The International Space Station

phunny_pharmer · July 12, 2002, 16:02

I got inspired after seeing the IMAX film last night- what about the ISS for Civ3?

For those who do not follow current space travel, the International Space Station is a joint project. Although many nations help to pick up the cost, individual components are built in specific countries. For instance, the first part of the station launched was built by Russia, the next by America, and the US space shuttle and Russian rockets serve as a supply ships. Italy, Canada, and other countries are either building components themselves or are financing construction in other countries.

This is a pretty massive undertaking, by any standard.

If you can get the nuclear powers of NATO and Russia to cooperate on such a massive project, why can't the puny civs (that send their own space ships to the nearest star, mind) do the same job?

Wonder?
Small wonder?
Joint victory?

This thing needs to be in the game. Where?

Wittlich · July 12, 2002, 16:34

I'm not sure how one would go about incorporating this idea into the game...and what would be the purpose of adding an international spacestation in the first place?

HazieDaVampire · July 12, 2002, 17:43

research bonus sounds right

ChaotikVisions · July 12, 2002, 17:47

Research bonus, as well as improved relations with said Civ maybe? Only Civs who build the small wonder ISS get the bonus. Provides improved relations with all Civs taking part, and grants the city its built in extra research.

Wittlich · July 12, 2002, 18:00

Ok, a research bonus and/or improved relations sounds good...but what would happen if you go to war against the civs you are supposed to be working with?

Thrawn05 · July 12, 2002, 22:37

Quote:

Originally posted by Wittlich
Ok, a research bonus and/or improved relations sounds good...but what would happen if you go to war against the civs you are supposed to be working with?

Well, they tested everything else in zero-g, why not a speeding bullet?

dexters · July 13, 2002, 00:03

ISS should be a new victory condition.

It basically requires you and at least 1 other Civ to jointly develop. In other words, the option will not be available to you if no Civ wants to build it with you, no matter how productivre your Civ is, you MUST have a 2nd or 3rd civ.

This would be negotiated through diplomacy, and each Civ will be given/assigned components to build. Once completed, the Civs who build it win.

This goes away from the 1 civ must win victory, and also enhances diplomacy. Of course, if we are to implement thisd, the diplomacy engine would have to be tweaked to beak it more subtle and more sensitive to human nuance.

Worthingtons · July 13, 2002, 09:11

Interesting idea... but would please really want to play a game to 'jointly win' ???

I'm not so sure about that

phunny_pharmer · July 13, 2002, 11:30

Check out: http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/isstodate.html or http://spaceflight.nasa.gov/station/ for more information about the space station.

The only thing I couldn't find there (easily) is cost

I think that a space station victory sounds more reasonable than a victory where colonists are sent to the nearest star. Frankly, I don't see how humans can even put colonists on Mars in the next ten years, let alone put guys on AC. And the cost? I don't think the cost is comparable to the construction of a nuclear missile...

HazieDaVampire · July 13, 2002, 11:48

They could have a kinda Stalingrad battle in the ISS, men fighting for a room, or in this case, a pod!
1: - 2, this is 1, we need a flash
2: - 1, this is 2, i only have frags
2 pulls pin out
1: - ahhh, you idiot! that'll put a hole in the hull
2: - Erm, Erm,
2 flings grenade down the hatch
2: Fire in the hole!
1: ah crap!

Hole blows hole in hull which sucks out the remanes and sucks out 1 and 2.

As you might of noticed, i play Rouge spear and Operation flashpoint alot! (Untill civ3 came to a home computer near me!)

HazieDaVampire · July 13, 2002, 11:51

lol, a civ thats at peace with the two fighting civs!

"Arrgh, you spilt my space coffee"

johncmcleod · July 13, 2002, 12:14

very good idea, I'd like it very much, but how could you put it in the game? Maybe wait til Civ4, it might have a more complex editor.

Thrawn05 · July 13, 2002, 13:41

Quote:

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
lol, a civ thats at peace with the two fighting civs!

"Arrgh, you spilt my space coffee"

You've built a space warrior, and a space archer, space spearman, space houseman, mounted spaceman... originality is the main priority here.

