mother (born 1906) or myself (born 1944) or my 2 grandsons (born 1992/95). In 2042 when my oldest grandson is 50 years of age, all tech. In place will be his normal tech., today some of you are calling it future tech. If not for future tech. We would not have a Car, TVs, VCRs, DVDs, Kitchen Appliance, Radios, Satellites, Moon Rockets, Space Shuttles, Big Weapons that can kill a lot people real quick, or Heaven forbid a Computer so we can play games on it and complain and praise about a new game coming out.
One other little issue, the ISS. Let’s face it, this station is in reality the “United States (International) Space Station”, we wanted a few bucks from other nation to help pay the cost. As we found out last week the US could have stooped Mr. Tito from going if they had put their food down. (The Russian space budget is 14 Million; the US is 145 Billion).
Roman; a question, is Slovakia part of the ISS program?
I myself love future tech. I want to go to the Stars today, not tomorrow. If future tech. is handle carefully, it can make the game fun, if not than we will have another CTP ending. Beam me up Scotty is now being tested. It is only energy right now, but who know when it will be an item. Also we now have a Medical Tricorder that will read 4 function. How long before we have the Star Trek version?
I come from Modesto, Calif.; there is another guy from Modesto also. He is George Lucas creator of Star
Wars. No I don’t know George, wish I did, but I did meet one of his top people some years ago and had dinner with him. I believed he did tell George about meeting me.


------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

It is quite true that Civ3, or any other geographically flat strategy game, cannot enclose any amount of space maneuvering without being completely false. While future techs should be judged on a case by case basis, "starships" do not and can not belong in Civ3 without changing the very base and premise of the game, as well as the entire terrain map.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

I think that the only way to end to end the debate is by simply polling people (MarkG ??). Well, I'll try my hand at an unofficial poll start:

Where should CivIII end technologically?
* Present Technology (SDI, Specialized Lasers, Space Stations (with a few dozen people)
* Near-future (Nuclear Fusion, Mass-Produced Laser Weapons, Space Outposts (with thousands of people)
* Far-future (Space Cities, Underwater Cities)


give a choice and a quick comment, like the regular polls have

[SerapisIV]

Near-Future technology - Allows better environmental alternatives (limiting pollution and limited space options, without going overbourd and unbalancable space cities)

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-08-2001 05:56 PM The Russian space budget is 14 Billion; the US is 145 Billion). Roman; a question, is Slovakia part of the ISS program?

Actually, the Russian space budget is about $180 million and the US is about $14 billion, so the difference of scale is even greater than you indicate.

As to Slovak participation in the ISS - luckily we abstain from contributing to this wasteful beast in the sky (not that we would have the money even if we wanted).

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-08-2001 06:26 PM I think that the only way to end to end the debate is by simply polling people (MarkG)

If I recall correctly there already was a poll on the issue and the vote went against future techs.

Roman I got my info from Eleanor Clift who is Contributing Editor for NewsWeek Magazine on the McLaughlin Group at www.mclaughlin.com and she said 14 M for Russian and 145 B for US. I just now went back and read her statement. This show is on PBS in the US. You made not be able to watch it oversea.

------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Anarcho]

Why not have a bit of future tech? As long as it isn't f*cked like it was in CTP, then we'd be OK. Probably not space... I agree Civ is a 2D game, and wouldn't work in space. But space facilities like in Alpha Centauri would be cool. Also, underwater cities and underground cities would also be neat. Maybe other terrestrial stuff like weather control, better units, new forms of government... hell, as long as it's not unbalanced, why not? Also, leave an option open to toggle this future stuff on and off... that would solve the argument.

------------------
Civilization 2 is computerized cocaine.

[Lonestar]

Joeseph, trust me, It's 14 Billion bucks for the US, that's why we ain't going to mars soon, 'cause NASA posted the cost at 50 billion

------------------
"People should know when they're conquered."

"Would you Quintis? Would I?"

"Soylant Green is people. PPPeeeoooppllleee!"

