Real 'Near Future': "Mechs","Super Tanks","Super Soldiers","Space Elevator",Etcetera

Wade.

Chieftain
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
51
Location
California, USA
I was looking forward to the new "mechs"(walking tanks), "super tanks", "super soldiers", etcetera being in the main(non-scenario) game. I've seen suggestions that they are only in scenarios. Is this the case?

To the "Civilization is about history" people I will say that in my opinion "Civilization is about building a civilization".

"Mechs" and "super tanks" are not too assuming. There are already prototypes of small, two-legged walking robots(bird-legged and human-legged forms) being developed by several groups. The US military already uses and continues to develop small, remotely operated, tracked machines that use guns as arms and cameras as eyes. Also, forms of a "super soldier" incorporating various technologies. There is also early development into a computer link directly to the human brain. The "space elevator" is already in the game. That too is being developed.

This is 2007. Imagine 2050 and further! Scary, wonderous, and a better quality of life just as our ancestors would view "modern" times.

All of thes technologies have been featured on the various Science/Discovery/Learning/Military channels.

-Wade
 
I agree. The late game defintely lacks in Civ 4. Obviously this is being addressed partially in Beyond the Sword, though I would love to see mechs and futuristic tanks. One of the things I loved about Call to Power 2 were the futuristic aspects in the genetic age and diamond age and exotic goverments like technocracy and corporate republic. Civilization slows down in the modern era, and just feels very stale in the late stages because, barring a huge modern era invasion, the winner is already set by this time. New gameplay mechanics, units, and governments in a future era could shake things up for the better.
 
Could somebody please tell me why we should spend time and money developing mechs rather than just improving regular tanks? I've never understood that.
 
Could somebody please tell me why we should spend time and money developing mechs rather than just improving regular tanks? I've never understood that.
Its to do with the mech being able to raise and lower the hieght of its torso/cannons due to it being able to bend at the knees, as in tank on tank combat the main strategy is to keep your bottom half hidden behind hills/terrain and only allow you turret to be visable as it fires over. So effectively in a mech rather than driving a couple hundred meters till your close enough to fire over a dune or hill you would just have to raise the torso a bit giving you superiour range over a tank... and then when they go to fire back you just lower yourself back down for cover.
Another aspect is that tanks have to equip different treads for different terrain, rubber treads for hardened smooth surfaces & metal treads for soft surfaces, a mech wouldn't. But i think the main reason for developing a mech would be simply so that it only needs to be piloted by a single person rather than a team of people. Dont think of a mech as like in anime, but rather as turret on legs.

...also they're just plain cool :cool:

In aus(coop with usa) we are developing umgs instead...
Awesomeness Personified
http://www.defensereview.com/article718.html
 
Obviously because Mechs just look plain cool :)

But seriously, I've always though mechs to be rather ridiculous things for armored warfare. Balancing on two spindly legs like that. Just shoot of the leg and it will fall on its back and not get up!

A tank on the other hand has a much lower profile and is can still function as an armored metal box with a big gun if its propulsion is compromised.

Could somebody please tell me why we should spend time and money developing mechs rather than just improving regular tanks? I've never understood that.

[EDIT] Well, looks like I got beaten to the punch with the plain cool comment :)
 
Balancing on two spindly legs like that. Just shoot of the leg and it will fall on its back and not get up!
Not only would it be extremely difficult to hit the legs, the chances are that they would be so heavily armored(and curved) that it would do virtually nothing.
 
As you said, Civ is about civilizations. Not speculation. I'm not a historical-focused-game die hard fan, but I think that putting stuff which are merely prototypes nowadays isnt a good option for this kind of game.
The Space Elevator is in, that's true, but it's also the only completely-out-of-reality building or unit. Putting it in the game was a strange decision, BTW.
New focus on modern techs is nice, but futuristic ones are better left as scenarios.
 
At the risk of being labeled a freak, the futuristic technology was much of the appeal of Alpha Centauri, along with the unique storyline. So I say, "why not?"
 
At the risk of being labeled a freak, the futuristic technology was much of the appeal of Alpha Centauri, along with the unique storyline. So I say, "why not?"

