|
Author
|
Topic: SPACE EXPLOITATION ver 2.0 hosted by Smilo
|
M@ni@c
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 11, 1999 14:23
  
Did I really post the 100th reply ????? Wow. |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 12, 1999 10:16
Have you guys not got a single comment on my space exploitation system?Is it because you don't want space explotation in the game anyway? I'd really like some feedback, please. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 12, 1999 17:51
Needlessly complicated. Simpler solution: Have hydroponics bay TI's produce more than one food. That was Call to Power's solution, anyway, and I've always thought that space cities were the one thing CtP did right. You'd figure that any food production facility built in space would be designed to produce more food than would be consumed by its own work force.But I agree that space cities would be mainly production facilities supplied with raw materials from the Moon, the asteroids and a few stray comets. I'd even agree that space cities are a much more logical step toward Alpha Centauri than a Mars colony ever could be. Microgee construction facilities are the only way to make a really effective solar sail, for example, and you wouldn't have to worry about making your ship sturdy enough to survive a launch. We now return you to your regularly scheduled bickering match. |
Harel
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 12, 1999 18:02
I pointed up several times that I would like to keep civ III a "one-map-game". No moon, no mars, no astroid map. No nothing.
The game that should have had moving space units, and space maps, and moons and the like was SMAC.
Not civ. In civ III i would like them to use the same system they wrongfully used in SMAC. Keep it earth-bound.
Hydrophonic pods? Space labs? Satellite? Buildings in the city. Plain and simple. Don't want to see them, not even with multiple layout that can show me what I have in space ( like CtP ). It will crowd the game and it's pointless.Even colonozing mars and the moon should be done from the city by wonders. That wonder gives you extra minerals and a much bigger popultion maximum. It will also cost a hell fo a lot of maintain it. But still, keep it city based, pls. |
Gordon the Whale
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 12, 1999 18:22
Harel, the Earth is 149.6 million Km from the sun. Mars is 227.8. That is NOT three times, and in my opinion is pretty close. The energy density of the sun's rays at Mars is 43% the energy density at Earth. A difference, but in the grand scheme, not a big difference. Venus, at 108 million KM, gets 190% times the energy density of Earth. As we all know, it has its own problems, and Mars's seem easier to solve.About Argon and it's dangers: Argon, like any gas other than oxygen, is not respirable. If you breathe pure Argon, you will die, because you are not getting enough oxygen. However, like all gasses, it mixes with the oxygen or whatever after a while, and it's safe. Argon is the 4th most abundant gas in the Earth's atmosphere, and it's also what's inside lightbulbs. I was unaware that there's nowhere to get neutral gasses on Mars... All your references are from Science Fiction. Are you sure that they are considered fact by science? We'll know soon enough exactly what the surface of Mars is like, anyways. I'll believe you that there's nowhere to get Nitrogen, I can't really think of anywhere off-hand. The only way would be to, for the sake of the game, put nitrogen into the ice caps or something that's scientifically possible, just not the case in real life. Maybe not. That combined with the lack of a suitable magnetic field makes any sort of terraforming very difficult... I've learned something, anyways. So, it looks like Westergaard's suggestions about robotic/enclosed mining colonies combined with orbital space stations is the only way to go short of colonizing other star systems. Here, I have to agree with Harel: Wrong game for it. Much as I've always wanted to be able to build civ cities on the moon, it's too much micromanagement hassle, unless it's done like in SMAC. And how realistic is SMAC? Hydroponics in space are great for feeding people in space, but the expense of shipping to and from Earth is too much for it to EVER be worthwhile... It would be cheaper to build giant hydroponics bays out in the desert, or floating in the ocean. Mining in space is also useful mostly for space... There, you're only dropping things TO Earth, so there's not so much trouble with energy, especially if you've got a space elevator. But still... Mine the Moon to make space stations and Moon bases and Starships, not for materials on Earth. The only space structures I see necessary, besides maybe some wonders to make people happy like a Zero-G hotel, would be part of a long chain leading to the AC ship. Build a space station for command, build mines on the moon or asteroids for raw materials, build a factory in space for production, and THEN you can build the spaceship. Maybe comm and spy sattelites, too, but I'm not sure how much fun those would be in the game... |
M@ni@c
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 12, 1999 19:14
Yes, Gordon the Whale, that SF book was written with the most recent knowledge of Mars. |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 14, 1999 21:35
What, Kin Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy? That was actually more like science faction, especially the first book. Anyway, I think that they have to include at least 3 or 4 other maps, other wise it's a step down from tot. I'm asking for at least the moon, Mars, and mayybe the Galilean moons on a map like the orbital space map in the Lalande game.------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction, and people are weirder than both. |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 15, 1999 05:48
