SMAC-Civ 3 connection

[Jer8m8]

We can have some confidence in saying there will be a "sweep of time" with the games. But what if you rerelease SMAC (2) and change the storyline to have the Unity be launched at a later date, such as 2150. I say this for three reasons:1.It doesn't seem like we're going to AC in 50 years 2.This will allow you time to build "Space cities" in civilization (and have futuristic techs and 3.If the format of Civ3 is changed (ex. to real time games), this will allow you to also change the format in SMAC.

[DarkCloud]

Interesting idea- but I am against space cities, perhaps cities on the moon/ seperate map. and orbital destroyer satellites, but I believe space cities may just turn out to reflect badly on civ.

-Unless they implement them correctly.

[timfry]

Civ III will not be real time. If you want a civ game in real time try Empire Earth.

[Jer8m8]

First, I'm not saying I want civ3 to be real time. It was just an example of a "dramatic change." About the space, this will offer the time neccessary to implimant some of the space ideas in the List vs. 1, like multiple planet maps and cities on them.

[Sprayber]

Cities on the moon would be a better idea than space cities I think. Although, I don't know how long they would be revelent. It would be interesting if you conquered a civs cities on Earth, but still had to conquer them on the moon. I don't know, I'm new to civ so I could be wrong. Probably not, but still possible.

[timfry]

I'm sorry but I am just not in favor of having to estabilish and conquer cities in space. I think the game should end around when it is possible to send a space colony to AC but before we have actually done it (ex. about now). I just think that it would not add that much more elements of fun but would add a lot more complexity to program and to play.

[ContradictioN]

We should be able to build space stations. And you would need to make it pointless to build as many as possible, so you'd only need to build either 1 really big one like mir or a few smaller ones scattering around the orbit of earth. Not only that but you could choose to build space stations around other planets and moons. But if you were to send the common people into space to live, you would have to build cities on the moon or mars.

By the time we have the technology to do that, we would know if Alpha Centauri has any habital planets for humans to live on. If it did, then we could send out people to that planet straight away, however if it didn't have one, but there was a "mars-type planet" with a bit of life on it, then we may require a few more tech to send people out there, to live for hundreds of years, isolated from earth.

I'm basicaly saying that we shouldn't go to AC, until we have at least managed to colonize Mars and the Moon, UNLESS we KNOW there is a habital planet for humans to survive on, an earth-like planet. Then we could send a spaceship out straight away.

And that adds another feature to the game, each game will randomly choose the chance of habital planets in AC, so you could have 3 that are habital, or just 1, or none.

I feel that its important for each game to 'feel' like you've started again. I'm so tired of doing the same thing over and over again, knowing whats going to happen. It makes the game harder, more realistic, more interesting, more exciting, if each game is different from the last. It's one reason why civ lasted for so long.

[Ralf]

JER8M8 quote 1:
"But what if you rerelease SMAC (2) and change the storyline to have the Unity be launched at a later date, such as 2150."

Why re-release SMAC with a changed storyline? It doesnt make neither game-developing, nor commercial sence?

JER8M8 quote 2:
"About the space, this will offer the time neccessary to implimant some of the space ideas in the List vs. 1, like multiple planet maps and cities on them."

Civ-3 is suppose to be a part of a "sweep of time" series, right? Now, based on this: Why then would they even try to cram half of SMAC into the game?
Whats wrong with futuristic beyond 2040 AD tailor-cut Civ-3 scenarios? Isnt that approach both safer, and more flexible for Firaxis? Not to mention; less developing workload, then if they foolishly tries to squeeze as much future as possible into the main-game.

Why take the risk of repeating both TOT- and CTP/CTP-2 bad review-scores, by incorporating typical features of those games: multi-linked maps, sky-cities, public-works and futuristic end-techs?

In CTP-2 the idea of sky-cities was dropped. Why should Firaxis implement something that got mostly bad mag-review critisism - bad enough, so that Activision decided to skip the idea in the update?
Also, i dont think theres any principal difference between sky/space cities and moon/mars cities. Both ideas dilutes and diverge the main civ-game focus: developing an alternative earth civilization history!

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 01, 2001).]

[ContradictioN]

Dinosaurs - Civ 3 - SMAC2 will be 3 seperate games, but they can/will join together.

they will each be as big as any normal big game

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by ContradictioN on 01-01-2001 01:27 AM Dinosaurs - Civ 3 - SMAC2 will be 3 seperate games, but they can/will join together.

Joined together timelines, shoulder by shoulder, is ONE thing. But why overlaped and conjoined timelines??

Ask yourselves:
Is it likely that Firaxis will develop a "70% Dinosaurs + 30% Civ-3" game? If not;
why would they then inconsequently bother to develop a "70% Civ-3 + 30% future SciFi" game?

It doesnt make sense! Neither from a game-design/programming workload point of view - nor, from taking into account this recipe have already been tested and tried out, both in TOT, CTP and CTP-2.

Neither of these games got any great Pc mag-reviews, did they?

For the SciFi-fans out there: Why not concentrate your efforts on suggesting a more powerful scenario-editor + some nice added futuristic scenarios instead? By the looks of it, the Civ-3 scenario-editor promise to be something really special. Check out Dan Mahaga´s thread "Civ-3 editing tools: what do *you* want to see".

If a larger part of the ideas in this thread is incorporated, theres really no limit in how skilled scenario-builders could create tailor-cut Moon/Mars/AC/Fantasy scenarios exactly how you want them to be.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited January 01, 2001).]

[ContradictioN]

Just play Civ3, they're focusing on just Civ3 in Civ3, you don't HAVE to head for AC

[Christantine The Great]

quote: Originally posted by Jer8m8 on 12-31-2000 10:29 AM We can have some confidence in saying there will be a "sweep of time" with the games. But what if you rerelease SMAC (2) and change the storyline to have the Unity be launched at a later date, such as 2150. I say this for three reasons:1.It doesn't seem like we're going to AC in 50 years .

The Unity is supposed to go in 60 years, not 50. The tech to build the Unity isn't too far off. We already are expirimenting with cryogenics, fusion nuclear power, and space tech.

[IG-88]

NASA can't scrape enough of a budget to launch people to Mars, let alone Alpha Centauri. And the UN has enough problems without speniding money on a spaceship.

[Deathwalker]

There should be no link. They are seperate games, not a series.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[ContradictioN]

You're absolutely right Deathwalker.

In real life, when the Dinosaurs died and humans started to recognise themselves as civilizations and travelling to Alpha Centauri, they're all entirely different dimensions! That happen to merge together perfectly!

/sarcasm
[This message has been edited by ContradictioN (edited January 02, 2001).]