|
Author
|
|
Topic: The Future |  |
|
New Yorker
Chieftain
New York, New York
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 24, 2001 21:46
  | 
 |
 |  |
i been hearing about how that many people what to delete the whole idea of future techs & future units. while others suggested that the people should create their own future techspersonally, i think Sid & his crew should add what future techs they desire cuz they did a damn good job with SMAC, maybe they could move some techs from SMAC to civ 3 so what are your ideas on the future techs -------------------------------------------
New York is a good place to visit, unless you are wearing something expensive |
AzNtoccata
Settler
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 24, 2001 22:19
 |
|
| |
I think they should just get up to about half-way up alpha centauri tech tree. Some of the top techs are too weird (maybe I'm just too dumb to understand them =) ). Fusion (aka Plasma) tanks are okay, but something like an eco-ranger from CTP is just plain ****ed up. |
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 06:45
|
|
| |
I don't think the SMAC techs are suitable because the early ones are mainly providing sci-fi alternatives to Civ buildings. Just having various different paths that slowly upgrade the maximum attack, defence, movement etc factors of the modern unit types would be just fine (or give them tiny combat bonuses if the unit workshop approach is not implemented.) |
Lord_Davinator
Settler
Kathmandu, Nepal
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted January 25, 2001 07:30
 |
|
| |
Personally I'd say that sid should work a lot on future tech for civ3 cause its kinda stupid researching future tech. and not knowing what the hell it is you discovered (civ2) SMAC does have some cool ideas but I'm not so sure about copy the whole thing into the civ3 tech tree |
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 08:45
|
|
| |
just don't have "cyber NINJA"s and "eco RANGER"s. They even sound stupid. I don't want to see city improvements such as mind controllers either. In fact, "every future tech. adds 5 points to your civ score" is enough. |
Cannes
Chieftain
Copenhagen, Denmark
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 09:21
|
|
| |
I for one am in great favor of future techs, I agree that some of the techs and units from CTP where a bit off, but it worked quite well in general terms. I was always annoyed with the fact of being cut off from advancing my civilization upon discovery of fusion power of which ever tech is last in the tech tree. You don't even get a fusion power plant! It always left me with the feeling that they could have guessed a little... |
Bender
Settler
San Francisco, CA, U.S.A.
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted January 25, 2001 13:58
|
|
| |
I can't stand future techs. The Civ II tech tree went far enough, and I don't want Civ III to go any farther. One of my least favorite features of CTP and CTPII is future technology. |
Mister Pleasant
Settler
New Orleans, LA 70130
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 18:54
|
|
| |
I don't care so much if future techs come built in or not - I'll add them as I did with Civ2. I thought the future techs in CTP were good except the space colonies (although I did like the space layer as a place to sent space planes, spy satelites, and do that sort of thing not to mention shoot those things down). As for Eco-Rangers, those ruled! High level atrocious nanoweapons - more evil than nukes! Whatever happens, I just hope Civ3 can at least be modified to add sea colonies and city obliterating nanoweapons. |
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 19:52
|
|
| |
It only goes to lend support to my theory that nobody can agree on which future tech is silly and which isn't. I think reasonable extrapolations include Nanotechnology (vague, but safe), Gene Therapy, Fuel Cells, and Orbital Construction. Asteroid Mining and Neural Interface are distant but real possibilities, probably too far in the future to include. But a lot of people disagree with me. That's why we should just limit the future tech in Civ 3 to a reasonable, near-future level, and let people design their own future tech tree. My future tech tree would include hardly any new military units, for example. It would include new city improvements and Wonders mostly, and if they let me, a lot of the techs will have minor worldwide effects. Fuel Cells would lower every city's pollution slightly, for example. My future tech tree would focus on peaceful development, since hopefully by then there will be little if any room for expansion. (I'd also like to think I could spend most of my time waging economical war using my corporations by this point in the game, but maybe that's just a pipe dream.) |
wittlich
Warlord
Fayetteville, NC, USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 20:34
|
|
| |
Point well taken EnochF 
|
Sean
Settler
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 20:49
 |
|
| |
You posts are the most insightful in this area EnochF. |
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
 |
posted January 25, 2001 21:19
|
|
| |
I swear, these guys are not just me posting under different names!Difficult though it may be to believe...