EnochF
You totally misunderstood the food limitations. (did you even read the post?) Only off-world mines would have theese, not space cities. There's a lot of problems with farming possible mining sites. The moon for example has got a 14 day night, and asteroids are very far from the sun. Of course hydroponic farm in orbit shouldn't have any limitations.Harel
I don't think it's pointless to have multiple layers on the map. It'll add another, IMHO fun, dimension to the game. If the game had an orbital layer, like CtP's, that could be enough to show space travels and space cities. But if no one wanted multiple maps (other than the two layers), the mines didn't even have to excist on any moon-map. Just select a space-engineer and order him to "build mine", then select where you want the mine built (Moon, Mars, asteroid) Then he'd dissapear and a couple turns later you could select them from the "off-world mines menu", just like a normal city from the F1 city menu.. Read the multiple maps or not? chapter of my previous post. Gordon
I think your "spacestations as a wonder" idea is way too simple. It's an okay idea, and it's a lot better than just building a huge spaceship right after the apollo-program. But it's just not the same when you can't attack the enemy's command center, when you can't shut his entire starship production down with a surgical strike, but instead can watch a small monument in one of your cities symbolizing the great space station wonder. I think it would be sad if Firaxis just left the future out of the game altoghether. And you can't have future in the game if you haven't got space stations. Tornado7
Doesn't seem like there's a lot of other people here that wants multiple maps 
[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 15, 1999).] |
EnochF
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 16, 1999 06:56
Oops, Westergaard. I guess I got confused when I read "Maybe only the base square produced food, so that a mine could never have more than one or two citizen."But I still think dividing production into materials and labor is making things needlessly complicated. Perhaps space cities (or lunar colonies) could be limited to a certain population, say 4 or 5, until you build special habitation modules or lunar ice processors. Maybe space cities could be limited to a special list of city improvements, some of which are limited to offworld cities. (Suggestion: From now on, let's try to confine our bickering to game effects. That's what I'm going to do from now on. Believe me, I learned the hard way. It's what Brian Reynolds wants us to do, anyway. If you disagree with someone's suggestion on purely scientific grounds, you should accompany your objection with an alternative game effect which better reflects the scientific principle involved. Otherwise, you'll all just end up in a heated and pointless argument with...) |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 16, 1999 10:16
OK, that is another solution. Bit more simple, which is good, but makes it impossible to simulate that lunar cities at the the top of the "gravity well" with plenty of energy is a good place to produce space goods (ships, other colonies, etc.)I don't remember where, but I saw the mentioned labour/minerals splitting discussed some while ago (the economics thread maybe?) and their model had some other, not space related, advantages. I don't remember them all tough.
More advanced units would need more labour, but not more minerals.
Heavy units like cannons and city improvements would need most minerals.
Industrialization and factories would give a large boom in available labour, but smaller bonuses in minerals.I think it's a good idea to limit surface colony growth (I did that too). But why would you build surface colonies then, if they aren't going to supply the orbital colonies. You'll just end up with a bunch of handicapped colonies with no use. The gameplay reason for limitations is that it reduces the focus on the off-world mines since you can never develop them to be real huge and important, only small suppliers. That limits the need for multiple maps too. And there isn't a lot of people who likes multiple maps (or so it seems to me). I don't think orbitting spacestations should be growth limited, not very much anyway. You can make quite a lot of food with almost unlimited sun and controlled weather. At least after the development of "sky-hydroponics". And it's easy to construct very large structures in zero-G. Oh by the way, how are the orbital spacestations/cities going to produce anything (make shields) under your model? Terrain improvements? |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 17, 1999 14:04
OK, I admit that I've been going a bit overboard, but look at it like this-there's no practical reason to go to Alpha Centauri when you have a couple dozen habitable bodies in your own solar system THAT AREN'T 4.4 LIGHT YEARS AWAY! This is a blaring goof-up in the original game. Granted, back when Civ 1 and 2 came out, systems couldn't handle multiple maps, but this is 1999 and there is no excuse! While I relieze that most people don't want to deal with an entire solar system, like I do, you have to have AT MINIMUM, the moon, Mars, and some sort of simplified interface for the asteroids and the Galilean moons. You can't dispute that people will colonize the moon and Mars WAY before they haul themselves all the way to Alpha Centauri! |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 17, 1999 16:04
Preach it, Tornado! I totally agree!
