SPACE EXPLOITATION ver 2.0 hosted by Smilo - Page 5

Harel · August 20, 1999, 17:49

First, off I am glad someone else remembers MoM. A very nice game, but like you said, confusing for newbies.
And no, I am not sure that Firaxis can design an easy-to-use multimap layout, because, IMHO atleast, you can't. Several maps will ALWAYS be confusing, even for experts. You need to focus on one plane: worrying about several ones will be an headache.
A nice way to use it if something a bit like Star trek multi-layer chase board ( seen it? It was on "the next generation" several times. So you can see ( maybe something 3d? You have a one model and you can zoom up and down, rotate and see both, etc. ).

Just remembered about something. I am by microprose(?) that allowed you to control two planes: hell and heaven. You had the two planes on the same screen, and you zoomed out and in between them.
But even both those systems are very confusing. I remember the hell & heaven game ( could be it "half-life?" Another "half-life"? Someone know the name? ) was very disorienting, even to a strategy game veteran like myself.
So, I really don't go for any multi-map option.

About multi-layer... first bad thing it has, they use it on CtP.
Secondly, no need. We need to realize that if Firaxis didn't have several layers in SMAC ( and CtP allready showed several layers, so they could have used it if they wanted ), no chance they will use it on the more "technology chalanged" civ III.
I am not sure I am even pro multi-layer. For what? A few satellites and stations? I really don't want to see any space combat in civ III anyway: no space warrios and planes. That should have been on SMAC.

So, the way I see it, we have fours options:
<list>
[*]Multi-maps, random solar system. X planets with moons and astroids.
[*]Multi maps of the moon, mars and astroids.
[*]Single earth map, multi-layer. Mars and Moon as wonders.
[*]Singe earth map, like SMAC. Satellites are city buildings, moon and mars are wonder in cities.

I go with the last, for myself.

------------------
EnochF. Nuff said.
[This message has been edited by Harel (edited August 20, 1999).]

Tornado7 · August 21, 1999, 00:13

First off, I just wonder where you guys come up with your quotes. It's real, real scary.
Anyway, while I do not AGREE with certain indivduals options *COUGH Harel COUGH* I see your points and do respect them. I totally agree that there should be a set of options detailing what level of spacec you want in the game. Heck, even I don't want to plant a flag in Utopia Plantia EVERY game. I have a feeling that there won't be a whole lot of space explotation in civ III, at least in the amount I would like, but I guess I'll take what I can get. Mybe for the third game in the sweep of time... Still, it's nice to dream.

Westergaard · August 21, 1999, 14:27

Harel
First I think SMAC's satellite model was very unrealistic, and it should never be used. You don't gain anything from space farming, it's just too expensive to transport stuff to and from orbit. I'd rather leave space out of the game altogether.

Second, you state that multi-layer only results in a few satellites and spacestations. Believe me that I am not argumenting for star-destroyers, interstellar carriers, and huge space battles a la star-wars. I know that these would never be put in the game.

But also, I believe, space is so much more than "just a few satellites and spacestations". You'd obviously have to have some reasons to implement space-exploitation in a civilization game that is about Earth. Therefore I think that it is very important to let the colonization of space affect a lot of things back on Earth, not just make it another place for new cities.

One reason is that space is needed to build the AC starship, but that could be done with wonders if necessary (I don't want that tough). But space is also the place of humanity's last frontier, the place were the pioneers of the 21st century will settle when there is no more uninhabited land left on Earth. Space is a IMHO necessary place to continue humanity's expansion and growth, which is needed to keep our high quality of life. In the future I see three possible scenarios, when the worlds resources start to decrease: [*]First there's the end of the world in a total war, where every country battles over Earths scarce resources, in a so called "zero-sum" game (ie you have to steal from somebody also to gain antyhing). [*]Second, police state like governments could enforce strict resource and birth control, in an attempt to conserve Earths last resources, (maybe this is a case for the social engineering thread?). [*]And third, mankind could continue it's everlasting expansion into space to reap the infinite resources of the moon and the asteroids. And in space have a place for the thousand of new humans born every day.

