SPACE EXPLOITATION ver 2.0 hosted by Smilo

[Maniac]

Yes, Gordon the Whale, that SF book was written with the most recent knowledge of Mars.

[Tornado7]

What, Kin Stanley Robinson's Mars trilogy? That was actually more like science faction, especially the first book. Anyway, I think that they have to include at least 3 or 4 other maps, other wise it's a step down from tot. I'm asking for at least the moon, Mars, and mayybe the Galilean moons on a map like the orbital space map in the Lalande game.

------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction, and people are weirder than both.

[Westergaard]

EnochF
You totally misunderstood the food limitations. (did you even read the post?) Only off-world mines would have theese, not space cities. There's a lot of problems with farming possible mining sites. The moon for example has got a 14 day night, and asteroids are very far from the sun. Of course hydroponic farm in orbit shouldn't have any limitations.

Harel
I don't think it's pointless to have multiple layers on the map. It'll add another, IMHO fun, dimension to the game.

If the game had an orbital layer, like CtP's, that could be enough to show space travels and space cities. But if no one wanted multiple maps (other than the two layers), the mines didn't even have to excist on any moon-map. Just select a space-engineer and order him to "build mine", then select where you want the mine built (Moon, Mars, asteroid) Then he'd dissapear and a couple turns later you could select them from the "off-world mines menu", just like a normal city from the F1 city menu.. Read the multiple maps or not? chapter of my previous post.

Gordon
I think your "spacestations as a wonder" idea is way too simple. It's an okay idea, and it's a lot better than just building a huge spaceship right after the apollo-program. But it's just not the same when you can't attack the enemy's command center, when you can't shut his entire starship production down with a surgical strike, but instead can watch a small monument in one of your cities symbolizing the great space station wonder.

I think it would be sad if Firaxis just left the future out of the game altoghether. And you can't have future in the game if you haven't got space stations.

Tornado7
Doesn't seem like there's a lot of other people here that wants multiple maps
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 15, 1999).]</font>

[EnochF]

Oops, Westergaard. I guess I got confused when I read "Maybe only the base square produced food, so that a mine could never have more than one or two citizen."

But I still think dividing production into materials and labor is making things needlessly complicated. Perhaps space cities (or lunar colonies) could be limited to a certain population, say 4 or 5, until you build special habitation modules or lunar ice processors. Maybe space cities could be limited to a special list of city improvements, some of which are limited to offworld cities.

(Suggestion: From now on, let's try to confine our bickering to game effects. That's what I'm going to do from now on. Believe me, I learned the hard way. It's what Brian Reynolds wants us to do, anyway. If you disagree with someone's suggestion on purely scientific grounds, you should accompany your objection with an alternative game effect which better reflects the scientific principle involved. Otherwise, you'll all just end up in a heated and pointless argument with...)

[Westergaard]

OK, that is another solution. Bit more simple, which is good, but makes it impossible to simulate that lunar cities at the the top of the "gravity well" with plenty of energy is a good place to produce space goods (ships, other colonies, etc.)

I don't remember where, but I saw the mentioned labour/minerals splitting discussed some while ago (the economics thread maybe?) and their model had some other, not space related, advantages. I don't remember them all tough.[*]More advanced units would need more labour, but not more minerals.[*]Heavy units like cannons and city improvements would need most minerals.[*]Industrialization and factories would give a large boom in available labour, but smaller bonuses in minerals.

I think it's a good idea to limit surface colony growth (I did that too). But why would you build surface colonies then, if they aren't going to supply the orbital colonies. You'll just end up with a bunch of handicapped colonies with no use.

The gameplay reason for limitations is that it reduces the focus on the off-world mines since you can never develop them to be real huge and important, only small suppliers. That limits the need for multiple maps too. And there isn't a lot of people who likes multiple maps (or so it seems to me).

I don't think orbitting spacestations should be growth limited, not very much anyway. You can make quite a lot of food with almost unlimited sun and controlled weather. At least after the development of "sky-hydroponics". And it's easy to construct very large structures in zero-G.

Oh by the way, how are the orbital spacestations/cities going to produce anything (make shields) under your model? Terrain improvements?

[Tornado7]

OK, I admit that I've been going a bit overboard, but look at it like this-there's no practical reason to go to Alpha Centauri when you have a couple dozen habitable bodies in your own solar system THAT AREN'T 4.4 LIGHT YEARS AWAY! This is a blaring goof-up in the original game. Granted, back when Civ 1 and 2 came out, systems couldn't handle multiple maps, but this is 1999 and there is no excuse! While I relieze that most people don't want to deal with an entire solar system, like I do, you have to have AT MINIMUM, the moon, Mars, and some sort of simplified interface for the asteroids and the Galilean moons. You can't dispute that people will colonize the moon and Mars WAY before they haul themselves all the way to Alpha Centauri!

