 |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
IŽd like it to have specific moon colonies, which could be built on a moon map, but function somehow different from the normal cities on earth:
1. Their Population would be much less than those of the cities on earth (i.e. the absolute number of people living there; you could still have those colonies grow to size 20, but they would represent rather 2000 people rather than 200.000)
2. You would have a special building qeue for moon colonies. You werenŽt able to build large Units (like Tank armies) as with your small population you wouldnŽt b e able to find enough recruits, but other special units, like lunar rovers and the like (and of course specific lunar colony improvements (like the lunar observatory someone already mentioned and maybe some tourist facilities)
3. You would (of course  ) have lunar tile improvements with a different graphics set from the normal game (and maybe somehow different functions). For example you could have Live Support Facilities (with biodomes for food, and O2 and water extractors) instead of the farms on earth, lunar mines and, different from earth, special scientific tile improvements like various forms of telescopes (which enhance the scientific output at this tile).
4. The main reason for you to have moon colonies would be science (and, to a lesser degree, tourism) so you should have future technologies, which cost a lot of science beakers to research (and make it worthwhile to build lunar colonies)
5. The first lunar colony should be expensive to build, maybe in form of a small wonder. All further colonies should be easier to construct, maybe in form of some kind of "lunar settler" (which, of course, you could only built in moon colonies
As for the Alpha Centauri - Mission. It should still be used to end the game, even if you were able to build moon or mars colonies.
As someone already ointed out, as some form of tradition 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Spiffor
|
 |
CPA - Evil Clone brigade
Nov 2001
time: 06:34
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Elok
I didn't know anyone other than George W. Bush actually thought going to the moon is still a good idea. It's a barren rock, no unique resources, too small to be terraformed into habitability...it might be useful as a mine for raw materials or something if resources on Earth run low, or as a prison camp or nuclear waste dump, but living on the moon compared to the earth...meh. Maybe Mars, but not the moon. |
There's a strong interest among the international space science community in establishing a permanent scientific base there. Also, the US will have international partners in its Mars mission, which would likely benefit from a moon base. And finally, some rare materials abound on the moon, including a material that could very useful in research on fusion power. The moon cannot be a second Earth when it comes to habitability, but its economic exploitation makes sense.
The one thing that really prevents us from doing all these projects already is that any space launch is viciously expansive, and you'd require tons upon tons of material to launch what it takes to create and sustain a scientific/mining base there.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
@Spiffor: True, rocket starts are way too expensive. However, this could change if we decided to build a spacelift / skyhook / however you call it: A thick cable (which has to be made of a special material that isn't invented yet) 100,000 miles long which is hooked to the Earth somewhere at the equator at one end. The other end will stretch into space, held in position by gravity. Spaceships could go up or down on it - and if equal masses traveled in both directions, up and down, you'd actually need not too much of energy. Yeah, why can't we build that in Civ?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
sophist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Max Sinister
A thick cable (which has to be made of a special material that isn't invented yet) 100,000 miles long which is hooked to the Earth somewhere at the equator at one end. The other end will stretch into space, held in position by gravity. Spaceships could go up or down on it - and if equal masses traveled in both directions, up and down, you'd actually need not too much of energy.
|
The material has been invented. They're called nanotubes. The issue isn't discovering the material but being able to manufacture it in sufficient quantities with sufficient length and quality. I believe they can manufacture a relatively small amount on the order of kilos per year of nanotubes up to a few centimeters long. They need to be able to increase that production by a few orders of magnitude and lengthen those nanotubes to roughly a meter. Then they'll be able to stitch them together.
The current wisdom is that a ribbon would be superior to a cable, as it would flutter rather than fall in case of a break.
A further advantage of this is that the parts of the space elevator/orbital tether/whatever that are beyond geosynchronous orbit (~22,500 miles) are rotating faster than than an object at that height would orbit the Earth. As a result, objects that scale the tether to those heights and are released would get flung into space like a sling shot or bolo. The only power necessary would be what it took to climb 22,500+ miles out of the Earth's gravity well, which isn't that much. The Earth's angular momentum would take care of the rest. A little known fact is that most of the energy used by rockets to get into orbit is not for going up but for going sideways and accelerating the spacecraft to orbital velocity, which, at the altitude of the space shuttle, is something like 36,000 mph.
Er... not sure how to make this on-topic ;-)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TomVeil
|
|
District of Columbia
Dec 2001
time: 00:34
|
|
I don't know if anyone said this, but I'd suggest that "moon colonization" be a self-contained scenario rather than a feature in every game.
From what I understand of the Civ4 engine, it should be possible to program a barren world where each Civ starts out with all but the most modern techs, gets a constant stream of 'colonists', and has to terraform like mad to survive. As a standalone, it could be quite a fun diversion (that's why Sid's AC sold, right?).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:34
|
|
I loved the potential via multilevel maps in ToT, but that's all it was, potential, odd situations, but great for interesting mods. I'll keep CIV on earth, thank you. For now anyway. Maybe in CV the AI et al will be sufficient for the added complexity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Bogdanovist
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by TomVeil
As a standalone, it could be quite a fun diversion (that's why Sid's AC sold, right?). |
Have you actually played SMAC!!?? There is no way it can be called a diversion. For me playing Civ3 is a diversion from SMAC, it's a lot more complex without significantly increasing MM and far more immersive and 'fluffy'. Civ4 looks great but it should definately keep the AC victory condition to leave SMAC2 open. Firaxis has stated that this is a very real possibility in the nearish future.
Civ is all about human history , not future possibilities. If it included a future age you would expect a future civ to represent the great civilisation of the future. As it stands there are UU's scattered throughout the timespan of Civ, all of a sudden we reach this futuristic moon base (??) era and their are no more UU's or great civs representing this time. Definately not in keeping with the flavour and fluff of Civ. The trip to AC is an abstract end goal, whereas a future era that affected the game play is not Civ.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:34.
Apolyton Time is 00:34. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
13-02-2005 05:26
|