 |
Shadowstrike
King
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted January 25, 2001 21:33
|
|
| |
Yeah, sure.... we believe ya....*Thought Police arrest Enoch* OK now levity aside, IMHO Civ3 should include the near future (Genetic Manipulation, Cold Fusion) but only the probably, not the improbable (Warp Drive, etc.) Even so, it should only extend so far. I believe that the limit should be set to what is possible in this century (i.e. nanotechnology, quantum computers) because beyond that we don't have a clue about what might be. Sure we can throw around phrases like "microfusion" and "quantum slipstream", but the reality of such things are low if possible at all. We will not knw such things for many years to come. Let us not make a game with an improbable future history. Let us make one that inspires people to create inventions and techniques slightly beyond the range of the possible at the current moment. |
New Yorker
Chieftain
New York, New York
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted January 25, 2001 21:44
|
|
| |
i think those really weird, far out techs should be included in civ 3. these techs would be different(this idea was posted before)meaning that they are almost impossible to research cuz they require so much researchthe reason i want this is the fact that many people after researching the whole tech tree complete shut off all research & put the cash somewhere else. this would give a reason to continue the research --------------------------------------------
New York is the city that never sleeps
Texas is the state that puts its people to sleep |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 04:16
|
|
| |
No future techs, please!! That is the main point that spoiled CTP for me, which otherwise has some decent mechanics (wages, PW, etc.).
As to the problem of shutting of research after the player has everything, it cannot be solved, but can equally effectively be delayed by making the tech tree denser rather than go into the future.
I you really have to include future technologies, at least make them only very close in the future and only those that already exist, but are not yet in practical use, for example fuel cells, or fusion. Anyway it simply is not possible to make any sound projections for our technological development more than 50 years into the future and even these are very inaccurate.
I want to reiterate, please no future techs, especially no warp drives, cold fusion (which was in fact a scientific hoax) and so on. |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted January 26, 2001 04:32
|
|
| |
Hmm, looking at the gallery on civ 3 homepage, I cannot find any futuristic renders or animations. This I think makes it safe to assume there will be no future techs in civ 3, or at least they will not stretch very far out into the future. Hurray, long live Sid!! It seems my atheistic prayers have been answered. |
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 06:47
|
|
| |
I would welcome a dynamic research cost that adjusted the cost of discovery somewhat to account for the scientific output of the players. If you couldn't reach modern techs before 1900 then there would be less need for a meaningful "future tech 25" and no spaceships setting off to colonise AC in 1650. |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 07:51
|
|
| |
I think they should include heaps of future techs, but they do nothing. They should just be there instead of the first heap of "future tech x" so you have something to look at and go that's nice, space-time distortion, cool quote, i'll have to buy SMAC2 now . |
Vrank Prins
Chieftain
Haarlem, Netherlands
Sep 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 08:08
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by EnochF on 01-25-2001 07:52 PMIt only goes to lend support to my theory that nobody can agree on which future tech is silly and which isn't. I think reasonable extrapolations include Nanotechnology (vague, but safe), Gene Therapy, Fuel Cells, and Orbital Construction. Asteroid Mining and Neural Interface are distant but real possibilities
|
I couldn't agree more with you. Future techs have been discussed here before. About two or three months I made about the same statement. It all has to do with the fact that if you're a smart player you'll have plenty of time left to the end of the game after you've finished to discover the whole techtree. Filling that gap with futuretechs won't solve this "problem", it will only postpone the moment where there is nothing more to discover . . . . CIV uses history as its setting, IMO we should concentrate on that. If you like to play a scifi-game play SMAC. And I've said this before too, maybe it would be possible to make a link from CIV to SMAC, so that if we want to, we'll be able to run from the past & present into the future.
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited January 26, 2001).] |
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 11:45
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Roman on 01-26-2001 04:32 AM
Hmm, looking at the gallery on civ 3 homepage, I cannot find any futuristic renders or animations. This I think makes it safe to assume there will be no future techs in civ 3, or at least they will not stretch very far out into the future. Hurray, long live Sid!!
|
I couldnt agree more!  Civ-3 should end 2020 or 2040 AD.
For the love of God, let SMAC be SMAC, and Civ-3 be Civ-3 - NOT Civ-3 + half of SMAC. I dont want a diluted tech-tree with hard-to-relate-to futuristic techs ala CTP/CTP-2. Keep socially inept/single-minded SciFi technocracy fantasies out from the main game, and in to tailor-cut scenarios instead.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 27, 2001).] |
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 15:40
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Vrank Prins on 01-26-2001 08:08 AM
It all has to do with the fact that if you're a smart player you'll have plenty of time left to the end of the game after you've finished to discover the whole techtree. Filling that gap with futuretechs won't solve this "problem", it will only postpone the moment where there is nothing more to discover . . . .
|
that's the point. Let alone stupid units, city improvements and advances; adding more techs means nothing concerning gameplay. SDI Defence was a fictional future improvement in the original civs, and that's enough. The first time it would be nice discovering the imagination of the designers, the second time... no. ctp comes to my mind and I... I think I'll be sick... boargh!
