The Moon

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Epistax
I have no problem with Civ going further into the future-- just you'll have to disable UN victory, alpha centauri race victory, or other victories that are likely to occur much sooner. That is, the normal game should not be affected at all, just append another age to the game as for as tech/improvements/units are concerned. And for Pete's sake, push the Cure for Cancer into the next age. Geeze.

Or don't stop the game at the UN or SS necessarily, but allow the option to count those things as points in the overall picture of which was the greatest civilization.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Or don't stop the game at the UN or SS necessarily, but allow the option to count those things as points in the overall picture of which was the greatest civilization.

That is what I have been looking for in every Civ game...


Adding an extra layer to the game, only makes it worse. The most annoying thing in ctp was the space-layer where you could build cities in orbit (IIRC), which was shown on another layer. Kinda like the same way you want with Moon-cities. Defently not something that would make the game any better

[Trifna]

As an objective, the moon is bleak compared to Mars...
I always thought, since the beginning, that sending something for Alpha Centauri is a bit... less Civish than Trekish.
In Civ, it seemed a bit far away, far fetched.

[Tattila the Hun]

How about a space elevator? I mean, we can send stuff to space, but it's horrendously expensive...

[realpolitic]

How about terraforming a planet or large moon? That would require development of a nonchemical rocket (solar sails, ion propulsion, electromagnetic tethers etc.) Those techs have already been tested, but are not in widespread use; or the mining of ice on the moon's South Pole.Space elevators are also good, but easily sabotaged.

[Shogun Gunner]

Tough question to answer when every reply post can be boiled down to

1. Why not?
OR
2. Why?

I could live with it either way - moon or no moon.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Pizza
It's already happening IRL.

Can I have some of what you have?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Adagio
Adding an extra layer to the game, only makes it worse. The most annoying thing in ctp was the space-layer where you could build cities in orbit (IIRC), which was shown on another layer. Kinda like the same way you want with Moon-cities. Defently not something that would make the game any better

I partly disagree.

A Space-layer (or Moon layer, or Mars layer, or subterranean layer or what have you) would indeed be boring in the regular game. However, there are plenty of possible scenarios where it would be a real boon.

Just imagine for example an "age of discovery" scenario that has several "layers", i.e the map of several continents, separated by the difficulty to navigate from one to another. Or imagine a "Mars vs. Earth" scenario. The game's ability to support multiple layers (not in the core game) would be a boon.

[General Ludd]

A sci-fi strategy game that incorporated the entiere solar system, in a fashion similiar to Empire of the Fading suns (only keeping it in check and not going outside of the solar system) would be pretty cool. But not really civ.

[jomateix]

Civ 4, as teh other civs, is about the social evolution of mankind from a tribal society to a globalized one. Is more probable to include diplomatic agreements to create UE-like states composed of players (i move workers, you warriors, you build things in cities, etc...) than colonizing the moon.

As I said before, just some wonders and a new satellite idea and that's all IMHO.

[orrery]

You could have a Mars Terraformation project or build O'Neill space colonies.

Terraforming Mars as the 'space race' victory would seem superior to the Alpha Centauri method.

[Xorbon]

I don't know if terraforming Mars would be "superior" to reaching Alpha Centauri, but it would be more realistic. Even more realistic would be to just colonize Mars for a victory. All that being said, it's kind of a tradition for Civ to have the Alpha Centauri victory condition. So, I'd rather keep the AC victory condition just for that reason.

[GePap]

Terraforming a planet and sending an iterstellar voyage are both equally "realisitc". In essence, both attempt to show that success of your civ throught immense future glories, and one of the point bieng made here is perhaps allow the player to carry out those glories directly, not in some immensely abtract way (imagine a game set in Europe in 1000 throught 1500 or something like that having a project called "New World Empire", in which all you can do id send the expedition, and there, your done).

Perhaps a point would be to change how one wins the game peacefully- the diplomatic victory is fine, but it should be more nuanced, more of a horserace of real politics, as oposed to the simplistic vote of today.

[Robert]

Alpha Centauri is the classic goal for civ-games.
It shouldn't be changed.

Civ: Alpha Centauri
Civ II: Alpha Centauri
Civ III: Alpha Centauri
Civ IV: .......... why change it?

[Nikolai]

Keep AC.