To 2000AD or beyond?

[Roman]

I am surprised so many people support the game running to 3000AD *shudder*. I hope Firaxis stays true to the tradition of having the game end somewhere between 2000AD and 2100AD to allow for near future techs, but no more. My most preferred end point would actually be between 2010-2050, since we can at least make educated guesses at what technologies will be available at the end of the period and we more or less know almost exactly what technologies will be around by the beginning of the period, because they are in the process of being designed at this very moment. Beyond 2050, I think it becomes extremely difficult to make any guesses at all. For example: Will we have discovered faster than light travel by 2200? Is faster than light travel even possible on a macroscale? It is not really possible to know at this time, but we can say with reasonably confidence that we will not have spaceships travelling faster than light by 2050.

As to the history of American stealth technology... the first aircraft that was designed with reduced radar profile in mind was the U-2, but it cannot be called a stealth airplane. The technology gradually matured and more advanced 'pre-stealth' technology was deployed on the SR-71 spy plane. Next came the B-1 bomber that used more advanced low observable technology yet and it is considered to be a semi-stealth aircraft. Quickly thereafter came the F-117, which was the first true stealth airplane - the first 'stealth fighter' flew in 1982. True, by now the stealth used on the F-117 is not the best that is available, but at the time it was top notch. B-2 came next and represents a huge jump over the F-117. It is much more stealthy, has a large payload, a long range, etc.

The newest stealth aircraft - the F-22 (currently in low rate production - some are already available) and the F-35 (in development) represent another jump in capabilities. The F-22 is approximately equally stealthy to the B-2, but it does not sacrifice maneuverability, speed, payload, range, etc. to its stealth capability and is at least equal to the best conventional aircraft in these respects, in most cases it is much better (for example it has the supercruise capability (no other aircraft in production has this capability), which means it can maintain supersonic speed without the need to fire afterburners, which burn a lot of fuel and therefore greatly decrease range) + it also has excellent stealth as an additional capability. The F-35 is somewhat less stealthy than the F-22 and lacks some of its other capabilities, but it is much cheaper.

[Roman]

I should mention that other two other nations had their own stealth programmes during the Cold War - the USSR and Germany. The Soviet Mig Stealth Fighter was cancelled when the Cold War ended and the German one was cancelled beforehand - some say due to U.S. pressure. Both the Soviet plane and the German plane were similar in appearance to the F-117. The Soviets actually built two of the airplanes (The designation was MiG-37 Ferret) as test beds. The Germans were ready to do so when the project was cancelled. The German plane was called Lampyridae (Firefly) and was designed by Messerschmitt (now part of EADS).

At this time, apart from the U.S. other countries with known stealth programmes include Russia, China and the countries of the European Union. The Russian Mig-39 is an excellent stealth plane - the Russian equivalent of the F-22, but Russia only has two of the aircraft and will probably not produce more due to budgetary constraints. China is reportedly also relatively close to building a modern fighter (not like the F-117 - more like the current ones) incorporating significant stealth technology.

[DarkCloud]

Does anyone honestly think that the civ series can really gain from going to the 3000 AD ages... I mean honestly, how many copies did alpha centauri sell versus Civ II (Personally I liked both games but that's beside the point) civ is a game that simulates the real world and the real rise of civilizations and history. people can relate to history and learn from it... when the game starts branching out into fantasy, etc. that is the subject for MODS and for things that aren't part of the normal game itself- those are things for a sci-fi game not a history game.

games that try to be more than they are basically suffer from the flaws of underthinking and overcomplicating things for the end consumer. Look at CTP's "diamond age" etc. most of their units were just extreme characteratures of regular units- they didn't provide anything except a longer game... and since they weren't historica, they weren't interesting- they had no history- they were just a bunch of stats.

Keep civ IV limited to at least 2025, like it has in the past and like it should be in the future!

[Shogun Gunner]

I think we can have civ go all the way to 3000 AD, when the calendar year is 2950!!!

Totally agree with you DarkCloud.

[Puma]

"... they weren't interesting- they had no history- they were just a bunch of stats."

I agree. One of the effects of civ3 that I've enjoyed is being motivated to google units, leaders, etc, and then spending a few hours online reading and learning about aspects of history that I had never before been interested in. Heck, I didn't know what a frigate was until I started playing civ3.

[Mr. President]

Sci-fi era is a must-have. I want my Diamond Age, Bio-Engineering, Technocracy, and Corporate Republic!

[Kuciwalker]

Then add it yourself, or play CtP(2).

[Shogun Gunner]

It's never been a part of Civ before....the game is always over when you launch/land your space ship...or precluding a launch (or space race as a victory condition) about the time a space ship could have been launched.

So, each version of civ doesn't have futuristic eras. Hopefully the designers will stay true to this tradition.

[POTUS]

I would like a few near-future techs and units like, say the Eurofighter or the F-22, but not like aliens. To 2000 A.D. and NOT BEYOND.

[Sandman]

Belated replyathon:

Anyway, Stealth, especially combined with precision weapons, results in a fundamentally different form of warfare, in which those countries with access to the technology have a virtually unlimited, unimpeded ability to strike any target, anywhere in the world.

Other ways to strike unimpeded: ICBMs, cruise missiles, terrorism, advanced ECM systems, enforcing sanctions to prevent maintainance of AA systems, special forces etc.

Striking anywhere in the world has nothing to do with stealth and everything to do with fuel and engine capability, aircraft carriers and bases.

