Space: Why not?

[Pedrun]

When i first played CTP i loved the idea of space despiting the limited gameplay (it worked just to make cities and to move units faster) and it unbalances the game helping who gets there first. But i got really angry when they took it off from CTP2.
And I stil think it is a good idea. If we make a few changes in the concept and ithe gameplay.
What others people think?
How could we turn it in a another strategical level like it happened in the sea?

[Jeje2]

Personally I hope that CivIII will be past and present.
The future is in SMAC, so I can live whitout future in CivIII.

[Cyclotron]

I think any addition of space techs should not include moving ground units by space... this is the most unbalanced part.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[Pingu:]

I think space is really important, but the balance was best in SMAC, with space facilities being built as improvements. The idea that you can build mines on the moon or asteroids is great, and the rest... Orbital Defense pods were such a good and simple idea. Good stuff.
I hope this is the way that space is done in Civ3.
Going as far as CTP did with space expansion seemed unrealistic to me, although a great way to become the ultimate military power. space bombers and swarms are fun to use, but all in all I'd rather they weren't there.

Pingu:

[Grumbold]

The flat map basis of Civ games just doesn't work in space. Orbits, trajectories and rotational speeds suddenly become important stuff you cannot easily represent. Nuclear weapons and lasers become irrelevant once you can chuck big rocks at each others cities. Cheap and easy to do once you can reach the asteroid belt or put a maglev on the moon. If they want to do "space" it would have to be as city improvements or just a separate conceptual screen listing space factories and labs built. Even then space war would be hard to do properly.

[Mokael]

I'm against space. And against future. Civ should be what it always was -- past and present, "reconstruction" of human civilization, if you will. Let SMAC be the space expansion of the CIV.
As for CPT1/2 -- nice try ...

[tniem]

I am against space and the future because their would be no way to create a map for it.

My biggest beef with SMAC is that you travel across the galaxy build a new civ and you cannot even send a ship to the nearest moons. If your going to make space travel you need to allow to mulitple places. How in the world are they supposed to make a map that would allow you until 2500 explore space which of course is what is really theoritical. There just isn't a way to include space travel in Civ III, so please don't try and go with a half hearted effort simply for marketing.

[joseph1944]

Future tech. Who Future tech. Are you talking about. We are now living my Grandparents future tech. In everyday life. (They where born starting in 1866 to 1873). Or my mother (born 1906) or myself (born 1944) or my 2 grandsons (born 1992/95). In 2042 when my oldest grandson is 50 years of age, all tech. In place will be his normal tech., today some of you are calling it future tech. If not for future tech. We would not have a Car, TVs, VCRs, DVDs, Kitchen Appliance, Radios, Satellites, Moon Rockets, Space Shuttles, Big Weapons that can kill a lot people real quick, or Heaven forbid a Computer so we can play games on it and complain and praise about a new game coming out.
One other little issue, the ISS. Let’s face it, this station is in reality the “United States (International) Space Station”, we wanted a few bucks from other nation to help pay the cost. As we found out last week the US could have stooped Mr. Tito from going if they had put their food down. (The Russian space budget is 14 Million; the US is 145 Billion).
Roman; a question, is Slovakia part of the ISS program?
I myself love future tech. I want to go to the Stars today, not tomorrow. If future tech. is handle carefully, it can make the game fun, if not than we will have another CTP ending. Beam me up Scotty is now being tested. It is only energy right now, but who know when it will be an item. Also we now have a Medical Tricorder that will read 4 function. How long before we have the Star Trek version?
I come from Modesto, Calif.; there is another guy from Modesto also. He is George Lucas creator of Star
Wars. No I don’t know George, wish I did, but I did meet one of his top people some years ago and had dinner with him. I believed he did tell George about meeting me.


------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Cyclotron]

It is quite true that Civ3, or any other geographically flat strategy game, cannot enclose any amount of space maneuvering without being completely false. While future techs should be judged on a case by case basis, "starships" do not and can not belong in Civ3 without changing the very base and premise of the game, as well as the entire terrain map.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

I think that the only way to end to end the debate is by simply polling people (MarkG ??). Well, I'll try my hand at an unofficial poll start:

Where should CivIII end technologically?
* Present Technology (SDI, Specialized Lasers, Space Stations (with a few dozen people)
* Near-future (Nuclear Fusion, Mass-Produced Laser Weapons, Space Outposts (with thousands of people)
* Far-future (Space Cities, Underwater Cities)


give a choice and a quick comment, like the regular polls have

[SerapisIV]

Near-Future technology - Allows better environmental alternatives (limiting pollution and limited space options, without going overbourd and unbalancable space cities)

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-08-2001 05:56 PM The Russian space budget is 14 Billion; the US is 145 Billion). Roman; a question, is Slovakia part of the ISS program?

Actually, the Russian space budget is about $180 million and the US is about $14 billion, so the difference of scale is even greater than you indicate.

As to Slovak participation in the ISS - luckily we abstain from contributing to this wasteful beast in the sky (not that we would have the money even if we wanted).

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 05-08-2001 06:26 PM I think that the only way to end to end the debate is by simply polling people (MarkG)

If I recall correctly there already was a poll on the issue and the vote went against future techs.

[joseph1944]

Roman I got my info from Eleanor Clift who is Contributing Editor for NewsWeek Magazine on the McLaughlin Group at www.mclaughlin.com and she said 14 M for Russian and 145 B for US. I just now went back and read her statement. This show is on PBS in the US. You made not be able to watch it oversea.

------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Anarcho]

Why not have a bit of future tech? As long as it isn't f*cked like it was in CTP, then we'd be OK. Probably not space... I agree Civ is a 2D game, and wouldn't work in space. But space facilities like in Alpha Centauri would be cool. Also, underwater cities and underground cities would also be neat. Maybe other terrestrial stuff like weather control, better units, new forms of government... hell, as long as it's not unbalanced, why not? Also, leave an option open to toggle this future stuff on and off... that would solve the argument.

------------------
Civilization 2 is computerized cocaine.