Future era Ideas

[sealman]

Ahh, so you want a "Hippie Victory" Condition? How would said victory be achieved? Gain Peace Treaties with everyone on Earth? Too easy; I've often had long periods of World Peace. To achieve victory in Civilization is to make sure that you become the leader of the world, whether through military might, important power over other countries (UN), saturating the globe with your cultural superiority so that everyone is essentially of your nation, or even abandoning Earth entirely and establishing your superiority on another world.

I read that as "Hippy Thinking" as well.

 

[Neomega]

YOu'll probably just have to wait for a mod that integrates these ideas.... in the mean time... play mine

(the conquests version is coming soon)

 

[Yuri2356]

@ LewsTherin
Thanks for appreciating my sense of humor as for the peacefull thing, I belive I've established my opinion on that....

3728) You realize you have become more of a warmonger than the AI....

3729) You now look back and think of the AI as peace-loving hippies....

3730) And it makes you hate them more than ever before...

3731) But suddenly their strange behavior makes sense....
Man this is some good stuff,
Woah, my hands are HUGE!
You are so high shaka...
Mao can't handle his chronic!
Hey, shove it Bismark!
Oh, I'm so scared, don't let the bald Chineese guy get me!
Wait, what were we talking about?

 

[sir_schwick]

Its like Einstein said, E=mc^2. Since the m is much larger then in even fission or fusion reactions, the amount of energy would be monstrous. How does one create this anti-matter though? And would not the creation of anti-matter in matter create a giant hole of energy in the universe?

On Fusion, I thought the current problem was that with current technology you cannot put enough energy into the reaction material to sustain it. The only way humans have ever been able to put enough energy into a fusion reactint to sustain fusion has been with fission devices, which ultimately results in hyper-critical mass which results in a fusion explosion, or a fusion bomb. Right now materials don't exist that could contain a fusion reaction safely.

@The Hippies - Rational humans do what is best for their personal goals. The first goal is survival, that is why no one has used a nuclear weapon in almost sixty years. For a leader, it is the survival of his people, that is why the Japanese emperor surrendered at the end of WWII. After surviving, any leader wants to have control of their situation and destiny. World Peace will be a condition of profitability, not enlightenment. Even after escaping a doomed Earth, the Unities factions realized that they could only unite under the strongest leader, not the most idealistic. There was no 'UN victory', just who will bring 'us' the most success, and a few others such as cornering the world energy market(economic) and cuasing everyone to submit(survival).

BTW, nice addition just then Yuri.

 

[Neomega]

Its like Einstein said, E=mc^2. Since the m is much larger then in even fission or fusion reactions, the amount of energy would be monstrous. How does one create this anti-matter though? And would not the creation of anti-matter in matter create a giant hole of energy in the universe?

On Fusion, I thought the current problem was that with current technology you cannot put enough energy into the reaction material to sustain it. The only way humans have ever been able to put enough energy into a fusion reactint to sustain fusion has been with fission devices, which ultimately results in hyper-critical mass which results in a fusion explosion, or a fusion bomb. Right now materials don't exist that could contain a fusion reaction safely.

@The Hippies - Rational humans do what is best for their personal goals. The first goal is survival, that is why no one has used a nuclear weapon in almost sixty years. For a leader, it is the survival of his people, that is why the Japanese emperor surrendered at the end of WWII. After surviving, any leader wants to have control of their situation and destiny. World Peace will be a condition of profitability, not enlightenment. Even after escaping a doomed Earth, the Unities factions realized that they could only unite under the strongest leader, not the most idealistic. There was no 'UN victory', just who will bring 'us' the most success, and a few others such as cornering the world energy market(economic) and cuasing everyone to submit(survival).

BTW, nice addition just then Yuri.

fusion has been achieved with sonoluminiscence.... google it.

But it takes more energy going in than coming out, so it is not a viable power source.... yet....