In other words I think the decreasing resources should be modelled into the civ world. I'm not sure how to do this, any ideas? This would leave the mentioned options for the player to decide, when the ressources started to become scarce. This way space exploitation would have a purpose other than just pure expansion. The purpose of survival.

The actual colonization of space I haven't quite thought out yet. But I agree that I wouldn't like to see huge space battles. I think something along the lines of what I suggested in my large post on page two all the way down, concerning the actual building and maintance of spacestations (should I repost that?). Maybe it should be very expensive to conduct space-wars so that only the richest most powerful nations could afford a space campaign, and only on a small scale. Any ideas on how combat could be limitied or opinions on how much spacecombat should be included?

I think I now which hell-heaven game you are talking about (Afterlife. Kind of simcity in god-mode) but I have never played it. I don't know the star-trek thing either, but it could be a useful idea. But you keep mentioning old games, where we should compare it to new, for example Ctp. I have never played CtP myself, but how did they do the future part? I've heard that was actually one of the good parts of the game. And if CtP could model multi-layer maps, then why shouldn't the Firaxis team be able to build something even more brilliant?
[This message has been edited by Westergaard (edited August 22, 1999).]

Tornado7 · August 21, 1999, 18:22

Wait, now it's my turn- PREACH IT, MY BROTHER!
[This message has been edited by Tornado7 (edited August 21, 1999).]

Slax · August 24, 1999, 14:01

Please, please, please, DO NOT INCLUDE ANYTHING IN CIV III THAT DOES NOT CURRENTLY EXIST. (ie just about everything in this list)

Save that for other titles.

Thatsit.

Westergaard · August 24, 1999, 14:21

Why?

Civilization is a game of human evolution. And human evolution doesn't stop in the year 2000.

Btw if you don't like the future you don't have to play that long.

Tornado7 · August 24, 1999, 17:23

They could always throw in a "stop at 2000" option for people with no imagination. My question is, why waste 50 bucks on civIII if all you want is civII with new eye candy???

Tornado7 · August 24, 1999, 17:24

They could always throw in a "stop at 2000" option for people with no imagination. My question is, why waste 50 bucks on civIII if all you want is civII with new eye candy???

------------------
"And how much, my fellow warriors, can a world change in a mere 800 revolutions??!!"
-Shiplord Kirel, Worldwar:In the balance, right before the Race realizes they're in deep trouble.

Westergaard · August 25, 1999, 00:48

Where has all the people gone? It seems like evrybody has mysteriosly dissapeared. Strange.

Somebody has got to have noticed something that they didn't like about this latest "limited ressources" idea, or some of the other ideas. Maybe somebody has an idea on how to show the limitied resources in game terms, or an entirely new idea. Or maybe somebody just hate the entire model and want to say that.

Anyway please let's have some responses othervise what's the use of forums.

Baller · August 31, 1999, 21:29

To get my two cents in (a little late, it seems) I am all for the idea of multiple maps. I think that the whole point of colonization is that the human race should be able to expand to new worlds, and the player in CivIII should be able to control the decisions and managment which go along with these.
However, I didn't like the multi-layered map in CTP, and I think that satallites and the works should stay in cities until you start actual colonization of other worlds. Once that happens it should be like the start of the game, with one or two units in an alien environment, looking to expand. Colonies must be defended as well as Civ cities-both from rival civs on Earth and (possibly) alien "natives".
Historically speaking, this is the way the game should be. When Europeans "discovered" America, it simply became an outgrowth of their previous conflicts. Europeans proceeded to fight in America just as they had in Europe; there was fierce competition for American recources and land. So, multiple maps in one game is the only logical extension of history once the game reaches past the near future.
Of course, the option to turn it off should be there, for those who don't like it.

