The view in CtP is isometric, in the same vein as Civ II, SMAC, etc. Therefore, something hanging above a ground tile should appear to be visibly above it.

In CtP, the graphics for your space-stations/colonies whatever they're called, are drawn directly over the top of the tile they're 'hovering' over, so they look like they're hanging over a tile a few steps closer to the view-point of the player.

Did I explain that well enough? Has anyone else noticed this?

Anyway, if this (merely cosmetic) problem is fixed, I don't see why it shouldn't go into Civ III (Space-Bombers were one of the few CtP specific units that I actually liked, they kind of reminded me of Imperial TIE bombers, y'know? ).

Orbital Space exploration is much more feasable than the idea of settlements on the bottom of the sea, for crying out loud. Mind you, let's have it so that your space colonies can only reach a very limited maximum size, and merely act as repair facilities/orbital factories...Who wants to spend their life in orbit? It's also better than the 'Extended Original' concept in ToT. If a Civ comes up with this here Hyper-string Theory, then why can't it visit every bloomin' planet in the universe?

But I definitely want the game to be customizable enough for me to add space cities if I want.

Perhaps they could arrange a system for multiple "levels" to colonize, rather like ToT... as long as they keep it simple.

I am also opposed to far future techs and cities in space, but sattelites should be included, as well as a possible wonder (ISS, GlobeSat, etc). Combat units in space are a bit much... but ICBMs could certainly use the space level to travel.

All of these things we either are doing or can do, with the exceptions of Nanotech & Neural Interfaces which will come into there own in a few years...

What you might consider future tech is in fact not-yet-implemented modern technology... I agree that CIV3 shouldn't go too far (Like SMAC), but at-least as far as CTP2.

Additionally, I have always hated the FUTURE ADVANCE technology... my style of play is always towards a small but well-maintained civ that has an edge in tech. I hated having to change my entire military strategy (Quality over Quantity), in Civ2 because I was losing my tech edge that I worked for because all I could get was "Future Tech".

As for Space Cities, no... they were unrealistic, but there deffinatly should be orbital research stations/military bases, and orbital tactics should be implemented (America today, is working on Scramjets that leave orbit to re-enter over its target)

I just did not like the idea of having orbital cities in Call to Power without any game time to develop them and to wait 40 turns to produce one space unit at that late point in the game.

quote: Originally posted by phaydor on 02-06-2001 03:17 PM Should a space feature be added in Civ 3?

No

quote: Or is it just a waste of processing power?

The answer IMHO is not to add huge layers to the space portion of the game (spy/war sats, orbital space stations, high altitude combat aircraft, and maybe 1 or 2 orbital spacecraft capable of combat is all), but either to remove that victory condition or instead make the journey to Mars instead of Alpha Centauri. Since this should only take a 1-2 years to complete, the victory should be achieved when the spaceship is launched.

But, as always, the game should be customizable so that players who want space combat can get the level they desire. Others will want to remove it completely.

Why do so many people hate the idea of future techs?

I disagree with crap like 'wormhole technology' near future techs like superconductor (which does exist today, just not at room temperature, but with new ceramics Room temp superconductor isn't too far) should be included (IMHO).

By the way, I am not a technophobe by any measure. In fact, I admit to being somewhat of a science freak, regularly reading "Scientific American" various scientific books (especially about physics) and science news, but not science fiction.

The problem with future techs is that although I can usually ppicture how they work (with the notable exception of complete fallacies such as the "Fusion Tank" from Ctp 2), I cannot identify with them in a historical context like I can with the rest of the civ game. To top it off, including future technologies would automatically mean decreasing the depth of the tech tree and more depth is something I would like to see.
Moreover, we have nowadays got many techs in their infant stage, some of which will mature into something wothwhile and some of which will not make it very far and will be forgoten by history. It is currently impossible to know which ones will mature and turn out to have practical uses without prohibitive costs. Any such predictions are pure speculation, especially once predictions stretching far into the future or those concerning interstellar travel (Just look at the predictions from 1950s and 1960s - virtually everyone thought that by 1970 we will have colonies on the moon and humans will have landed on Mars. Now it is 2001 and Mars landing is planned for around 2020, while nobody is seriously considering moon bases, let alone colonies). I would prefer Civ 3 not to speculate on these issues and instead give me technologies that are already available and useful in their present form without requiring furter research to reach any level of practicality, technologies that are proven and hence I can relate to them. For me the inclusion of future techs would take fun out of a game that has its mechanics rooted in human history.
Yet another thing is thing is that people in games companies are not scientists and tend to do a stuningly bad job at guessing which techs will become important in the future, and an even worse job at what applications these techs will have. They should not be blamed for it since it is indeed a difficult job (for example in 1950s both USA and the Soviet Union wanted to build nuclear powered planes) and that's one of the reasons why I think they should avoid it.

