Design Poll

[DeathByTheSword]

i dont like the name secret project only for buildings......some technologies could be secret project too....but then minor secret project so that every faction has to research it......ok now it just sounds like a normal tech.....but like in civ2 cure for cancer is a building somehow.....impossible......anyone getting my drift?

[Michiel]

I have no time to read that thread now, Vultur.

You couldn't summarize it for me, could you?

[Chaos Theory]

Type of game:
Planet-oriented, with possibly a little hybridization. I prefer
a game in which an empire has to be designed and built
on the ground, as opposed to one based in space, where
a planet is abstracted away as a climate. A few extra
planets, if available only in the later game, would open up
space on an otherwise crowded world, but would be
useless if the game is functionally over by that point.

Multiplayer:
Partial multiplayer is probably the only feasible option, and should in any case be the first to be implemented.

Factions:
Factions made SMAC/X fun! Pre-made factions can be
carefully balanced and tested. The game files should be
set up to allow players to create their own factions, but
the game itself should not have such a mechanism, because
it cannot verify that the custom factions are balanced.

Techs:
Technology wins wars today. Atomic bombs trumped
kamikaze pilots. "First-world" infrastructure dominates
the rest of the world, and they have to scramble to catch
up. Props to tech.

Civilization Type:
SMAC has a problem in that the technologies are harder
to relate to than Civ technologies. Everyone knows about
gunpowder, but lots of people have never heard of
gravitons. As fun as the futuristic technology is, it has to
be founded in current techs at the start of the game:
type I.

Allow Talents:
If these are the "super-talents" of Vultur, I hesitate to
include them, and they definitely shouldn't be in an early
build. I'm not sure they are worth the management
hassle, but I also don't know a whole lot about them.

Allow Heroes:
While fun, heroes have little place in a realistic scifi game.
If you bend the rules, conceiveably heroes could lead
military units or be covert ops teams. Getting a hero
would open a window of opportunity in which the player
could make an attack with increased efficiency, if he were
already prepared to attack. Still, I'm biased against
heroes.

Weather:
I favor variable weather, but it must have more of an
effect than to induce players to micromanage. Dynamic
weather would more easily accomodate local climatic
changes caused by structures such as condensors and
boreholes or even by nukes.

[Jeremy Buloch]

About the civilization types. How about this:

I propose we have Civilization Type 1 in the beggining and once we reach type 2 it can be a victory? Or we could make it so that we reach type 3 and its a victory because once type 3 we wouldn't have much of a problem facing the Drazans and would not die out easily. It could be the ultimate victory. I say it should be type 3 as the end and victory. More points awarded to the fastest type 3 and etc. You know what I mean.

-Just another thought...

-J.B.-

[Michiel]

I think a civilization at war has little time to become a Type 3 civilization (or Type 2, for that matter). In reality it would take a trillion years (but I could be off by a decade. ). That's why this game shouldn't be too realistic. I think that in the progress of this game it should be possible to go from type 1 to 3 while at war/peace by researching/building/expanding/researching/advancing/researching/etc. Even if that takes a couple of hours instead of a trillian years.

[Leland]

I'd like to point out that the civilization "types" in this poll have zilch to do with Kardashev scale (you know, the types J.B has referred to in other threads). Maybe achieving a level similar to Kardashev class II might be kind of a "transcendence" victory for the game, but even then I don't think that the definition of type II in terms of total energy consumption of the civilization is a proper way to label it.

What should be decided, instead of cryptic names like "type I/II", is examples of concrete low-end and high-end techs. Such as:

Low-end: what we have now, plus a few techs adapted from Tal'Shian (flagship for one).

High-end: ability to blow up stars (or at least give them a hicup), stargates, mass-production of anti-matter, teleportation, magic, telepathy, secrets of the universe, making contact with Tal'Shian and/or Drazan, immortality and transcendence from confines of the flesh, practical fusion reactors 20-30 years away.

[Jeremy Buloch]

I'd like to point out that the civilization "types" in this poll have zilch to do with Kardashev scale (you know, the types J.B has referred to in other threads).

I have noticed that. I Was just posting an Idea. My Idea is no way related with Civilization types in this thread and is not intended to be related to it. About the new names of it, I have no comment to make. Yet I like using the correct words that physicists have agreed upon.
-J.B.-

[Leland]

I agree... at least to the extent that we shouldn't misuse terminology. However I think we've already established that on Kardashev scale, the game will start at type 0 (=current tech) and end before reaching type II (=tapping into energies of a star), which means that using that scale is far too coarse for anything but the most generic outline. Also, I think that gameplay-wise it is almost necessary to bend the realism a little bit, especially in the high-end techs. That's another reason why "type II" is simply not descriptive enough, in my opinion.

Anyway, what do you think of the high-end techs I proposed? Too advanced, or not advanced enough? Any other suggestions?

[Michiel]

They sound good, but lets stick a bit more to reality. Magic, telepathy, immortality. You don't seriously want those in the game, do you? They don't belong in Science Fiction games. Of Secrets of the universe I'm not sure. What exactly do you mean by that?

[Jeremy Buloch]

Well I wouldn't actually call Telepathy not realistic. Its proven by tests that people have certain abilities. But we wont go into that. I dont want to argue. Or bring up loads of info on my side.
-J.B.-

[Gateway103]

To address Leland's inquiry, here is what my brief comment on them (brief, honest!)

- ability to blow up stars (or at least give them a hicup)
I don't like this one even if the game scope is galactic, primarily for play balance reason..

-stargates
only really useful if you have galactic-sector-scale game.

-mass-production of anti-matter, teleportation,
If the game is on a galactic-sector-scale, then I these are good. For planetary-scale though... they seem a bit too advanced.

-magic
Well, "any technology sufficiently advance would be indistinguishable from magic"

-telepathy,
maybe no necessary a high-end tech, but certain a viable tech. Doesn't the Beastmaster alien native species supposedly have telepathic capabilities.

-secrets of the universe
Hmm... what kind of secret? If you are talking understanding how the galaxies fromed, basically answering all cosmology questions, then sure.

- making contact with Tal'Shian and/or Drazan
Hmm... interesting. This could set up the stage for a sequel

- immortality and transcendence from confines of the flesh,
Hmm... these two can actual go hand in hand. Transfer your consciousness to machines for example. Interesting idea.

- practical fusion reactors 20-30 years away.
Not high end if you have antimatter, but definitely a usable tech for the game.

-Gateway103

[Leland]

Yes, some of the "techs" I listed were not very serious. I just wanted to illustrate the general level of absolute high-end stuff and ask if it's too advanced ("indistinguishable from magic" like gateway/clarke would put it) or too mundane.

I take it that the answer is, "too advanced"?

About particular techs, I think immortality is not even an end-level tech. Consciousness transfer moreso. Like gateway pointed out, existence of stargates and such depends on scale of the game (how many systems do you want to see anyway? Tens? Hundreds? Thousands?). Fusion being 20-30 years away was a joke... it's been 20-30 years away for 50 years now, and I just recently read an article asserting the very same thing.

Edited to add: About telepathy, no I don't think it's realistic, but it is a regular scifi prop and it allows "psi-combat" or equivalent. About meeting Tal'Shians or Drazans, it would be interesting if in the end you could decide whether you want to join the Galactic Harmony with the Tal'Shian holding hands (or equivalent grappling organs) and spreading the message of free love across the universe, or ally with Drazans and kick everyone's butt.