Vlad Antlerkov · July 13, 2002, 14:24

OTOH, maybe it could be a mission to establish a human presence on Mars. Something like the Extended Original game in Test of Time, only the spaceship travel time wouldn't vary as widely-- between five and nine months for a one-way trip, depending on the orbit (a Hohmann ellipse would take around nine months) and type of propulsion (chemical rockets, nuclear rockets, solar sails, ion engines, etc.).

You'd still have AC as a possible victory condition, but that would be MUCH further off.

muxec · July 13, 2002, 15:41

No better to allow moon colonization. Moon is a second tiny map and you may drop colonists to it. Sending unit to moon will cost 800 base cost but some advances reduce cost of sending:
sattellites, superconductor, Integrated defence reduce ythe cost by 100.
Robotics reduces the cost by 200.
Future tech reduce it 50 gp per level untill making free.

HazieDaVampire · July 13, 2002, 17:44

you've already made a thread about the moon, don't spam it over here! WHATS YOUR NAME!? TRIP!?

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 00:53

Would the ISS take 30 years for each country to build one component, fall apart regularly, and do nothing? The ISS was as bad of an idea as the Homeland Security Department. At least they put Reagans Starwars program in Civ3, though I'd have much rather seen a missile defense shield that works 10% of the time instead.

johncmcleod · July 14, 2002, 12:09

Palleon-I have to differ. For most nations part of the project, it's theri first time in space and they're being helped by us and Russia to get there. It's one of the few ways that nations can get together and work on a large project. Especially one about space, the final frontier.

Quote:

originally posted by Palleon-
Would the ISS take 30 years for each country to build one component, fall apart regularly, and do nothing?

Um, we haven't been working on the international space station for 30 years. I think we've been working on it about ten, though I may be wrong. And have you watched the IMAX film on it? I haven't but it shows a whole lot on the space station. It might change your mind a bit. The ISS falls apart, but not regularly. But it's in space, so what do you expect?

Oh, and the colonization about AC is the dumbest thing in the game. I imagine unless our nation falls apart we'll colonize mars in maybe 30 years. After that, the moon and titan and by then we'd have figured out whether there's life under the ice on Europa. Anyway, I'm way off topic. If it takes one and a half light years to get there, it's going to be a long time before we could make the journey in a life time. Also, would be just send some colonist there and have them hope for a hospitable planet? What if they don't find one? And, why would you win the game as soon as you launch it. If it was a space race to get there, wouldn't it be the first to land there that would be the winner rather than the first to launch?

And I think maybe first man to the moon might be a good wonder.

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 12:20

We won't colonize mars in 30 years, in fact, the US is cutting most of NASA's funding. Russia wants to land cosmonauts for exploration by 2015, and the US might chip in for that. But NASA recently had it's Europa and Pluto exploratory mission funding cut, and quite frankly, I'll be surprised if any planetoid is colonized by humans in my lifetime. We don't have the technology to even colonize the moon, let alone Mars. It would be totally dependant on Earth until it could be terraformed to be able to support food, with the exception of maybe a few hydropondics bay which might be able to feed a few scientists, not a colony of people. Until a time comes where the voyage to Mars takes at most a few days, not months, we won't be able to colonize it. It's just not feasible, and neither the US nor Russia has the desire now. Why colonize anouther planet when you can take care of more pressing matters?

But the ISS was concieved in Reagans era. It was supposed to be done well before 2000, but they didn't even start building it til 1993. Yes, I think it's good that other nations are getting a chance to get into space, but I think the ISS isn't going to be that great of a thing. It's been mocked almost as much as the Star Wars program. It's gone WELL over budget, was a logistical nightmare for a while, and the list goes on.

phunny_pharmer · July 14, 2002, 12:58

Well, considering space research has resulted in plastics, ceramics, and other consumer products, perhaps the ISS should give a science bonus to all civs that participate?

This was my original idea, but I wanted to see other responses first.

I guess to implement the ISS, we need the SMAC council back again. As opposed to 'salvage UNITY core,' we could have the 'establish ISS' as an option.

Palleon · July 14, 2002, 13:01

Quote:

Originally posted by phunny_pharmer
Well, considering space research has resulted in plastics, ceramics, and other consumer products, perhaps the ISS should give a science bonus to all civs that participate?

This was my original idea, but I wanted to see other responses first.

I guess to implement the ISS, we need the SMAC council back again. As opposed to 'salvage UNITY core,' we could have the 'establish ISS' as an option.