And that it took 30 to 40 turns to produce one space unit while it took 50 turns to improve the space city so it can produce a space unit quicker!

1-tech tree
2-ending date

I think both of these should remain UNchanged.

I do not want wild show-stopping techs/units... no fusion tanks, but how about one with a mass-driver for a cannon (after superconducters and advanced power storage has been researched), I don't want space cities, but I would like an orbital aerospace carrier... I don't want krackens, but how about "uplifted" dolphins... I don't need a body exchange, but how about cloned tissue and organs?

I want future techs that are plausable (I know worm-holes are just theoretical, but I was talking about the Science Victory... which needs to be a show stopper) and could be implemented now or within the next couple of decades if we just decided to spend the resources on it. Additionally they should not provide you with huge advantages, instead they should be kept in line with the progression throughout the game.

My problem with those who don't want any future techs, is that much of what they would dismiss as sci-fi, is in fact a reality today...

I aslo agree that a denser tech tree is a great thing (the pics of the tanks and jets give me a good feeling about the game), but I don't think you need to sacrifice that in order to add plausible "future techs". If the game's historical tech tree is say 200 deep... just make 25 of those plausible "future techs".

I suppose I could swallow some of these "near future techs" you propose being included in the game provided they did not "thin" the tech tree, etc., etc. Examples of bearable techs include as tissue engineering, stem cell organ cultivation and a few similar techs. They are after all almost available now.
What I cannot foresee, though, is what new units, or city improvements would such techs give you. All I can think of is them providing some form of generally applied benefit to your civ. It would be much more acceptable for me to have some near future techs in the form of wonders like civ2 had the Human Genome Project (when it was still future).
Near future will not bring radically different weapons systems that we can predict now that they are coming. For example, there will still be fighters in 20 years, more advanced, but still present. At most, they might be complemented by UAVs.

Of course, I would prefer future techs to be non-specific and follow a course I briefly outlined above and that is more accurately described in the thread "Future - the same old boring topic".

A Hybrid Farm can be a tile improvement

For units:
Mass-Driver Artillary: Longer bombardment range
Scramjet: Hypersonic (faster) Interceptor
Stelth Deystroyer: I have a freind who is actually stationed on one!

However, I do think that the tech tree needs to be made to end around 2060 (Alpha Centauri SS date). I don't want to hit 2001 and all of a sudden have no techs to discover, but have 60 or so years left. To do this there is going to be some geussing as to what are plausible techs for the next 60 years.

Firstly, I think anything starting with the prefix nano should be thrown in the trash. That's SMAC, not civ. Fusion should be included. It has been achieved (if not economically) in various research labs. Anyway, thats what powers the Spaceship. Some limited genetic techs should also be included (hybrid rice, influenza treatment etc.), but not anything like "human engineering". Trachmir's tech's of "Fiber optic network" and "Hybrid Farm" are great ideas. We currently have the technical know how, but haven't implemented it in that way. Things like "electronic economy", where all transactions don't use hard cash anymore, are the kinda tech's I'd like to see. It is completely plausible, and isn't to sci-fi.

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 07:33 AM While I loved the techs in SMAC, they just wouldn't work in Civ3.

I completely agree with you on this one.

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 07:33 AM Firstly, I think anything starting with the prefix nano should be thrown in the trash. That's SMAC, not civ.

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 07:33 AM Fusion should be included. It has been achieved (if not economically) in various research labs.

Fair enough.

quote: Originally posted by Biddles on 02-10-2001 07:33 AM Some limited genetic techs should also be included (hybrid rice, influenza treatment etc.), but not anything like "human engineering".