We can't build the apollo program wonder one day, the next go to Alpha Centauri. We need something in between.Btw, Tornado, look at my idea for space exploitation (10 august, page 2, all the way down)and tell me what you think. With only one map with an orbital layer, spaceflight could be simulated in a realistic way. And it seems like few people wants multiple maps (I can't see why tough). |
EnochF
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 17, 1999 22:56
Who's got ideas for the terrains of the various planets? I figure these should cover most of it:Basin
Crater
Dunes
Ice
Mountain
Soil
Trench
Volcano "Soil" would cover everything from plains to grassland. "Basin" is ocean-level ground. Craters, Trenches and Volcanos all exist on Earth, but not on an appreciable scale in terms of a Civ map, but in the solar system, there are occasionally volcanos, craters and trenches of significant size to appear. "Ice" would include not only water ice, but also frozen methane and other frozen gases. Any other suggestions? Or suggestions for special tile improvements for other planets? |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 17, 1999 23:38
I was thinking that would really work, especially as a nice, simple way to shove asteroids into the game without giving the people who are allergic to REAL space exploitation a heart attack.
Now that I'm a little bit calmer *think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts*, I'll go a little deeper into my idea for solar system exploitation:
Use Westergaard's idea for asteriod mining; It seems like a good, solid way of doing it without much hassle.
Set up a solar system map-before anyone starts having kittens, let me explain: This map would be really simple, just a representing the various bodies in the solar system, and would be used as a way to represent units traveling between planets. The big terrestrial worlds (Mercury, Mars, etc.) Would have regular maps. But, the maps would be to scale with Earth-30-50% of the Earth size on a large map. The gas giant moons could be represented by a big version of the space station map in the Lalande game-Stick some impassable terrain in the shape of the gas giant, and float a bunch of moon shaped bodies around it. They would be just big enought to fit 5 or 6 decent cities, down to little asteriod moons that would fit one.
Terrain-Most of this stuff could be recycled from map to map-A crater is a crater, whether it's on the Moon, Mercury, or Ganymede. Basically, you could just throw the things together on different size maps and BAM, there you go. Just create special terrrain for Mars and maybe Venus.
Brain fart-More to come tommorrow------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction, and people are weirder than both. |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 18, 1999 09:01
Tornado
I totally agree that we should definetly have space exploitation. But I don't agree 100% that we have to have multiple maps. It might upset too many, and it isn't really necessaryThe pros and cons for the two systems, the way I see them. The pros for multiple planet maps and a solar system map. Please tell me if you see surface colonies any different or if I misunderstood you:
You can see the actual planet which give a more "I am a colonizer" feel.
You can have wars between civs on the moon or mars or in the empty space if you want. But honestly I don't think we'll see interplanetary wars before the end of the third millenium.
It's a whole new world open for colonizing. But this is also one of my concerns. It's just another world. Nothing new. It's almost the same as starting a game on the Earth. More on this, in the cons for the other system.The pros for two layer map and off-world mines not on any map.
Keeps the focus on Earth, which is a central part of the civ-series
Keeps the space allergics somewhat content.
As stated before I don't think that surface colonies will add that much but another world to colonize. Ask yourself what advantages surface colonies would give your civ, other than the most basic of trade and production. You could just as well build more Earth cities and they are easier to build. Of course you might say the same about orbital colonization, but keep in mind that it also opens other possibilities which are related to your Earth-surface cities. Orbital attacks, and SPS's (Solar power sattelites), low-g industries could result in new techs and weapon types. And most important: This is where a starship to AC would be built.
