What about space and underwater cities?

[CIA_Operative]

Civ CTP and SMAC had really cool features like building space and underwater cities, is this still going to be a feature in Civ3?

I thought it was awsome to have a space city above your enemies cities to see what they were doing.

Anybody hit me back and tell me what you think.

[To_Serve_Man]

most people here dont like the future. I like the future, but not in the sci-fi future way such as underwater cities and space colonies.

[BeBMan]

Should be optional for scenarios, in my eyes. I like scifi, but I like the classical civ more...

[Inverse Icarus]

never played any of the CTP series.

im uncorruppted

but i did play AC, and i hated water-cities, and airborne colony pods.

[Alex 14]

Re: What about space and underwater cities?

Originally posted by CIA_Operative
I thought it was awsome to have a space city above your enemies cities to see what they were doing.

It acually makes the game more boring.

[phoenixcager]

I'll miss these too. In fact I already miss space cities in CtP2....
I just hope the rest of the game makes up for the loss.

[Cookie Monster]

I definately enjoyed having space cities in CTP and was disappointed when they removed them from CTP2. Bring back the space city so that we can launch mighty space bombers on our foes!!!

[Provost Harrison]

Nah, not necessary. Sea cities are a decent concept and worked well within the concept of SMAC. As for in civ3 though, the games scope doesn't get to this level of technology, so they will not be in the game, but as someone has said, they may be an interesting option for a scenario!

[Adm.Naismith]

Re: What about space and underwater cities?

Originally posted by CIA_Operative
I thought it was awsome to have a space city above your enemies cities to see what they were doing.

Aren't satellites good enough for survey and espionage purpose? You are CIA_Operative, you should know, shouldn't you?

BTW SMAC doesn't have space (flying) city, only sea city (but on the sea surface, not underwater. Is SMACX any different?

[Juggler]

I liked water cities in CTP but hated space cities. Don't know why, but this is an interesting idea.

[Colonel Kraken]

I loved the underwater cities in CtP. They were neat looking, intriguing, and allowed a way to expand you civilization once the land mass had filled. It allowed for some intriguing possibilites, not least of which was having a vastly larger civilization than your opponents realized, especially since it was a bit more difficult to discover the underwater cities.

A civ that found itself squeezed on land, could become a super power by expanding into the sea. I simply enjoyed the underwater cities; I believe they added a very nice element to the game. They were very simply executed and integrated seamlessly and easily into the game. (The space cities on the other hand were rather poorly done and difficult to use, especially on slower/older machines.)

I have seen all (read "most") the old veterans here rant and rave about how they absolutely DON'T want any future techs, no sci fi, no nothing. Everything has to be historically accurate; everything has to follow the historical timeline exactly.

For the life of me, I have NEVER understood this. There is no way that the Civ series comes close to being a historical simulation in any sense of the word. (uh-oh, I'm certainly in trouble now!) It is so broad in scope and takes such a macro look at things, it is ridiculous to think it approaches some kind of holy grail of historical re-inactment. (Play Europa Universalis if that's what you want. )

To me, Civ has always been, first and foremost, about being a GAME, a strategy game that looks at human civilization as a focus point and makes it fun. The whole POINT of the GAME is to CHANGE history, NOT copy it! How boring is that!!? Yet I've seen over and over people in these forums go into a tirade because such and such a civ in real life never got that far, such and such a technology never existed until blah blah blah, ad infinum boringum. Guess what? The burning of the Great Library is not simulated either, there is no Dark Ages, this is no fall of great civilizations and thus no loss of technology. So guess what? Things are going to progress much more quickly and differently in Civ than in real life.

Am I saying that the game should not be balanced and not try to string out technology somewhat historically? Most certainly not! What I am saying is that things are going to be different than what happened in real life. Which is as it should be because it's a GAME which is all about CHANGING history, making a civilization something it was not.

Having said this, I don't see what harm there is in extending the game into a little of the future and have some fun with future techs. Some of the most intriguing things I found in CtP was discovering the interesting new technologies and governments that took my civ places I do not see in real life.

Would I want this to be an all encompassing part of the game, even at the expense of the historical part? NO! I absolutely love and enjoy the historical part of the game. Since most of the game is throughout known history, the focus should be there. But please don't be so constrained as to not want to have a little fun with a game that EXPLORES civilization and its possibilites: past, present, AND future.

In conclusion, I'm for underwater cities and other such future techs.


(Oh boy, I just know I'm in some serious trouble now from one of the Apolyton vets! I say, "Bring it on!!" )

[Adagio]

Well, the space cities in CTP sux and the underwater cities in those games was nothing special

But I like the other sci-fi part of the CTP games

[Adm.Naismith]

Colonel Kraken, you have some points about leaving room into Civilization development for some dreaming futuristic tech.

I'd enjoy some future tech too, but not too much. As you agree, the most relevant part of the game has to be play balanced and if not necessarly historically correct, at least credible.

You can add a tech to genetically modify human to eat sand, hence have any city near desert flourish with a baby boom, but is this credible? Living underwater on a city scale is so complex and expensive I would ask: what's the point?

Do you want the ability to cultivate foods from sea, or exploiting mineral/energy resources from deep waters? Ok, that could be.

Do you want the ability to build orbital labs and orbital factories? Expensive, but still possible before 2200 AD in alternative history, IMHO.

To be fair, I'm more interested into seeing the game AI able to cope all the common, current tech near the game end, and able to be a challenge for a medium level player like me without the need for any disturbing, massive computer cheat.

If the game engine can cope with different situation, I agree with others posters that Firaxis or some fan should build a "modern to future" scenario with plenty of satisfaction for everyone.

I would try a "Blade Runner/Cyberpunk" style scenario, with Civ changed into Corporations, Clone/Replicant units etc., just for example

[Nikolai]

Re: Re: What about space and underwater cities?

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith
BTW SMAC doesn't have space (flying) city, only sea city (but on the sea surface, not underwater. Is SMACX any different?

SMACX does not have space cities. I think he talks about what you can do with the unit workshop!

[Recurve]

If you were super rich (and bored), I don’t see the harm in raising a tile from the sea and slapping something on it (like an airbase). Underwater cities are too futuristic, but you could utilise the ocean in other ways (such as offshore platforms and pipelines).

The oceans in Civ3 should present opportunities.