|
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 15:50
|
|
| |
*stumbles in*Just got back from the Thought Police Station. It's not as bad as you might assume; they spend most of their time thinking about donuts. Anyhoo, what were we talking about? Future tech, right. And I've made my position clear. Still, it might be nice to have a near-future scenario included in the box, just so we would have a pool of future unit, improvement and wonder graphics to draw from. An interplanetary space scenario might be nice, too. |
cyclotron7
Settler
California
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 15:53
|
|
| |
I agree that CTP future techs could have been handled better, and I personally am a proponent of very limited (if noonexistant) future techs. Some extentions of now are good (i.e. improvements like SDI, fusion plant, etc., and wonders like cure for cancer, and (my suggestion) the International Space Station. I thought the CTP "Alien Life project" was pretty hokey and that CivII put it best.Don't mess with the classic. |
Steve Clark
Prince
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 15:59
|
|
| |
Absolutely no techs beyond 2001. If you want those stupid futuristic/sci-fi techs, then build or play a scenario with its custom tech tree.Edit: OK, I forgot to change the calendar.
[This message has been edited by Steve Clark (edited January 26, 2001).] |
EnochF
Prince
Seattle, WA
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 16:13
|
|
| |
quote:
Absolutely no techs beyond 2000.
|
Um, Steve? Have you noticed today's date?
|
ajbera
Chieftain
Apr 99
|
|
posted January 26, 2001 18:47
|
|
| |
Although I enjoy future technologies, I recognize that many folks only want to play within the current scope of history, plus a few decades. Fair enough.
The inclusion of a near-future scenario would be a nice touch. Even better would be a tech tree with plenty of room for additions, and many open slots for new units and improvements. That way, some enterprising scenario/modmaker can extend the tech tree and add science-fiction type units, so those of us who wish to can play from 4000 BC, starting with settlers and warriors, to 4000 AD, ending with cybernetic shock troops and robotic terraformers.
The ability to custom-tailor the game to fit individual specifications will be one of the keys to the longevity of the game.
Hail Sid. |
New Yorker
Chieftain
New York, New York
Jan 2001
|
|
posted January 27, 2001 00:35
|
|
| |
since there is a krap load against my idea "the future", then i thought why not make the future techs be something you can choose in the beginning of the game, like pollution------------------------------
Survivor III: The New York 'Hood' |
Chronus
Chieftain
Aug 2000
|
 |
posted January 27, 2001 12:53
|
|
| |
I don't care for wild future techs but I don't like the current Future Techs either (getting 5 points for each, etc.) I suppose something has to be there but reaching the end of the tech tree radically changes my gaming style: sell all tech improvements, switch to Fundamentalism, etc. And I don't like that feeling that once I can produce Mech Infantry, I don't have to reconsider whether I should build it or WAIT until a better generation of units can be built. Firaxis, please keep me looking over my shoulder ... always "afraid" of that better unit/building peeking around the corner.Someone suggested haveing many techs between the current techs. This sounds like a good solution ... as long as the techs mean something (not merely give points) and prevent me from hitting the end of the tech tree. Giving a lengthy discovery rate was also a good idea. However, I believe this can already be done in Civ 2. |
Ralf
Prince
Sweden
Mar 2000
|
|
posted January 27, 2001 13:33
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Chronus on 01-27-2001 12:53 PM
Someone suggested haveing many techs between the current techs. This sounds like a good solution ...
|
This is what I have advocated all along! A more AMPLE and ENRICHED tech-tree, with more in-between techs, within that good old Civ-2 4000 BC - 2020/2040 AD time-frame. quote:
as long as the techs mean something (not merely give points) and prevent me from hitting the end of the tech tree.
|
Yes, this is very important! No stopgap-techs. Each and every tech must be, both meaningful/purposeful in the game - and also be something that you actually can relate to as a player. The latter was often a problem in SMAC. Not to mention futuristic era TOT/CTP/CTP-2 games. quote:
Giving a lengthy discovery rate was also a good idea. However, I believe this can already be done in Civ 2.
|
Yes, and I would add: Perhaps adding more turns to the game. Not too much - just an moderate increase, from 500 SMAC-turns to, let say 600+ Civ-3 turns.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 27, 2001).] |
Harel
Warlord
Ramat Hasharon, Israel
May 99
|
|
posted January 27, 2001 19:17
|
|
| |
My belief is that we should include all future technology that is currently under testing and design, and it's feasability is unquestionable. Those are technologies that simply need to be perfected and already available today at great cost.
This can include laser weaponary, one-stage rockets, more effiecent hydrogen cars, human cloning and organ regrowning, wide-bandwidth world-wide web... those sort of things, the things we will get 20 years from now.