Baller · August 31, 1999, 21:30

To get my two cents in (a little late, it seems) I am all for the idea of multiple maps. I think that the whole point of colonization is that the human race should be able to expand to new worlds, and the player in CivIII should be able to control the decisions and managment which go along with these.
However, I didn't like the multi-layered map in CTP, and I think that satallites and the works should stay in cities until you start actual colonization of other worlds. Once that happens it should be like the start of the game, with one or two units in an alien environment, looking to expand. Colonies must be defended as well as Civ cities-both from rival civs on Earth and (possibly) alien "natives".
Historically speaking, this is the way the game should be. When Europeans "discovered" America, it simply became an outgrowth of their previous conflicts. Europeans proceeded to fight in America just as they had in Europe; there was fierce competition for American recources and land. So, multiple maps in one game is the only logical extension of history once the game reaches past the near future.
Of course, the option to turn it off should be there, for those who don't like it.

SWPIGWANG · September 2, 1999, 19:38

The reasource on earth will never(allmost)run out because the reasoure depends on production.It will only run out when people on earth built a earth size object(and pour
earth's mass in to it)

Westergaard · September 3, 1999, 08:24

swpigwang
It's not as much a matter of material resources such as iron, and other materials. It's more a matter of energy. Modern societies need energy and it's getting harder and harder to find.

Currently almost all energy in the world is either fossil fuels (oil, coal, etc.) or nuclear power and both of these have their own problems. While I don't believe that fossil fuels will actually run out someday, they will became rarer and rarer, and more and more expensive to find and mine, and making fuels even more expensive. To the point where it doesn't pay of to mine them because nobody can afford to buy them. Besides they add to the global warming problem.

Nuclear power also has problems, but I'm sure you've already heard of these (nuclear waste, radiation, meltdown, etc).

Other energy forms are inefficient and very expensive. Even if you provided solar energy to the entire planet it would raise the albedo of the surface and result in global warming.

Baller
I agree that space could be an outgrowth for the surface wars the same ways as the american colonies were.

I think that it would be a little boring if other planets were only the same as starting with a settler on Earth. The game should have a reason to have space exploitation. It should affect how the game went on down on the surface, by solving energy-crisises, providing military advantages and so on.

About multilayer maps. I think it's unrealistic to manufacture colonies in cities on Earth and then launch them. It would take huge quantities of fuel.

Tornado7 · September 4, 1999, 21:47

Finally, people who actually agree with me!!!!! It's a miracle!
Yes!
Yes!
(Pasty looking teenager starts doing the funky chicken in front of the computer.)
Look at some of my ideas in this post. There's a ton of them buried in there, just look for them. Tell me what you think, and for God's sake, if you can improve them, by all means do so!!!!)

------------------
"And how much, my fellow warriors, can a world change in a mere 800 revolutions??!!"
-Shiplord Kirel, Worldwar:In the Balance

KingTitus · September 6, 1999, 18:16

okay, im gonna post and i dont want no one yellin at me. First of all, multiple maps would be cool. But inorder to to those maps you would have to build units in your cities, like space colonists, to make it there, that way you could wipe out the spaceship at the end of the game, which i think is stupid. Also it would take a couple of turns for those units to get to their destination, then, a extra map would be added. Also, they could have a feature which would allow you to shut off multilple maps just like they have a toggle for bloodlust(no spaceships) in civ2. In order to keep the maps organized they could have tabs above the map window with the name of the place the map shows. Now, back to the units, when the units get to their destination, the map looks just like what you see when you start the game. Only terrain would different. And it would make sense for the game to head this way, just like real life, eventually we will have colonies on the moon and mars. And WE will have multiple maps. YOU PEOPLE WHO DONT WANT MULTIPE MAPS ARE JUST STUPID BEACAUSE THATS THE WAY REAL LIFE GOES. SO THATS THE WAY THE GAME SHOULD GO!

KingTitus · September 6, 1999, 18:19

also, it would be a great if you could launch a unit to a asteriod and setup mines.