I think going further into the future could be really fun, but I doubt Firaxis will do too much if any of that. I hope I'm wrong...2200 would be a fine stopping point for me if the 2000-2200 era had anything interesting to add.

Future is spelled 'futer' if (and only if) your name is really Bruce (or Michael) - can we call you Bruce to make it easier.

Unless "Brisbane" is a little outback "blink (and you'll miss it) town".

------------------

I vote no to going to far into the future. I am looking forward to a SMAC II for future techs.

I would have to disagree with joseph that if we didn't fight in Vietnam we would have colonies on the Moon and Mars. Yes, we have the technology but do we have the will (we refers to the U.S.)?

The reason the U.S. went to the moon was to beat the Russians, with the end of the Cold War what reason or benefit is there to having colonies on the moon? It has been hard enough to earmark money to building a space station in orbit around the Earth, how much more would it cost to build colonies on the moon and Mars?

------------------

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 02-26-2001 10:35 PM It has been hard enough to earmark money to building a space station in orbit around the Earth, how much more would it cost to build colonies on the moon and Mars?

I have significant distaste for the ISS. Science is in bad need of funding, but realistically there is only a limited amount it will get. Taking this into account, spending $100 bilion on one space station does not seem very prudent. Scientists usually support each other's efforts to get funding, but when most of the scientific community (including astronomers and space related scientists) appears to be against building ISS it should give the politicians some food for thought.

Moreover, the benefits of ISS are questionable to say the least. All of the experiments could be done much more cheaply on the shuttle and sattelites, other than those concerning the long term effects of weightlessness on the human body. This, however, has already been studied extensively on the late MIR and their previous SALYUT series of space stations, where cosmonauts have stayed over a year on end - much more than any single person will spend on the ISS.

quote: Originally posted by alex639 on 02-25-2001 12:03 AM In Ctp2 I noticed the improvments in the futer made the game to hard to play and brang the game down.

Not to pick on you too much, Alex, but it's brought, not brang. You've already seen 'futer' and 'proberly' corrected. Please try to use a spell checker in the future. Not doing it makes you appear less intelligent then you no doubt are. Believe me, I know how many typos you can make when you're typing fast and not really paying attention.

As for your topic, I don't know that I'd like to see too many future advances in CivIII. Certainly, I'd like to see a few more techs added on, carrying us past the current age into the future, but in my opinion, most people have pretty much finished the game by then, and there's no need to go further. The only exception that I can think of would be in a scenario-but you can edit the techs for that anyway.

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 03-01-2001 07:43 AM The rocks would have to be very big indeed , lest they would burn up in the atmosphere on re-entry and do nothing.

While I know the technology is possible (and would no doubt be effective), can you just imagine the 6000 year old Roman Emperor going to the 6000 year old American Emperor after they've been fighting for decades with jet planes and tanks and missles and saying, "Alright Abe Lincoln, if you don't give me 4000 gp, I'm going to throw a really big rock at you!"

If I were Abe, I'd probably have a hard time keeping a straight face.