Announcement

**Pythagoras** · December 30, 1999, 00:49

Native Life forms:
Mind Worms/Isles/Locusts - Space Aemeobas (is the mindworm art 3d or sprites?)
Sea Lurk - Space Lurk
Locusts - could be actual space locusts that go around and ravage bases
Fungus - nebulas? I would say asteroids, but I dont think that that large an asteroid field would exist that is larger than many star systems, and it would make since that space life forms hang around there since they are full of carbon/hydrogen/other life giving nutrients. Unless we are restricted to the Alpha Centauri system, and one land square is not one system.
Spore Launchers- life forms that launch/fling asteroids at bases.
Fungal Towers-no idea. get rid of em?
I hope I didnt forget anything...

**Patriqvium** · December 30, 1999, 06:49

Those fungal towers could be something like Oort's Cloud, where new comets are born. Maybe dead or newborn stars which create "spit" matter around themselves and thus create nebulas?

**Jasonian** · December 31, 1999, 00:17

AlexanderIII,

I couldn't help but notice that many of your names were rather simple and just changed a word to "hyperspace" or "galaxy." Did you do this to avoid confusion with the new names, or could you simply not think of better ones?

No offense intended if it is the latter.

**AlexanderIII** · December 31, 1999, 06:16

I was following the KISS rule "Keep It Simple Smiley". The more familiar a new mod is to how players are used to playing, the more thay will embrace its differences and new features. The names are different enough to be realistic, but similar enough to be recognizable as a change from the old ones. Besides, with a few exceptions, I like them. the only ones I am still not satisfied with are those using an alternate word for "forest". And no offense was taken, thanks for the question.

**Jasonian** · December 31, 1999, 19:47

Ahh... that's what I thought.

Some of the names did look rather simple, but I had no trouble figuring out what a "Temple of Galaxy" used to be. So I guess you're right, and it is worth it to keep them simple.

**Kamchak** · January 2, 2000, 04:32

Wait a second! How would you explain the map wrapping around like the surface of a sphere? You can turn that off, yes, but I don't think there's any way to make it mandatory. Just something that spontaneously came to me; there may be a logical and simple answer I didnt think of (spacial curvature? I don't think you would notice it at the galactic level...)

Something else that spontaneously came to me, while writing the previous sentence: For some reason I think Stephen Hawking would love this.

Kamchak was Here

**Qilue** · January 3, 2000, 02:45

Kamchak - Easy answer, all you have to do is imagine your playing on a minature version of the real universe where space is curved.

I'll explain, one theory has it that if you were to travel in one direction long enough, you would end up back where you started.

**Urban Ranger** · January 3, 2000, 03:39

Hm.

Perhaps Firaxis should take a page from the first person shooters game: isolate the engine from the data.

If that can be done, huge areas can be openned up, with all sorts of games that based on the SMAC engine coming out.

**Kamchak** · January 3, 2000, 10:04

I thought you meant it was only a single galaxy. I know about the universe curving around, and the fact that there is no such thing as a straight line and all that. Using the whole universe would work perfectly, but it does seem to be a bit to... gargantuan for even this. Perhaps if you were in a spherical galaxy whose surface area curves around...

Kamchak was Here

**SMACking** · January 3, 2000, 16:39

What about the forest and the jungle? Nebulae could be the fungus squares or they could be forest squares.

------------------
To infinity, and beyond!

**Pythagoras** · January 3, 2000, 16:40

Urban Ranger- for the most part they have, they have supposedly used the same engine for both of their Civil War games, those work better since the terrain detail (trees, houses n stuff) is mostly 2-d, and the only thing that needs to be rendered are the regiments marching around.

**AlexanderIII** · January 3, 2000, 18:15

Originally posted by Kamchak on 01-02-2000 03:32 AM
Wait a second! How would you explain the map wrapping around like the surface of a sphere? You can turn that off, yes, but I don't think there's any way to make it mandatory. Just something that spontaneously came to me; there may be a logical and simple answer I didnt think of (spacial curvature? I don't think you would notice it at the galactic level...)