[Westergaard]

Preach it, Tornado! I totally agree!
We can't build the apollo program wonder one day, the next go to Alpha Centauri. We need something in between.

Btw, Tornado, look at my idea for space exploitation (10 august, page 2, all the way down)and tell me what you think. With only one map with an orbital layer, spaceflight could be simulated in a realistic way. And it seems like few people wants multiple maps (I can't see why tough).

[EnochF]

Who's got ideas for the terrains of the various planets? I figure these should cover most of it:

Basin
Crater
Dunes
Ice
Mountain
Soil
Trench
Volcano

"Soil" would cover everything from plains to grassland. "Basin" is ocean-level ground. Craters, Trenches and Volcanos all exist on Earth, but not on an appreciable scale in terms of a Civ map, but in the solar system, there are occasionally volcanos, craters and trenches of significant size to appear. "Ice" would include not only water ice, but also frozen methane and other frozen gases.

Any other suggestions? Or suggestions for special tile improvements for other planets?

[Tornado7]

I was thinking that would really work, especially as a nice, simple way to shove asteroids into the game without giving the people who are allergic to REAL space exploitation a heart attack.
Now that I'm a little bit calmer *think happy thoughts, think happy thoughts*, I'll go a little deeper into my idea for solar system exploitation:
Use Westergaard's idea for asteriod mining; It seems like a good, solid way of doing it without much hassle.
Set up a solar system map-before anyone starts having kittens, let me explain: This map would be really simple, just a representing the various bodies in the solar system, and would be used as a way to represent units traveling between planets. The big terrestrial worlds (Mercury, Mars, etc.) Would have regular maps. But, the maps would be to scale with Earth-30-50% of the Earth size on a large map. The gas giant moons could be represented by a big version of the space station map in the Lalande game-Stick some impassable terrain in the shape of the gas giant, and float a bunch of moon shaped bodies around it. They would be just big enought to fit 5 or 6 decent cities, down to little asteriod moons that would fit one.
Terrain-Most of this stuff could be recycled from map to map-A crater is a crater, whether it's on the Moon, Mercury, or Ganymede. Basically, you could just throw the things together on different size maps and BAM, there you go. Just create special terrrain for Mars and maybe Venus.
Brain fart-More to come tommorrow

------------------
Truth is stranger than fiction, and people are weirder than both.

[Westergaard]

Tornado
I totally agree that we should definetly have space exploitation. But I don't agree 100% that we have to have multiple maps. It might upset too many, and it isn't really necessary

The pros and cons for the two systems, the way I see them.

The pros for multiple planet maps and a solar system map. Please tell me if you see surface colonies any different or if I misunderstood you:[*]You can see the actual planet which give a more "I am a colonizer" feel.[*]You can have wars between civs on the moon or mars or in the empty space if you want. But honestly I don't think we'll see interplanetary wars before the end of the third millenium.[*]It's a whole new world open for colonizing. But this is also one of my concerns. It's just another world. Nothing new. It's almost the same as starting a game on the Earth. More on this, in the cons for the other system.

The pros for two layer map and off-world mines not on any map.[*]Keeps the focus on Earth, which is a central part of the civ-series[*]Keeps the space allergics somewhat content.[*]As stated before I don't think that surface colonies will add that much but another world to colonize. Ask yourself what advantages surface colonies would give your civ, other than the most basic of trade and production. You could just as well build more Earth cities and they are easier to build. Of course you might say the same about orbital colonization, but keep in mind that it also opens other possibilities which are related to your Earth-surface cities. Orbital attacks, and SPS's (Solar power sattelites), low-g industries could result in new techs and weapon types. And most important: This is where a starship to AC would be built.[*]It's realistic*, read the note.[*]It'll reduce the micromanagment of moving units between planets. Under this system you just give a "build colony" order to a space-engineer, and a couple of years later a colony appear at a designated spot. I guess you can include a "defend colony" and "attack colony" for space-marines too, but it isn't necessary.[*]Surface colonization isn't neccesary for anything but extracting raw materials from a low "gravity well". So if it isn't neccesary why include it?