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-08-2001 08:40 PM Roman I got my info from Eleanor Clift who is Contributing Editor for NewsWeek Magazine on the McLaughlin Group at www.mclaughlin.com and she said 14 M for Russian and 145 B for US. I just now went back and read her statement. This show is on PBS in the US. You made not be able to watch it oversea.

Well, they (your friend) must have made a mistake, because I was following the space agencies' budgets for some years now and I saw the figure $14 billion in a number of sources (eg. Aviation Week, US budget report, NASA website, etc.).

[Lung]

Near future tech, absolutely. What's the point of playing god for 7000 years only to stop at the present!

Far future is simply too far because we haven't a clue where we'll be in 500 years. However, having some techs, which are currently tantalisingly out of reach, available seems logical, and should give some sense of achievement. Perhaps we could go slightly further than Civ2, but only within the realms of current expectations.

As for space, they should also be confined to the forseeable future. Spy sattelites should be available, although they need not be shown on any map. Perhaps as a small wonder like the Apollo program is expected to be in Civ3? What about a space station? This could give specific science boosts for developing non-rocket based space travel for the space race end-game. Therefore, you would have to build your own Apollo program, then your own space station (perhaps allowed with allies or any other civ/s), then discover the desired tech, then build your spaceship for the end-game.

Isn't that a logical end for Civ3 (among others)?

[Cyclotron]

May I remind the pro-future tech people that even the near future (next 50/100 years) is extremely uncertain. I have seen magazines from 1950 that predict such things as flying cars, people living on other planets, time machines, and tons of other things we have not even come close to doing in 2001. Any guess into the near future, whether it be about moon colonization or neurotechnology or molecular fusion, is likely to be just as far off and just as whimsical as those predictions made earlier in the 20th century. In addition, since we have no concept of how such "future techs" will function, how could we begin to madel them? Cryogenics might create more income... or then again, the process could turn out to be prohibitvely expensive and therefore have no measurable effect on the economy. Fusion tanks might exist, and have big "fusion cannons" and such stuff, but it is equally likely that a fusion reactor once invented will not fit in a tank.

Another reason future techs do not work is because most future units are modular. Putting a fusion reactor in a Sherman tank (if even possible) would not in any way upgrade the armor or weapon. So something as ambiguous as a "Fusion Tank" is completely absurd, and is impossible to visualize or understand. Riflemen (conscription) need both new weapons (gunpowder) and new organization (democracy or other tech) to be true riflemen. Nukes need Nuclear Fission and rocketry to be true nukes. So... what does a "cyber ninja" need to be a true cyber ninja? What techs create all the tiny different devices in a wormhole sensor, not to meantion all the technology needed to build the actual station? Saying that just knowing "wormholes" lets you build a huge orbital wormhole detection station is like saying that knowing how to design a tank lets you build tanks without knowing what steel is.

So what does compose a future unit, or a future improvement? Beats me, and most likely everybody on earth is as baffled as I am on this issue. So why have it? The jury's still out on that one, too.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Pedrun]

I agree with lung we cant end in the present would be to boring. I dont think civilization is a history and presenrt games. Believe or not civilization is about civilizations how they started, how they grew, how they developed and and how they are going to end.
CivIII cant became a obsolete game in the next few years. Like Joseph said future is a relative concept. At least something about the future civIII must have.
Even if civIII goes until the present many will think is about the future. Dont you read the news: transgenic animals, space station, clones, Mars explorations , the Pioneer outside solar system limits, robots, artificial inteligence, space turism, hidrogen cells cars, nuclear fusion energy tests, magnetic trains and much much more.

[Pedrun]

Many said that civ should finish where SMAC started. Im completely agree with that. maybe one of the endgames could be send colonizers to Alpha Centauri(A few chage with the civII end game. That way the future technologies could be the earlies technlogies of Alpha centauri and some to get to them. I dont think there is the need to talk about the improvments. A perfect connection between both games.