I'd be up for that. Maybe make all civs that participate pay 20-30 gpt for 20 turns, and get no science bonus during that time, but after that 20 turns, all civs that contributed would be able to get a big science boost. A good way to get those last techs, or boost your score with futuretech.

Edit: Or better yet, to make things fairer for weaker civs, and to keep in line with how it's really going, say that a total of maybe 100 gold needs to be spent per turn for 20 turns to build it. Each civ can decide how much of that they want to pay per turn, America might do 50, france 10, china 4, etc. And then you'd get the science boost based on how much you contributed, if America paid for half the station, they would get half the boost, france would get 10%, and so on.

Irving · July 14, 2002, 20:52

Much like in real life, the ISS is a stepping stone to outer-space. No Civs can begin to build the Alpha Centuari ship until the Space Station is complete.

Multiple Civs can contribute. The game keeps a listing of all possible components. Once you learn Space Flight, or maybe a new advance "Space Shuttle," you can select to build a component not already built. Once built, that component is removed from the list of available pieces.

Civs get a research bonus equal to the percentage of the ISS they contributed to. I.E. If the ISS is made up of ten components, then if you built 3 of the pieces, then you'd get 30% of the game-defaulted increase for research. Like wonders, if your building a component, and another civ beats you in building it, then you have to convert to another piece, or something else.

Once orbited the component stays regardless of WAR status. If you defeat another civ, you get their research bonus for their pieces!

Once completed, individual civs can then race to build their own interstellar space ship. You could tie in other advances...in order to build Cure for Cancer, you would have have contributed at least a piece of the ISS.

Or say...make a Shuttle Port, a city improvement (next thing after airports for econmic purposes). You must have Space Shuttle before you can build one, and you must have at least one built before you can contribute to the ISS.

Q Classic · July 15, 2002, 13:20

perhaps we could also add in another factor here: have it so that civs can drop out from lack of finances or resources, and have civs go in if they can? naturally, going in is harder than going out, but...

Darkworld Ark · July 15, 2002, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon
We won't colonize mars in 30 years, in fact, the US is cutting most of NASA's funding. Russia wants to land cosmonauts for exploration by 2015, and the US might chip in for that. But NASA recently had it's Europa and Pluto exploratory mission funding cut, and quite frankly, I'll be surprised if any planetoid is colonized by humans in my lifetime. We don't have the technology to even colonize the moon, let alone Mars. It would be totally dependant on Earth until it could be terraformed to be able to support food, with the exception of maybe a few hydropondics bay which might be able to feed a few scientists, not a colony of people. Until a time comes where the voyage to Mars takes at most a few days, not months, we won't be able to colonize it. It's just not feasible, and neither the US nor Russia has the desire now. Why colonize anouther planet when you can take care of more pressing matters?

First of, I dought that Russia will ever get to Mars, their space ship would fall apart in the year it takes to get to Mars. Secondly, have you ever read the Mars triligy? It answers alot of the problems you've given. I've heard estimites that if the US pulled it's resources together like we did in the Space Race, we could get there in 10 years. What we need is another USSR to give the US a push... how's China's space program going?

As for the ISS, I like the idea. It should require that you've got a Apollo mission, & would allow the AC ship, although perhaps it could just be your Space Station, & not everybodies.

Palleon · July 15, 2002, 14:04

Russia will get to Mars, because the US will probobly give them money to send an astronaught with them. The US, for some reason, will not do anything in space anymore. We don't want to go to mars, it's definatly within our capacity to do so, but we won't, not unless we have a big need to go into space. Maybe if the SETI project was to find something, or some important resource was discovered on Mars, but until that day, the United States won't push to go to Mars unless it's absolutely nessessary. I personally would have liked to see the US send a probe to Europa before people to Mars, because it's believed there is liquid water under all the ice there, and an atmosphere. But that funding is cut too... As for China, people are saying that they should be on the moon within 5-10 years or so, I believe they recently put people into orbit, although it may have been an unmanned flight.

Switch · July 15, 2002, 16:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Palleon
As for China, people are saying that they should be on the moon within 5-10 years or so, I believe they recently put people into orbit, although it may have been an unmanned flight.

Yeah, it was an unmanned flight. I remember reading it somewhere, but I forget where.

And don't lie. Anyone who's read anything of value will know that Tintin was the first man on the moon.

The ship used a controlled nuclear blast for its main propulsion.