*the note
Have you ever read some of Gerard O'neill's books on space settlements? Well you should. He arguments why humans eventually will move off the surface of planet surfaces and into so called space habitats, Bernard Spheres and O'neill cylinders. I have already given some of those but here are some more.[*]No limits on expansion. The asteroid belt alone has enough material to build space habitats with a surface area equal to almost 300 times earths surface.[*]Unlimited energy. It's never night and the sun doesn't have to penetrate any atmosphere with clouds and haze.[*]Full control over weather. On Mars you have to deal with huge sandstorms and fast winds.[*]The ability to seperate polluting industries and farms, from residential areas.[*]It's close to the Earth thus making construction and personnel transport easier.

For further information on space settlements and their advantages, read this FAQ:
<a href=http://www.geocities.com/CapeCanaveral/Lab/9917/spacsetl.htm
>Space settlements FAQ</a>.

Please give me your opinion on the good things and the bad things about my model. I really don't see the need for multiple maps if nobody wants them and they aren't stricly neccesary.

EnochF
If this is too much bickering for you, I'm sorry but this is just my opinion.


<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 20, 1999).]</font>

[Tornado7]

Ok, while I admit the main reason I want some more maps to colonize, I need it! I usually play with expansionistic civs in the game(That's a word, right?), so by 2000, there ain't no land left that isn't garbage. So, I kinda want some more territory to expand on. But like I said, your idea really does work for the asteriods. I really like it, believe me. I just want some more room to spread out on. Besides, they did multiple maps in tot, so the should do it in civIII, otherwise it's a step backward.

[Westergaard]

Well, maybe we keep both options then. If Firaxis has the ressources for a full scale colonization of space, then great.

But if they don't want to bother drawing terrain for planets, making new rules, making multiple map support, etc. then I think they should consider this compromise.

In other words. Let Firaxis decide. We don't even know if the game goes beyond present time at all.

[EnochF]

For what it's worth, I'm growing to like both ideas. Both are a good step up from Civ II's sudden leap from the Moon to Alpha Centauri.

And if colonization of the solar system is limited to a couple of Wonders (say, a moon base and a Mars colony), that will still be better than eliminating space exploitation altogether.

I'd love to see multiple maps. But hypothetically, if Brian Reynolds stopped by this thread (yeah, right) and said, "Oh, by the way, the design team has talked it over, and we're definitely not going to implement multiple maps," then I'd instantly start lobbying for a system of orbital cities much like Westergaard's.

(Great points, West, and great link. I'll have to check out that O'Neill book, too...)

------------------
"Harel didn't replay. He just stood there, with his friend, transfixed by the brown balls."

[Harel]

Best thing about EnochF that he wakes up an hour late, but still try to claim first credit.
Gaard, I always said that several maps are very, very confusing.
Saying that they didn't use multiple maps because of the technology then is, well, wrong. May I remind you an old game by Microprose, "Master of Magic?" It had two plains: a "shiny" realm and a "dark" realm. And even then, many people complained it was too dis-orienting.
That was just two maps, that only difference between them is some tile sets.
Having several maps, etc. moon and mars will be, IMHO, terrible.
Civ III should be scientificaly and historly accurate, yes. But it should also be straight-forward and easy to control. While you and I may want and grow fond of many maps, I think that the majority of the public, those who buy it because it's Sid mayer, not because they played and liked civ I, will be very confused.

------------------
EnochF. Nuff said.
<font size=1 face=Arial color=444444>[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 19, 1999).]</font>

[Westergaard]

Ok, then let's keep all ideas and line them up as different options in the resume, so Sid can choose. Maybe we should come up with stronger reasons for multiple maps tough, to convince them. Any ideas on why we need multiple maps?


Harel
I never said anything about not using multiple maps because of technology.

And I didn't understand. Did you mean you didn't like several maps like in several planet maps, or did you mean a several layer map (surface and orbit layer). You might notice that we're actually discussing two approaches to space exploitation. One system with a single, two layer map, and one which goes all the way and includes maps of several moons and planets.

For the time I'm argumenting for a single multi-layer map, altough my opinion is that if they'll give us multiple maps, then we should take it. If not, we should go for a compromise (which IMHO is one multi-layer map and off-map asteroid mining).

If it was the former (several planet/moon maps) I get your point, but in defense of multiple maps I'll say that this could be made very different from Master of Magic. And yes I remember MoM and the use of planes. I used to cast a planar seal and conquer one world, then move on to the next...

Anyway, you're right that MoM could be a little confusing for newbie, but that is purely a design problem. I trust that Firaxis would be able to design a simple and intuitive map system which everybody understand.

If you was critisizing the second option (multi-layer map) please clarify what you don't like about that system. Would you accept this system as a compromise instead of multiple maps?