I woudln't go too far, or the future culture may just reach out and shake a big finger across our face. |
tniem
Prince
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted January 29, 2001 17:05
|
|
| |
The tech tree should probably end around the Human Genome project. Whether that should be a wonder or a tech advance I will leave to Firaxis.After that future techs will get absurd and unplayable imo. |
Vrank Prins
Chieftain
Haarlem, Netherlands
Sep 2000
|
|
posted January 30, 2001 12:00
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by tniem on 01-29-2001 05:05 PM
The tech tree should probably end around the Human Genome project.
|
First priority should be to define at which point in time the game should end. CIV-I ended in 2100, CIV-II in 2050.
A reasonanble extrapolation of what is to come will reach as far 2025. I think that what lies behind that point is too speculative to be realistic. I could live with a few, say 3 or 4 good guesses.
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited January 30, 2001).] |
tniem
Prince
Grand Rapids
Apr 2000
|
|
posted January 30, 2001 15:58
|
|
| |
quote:
CIV-I ended in 2100, CIV-II in 2050.
A reasonanble extrapolation of what is to come will reach as far 2025.
|
Vrank, Civ I ending time varied by what difficulity level. The easiest in 2100, but I hope no one ever needed that extra time after their first couple of games. The hardest ended in 2020. |
Trachmir
Settler
Miami, Fl USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 05:13
|
|
| |
There must be future techs in civ3 (I hope they extend the ending year to 2100), and should account for about 1/8 of the tech tree... but I think the question is what do you consider future techs? Laser-Fusion, Human Cloning, Genetic Manipulation, Nanotechnology, Neural-Interface (using myomuscular (sp?) neural feedback), Robotic War-Machines, Underwater Colonization, and even worm-holes and antimatter are NOT future tech... they are simply unpolished not-yet-implemented modern technology... this is the 21st century (despite an earlier post), what many would consider to be sci-fi is actually sci-fact. Why sell the game short because of a few technophopes? If you are talking about an end game of 2020... that's less than 2 decades, and much of what I listed above will be implemented.I do agree that any "future tech" must be theorectically sound, and plausable in the near future (say 50 years)... and definatly add more too the past, but don't cut short our future! |
Knigget
Settler
Norway
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 09:46
|
|
| |
IMHO the only thing that can really destroy the game is the inclusion of "future" units, improvements and wonders. |
Fredric Drum
Settler
Dec 2000
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 10:05
|
|
| |
Why not have lots of future techs? Ok, most of it would be wild speculations, but so what? It would be fun anyway! It would be boring not to go farther than the present day or the near future (fusion and things like that)... We need anti-matter, wormholes, perfect artificial intelligence (maybe not as a tech, but as a "wonder" with fatal results??), we need anti-gravity devices and vehicles and a lot more I can't think of right now. There are also many possible wonders and buildings that haven't been used before, for instance particle accelerators (boosting science, either as building or wonder). Fred |
Stuff2
Warlord
Sep 1999
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 10:30
|
|
| |
I think that what is lacking in civ 2 is the the techs that are discovered in the modern age. The development goes far to fast in civ2. We all know that we still don't have the tech for sending people to AC and it is 40 years ago the first man stepped on the moon. My guess is that the technology since then has increased in a way never seen before in history. Late modern age is simply forgotten in civ2.
I think that far future techs don't belong in this game but late modern age techs certainly do. And they can atleast make educated guesses about the nearest future. My personal opinion is that every improvement you can get from a tech should be like a subtechnology.
For instance: You aquire feudalism, you can then 'research' how to make "pikemen". In this way you have technology that leeds to more technology and technology that leeds to specific improvements, wonders, and units.
|
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 12:00
|
|
| |
I don't think that Civ needs a complicated tech tree, let alone one that goes far into the future. Demanding more and more from Civ sounds like demanding the LEGO people to have the ability to speak. The best way is to take the game concept as it is. However, Civ is not an ordinary game, it concerns the history of mankind, so we'll always look for more depth in many of its issues. Related to this, I have a question: does anyone know what the "suggestion list people made after Civ I" looks like? |
Knigget
Settler
Norway
Jan 2001
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 12:43
|
|
| |
I think that adding reasonable near future techs is good. But I dont think that they should do anything other than make you able to build your spaceship or some other minor improvement. Like fusion power works in Civ2. The discovery of fusion power would in real life be a revolution, but in Civ2 you only get a minor bonus. I think this works much better than CtP where you get "fusion tank" and "hover infantry" Wtf is a fusion tank anyway? Is it supposed to be powered by fusion??? |
Theben
Emperor
"Life is a swirling cesspool of despair."
b.02-15-99
|
|
posted February 07, 2001 23:50
|
|
| |
Sorry, but now I have to change my sig. ------------------
"Just got back from the Thought Police Station. It's not as bad as you might assume;
they spend most of their time thinking about donuts."-EnochF |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