My mod is all about what companies or governments can provide the best immortality to their people....

plug #2

 

[Yuri2356]

Why even worry about building fusion power plants? Just look up during the day, and you will si a giant naturally occuring fusion reaction. An Ideal way of generating power would we a series of orbital solar arrays that could somehow transmit the energy to the surface where it could be used. (think the microwave power plant in SC2000) Only promblem is, that when most think solar power they think of calculators, and realy slow solar cars. The reason solar pannels on earth arren't powerfull is because that whole Atmosphere thing filters out most of the radiation, allowing us to survive. Solar pannels in orbit are far more effective, just look at the ISS! Just a few arrays provide all the power the station needs.

And again on the peace issue: hippes have to except that humans are animals, far smarter than the others, and with the ability to deastroy ourselves, but still animals. Our prime goal is to survive and make more of ourselves and ensure their survival, all other advances of human society have been a result of this need. We made weapons to defend ourselves, homes to shelter us, figured out farming to feed us, and over time all of these base inventions have been enhaced and refined with the sole purpose of survival.

 

[LewsTherin]

Haha Yuri, well you are a one warlike dude eh? I pity the poor AI...

More on Antimatter (man, I'd like to be able to get some ), basically what it is. The atoms of which the antimatter is composed have opposite charges than the atoms that compose matter (protons are negative, electrons are positive). So I think you could create these particles, though I have no idea how you would put them together in an atom. Although I think I heard about scientists creating a few atoms of anti-hydrogen a few years back..

 

[mortalmadman]

Enough about hippies, We all know world peace is what we want in the real world, but this again, is a game.

Now if you went back in time, your grandpa would exist. I hate people who have this view. They think humans have something to do with science and the world. The univous doesn't rotate around us! Were just a bunch of atoms to make an animal. And we have illusions to give ourselves purpose. Just like fight club said. "you are not a unique and beautiful snowflake, you are the organic, decaying, scum of the univiours.

 

[Alafin]

Don't get me wrong. I know it's just a game, but I also know it makes certain assumptions about human nature that have wide currency in today's world but which I personally find to be unrealistic. No problem, really. I love the game even just as it is and I do tend to play in such a way as to minimize the amount of conflict in it. I just prefer it that way. I've played whole games without ever attacking an opponent except in self-defense, winning the space race every time.

Perhaps instead of an end-game that focuses on building a spaceship the focus could be on building the shared buildings of a world government/world religion. The "winner" would be the civ that contributes the greatest number of building components to the finished structure(s). In ToT Fantasy scenario, the ultimate goal is to build a Great Siege Engine for instance, so I know it's possible to do this. Since religion is going to play a bigger role in cIV, an end-game world religion to which all peoples of the world "convert" would avoid the odiousness of a victory coming through one of the historical religions (ie: All the world becoming Muslim, Christian or Buddhist). This is not meant to be a put-down of any religion; I just think it's unrealistic to expect world peace to come about under the umbrella of any of the historical religions of the world. Christ said not to put new wine in old wine skins and any new religion would be like new wine to the human soul, necessitating a new wine skin or outward form for the religion.

Alafin Bahahotep

 

[Mewtarthio]

So you want a "Pluralism" victory condiction? Aside from being non-PC, it wouldn't make any sense. There would still be countless people who would refuse to convert to said religion. Would you just run around and kill them all? Plus I hate the "one religion" idea because I am religious myself. I believe there is one way to heaven, and it doesn't involve a giant amalgm of religions that ends up drastically changing each of its members to the point where you'd never even recognize it. As Calvin (from the comic strip) once said: "A good compromise leaves everyone angry."

 

[bob rulz]

Why even worry about building fusion power plants? Just look up during the day, and you will si a giant naturally occuring fusion reaction. An Ideal way of generating power would we a series of orbital solar arrays that could somehow transmit the energy to the surface where it could be used. (think the microwave power plant in SC2000) Only promblem is, that when most think solar power they think of calculators, and realy slow solar cars. The reason solar pannels on earth arren't powerfull is because that whole Atmosphere thing filters out most of the radiation, allowing us to survive. Solar pannels in orbit are far more effective, just look at the ISS! one small array provies all the power the station needs.