Because Alpha Centauri was a wholly sci-fi game. You had a sentient planet siccing psychic worms of doom on you, for Mua'Dib's sake! Civilization, on the other hand, is meant to have a large degree of verisimilitude and a firm grounding in reality (albeit an abstract one). Look at games like Empire Earth or Call to Power and tell me the future in those games doesn't look out-of-place. Civilization's tech tree is about exploring the relationships between technologies, examining all their ramifications to see exactly how something would work out, what physical concepts (eg units, improvements, buildings, wonders, etc) would be derived from that, and how things might have gone differently. When dealing with the future, we've no way of knowing what the consequences of new technology might be. Not too long ago, people were trying to figure out how to create spider farms to harvest spider silk for its incredible tensile strength. Now, carbon nanotubes are the "in" thing. Who knows what we may discover in the future, and how it may affect us?
 
Because Alpha Centauri was a wholly sci-fi game. You had a sentient planet siccing psychic worms of doom on you, for Mua'Dib's sake! Civilization, on the other hand, is meant to have a large degree of verisimilitude and a firm grounding in reality (albeit an abstract one). Look at games like Empire Earth or Call to Power and tell me the future in those games doesn't look out-of-place. Civilization's tech tree is about exploring the relationships between technologies, examining all their ramifications to see exactly how something would work out, what physical concepts (eg units, improvements, buildings, wonders, etc) would be derived from that, and how things might have gone differently. When dealing with the future, we've no way of knowing what the consequences of new technology might be. Not too long ago, people were trying to figure out how to create spider farms to harvest spider silk for its incredible tensile strength. Now, carbon nanotubes are the "in" thing. Who knows what we may discover in the future, and how it may affect us?
Theres no logic in saying that the game shouldn't/cannot be partially sci-fi. If it improves gameplay, balance and enjoyability than by all means it should be in regardless of how unrealistic. Its simular to the current animals in game, a unit represent something like 1000 soldiers yet in game there are groups of bears big enough to easily kill them... totally unrelistic, but without them there would either be settlers running around unescorted or hordes of barbarian units running in an attacking towns too early in the game.
 
I like the idea of near-future technology appearing at the end of the game. It doesn't have to be elaborate, just a few interesting units, a building, perhaps a small tech wonder, a scary random event, and an interesting bonus or two from advanced techs.

I really do not think the last few decades of play to 2050 need to be dull. A little exploration into "what-if" predicated on current trends in technological research could be fun! :D

Besides, many people win the game long before the near-future becomes an issue. And, for those who don't, do we just stall the game on 2008 technology even though the game could continue until 2050? Forty years and all we accomplish is a space ship and a space elevator? Surely other great things are on the near horizon!...

Cure for Cancer? (A boost/bonus to city size?)
Space Station as a national wonder? (We have the I.S.S. in RL already!)
Suborbital interceptor?
Suborbital troop/vehicle carrier? (Drop your modern tanks anywhere!)
Early terraform ability of some kind for workers?
Internet virus plague as a bad random event? (Maybe lose the most recent tech gained, and all other civs won't trade with you for 10 years.)
Asteriod strike disaster! Ouch!
The SETI Project? Maybe random chance that an alien signal is discovered which has significant geopolitical/social consequences? (No actual alien contact, just the evidence alone could shake things up!)
Human cloning and cloned soldiers?
Fusion power stations?

There are many reasonable and interesting indulges in speculative game elements regarding the near-future that we can make without fear of contriving "over-the-top" science fiction. :cool:
 
How about adding technologies that already are being used first then let's talk about some near future technologies? Otherwise give us the package blown way out on guessing.

I mean I see plenty of missing technologies. The telegraph and telephone should exist before the Internet for example. Cuneiform and Hieroglyphics should exist before the Alphabet. Of course I would also like to see some boats use rivers but I don't think that is going to happen because the steamboat was no small idea. I mean the importance of the industrial age is lost to me in the game and the whole technology tree needs to completely reworked. I mean humans had domesticated animals before agriculture, and permanent cities came after agriculture.