It's realistic*, read the note.
It'll reduce the micromanagment of moving units between planets. Under this system you just give a "build colony" order to a space-engineer, and a couple of years later a colony appear at a designated spot. I guess you can include a "defend colony" and "attack colony" for space-marines too, but it isn't necessary.
Surface colonization isn't neccesary for anything but extracting raw materials from a low "gravity well". So if it isn't neccesary why include it?
*the note
Have you ever read some of Gerard O'neill's books on space settlements? Well you should. He arguments why humans eventually will move off the surface of planet surfaces and into so called space habitats, Bernard Spheres and O'neill cylinders. I have already given some of those but here are some more.
No limits on expansion. The asteroid belt alone has enough material to build space habitats with a surface area equal to almost 300 times earths surface.
Unlimited energy. It's never night and the sun doesn't have to penetrate any atmosphere with clouds and haze.
Full control over weather. On Mars you have to deal with huge sandstorms and fast winds.
The ability to seperate polluting industries and farms, from residential areas.
It's close to the Earth thus making construction and personnel transport easier.For further information on space settlements and their advantages, read this FAQ:
>Space settlements FAQ. Please give me your opinion on the good things and the bad things about my model. I really don't see the need for multiple maps if nobody wants them and they aren't stricly neccesary. EnochF
If this is too much bickering for you, I'm sorry but this is just my opinion.
[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 20, 1999).]
|
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 19, 1999 10:58
Ok, while I admit the main reason I want some more maps to colonize, I need it! I usually play with expansionistic civs in the game(That's a word, right?), so by 2000, there ain't no land left that isn't garbage. So, I kinda want some more territory to expand on. But like I said, your idea really does work for the asteriods. I really like it, believe me. I just want some more room to spread out on. Besides, they did multiple maps in tot, so the should do it in civIII, otherwise it's a step backward. |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 19, 1999 15:25
Well, maybe we keep both options then. If Firaxis has the ressources for a full scale colonization of space, then great.But if they don't want to bother drawing terrain for planets, making new rules, making multiple map support, etc. then I think they should consider this compromise. In other words. Let Firaxis decide. We don't even know if the game goes beyond present time at all. |
EnochF
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 19, 1999 16:53
For what it's worth, I'm growing to like both ideas. Both are a good step up from Civ II's sudden leap from the Moon to Alpha Centauri.And if colonization of the solar system is limited to a couple of Wonders (say, a moon base and a Mars colony), that will still be better than eliminating space exploitation altogether. I'd love to see multiple maps. But hypothetically, if Brian Reynolds stopped by this thread (yeah, right) and said, "Oh, by the way, the design team has talked it over, and we're definitely not going to implement multiple maps," then I'd instantly start lobbying for a system of orbital cities much like Westergaard's. (Great points, West, and great link. I'll have to check out that O'Neill book, too...) ------------------
"Harel didn't replay. He just stood there, with his friend, transfixed by the brown balls."
|
Harel
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 19, 1999 17:01
Best thing about EnochF that he wakes up an hour late, but still try to claim first credit.
Gaard, I always said that several maps are very, very confusing.
Saying that they didn't use multiple maps because of the technology then is, well, wrong. May I remind you an old game by Microprose, "Master of Magic?" It had two plains: a "shiny" realm and a "dark" realm. And even then, many people complained it was too dis-orienting.
That was just two maps, that only difference between them is some tile sets.
Having several maps, etc. moon and mars will be, IMHO, terrible.
Civ III should be scientificaly and historly accurate, yes. But it should also be straight-forward and easy to control. While you and I may want and grow fond of many maps, I think that the majority of the public, those who buy it because it's Sid mayer, not because they played and liked civ I, will be very confused.------------------
EnochF. Nuff said.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 19, 1999).] |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 20, 1999 09:25
Ok, then let's keep all ideas and line them up as different options in the resume, so Sid can choose. Maybe we should come up with stronger reasons for multiple maps tough, to convince them. Any ideas on why we need multiple maps?