Um, one small solar array powers the entire station? Have you ever seen pictures of it? The solar arrays take up about 30% of it's size! Also, we actually would rely on solar power nowadays if it weren't for it's ridiculously high costs. The reason solar panels on Earth aren't powerful is because we don't have the money to invest in high-tech, reliable, kick-arse solar panels. It is clean and efficient, we just don't have the correct level of technology to make it efficient and cheap. Solar power would completely eliminate our dependence on fossil fuels and the dwindling oil supply wouldn't be a problem for us, but it just isn't practical.

 

[sir_schwick]

Also consider that fossil feuls are an amazing cheap source of energy compared to almost all others. Feul cell technology technicall utilizes hydrogen, but fossil feuls are a cheap source of hydrogen.

Nuclear technology is more efficient, but currently all power generators get hit with huge pollution fees, even the nuclear power industry. The fee is the same for coal and nuclear power, something the nuclear power industry has protested for years. Also, in general the public's perception of Chernobyl and Three-Mile Island has made establishing the relatively safe nuclear power industry difficult.

Solar energy makes sense for individual houses(that technology does exist) and very small operations. However, why not use the process which powers the sun rather the byproducts of that process, nuclear energy? Also, the Earth generates a lot of energy in the core, geologic power. It would make underground expansion easier.

 

[dh_epic]

Not to endorse hippie victories, but you could still achieve victory (in my mind) ...

- by having vastly more wealth than everyone else
- by having a vastly better quality of life than everyone else

Peace may be involved, but is not in itself sufficient for victory.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92201

Just throwing those out there, in addition to the domination, cultural, and space superiority victories from Civ 3.

 

[sir_schwick]

Right now if your current civ wanes, you lose. By that definition victory is very slimly defined. Here is a synopsis of how I think civs should develop.

1) Assume that civs that have a steady rise to power will eventual fall. Civ 4 would measure your relative rise in power and plot about when and how you fall. FAlling would involve the seperation of states, probably to where they were before you conquered them. As states split off, you could choose to take control of the ancestor of your success rather than stay with the failing government. This also determines when GA are and gives you bonuses accordingly.
2) If the rise to power is veyr very rapi,d its assumed to be the result of a few men or a few heirs, thus the fractioning is pretty immediate. Now though, you've planted the seed of your culture and made a name in history.
3) If you were destroyed, assume you will eventually re-emerge.

Thus part of accumulating a high score was being the seed of many civs that form from the fall of your empire.

 

[Yuri2356]

So, be Rome, but leave behind Byzantium? The thing about Civ is, there is a rise and a fall, and if you fall before achieving a victory condition, we call that loosing. Civ Assumes that you have built an empire that will withstand the test of time and last forever. It might be interesting to have the option to play on as annother Civ if you are conquered, but I doubt it would be all that interesting.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually, the first statement was exactly what I meant. The problem is that nothing stands forever and history is judged not only by what you succed in life, but what comes of your work after death. Micheal Jordan is not a loser because he cannot totally dominate NBA games anymore. He is a winner because while he was in his prime, he dominated. Also Civ does not take into the account what happens whenever humans stands without great challenge for a long time; they atrophy. They grow fat and lazy, like all empires. Also, internal problems in most of the great empires as well as the rise of neighbors led to their demise.

 

[Alafin]

So you want a "Pluralism" victory condiction? Aside from being non-PC, it wouldn't make any sense. There would still be countless people who would refuse to convert to said religion. Would you just run around and kill them all? Plus I hate the "one religion" idea because I am religious myself. I believe there is one way to heaven, and it doesn't involve a giant amalgm of religions that ends up drastically changing each of its members to the point where you'd never even recognize it. As Calvin (from the comic strip) once said: "A good compromise leaves everyone angry."

My question to you is, would you want a game where Buddhism could become the dominant world religion? I assume you want one where the whole world embraces Christianity, or maybe Islam. Interestingly, both of these religions are at their core religions of brotherly love and international peace, yet even the most cursory review of history will bring to the surface innumerable instances where the religious beliefs of their adherents have been used to justify the most abominable treatment of the believer's fellow human beings (think: slavery in the Southern US justified by slavery in the bible & racism in general around the idea that the black or brown skin of black or brown skinned people was the result of the mark of Cain. Think also of the mentality of the Islamic purist suicide-bombers/terrorists pursuing their campaign of a world run according to Muslim law (aka. shari'a) and the maltreatment that would befall the people of the West should such a plan succeed.)

My assertion is that neither Christianity nor Islam could ever become universally accepted in today's world and so such a possibility should not be written into the game world of Civilization; that at least is my preference. So, instead, let's examine the successive nature of religion, by which I mean that all world religions build upon a foundation created by the immediately preceding world religion. For example, Christianity could not exist in its present form if Jesus Christ did not have the religion of Judaism to draw upon at the very least as a source of material from the collective experience of His audience, but more importantly for the moral, ethical, & prophetic elements contained within Judaism (list of elements not meant to be exhaustive) which JC (may my life be a sacrifice to Him) used to help the people understand the message that He was there to deliver, their understanding of which developed over time into the Christianity of today. So too, Islam emerged in Arabia built upon the foundation stone of Monotheism, borrowed from Christianity & Judaism, that some elements of that society had found a way to embrace in the face of the pervasive paganistic beliefs of the time. The father of Muhammad, the prophet-founder of Islam, (may the Glory of the Lord rest upon Him) was one of these early monotheists.

Which leads to another major point, which is that each of these world religions is in some way an upgrade of what had come before delivered through the Being of a divinely appointed Messenger, the healing energy of His lifeforce, as much as any words that came from His mouth, being the fountainhead of the religion(upgrade) they came to bring. So pervasive is this pattern that the fair-minded thinker will admit that it exists in every truly international world religion. Examine Hinduism and you will find the Lord Krishna; Buddhism has the Buddha, Lord Gautama Siddhartha; Zoroastrianism has Zarathustra. In fact, the existence of Divine Messengers can even be inferred (though not absolutely affirmed) in the religions of some of the so called primitive peoples of the world. In North America, the mythology, practices and highly ethical natures of the Pueblo Indian, Plains Indian and Iroquois Confederacy (whose ideas about society, incidentally, were so advanced that the Founding Fathers of America used some of them in framing the Constitution of the United States) more than hint at the existence of a Divine Messenger figure at the root of their religion. In fact, the Iroquois refer to their religion-giver as the Lawmaker, as in Divine Law-Giver Sent From the Creator.

Another major point is that each of these world-relgions was given to mankind at a specific point in its history, tailored to meet the progressing spiritual capacity of mankind to understand increasingly difficult and abstract concepts and ideas, especially ones with religious application and overtones. Just as what is taught in fourth grade is an extension of and development of ideas and concepts taught in third, so each successive world religion is an extension of and development of what was taught in the previous religion.

Which brings me to my final point, that every world-religion contains within it prophecies of a future phase of mankind where all of the people's of the world are brought together under the banner of one world-religion. Deny it all you want, but in one form or another, hidden behind whatever symbolism was appropriate at the time of its dissemination, there exists in each religion the promise that a Divine Messenger would "return" to usher in an era of world peace. If this is true, and world peace truly is what we want, as some in this forum have said, why not shape this game to better reflect the true central role that religion has and always will play in world history, and to reflect the clear objective that all world religion points to, ie.: the establishment of world peace under the umbrella of a unifying world religion promulgated by a divine Messenger.

This being the case, is it reasonable to believe that one or the other of the previously existing world religions should be made dominant over all the others in light of the long history of contention and evil-use they have been put to? My answer is no; it is not reasonable. Therefore, some other solution to this problem must have been intended by the Divine Creator that gave us the many testimonials to Its thinking that are at the core of the various religions, and that other something can only be a new Divine Messenger with a new, ie: upgraded, divine message, ie:religion, suitable to the times and spiritual capacity of mankind today.

In game terms this could play out as simply as each civ begins the game with a generic "tribal religion". Then as it progresses and discovers the "advanced religion" tech converts to the culturally/historically appropriate religion for it. The Arabs would become Muslims; British, French & Spanish Christian; Persians Zoroastrian (perhaps later becoming Muslim); etc. Perhaps also, to add flavor, each form of religion would give the player some bonuses or advantages, though not so great as to imbalance the game; and perhaps one's co-religionists would be overall more favorably disposed towards you. One could even allow for Communism(atheist religion as distinct from form of government) and Socialism (the irreligion, also distinguished from the governmental form though clearly related, that so many Western peoples have adopted to replace Christianity (which, incidentally, is the real reason Muslim fundamentalists despise us and want to blow us up)) as "religions" that one could convert to in the later stages of the game. But, then, if one wanted to go for the religious victory one's people would need to convert eventually to the Unity religion and work towards establishing world peace by helping to build the network of buildings that would administer such a world-embracing religion (as one possible way to tangibly visualize achieving this goal). This could even be an option available side by side with the traditional space race colony option and would not replace the much-loved-by-some victory-by-conquest option.

Let us not forget that the true meaning of religion is to bind together, not in the sense of to enslave, but in the sense of brotherhood. This is the sense one gathers from an examination of the world's religions that a Divine Creator would have us experience. Surely such a thing is possible.

Humbly submitted,
Alafin Bahahotep

PS: To me hippies, though superficially people of love, are at a deeper level more like godless hedonists therefore fitting into the category of socialism as defined above.

 

[Mewtarthio]

Well, I prefer the idea of generic religions in CivIV. I also find the idea of an amalgmed "Unity" religion unrealistic. Why are there various buildings that must be constructed for it to work? I wouldn't be opposed to a "Religious Victory," so long as it was the dominance of your state religion, not everyone's (who'd be declared the winner?)

As for the "Divine Messanger" argument, you seem to have misinterpreted it. The Divine Messanger who converts everyone to one religion is supporting the existing religion, not a new one or a unification of existing ones.

 

[sir_schwick]

I definitely don't believe in a 'unified' religious victory, but maybe a religious dominance victory. Say 90% of the world population has to follow your religion and civilizations must cover at least 80% of the landmass(to prevent you from winning a religion victory in by taking 3 enemy civs out of 4 total quickly).

This goes along with an idea that victories should all feel different and look different(not a screen saying you won). A few turns after winning a religious victory your messiah or diety does come to Earth and wrecks havock. You would get to use divine units such as the various Angels, servants of Vishnu and Sheba, even Allah, God, and Buddha could come kick ass. These are specific examples and doubtless you could choose the type and kind of dieties and units you would get in the Divine Coming. Basically you would then 'convert' the non-believers through your might. It would definitely be a departure from the normal ho-hum modern combat.

In the extreme case if the other powers held out long enough, their dieties could send help and all ehtereal hell would break loose.

I know this makes a complete mockery of religion, but it would be an awesome toggelable option. I guess a standard 'religious victory' could be avaliable for the deply religiou or faint of heart.

 

[Yuri2356]

I can just see that now....

Come hither my children and heed my words.... I'm packing!

Christ, it's Christ! RUN!


A judgement Day option would be hilarious.

Better yet, how about a "find out everything you think is real isn't" ending?

Computer: Wake up Ceaser.
Ceaser: Wha?
Computer: The matrix has you Ceaser....
Follow the white spearman.
-blip-
Ceaser:

That would finally explain this: