|
Author
|
|
Topic: How futuristic do you want your Civ3 ? |  |
|
Old Beardy
Settler
Great Britain
Apr 2001
|
 |
posted April 05, 2001 10:46
  | 
 |
 |  |
Just looking at the units and advances from things like CTP and CTP2, I was wondering just how futuristic do most people like their games to be?
Do you want the game to end at 2100AD or 4000AD? Do you prefer fighting with tanks and aircraft carriers or some sort of photon-mech-cyber-ninja-warrior?Personally I think that Civ has always been about re-writing history, and not shaping the future or guessing it. Civ2 got it about right with tanks being the apex of ground warfare and nukes being the ultimate missile. I didn't like the way CTP2 split the game into half history and half futury. (eh,what?) It's much easier to relate to the discovery of Atomic power than Doctrine:Flexibility. What do most people think? -----------------
Providing you with a money-back guarantee unless completely satisfied*
(*guarantee not applicable in Tenessee**)
(**Replace Tenessee with wherever you live. Delete as applicable)
|
Steve Clark
Prince
Colorado Springs, CO
Oct 1999
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 11:42
|
|
| |
Personally, I absolutely hate anything futuristic. But there are those that do and for them, have them play with a custom scifi modpack or a custom futuristic-based scenario. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 11:49
 |
|
| |
There was something about civ2 which made me aware of what each tech would bring. In ctp, I was already a little lost in the first 6000 years with the tech. I was then completely lost on the last 1000. I dint care what i researched because there was no logical building or unit to go with it. I think civ2 should stay grounded in the present and the most advacned units would be like-Missile: Nuke/Cruise Missile
-Ship: Aegis Cruiser
-Airplane: Stealth Bomber/Fighter/ F16
-Land Unit: mef. inf ------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 12:13
|
|
| |
I think that it is very dificult to get a historically acurate future, don't you?  This has generally been discussed and the majority of civvers agree that civ 3 should end around 2050-2100. |
bagdar
Warlord
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted April 05, 2001 12:41
|
|
| |
This is the fourth generation of this same discussion. Let me make my position clear, nevertheless: NO STUPID FUTURE TECHs. thanks. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 14:55
|
|
| |
Yea! im a chieftan after 1 week of being registered------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
Ilkuul
Chieftain
of Thame, Oxoniensis (UK)
Mar 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 15:20
 |
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by airdrik on 04-05-2001 12:13 PM
This has generally been discussed and the majority of civvers agree that civ 3 should end around 2050-2100.
|
I haven't been involved in the earlier discussions, but my feeling is also that 2100 is about far enough ahead. (I also like your comment about a "historically accurate future"!  ) |
Roman
Prince
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted April 05, 2001 15:28
 |
|
| |
This has been discussed multiple times before with me proudly leading the charge against future techs. Anyway, yet again I second the motion. NO FUTURE TECHS, PLEASE! Luckily, Dan has already mentioned that Civ3 will start in 4000BC and end in 2020AD, so I think we future tech haters are safe.  |
Eli
Emperor
of Israel. aka Builder
Jul 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 15:55
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 04-05-2001 02:55 PM
Yea! im a chieftan after 1 week of being registered
|
Way to go LoA! 30 posts in a week!  |
Eli
Emperor
of Israel. aka Builder
Jul 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 15:56
|
|
| |
And I hate all this futuristic stuff. I prefer everything to be completely based on history. |
Trachmir
Chieftain
Miami, Fl USA
Dec 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 18:00
|
|
| |
Okay, I'll be the odd man out...I live if they don't put future techs in the game, BUT make sure the game goes AT LEAST to the modern day. Sheesh, It really annoys me how so many people don't want to include things we have at the moment because they sound futuristic. Aegis cruisers the best ship???? He have stealth deystroyers that are capable of submerging (No they aren't subs) in the field at this very moment... We have field tested chemicle lasers, and Railguns already... As soon as we begin to refitt are army, they will see field use! Our soldiers are equipped with thermal optics, and wear armor that disperses IR... they wear space-age body armour, and a new Rifle that will fire caseless ammo is being tested. This is just the tip of the iceberg, as GM is releasing the first flying car next year! All that I'm saying is that this game is going to be released in 2002 (or late 2001), can we at least have the tech of OUR modern age?
"What you might cosider sci-fi, may well be sci-fact"
|
Roman
Prince
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted April 05, 2001 18:05
|
|
| |
Most of these techs, you mention Trachmir are currently at a very experimental stage. Moreover, we have had a long discussion on this before, so I am not going to ramble on any further about how we don't know which techs will be important and which will die or be marginal...It has already been decided (to my great satisfaction) that Civ 3 will have the same span as Civ 2, so arguments of this nature are pointless. |
Trachmir
Chieftain
Miami, Fl USA
Dec 2000
|
 |
posted April 05, 2001 19:00
|
|
| |
Roman,Well the Stelath Deystroyer is in service (I have a friend stationed on one)... But yes, we have discussed this before. I'm not looking to rehash the debate, but since you got your word in... I wanted to add mine.
Fair Enough I think! |
Shadowstrike
King
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted April 06, 2001 12:16
|
|
| |
I would like to see techs which are on the brink of possibility, that we know are going to come soon, but not technology that is science-fiction based. As much as I liked Star Trek, I would not like to see Warp Engines as a technology in Star Trek. |
Lawrence of Arabia
Chieftain
Apr 2001
|
|
posted April 06, 2001 16:42
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Trachmir on 04-05-2001 06:00 PM
Aegis cruisers the best ship???? He have stealth deystroyers that are capable of submerging (No they aren't subs) in the field at this very moment...
|
I did a little research on the stleath Destroyer and this is what i came up with. The stealth destroyer uses a Prairie/Maker system to make it stealth...but only to submaries who use passive sensors (hydrophones) If they go active, they can see the destroyer. If a ground based radar pings it, it will be visible. Now, the sub doesnt want to do that because it reveals his position. The stealth destroyer couldnt kill a shark if it was ravaging the hull. What it does, it acts as a information platform for a circle Orion, which uses this info to sink the sub. it uses the Fire solution made in the CIC of the stealth Destroyer. i havent heard of any which sinks itself and becomes a sub. So, to wrape it up, this unit would be completely useless in CivIII, because once it locates the sub, it wont be able to sink it. ------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now |
airdrik
Warlord
Boise, ID, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted April 06, 2001 17:16
|
|
| |
Yah, it would be Stealth destroyer: 3a,3d,5m,1f,1h sees enemy subs 2 spaces away. Kind of pointless as you say. So civ ends at the same place as it did in civ 2, with no stealth destroyers, ultra-marines, or whatever added. |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