There has been 1 or 2 flying cars some years ago. They did one for one of the James Bond movies when Roger Moore was playing Bond. I saw a magazines and TV story a long time ago about a flying car. I believed I just hear some weeks ago someone else is going to try to produce a flying car for sale next year.
This is real. One of our Shipyard employees in 1995 told us that we did have a flying Sub just like in the movie Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea. He was an enlisted man assigned to the project. He told us that they were able to take off from under the water and get airborne however they (the Navy) were having problems when they landed in the water and try to submerge (water leaking in before they could shut all valves). Plus they could only land in very calm water. They also had to repair it several time because of damage when landing.
If you want to hear about some real future tech. Log on to the Area 51 site and you can read about the many funny looking aircraft that has been seen from time to time out in Nevada. To date only one of those aircraft was ever saved and put into the Air Force Museum (Halve Blue), All the rest have been buried in the desert.
Are you people aware that NASA is allowed to sign off on every Star Trek episode and Movie?
Today future tech. is about money. If we told our people the sky was the limit, who knows where we would be in just 10 to 20 years.
Today future tech. Story is a new drug to fight cancer.
Let’s go back in time to 1934 through 1944, talk about future tech. Look at Germany. Look what they did in 11 years. If they did not have Hitler in the way making stupid decision, stopping some projects, redirecting other, we all might be speaking German today. Too our Israeli friends I know it was bad, but without Hitler we (the Allies) may not have won.
Cyclotron7 Your magazine would have been very correct if the US did not go to war in Vietnam because the social out cried that came about because of that War would not have happen until much later, and we would have gone to the moon to stay. I will say this again; Welfare was spending more money per day than the Space Budget was in a year.


------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 10, 2001).]

[Grumbold]

Apollo is certainly going to be in, like Civ2, but that was 1969. The problem with space advancement from then onward is it is closely linked to such potential game breakers as low earth orbit nuclear missile racks, anti-missile missiles etc. I'm still very hazy on how Civ gets from moon landings to vast interstellar colonly ship. Certain key elements, like learning how to colonise and terraform somewhere as relatively close and friendly as Mars would seem to be essential prerequisites but it just makes the endgame messy. I really really want a SimMars game one day, but not necessarily using a Civ approach.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 05-10-2001 06:10 PM So what does compose a future unit, or a future improvement? Beats me, and most likely everybody on earth is as baffled as I am on this issue. So why have it? The jury's still out on that one, too.

I couldn't agree more. Excellent post, cyclotron7, I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Sirotnikov]

I think that near future weapons can include these recent tech developements:

Non lethal weapons:
gum shotgun - a real thing. a shotgun shoots gum or dough like foam at people which immobilises them without hurting them.
diharea shotgun - also real. this fires some sort of waves affecting people's guts which makes them wanna go.
heat shot gun - can you say microwave? ok, ok it's lethal but I wasn't gonna make a whole category for one gun.

unmanned vehicales:
small camera mounted spy planes
small camera mounted vehicales
arms disarming robots (they can disarm nukes without exploding them. they're use must be somehow integrated into nukes gameplay)


and those kind of things.

[tniem]

What is so hard for me in my objection to future tech is that if different things had happened in the past 15 years (such as the U.S.S.R. not collapsing) we might have space colonies. NASA says that within 20 years we will have manned missions to mars. In fact, one of the reasons this has not already happened is simply cost. The estimated cost of a mission to mars with humans is four times the annual budget of NASA.

So such things as space colonies, missions to mars, and other things may have happened had the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. continued the space race. The technology is probably there to be living on the moon within 20 years (in time for the 2020 end time).

Likewise, genetic engineering and cloning are in the works now. Whats to keep them from happening in the next 10 years?

Unmaned airplanes have been recently tested in the deserts in the Western United States. I would guess within 20 years the U.S. will have a fleet of planes that fly without pilots but then I may be wrong, which is my problem with the future and even the present in Civ, there is so many things that are probable and could have happened but should they all be in the game?