Harel
I never said anything about not using multiple maps because of technology.
And I didn't understand. Did you mean you didn't like several maps like in several planet maps, or did you mean a several layer map (surface and orbit layer). You might notice that we're actually discussing two approaches to space exploitation. One system with a single, two layer map, and one which goes all the way and includes maps of several moons and planets. For the time I'm argumenting for a single multi-layer map, altough my opinion is that if they'll give us multiple maps, then we should take it. If not, we should go for a compromise (which IMHO is one multi-layer map and off-map asteroid mining). If it was the former (several planet/moon maps) I get your point, but in defense of multiple maps I'll say that this could be made very different from Master of Magic. And yes I remember MoM and the use of planes. I used to cast a planar seal and conquer one world, then move on to the next... Anyway, you're right that MoM could be a little confusing for newbie, but that is purely a design problem. I trust that Firaxis would be able to design a simple and intuitive map system which everybody understand. If you was critisizing the second option (multi-layer map) please clarify what you don't like about that system. Would you accept this system as a compromise instead of multiple maps? |
Harel
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 20, 1999 17:49
First, off I am glad someone else remembers MoM. A very nice game, but like you said, confusing for newbies.
And no, I am not sure that Firaxis can design an easy-to-use multimap layout, because, IMHO atleast, you can't. Several maps will ALWAYS be confusing, even for experts. You need to focus on one plane: worrying about several ones will be an headache.
A nice way to use it if something a bit like Star trek multi-layer chase board ( seen it? It was on "the next generation" several times. So you can see ( maybe something 3d? You have a one model and you can zoom up and down, rotate and see both, etc. ).Just remembered about something. I am by microprose(?) that allowed you to control two planes: hell and heaven. You had the two planes on the same screen, and you zoomed out and in between them.
But even both those systems are very confusing. I remember the hell & heaven game ( could be it "half-life?" Another "half-life"? Someone know the name? ) was very disorienting, even to a strategy game veteran like myself.
So, I really don't go for any multi-map option. About multi-layer... first bad thing it has, they use it on CtP.
Secondly, no need. We need to realize that if Firaxis didn't have several layers in SMAC ( and CtP allready showed several layers, so they could have used it if they wanted ), no chance they will use it on the more "technology chalanged" civ III.
I am not sure I am even pro multi-layer. For what? A few satellites and stations? I really don't want to see any space combat in civ III anyway: no space warrios and planes. That should have been on SMAC. So, the way I see it, we have fours options:
Multi-maps, random solar system. X planets with moons and astroids.Multi maps of the moon, mars and astroids.Single earth map, multi-layer. Mars and Moon as wonders.Singe earth map, like SMAC. Satellites are city buildings, moon and mars are wonder in cities.I go with the last, for myself. ------------------
EnochF. Nuff said.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 20, 1999).] |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 21, 1999 12:13
First off, I just wonder where you guys come up with your quotes. It's real, real scary.
Anyway, while I do not AGREE with certain indivduals options *COUGH Harel COUGH* I see your points and do respect them. I totally agree that there should be a set of options detailing what level of spacec you want in the game. Heck, even I don't want to plant a flag in Utopia Plantia EVERY game. I have a feeling that there won't be a whole lot of space explotation in civ III, at least in the amount I would like, but I guess I'll take what I can get. Mybe for the third game in the sweep of time... Still, it's nice to dream. |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 21, 1999 14:27
Harel
First I think SMAC's satellite model was very unrealistic, and it should never be used. You don't gain anything from space farming, it's just too expensive to transport stuff to and from orbit. I'd rather leave space out of the game altogether.Second, you state that multi-layer only results in a few satellites and spacestations. Believe me that I am not argumenting for star-destroyers, interstellar carriers, and huge space battles a la star-wars. I know that these would never be put in the game. But also, I believe, space is so much more than "just a few satellites and spacestations". You'd obviously have to have some reasons to implement space-exploitation in a civilization game that is about Earth. Therefore I think that it is very important to let the colonization of space affect a lot of things back on Earth, not just make it another place for new cities. One reason is that space is needed to build the AC starship, but that could be done with wonders if necessary (I don't want that tough). But space is also the place of humanity's last frontier, the place were the pioneers of the 21st century will settle when there is no more uninhabited land left on Earth. Space is a IMHO necessary place to continue humanity's expansion and growth, which is needed to keep our high quality of life. In the future I see three possible scenarios, when the worlds resources start to decrease:
First there's the end of the world in a total war, where every country battles over Earths scarce resources, in a so called "zero-sum" game (ie you have to steal from somebody also to gain antyhing).
Second, police state like governments could enforce strict resource and birth control, in an attempt to conserve Earths last resources, (maybe this is a case for the social engineering thread?).
And third, mankind could continue it's everlasting expansion into space to reap the infinite resources of the moon and the asteroids. And in space have a place for the thousand of new humans born every day.In other words I think the decreasing resources should be modelled into the civ world. I'm not sure how to do this, any ideas? This would leave the mentioned options for the player to decide, when the ressources started to become scarce. This way space exploitation would have a purpose other than just pure expansion. The purpose of survival. The actual colonization of space I haven't quite thought out yet. But I agree that I wouldn't like to see huge space battles. I think something along the lines of what I suggested in my large post on page two all the way down, concerning the actual building and maintance of spacestations (should I repost that?). Maybe it should be very expensive to conduct space-wars so that only the richest most powerful nations could afford a space campaign, and only on a small scale. Any ideas on how combat could be limitied or opinions on how much spacecombat should be included? I think I now which hell-heaven game you are talking about (Afterlife. Kind of simcity in god-mode) but I have never played it. I don't know the star-trek thing either, but it could be a useful idea. But you keep mentioning old games, where we should compare it to new, for example Ctp. I have never played CtP myself, but how did they do the future part? I've heard that was actually one of the good parts of the game. And if CtP could model multi-layer maps, then why shouldn't the Firaxis team be able to build something even more brilliant?
[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 22, 1999).] |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 21, 1999 18:22
Wait, now it's my turn- PREACH IT, MY BROTHER!
[This message has been edited by Tornado7 (edited August 21, 1999).] |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 24, 1999 12:48
Where has all the people gone? It seems like evrybody has mysteriosly dissapeared. Strange.Somebody has got to have noticed something that they didn't like about this latest "limited ressources" idea, or some of the other ideas. Maybe somebody has an idea on how to show the limitied resources in game terms, or an entirely new idea. Or maybe somebody just hate the entire model and want to say that. Anyway please let's have some responses othervise what's the use of forums. |
Slax
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 24, 1999 14:01
Please, please, please, DO NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING IN CIV III THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST. (ie just about everything in this list)Save that for other titles. Thatsit.
|
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 24, 1999 14:21
Why?Civilization is a game of human evolution. And human evolution doesn't stop in the year 2000. Btw if you don't like the future you don't have to play that long. |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 24, 1999 17:23
They could always throw in a "stop at 2000" option for people with no imagination. My question is, why waste 50 bucks on civIII if all you want is civII with new eye candy??? |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 24, 1999 17:24
They could always throw in a "stop at 2000" option for people with no imagination. My question is, why waste 50 bucks on civIII if all you want is civII with new eye candy???------------------
"And how much, my fellow warriors, can a world change in a mere 800 revolutions??!!"
-Shiplord Kirel, Worldwar:In the balance, right before the Race realizes they're in deep trouble. |
Baller
Junior Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 31, 1999 21:29
To get my two cents in (a little late, it seems) I am all for the idea of multiple maps. I think that the whole point of colonization is that the human race should be able to expand to new worlds, and the player in CivIII should be able to control the decisions and managment which go along with these.
However, I didn't like the multi-layered map in CTP, and I think that satallites and the works should stay in cities until you start actual colonization of other worlds. Once that happens it should be like the start of the game, with one or two units in an alien environment, looking to expand. Colonies must be defended as well as Civ cities-both from rival civs on Earth and (possibly) alien "natives".
Historically speaking, this is the way the game should be. When Europeans "discovered" America, it simply became an outgrowth of their previous conflicts. Europeans proceeded to fight in America just as they had in Europe; there was fierce competition for American recources and land. So, multiple maps in one game is the only logical extension of history once the game reaches past the near future.