Something else that spontaneously came to me, while writing the previous sentence: For some reason I think Stephen Hawking would love this.

Kamchak was Here

I can imagine one method for imagining how the spacetime is curved on such a galactic map representation:

1) First-off, a map is only a representation of whatever it is intending to portray, not the actual place -- in other words, the map is not the terrain.

2) Second, it seems agreed that each square represents a possible star system; a planet/base represents that that star system has been "colonized".

3) We could say that this "representation" of the galaxy, being a disk-like shape, is viewed head on which would roughly like a fuzzy rectangle with a circular blob in the middle, as opposed to from above which would look like a circle -- so the overall effect would be to see a sort of rectanglular-like representation of the galaxy intended to represent a head-on view.

And imagine, if you will, that not only is the represented model of our galaxy a head-on point of view, but a circumferal one. You take a head-on view from all around the side of the galaxy, and you come up with an open-ended cylinder, or ring. Unfold that ring/cylinder onto a flat surface, and you have a rectagular view of the galaxy. (My goodness, I think I may have come up with a new Mercator-like standard for galactic map projections! though someone at NASA has probably already thought of it.)

And of course, like a spherical representation of the world projected onto a flat surface, here we have a cylindrical representation projected onto a flat surface. So it is not such a leap to imagine how units can wrap around to the other side left and right of the map, but not top and bottom.

4) Star Systems on this representational map do not indicate their distance from the galaxy's edge, so each square/star system could be any depth into the galaxy (I wish I could illustrate with a diagram).

5) Now comes the tricky part: distances. We will have to suspend disbelief here for a moment and image that, even if in practicality under this representational model two adjacent squares could be on opposite sides of the galaxy, we will have to assume that to move from square to square visibly on the map is to travel in "normal space" by means of some sub-spacial drive, so that distances of that kind are not really a factor. Travelling by means of Drop Pods, Orbital Insertions or Psi Gates is to travel in Hyperspace so that's not a real conceptual problem either.

6) The only other problem with this model, imperfect as any map projection is, is that star-system density would have a tendancy of concentrating itself to an extreme at the centre of the map, unless we assume some convoluted mathematical-logarithmic formula that distributes star-systems evenly across the map surface (conceivably, if this were a real-life model).

And there you have your answer of how a galaxy could be represented as a rectangular map which only wraps around at the right and left edges.

**AlexanderIII** · January 3, 2000, 18:35

Actually, scratch that last point #6: the star systems would not concentrate to the centre of the rectangular map, because there is no "centre of the galaxy" on the map. What we have here is two projections: the first, every star system in the galaxy is projected onto a screen/map that is on the circumference of the galaxy (the cylinder/ring). The second projection involves unfolding this cylindrical projection onto a flat surface, becoming the map as we know it, the second projection. So the "centre" of the galaxy is more the equator of the rectangular map than anything else. Hence, our map is a more or less accurate display of star-system distriubution.

Confused? Good; there'll be a pop quiz on galactic projection in class later this week.

**Fugi the Great** · January 12, 2000, 01:13

Do you disable pollution? How would you explain "space" level changing if there is too much pollution, such as "space level will increase by 300 parsecs over the next 20 years". Also may need to disable melt solar shade manipulation, and melting the poles. Of course it may the fabric of space gets too thin and planets start falling out of normal space into another dimension (water level rises), or start popping into existance (water level decreases).

Salvaging Unity Power core? There was once a galactic empire in a galaxy very far away, but this empire was doomed because this galaxy was beginning to collide with another, and we are the last 7 surviving species from that great empire that left before the end using a super hyper drive ship to get us to this new galaxy.

I have no problem with planets popping out of nowhere (raising land), just make the graphic for space, (the sea), look like a small solar system, and when you get the technology to "build planets", you can make planets around the suns from the stellar debris and cosmic dust. Then why would you want to destroy planets to live on the space debris (lower land)? Maybe disable lowering land?

Announcement

SMAC(X) In Space - why stay planet-bound? (continued)

SMAC(X) In Space - why stay planet-bound? (continued)

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment