Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Pistol90, Jan 17, 2019.
the thing is its more realistic to have a giant death robot than going to another planet
You sure you weren't watching Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow and just fell asleep?
Failing that, if they're not gonna include an "Alien Attack" disaster (and maybe Gojira!), then no, we don't need Giant Death Robots running around. (You want that, just go play Battletech.)
You probably mean it the other way around
Do we have a list on the future units now?
Lol, a giant death robot is impractical, but entirely within the realm of contemporary human engineering. Establishing human life on another planet is a fun idea, but there's no plausible roadmap to do so within our lifetimes, if ever.
No plausible roadmap? Lunar and Martian bases have been planned since the last half-century. Every development of CELSS and co has been to that point. Atomic Rockets alone can probably drown one in the amount of plans and experiments.
Meanwhile, where is any government or think tank paper on GDRs?
faster than light travel is impossible, and I am firm in this belief. If interstellar travel was possible, we would have seen some evidence by now. And we still haven't figured out how the human body could withstand the rigors of space travel. Mars is a realistic goal, though probably a one way trip.
Leaders in this game live 5,000+ years, and yet some people are calling a GDR unrealistic and breaking immersion.
Yeah, sure. Okay. Don't understand that.
your forgetting the prime directive they won't share with us were too primitive
You could use that argument to justify adding anything to the game. Unicorn riding gnome warriors? Why would that be immersion breaking? Cleopatra's 2,000 years old for heaven's sake!
If tomorow humanity finds out that we will be attacked by Aliens in about 10 years, and they will attack us just on planet Earth. In 10 years we would seen incredible advance in military technology but there would never be Giant Death Robots, probably more advanced planes and missiles ... and we would see Human colony on Mars. Thats why GDR doest make sanse, there is no place for that kind of weapon now or in future, its silly concept ... you could build it , like you could build flying houses with machine guns on front door --- but nobody would do it because it doesnt make sense --- there are better and more economical, practical things.
You could, but that would just ignore the point of my post.
Civilization is not a "historical game". It's a strategy game with a historical flavor.
You're playing a game in which, for example:
-Leaders live forever
-Civilizations which existed at different points in history can interact with one another instantly
-Russia can build Stonehenge
-China can found Christianity
-The Inca can conquer Spain
-Humanity can master interstellar travel
How are these any more "immersion breaking" than the GDR (or the three late game governments, or pretty much anything in the future era)? There are many things in the game which don't make sense that you readily accept. The GDR is probably one of the least offensive things in this game.
I'd take that bet. Look up the problems with Stealth Bomber (maintenance), Zumwalt (scrapped gun system), Missile defense (Missiles keep getting better).
A science base on Mars =/= settling Alpha Centauri or another star system
You don't need FTL to travel anywhere.
Anybody can build stonehenge, it's not that difficult, and we even have a proof its possible because at least one Stonehenge was already built in the British isles. Meanwhile nobody can or will build GDR because it's stupid.
Would you be OK with French having unit Wizards throwing lightning out of their wands, and Americans having well trained dragons to counter planes? Because, you know, we already have leaders that live forever and all the other things you listed?
I dont actually mind them after they changed it so that you need more techs to get them. Also they actually look pretty nice.
From a game play perspective they make sense. You can finish a game faster that you have practically already won. They are strong, but so are late game armies and jet bombers.
I don't agree with your last sentence. The strength gap between GDRs and other late game armies is way to big. GDR standard strength is 130 melee/120 ranged, +10 melee, +30 ranged, +100 air with the respective tech promotions whereas a modern armor army has only 107 strength.
With the tech prerequisites GDR is ok, not a fan, but ok. From a game play perspective, I can't see much of a sense. When you practically have already won, there is no real resistance left so your existing military including airforce will do the job without any problems. No GDR needed. From a game play perspective, I can see some sense in giving you a strong all purpose future unit so that you dont have to deal with a differentiated compund army which some may consider to much micro management (I don't, that's part of the fun in waging wars imo).
In short: balancing is not right yet. Production and upkeep cost is too cheap compared to other units taking into account that it is so powerful.
1) According to the math, FTL travel is possible. The problem is getting to FTL without passing through the speed of light. Travelling at the speed of light is, of course, impossible. But traveling faster? Possible.
2) The statement "... we would have seen some evidence...", that one I can accept. It's worrisome that we've seen no evidence of ramjets and the like. Of course, maybe that's because:
3) We can in theory travel to the stars now by using slowboats. The problem is that slowboats are enormously hard to build; we've failed at every simulation attempt so far. If there is a viable FTL drive, a ship using it is probably easier to build than a slowboat.
The above doesn't take into account sailing ships; those, we wouldn't see much evidence of. They still fall under the general heading of slowboats, though.
Heh-heh, the bolded part gave me a good chuckle. I may have to steal that expression from you for a future post.
Separate names with a comma.