By the time we have the technology to do that, we would know if Alpha Centauri has any habital planets for humans to live on. If it did, then we could send out people to that planet straight away, however if it didn't have one, but there was a "mars-type planet" with a bit of life on it, then we may require a few more tech to send people out there, to live for hundreds of years, isolated from earth.

I'm basicaly saying that we shouldn't go to AC, until we have at least managed to colonize Mars and the Moon, UNLESS we KNOW there is a habital planet for humans to survive on, an earth-like planet. Then we could send a spaceship out straight away.

And that adds another feature to the game, each game will randomly choose the chance of habital planets in AC, so you could have 3 that are habital, or just 1, or none.

Why re-release SMAC with a changed storyline? It doesnt make neither game-developing, nor commercial sence?

JER8M8 quote 2:
"About the space, this will offer the time neccessary to implimant some of the space ideas in the List vs. 1, like multiple planet maps and cities on them."

Civ-3 is suppose to be a part of a "sweep of time" series, right? Now, based on this: Why then would they even try to cram half of SMAC into the game?
Whats wrong with futuristic beyond 2040 AD tailor-cut Civ-3 scenarios? Isnt that approach both safer, and more flexible for Firaxis? Not to mention; less developing workload, then if they foolishly tries to squeeze as much future as possible into the main-game.

Why take the risk of repeating both TOT- and CTP/CTP-2 bad review-scores, by incorporating typical features of those games: multi-linked maps, sky-cities, public-works and futuristic end-techs?

quote: Originally posted by ContradictioN on 01-01-2001 01:27 AM Dinosaurs - Civ 3 - SMAC2 will be 3 seperate games, but they can/will join together.

Joined together timelines, shoulder by shoulder, is ONE thing. But why overlaped and conjoined timelines??

Ask yourselves:
Is it likely that Firaxis will develop a "70% Dinosaurs + 30% Civ-3" game? If not;
why would they then inconsequently bother to develop a "70% Civ-3 + 30% future SciFi" game?

It doesnt make sense! Neither from a game-design/programming workload point of view - nor, from taking into account this recipe have already been tested and tried out, both in TOT, CTP and CTP-2.

Neither of these games got any great Pc mag-reviews, did they?

For the SciFi-fans out there: Why not concentrate your efforts on suggesting a more powerful scenario-editor + some nice added futuristic scenarios instead? By the looks of it, the Civ-3 scenario-editor promise to be something really special. Check out Dan Mahaga´s thread "Civ-3 editing tools: what do *you* want to see".

quote: Originally posted by Jer8m8 on 12-31-2000 10:29 AM We can have some confidence in saying there will be a "sweep of time" with the games. But what if you rerelease SMAC (2) and change the storyline to have the Unity be launched at a later date, such as 2150. I say this for three reasons:1.It doesn't seem like we're going to AC in 50 years .

The Unity is supposed to go in 60 years, not 50. The tech to build the Unity isn't too far off. We already are expirimenting with cryogenics, fusion nuclear power, and space tech.

In real life, when the Dinosaurs died and humans started to recognise themselves as civilizations and travelling to Alpha Centauri, they're all entirely different dimensions! That happen to merge together perfectly!

Incidentally, how can Dino connect with Civ3?

And anyway, if we are going to have a sweep of time series, wouldn't it be funny for civilization 3 and smac 2 to be a part of it?

When the "Sweep of Time" thing was first announced they said it was more of a marketing thing than a playable thing.

So, it is a sweep of time in terms of how they market the series: "Firaxis covers Earth's history". It doesn't mean that you will be able to play through the series uninterupted and in only TBS or RTS or without gaps in time. It is just something for Gamecenter or Gamespot to publish.

quote: Originally posted by Jer8m8 on 12-31-2000 10:29 AM 1.It doesn't seem like we're going to AC in 50 years 2.This will allow you time to build "Space cities" in civilization (and have futuristic techs)

It's interesting ! There will happen things between now and the moment when men will keep all the conditions to go to AC. What things ? Space cities for sure ! Moon civs... hummm... I don't beleave so. Even Mars or Neptune civs are not problable, but, maybe, some Neptune or Jupiter or Sapturne moons will offer conditions to that. The question is: Should Civ3 especulate about that ? I'm not sure. I like SF and I'm curious about how the history could go ahead BEFORE AC. But does this really matter ? What kind of differences could be introduced between AC exploration like in SMAC and, for instance, Europa (One of the Saturn moons) exploration in Civ 3 ? ITOH isn't USA now under pression to not go ahead with its stars war project wich has obvious military aproach ? If they go ahead what will be EC answer ? Or chinese answer ? If real life is goin on in this direction why not Civ3 ? As a historically commited game Civ 3 shouldn't go beyond the past and present and try to forecat the future ?