Of course, the option to turn it off should be there, for those who don't like it. |
Baller
Junior Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted August 31, 1999 21:30
To get my two cents in (a little late, it seems) I am all for the idea of multiple maps. I think that the whole point of colonization is that the human race should be able to expand to new worlds, and the player in CivIII should be able to control the decisions and managment which go along with these.
However, I didn't like the multi-layered map in CTP, and I think that satallites and the works should stay in cities until you start actual colonization of other worlds. Once that happens it should be like the start of the game, with one or two units in an alien environment, looking to expand. Colonies must be defended as well as Civ cities-both from rival civs on Earth and (possibly) alien "natives".
Historically speaking, this is the way the game should be. When Europeans "discovered" America, it simply became an outgrowth of their previous conflicts. Europeans proceeded to fight in America just as they had in Europe; there was fierce competition for American recources and land. So, multiple maps in one game is the only logical extension of history once the game reaches past the near future.
Of course, the option to turn it off should be there, for those who don't like it. |
SWPIGWANG
Junior Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted September 02, 1999 19:38
The reasource on earth will never(allmost)run out because the reasoure depends on production.It will only run out when people on earth built a earth size object(and pour
earth's mass in to it) |
Westergaard
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted September 03, 1999 08:24
swpigwang
It's not as much a matter of material resources such as iron, and other materials. It's more a matter of energy. Modern societies need energy and it's getting harder and harder to find.Currently almost all energy in the world is either fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.) or nuclear power and both of these have their own problems. While I don't believe that fossil fuels will actually run out someday, they will became rarer and rarer, and more and more expensive to find and mine, and making fuels even more expensive. To the point where it doesn't pay of to mine them because nobody can afford to buy them. Besides they add to the global warming problem. Nuclear power also has problems, but I'm sure you've already heard of these (nuclear waste, radiation, meltdown, etc). Other energy forms are inefficient and very expensive. Even if you provided solar energy to the entire planet it would raise the albedo of the surface and result in global warming. Baller
I agree that space could be an outgrowth for the surface wars the same ways as the american colonies were. I think that it would be a little boring if other planets were only the same as starting with a settler on Earth. The game should have a reason to have space exploitation. It should affect how the game went on down on the surface, by solving energy-crisises, providing military advantages and so on. About multilayer maps. I think it's unrealistic to manufacture colonies in cities on Earth and then launch them. It would take huge quantities of fuel. |
Tornado7
Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted September 04, 1999 21:47
Finally, people who actually agree with me!!!!! It's a miracle!
Yes!
Yes!
(Pasty looking teenager starts doing the funky chicken in front of the computer.)
Look at some of my ideas in this post. There's a ton of them buried in there, just look for them. Tell me what you think, and for God's sake, if you can improve them, by all means do so!!!!)------------------
"And how much, my fellow warriors, can a world change in a mere 800 revolutions??!!"
-Shiplord Kirel, Worldwar:In the Balance |
KingTitus
Junior Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted September 06, 1999 18:16
okay, im gonna post and i dont want no one yellin at me. First of all, multiple maps would be cool. But inorder to to those maps you would have to build units in your cities, like space colonists, to make it there, that way you could wipe out the spaceship at the end of the game, which i think is stupid. Also it would take a couple of turns for those units to get to their destination, then, a extra map would be added. Also, they could have a feature which would allow you to shut off multilple maps just like they have a toggle for bloodlust(no spaceships) in civ2. In order to keep the maps organized they could have tabs above the map window with the name of the place the map shows. Now, back to the units, when the units get to their destination, the map looks just like what you see when you start the game. Only terrain would different. And it would make sense for the game to head this way, just like real life, eventually we will have colonies on the moon and mars. And WE will have multiple maps. YOU PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT MULTIPE MAPS ARE JUST STUPID BEACAUSE THATS THE WAY REAL LIFE GOES. SO THATS THE WAY THE GAME SHOULD GO! |
KingTitus
Junior Civer
IP: Logged
|
posted September 06, 1999 18:19
also, it would be a great if you could launch a unit to a asteriod and setup mines. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
