The Future - Page 2

tniem · January 29, 2001, 18:05

The tech tree should probably end around the Human Genome project. Whether that should be a wonder or a tech advance I will leave to Firaxis.

After that future techs will get absurd and unplayable imo.

tniem · January 30, 2001, 16:58

quote:

CIV-I ended in 2100, CIV-II in 2050.
A reasonanble extrapolation of what is to come will reach as far 2025.

Vrank,

Civ I ending time varied by what difficulity level. The easiest in 2100, but I hope no one ever needed that extra time after their first couple of games. The hardest ended in 2020.

Vrank Prins · January 31, 2001, 01:00

quote:

Originally posted by tniem on 01-29-2001 05:05 PM
The tech tree should probably end around the Human Genome project.

First priority should be to define at which point in time the game should end. CIV-I ended in 2100, CIV-II in 2050.
A reasonanble extrapolation of what is to come will reach as far 2025. I think that what lies behind that point is too speculative to be realistic. I could live with a few, say 3 or 4 good guesses.
[This message has been edited by Vrank Prins (edited January 30, 2001).]

February 7, 2001, 06:13

There must be future techs in civ3 (I hope they extend the ending year to 2100), and should account for about 1/8 of the tech tree... but I think the question is what do you consider future techs? Laser-Fusion, Human Cloning, Genetic Manipulation, Nanotechnology, Neural-Interface (using myomuscular (sp?) neural feedback), Robotic War-Machines, Underwater Colonization, and even worm-holes and antimatter are NOT future tech... they are simply unpolished not-yet-implemented modern technology... this is the 21st century (despite an earlier post), what many would consider to be sci-fi is actually sci-fact. Why sell the game short because of a few technophopes? If you are talking about an end game of 2020... that's less than 2 decades, and much of what I listed above will be implemented.

I do agree that any "future tech" must be theorectically sound, and plausable in the near future (say 50 years)... and definatly add more too the past, but don't cut short our future!

Knigget · February 7, 2001, 10:46

IMHO the only thing that can really destroy the game is the inclusion of "future" units, improvements and wonders.

Fredric Drum · February 7, 2001, 11:05

Why not have lots of future techs? Ok, most of it would be wild speculations, but so what? It would be fun anyway! It would be boring not to go farther than the present day or the near future (fusion and things like that)... We need anti-matter, wormholes, perfect artificial intelligence (maybe not as a tech, but as a "wonder" with fatal results??), we need anti-gravity devices and vehicles and a lot more I can't think of right now. There are also many possible wonders and buildings that haven't been used before, for instance particle accelerators (boosting science, either as building or wonder).

Fred

Stuff2 · February 7, 2001, 11:30

I think that what is lacking in civ 2 is the the techs that are discovered in the modern age. The development goes far to fast in civ2. We all know that we still don't have the tech for sending people to AC and it is 40 years ago the first man stepped on the moon. My guess is that the technology since then has increased in a way never seen before in history. Late modern age is simply forgotten in civ2.
I think that far future techs don't belong in this game but late modern age techs certainly do. And they can atleast make educated guesses about the nearest future.

My personal opinion is that every improvement you can get from a tech should be like a subtechnology.
For instance: You aquire feudalism, you can then 'research' how to make "pikemen". In this way you have technology that leeds to more technology and technology that leeds to specific improvements, wonders, and units.

Theben · February 8, 2001, 00:50

Sorry, but now I have to change my sig.

------------------
"Just got back from the Thought Police Station. It's not as bad as you might assume;
they spend most of their time thinking about donuts."-EnochF

bagdar · February 8, 2001, 01:00

I don't think that Civ needs a complicated tech tree, let alone one that goes far into the future. Demanding more and more from Civ sounds like demanding the LEGO people to have the ability to speak. The best way is to take the game concept as it is. However, Civ is not an ordinary game, it concerns the history of mankind, so we'll always look for more depth in many of its issues. Related to this, I have a question: does anyone know what the "suggestion list people made after Civ I" looks like?

Knigget · February 8, 2001, 01:43

I think that adding reasonable near future techs is good.

But I dont think that they should do anything other than make you able to build your spaceship or some other minor improvement. Like fusion power works in Civ2. The discovery of fusion power would in real life be a revolution, but in Civ2 you only get a minor bonus. I think this works much better than CtP where you get "fusion tank" and "hover infantry"

Wtf is a fusion tank anyway? Is it supposed to be powered by fusion???