Basically I am saying if you are asking for them to be historical and somewhat accurate then we should redo the whole game. If you are asking to add some crazy scifi to stuff to game only then that is ok because it makes no sense at the present state.
 
I would have no objections to seeing the future game expanded, but only if it was done within what seems to be reality at the moment. I'd hate to see the main game go down the sci-fi path.
 
Well I think the game is really already pseudo sci-fi because so much is missing so doesn't matter to me. I would like them to keep to history but unfortunately to that would be to complicated for most people. I mean you have money from the very beginning. All the plants and animals only are found in specific spots. I mean ya sure all of the world really today imports their corn from Mexico today because they were the lucky ones to start with the resource. To try and apply a standard of realism is to game is lubricious and saying I don't want anything that is not real.

But I am for beginning to try and fix the mistakes instead. I just like them to do one or other. I would actually prefer no sci-fi if they would fix the major mistakes. The resource system and domestication needs to completely redone. The concept of culture and nationalism although I think it is neat how the culture effects the borders. The improvements make no sense ya sure I want replace all of my roads for railroads and not have both no tunnels or canals. The combat really makes a lot of sense I need a small army of warriors to kill a bear. The towns don't count towards population only the cities matter. I could on and on so to me it is all just fantasy as it is anyway.
 
In terms of future techs, at least in terms of lethal military equipment, you could port over the whole Revolution in Military Affairs/DARPA equipment, which emphasize speed over armor, with intelligence (particularly SIGINT) to replace defense. So things like fast-moving drones or satellites (don't know how you would implement the latter) to see where the enemy is, light tanks and artillery that can be parachuted, stealth systems (both for heavy equipment [tanks, DDX, artillery] and individual infantry [they just developed light-bending cloth]). Oh, and reducing logistics/maintenance costs on these units. And also, battlefield networking between all these units as a national wonder (increases power rating of all units).

Other things would be reactive/self-repairing armor (automatic medic 1 or 2 promotion), improved targeting for non-line of sight artillery (improved bombardment and ability to select improvements/buildings you want to destroy). Speaking of the last point, I'd love to see precision munitions and especially cruise missiles reintroduced. In particular, there's that earthquake bomb they were working on a while ago. And my personal favorite, at some point they were doing virtual tests of that Starcraft drone carrier.

From the non-lethal side of DARPA (but which could be made lethal), there's that heat-ray which would be effective (kind of) against infantry. Or, interestingly, quelling unhappiness and unrest in your cities. Hmm...mobile "temples" - that's an interesting idea...

Anyway, just some thoughts. These are all projects that are either currently being developed or were at some point tested (and found to be impractical). So, I hope they could qualify as Civ-eligible without taking us too far outside of an "Earth-based"/reality-based game.
 
Oh, I should also mention - mechs are completely impractical as near-future weapons, except perhaps as anti-infantry. The sheer weight of the equipment, munitions, etc. on a "full mech" requires much more lift and mobility than a single soldier (even given technical enhancements) could use effectively. (There is a lower-torso exoskeleton in development, but that's designed to assist lifting of basic equipment.) Assuming that a mech system (and the one person designed to man it) couldn't effectively carry, load, target (the important part) and fire heavy rounds, you're left with anti-infantry-mechs. And because the need for effective armor adds even more weight, it makes them a poor design choice.

And the "range" aspect of mechs is already served by other systems, notably helicopters, artillery, fighter-bombers, and increasingly strategic bombers armed with guided munitions. In addition, one could simply enhance the infantry weaponry, so anti-tank infantry (which I know are being added) are still effective against tanks in the late game.

Another idea: cybernetic enhancements to battlefield and military medicine. There is some great research being done on mechanical arms weighing 9 lbs. with full/significant articulation. In implementation terms, this would mean having a building for cities which increases the heal rate of injured units.
 
@Chengora: you are thinking along similar lines as I am :cool: Those last 40 years of the game can feature things we are working on and trends in science and technology that we see happening today. Good ideas! :)
 
Maybe there needs to be a way to use space. Either peacefully (communications satellites) or militarily (space-based bombers/artillery?). I think this would open up some interesting near future options, without resorting to stuff like mechs.
 
Top Bottom