The Serbs got lucky with that shot and I believe that's the only F117 lost in combat. And the reason no harriers were shot down in Kosovo was the same reason we didn't lose any attack helicopters. They were not put into overly dangerous situations. It was how the two planes were used. The stealth planes are always put into more dangerous situations.

I don't see how it was in any more danger than any of the conventional aircraft used over Serbia. Maybe the Serbs were lucky, or maybe the F-117 had been lucky (or its role exaggerated) up to that point?

It was at a minimum of 300 years that the gun and the bow/arrow shared the battlefield. Those hand cannons were in play 1400's and the bow/arrow was still in use in the 1800's in some parts of the world. Cowboys and Indians????? The Indians had access to guns, but they still used bows too. I think this point is undeniable. Even during the American civil war, you could get off many more arrow shots versus musket/rifle shots. Rate of fire counts for something and much higher accuracy (over the musket at least).

How many encounters did the indians and other native peoples win? Hardly any. I mean, taken to its logical conclusion, this means that no weapon system ever goes obsolete. Rioters still throw stones, so would you say that thrown stones 'share the battlefield' with guns?

Between enemies of equivalent technical sophistication, bows died out in, at most, two hundred years. England formally abolished the longbow in 1595, and by then it had been a curio for decades anyway.

There is no way that bows were used in any significant way during the ACW. No way.

About the cavalry, the Russians made extensive use of cavalry in world war 2. Many armies of the world still had cavalry forces into the 1940's and 50's because they couldn't afford tanks and/or they stubbornly held onto their particular military traditions. Check the militaries of South America, Pakistan, Middle East and Africa post world war 2. You will be surprised to find that many kept a cavlary force if for no other reason than for a recon force. You think Afghanistan, Nepal and Pakistan each had a tank force climbing all those mountains in 1950?

Key phrases here: 'couldn't afford' and 'stubbornly held onto'. Anyway, a recon force that happens to use horses is hardly sharing the battlefield with tanks. I don't remember the Russians making 'extensive' use of cavalry during WW2 either. It certainly didn't play much of a role at Moscow, Stalingrad or Kursk.

I think my bottom line point about stealth is that this technology represents a different capability that the US air force uses. The first stealth planes are not expected to replace F16s or F18s....but the F117 can do things the F16s/F18s can't. I think that's pretty clear cut too. However, if you don't like the unit being in Civ3...well, that's your opinion. I think you make a good point about not having a stealth fighter.....since that designation is a technicality.

From this, it sounds like stealth planes are more of an addition rather than a revolution. Like submarines to naval warfare. Somebody in the 1920s might have expected ALL naval units to be submarines by our time, but they're not.

And there isn't a special tech for submarines either. They just come along with mass production, despite being probably at least as different from surface ships as stealth planes are from jet planes.

Stealth planes should be available when you research 'computer-assisted flight', or something like that.

Roman:

Most of your arguments are based on the idea that the new American fighters are stealth planes. Firstly, we've not seen them in action, so we don't know if their stealth works. To me, 'low-observable' sounds like a long-winded way of saying 'not as stealthy as the B-2'.

More importantly, these new planes have a lot of advances which have little to do with stealth. The F-22 is blisteringly fast and has exceptional targetting abilities. These advances have little to do with stealth, but everything to do with advanced computer technology (which stealth depends on as well). The real revolution is the computers. Stealth is simply an aspect of this, but it's been hyped up for propaganda value.

The reason for wanting jet bombers rather than stealth bombers is due to the impact each has had on the 20th century. The jet bomber has had more impact, IMO.

[Kuciwalker]

Other ways to strike unimpeded: ICBMs, cruise missiles, terrorism, advanced ECM systems, enforcing sanctions to prevent maintainance of AA systems, special forces etc.
Striking anywhere in the world has nothing to do with stealth and everything to do with fuel and engine capability, aircraft carriers and bases.

None of those (with the possible exception of Special Forces or terrorists, which can't strike unimpeded within a short amount of time) can hit just ANYTHING though - they can target a general area. Remember, LGB's are accurate to within a meter.

[Kuciwalker]

From this, it sounds like stealth planes are more of an addition rather than a revolution. Like submarines to naval warfare. Somebody in the 1920s might have expected ALL naval units to be submarines by our time, but they're not.

A revolution doesn't mean to change all of your forces to a new type. The submarine does result in a fundamentally new form of warfare, just as the aircraft carrier does. You don't see our entire navy made up of carriers, do you? Nevertheless, they are revolutionary wrt naval warfare.

[Kuciwalker]

And there isn't a special tech for submarines either. They just come along with mass production, despite being probably at least as different from surface ships as stealth planes are from jet planes.

This is because Stealth technology requires a lot of special materials technology behind it and in itself was a significant piece of research.

[Q Classic]

i am completely against extending it past 2100 (civ1) or 2050 (civ3).

if i want science-fiction in a turn based game, i'll play SMAC or MOO2.

Civ is NOT SMAC or MOO2, and it shouldn't ever feel like it.

[Merp]

I would like to dabble in future tech, but the ideas expressed in ctp were clearly ridiculous - e.g. "cyber ninja". I guess part of the attraction of future technology is modeling the world and planetary as it might be medium-term future, with the basic mechanics of Civ plus multiple worlds, space, etc. We need a decent modern title that covers that kind of scope.

For Civ4 Perhaps the safest way to approach future techs is just to leave the door open for modders, which has already been mentioned.