The Ascent of Mankind

[Galacticat42]

Ehh, I'm not putting in Ascension as a tech, and whatever 'Ascension' objects that are already in the game I'm taking out since you really can't research ascension and you really can't build ascension gates, you must achieve it, such as an event.

Thanks for more buildings and units, post more if you get any ideas. Remember to keep the list to homeworld city accessible only, and I'm thinking of making that speedway thing into a space station type colony like what I'm doing to the International Space Station.

I'll wait for a day or two to sort out the units/buildings and unused techs until we start to talk about Planet Types XML tags.

About the "Should it really be called 'Mars'?" I was thinking it would be a lot easier on my end if the player started in the Sol solar system but with a different "Earth" as the map, it would also be a lot easier if the map size is just ignored and thought as the 'perfect sized world for sentient life' 'cuz if you wanted perfect realism, then Ginormous sized maps would literally crush bones to the ground from the amount of gravity there. On top of that, recreating the Sol solar system planets would be a great starting point for in game testing, then later on after I'm able to generate entire solar systems I could make the starting solar system different.

PS I just PMed ruff_hi if he'd be able to make a spacial object naming component like what he did for the BUG mod, and have yet to wait for him to log on and reply.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Ehh, I'm not putting in Ascension as a tech, and whatever 'Ascension' objects that are already in the game I'm taking out since you really can't research ascension and you really can't build ascension gates, you must achieve it, such as an event.

Thanks for more buildings and units, post more if you get any ideas. Remember to keep the list to homeworld city accessible only, and I'm thinking of making that speedway thing into a space station type colony like what I'm doing to the International Space Station.

I'll wait for a day or two to sort out the units/buildings and unused techs until we start to talk about Planet Types XML tags.

About the "Should it really be called 'Mars'?" I was thinking it would be a lot easier on my end if the player started in the Sol solar system but with a different "Earth" as the map, it would also be a lot easier if the map size is just ignored and thought as the 'perfect sized world for sentient life' 'cuz if you wanted perfect realism, then Ginormous sized maps would literally crush bones to the ground from the amount of gravity there. On top of that, recreating the Sol solar system planets would be a great starting point for in game testing, then later on after I'm able to generate entire solar systems I could make the starting solar system different.

1.Note the "Ascension Gates" were put in by Zap for "Scientific Victory".

2. I will post more once you re-post the list again with your changes/additions. We can keep doing this until we like it.

3a. I don't think the planet size should really matter. Its more of a representation of the map rather than an "actual scale". If it was to full scale then units would be HUGE.

3b. As for the Solar system I think we should do all or none. What I mean is if we are using Mars, Luna, Sol, Venus, etc. We should use real space maps. This would give us a finite number of things to discover.

Now if we go completely random generating then everything should have genetic names. Like "Auxiliary Planet Rover Rocket" rather than "Mars Rover Rocket".

Personally i think we should go all realistic even if its a simplistic representation. I mean we already use real cultures and nations why not real places in space.

Tell me what you think before I go on.

 

[Galacticat42]

1.Note the "Ascension Gates" were put in by Zap for "Scientific Victory".

2. I will post more once you re-post the list again with your changes/additions. We can keep doing this until we like it.

3a. I don't think the planet size should really matter. Its more of a representation of the map rather than an "actual scale". If it was to full scale then units would be HUGE.

3b. As for the Solar system I think we should do all or none. What I mean is if we are using Mars, Luna, Sol, Venus, etc. We should use real space maps. This would give us a finite number of things to discover.

Now if we go completely random generating then everything should have genetic names. Like "Auxiliary Planet Rover Rocket" rather than "Mars Rover Rocket".

Personally i think we should go all realistic even if its a simplistic representation. I mean we already use real cultures and nations why not real places in space.

Tell me what you think before I go on.

1. thanks for the note

2. the updated list is on the 3rd OP

3. I meant the map size vs. gravity... i'm just gunna keep the homeworld gravity at 9.8

4. OKay

5. I see your point

6. Sure, why not, makes the starting system easier to code.

 

[Hydromancerx]

1. thanks for the note

2. the updated list is on the 3rd OP

3. I meant the map size vs. gravity... i'm just gunna keep the homeworld gravity at 9.8

4. OKay

5. I see your point

6. Sure, why not, makes the starting system easier to code.

3. I don't think you understand. The map size should be looked at like an actual map and not a scale model. For if it was a model then trees on small maps would be leaving the atmosphere. And even on gigantic maps units would be as tall as giants. In short all maps not matter how big or small would have the same gravity as Earth. Map size only determine on what scale you are playing on. Just as there are diffrent scales for train sets. You would not think that a larger train set would be on a larger planet than a smaller train set would you? Then why should you think that for this game?

6. Ok now for the fun part. Since the Milky Way Galaxy is very huge we will treat it just like the Earth maps do for Earth. Where they do not list every single city on the planet but only show the most well known and major stars and dominant cosmic terrain.

So if the Milky Way Galaxy is to represent Earth then the Spiral arms would be like our 7 continents. In addition the galactic center could be countd as one too. And the space between them like the ocean.

General Milky Way Map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg

- Perseus Arm
- Norma and Outer arm
- Scutum-Crux Arm
- Carina and Sagittarius Arm
- Orion-Cygnus Arm (Where we are)
- Galactic Core

Beyond that each "Neighborhood" could be considered like Regions on Earth. Take for instance North America has the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, Central American Rainforest, etc.

And then each Star could be like each major city. Such as LA, New York, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, etc.

However we do run into a problem once we get down to planets. Sure we know most of the major stars in our galaxy but we have no idea the planets. And there is a good chance that the ones we know are such big stars that they would not be very good to inhabit.

Which makes mean lean towards the randomly generated stuff now. I mean lets say we used Alpha Centauri. We have no idea what planets are there. Even our own solar system has so many moons around each of our gas giants.

So I am think that we should have it where everything is randomly generated included your home system. However there will be some constancy such as a moon, a sun, asteroid belt, atleast one other terrestrial planet in the inner solar system and at least one gas giant with atleast one colonizable moon.

As long as we know each "type" of thing we should not have a problem.

-Galaxy
--Spiral Arm
---Local Neighborhood
----Star
-----Planet
------Moon

 

[Galacticat42]

3. I don't think you understand. The map size should be looked at like an actual map and not a scale model. For if it was a model then trees on small maps would be leaving the atmosphere. And even on gigantic maps units would be as tall as giants. In short all maps not matter how big or small would have the same gravity as Earth. Map size only determine on what scale you are playing on. Just as there are diffrent scales for train sets. You would not think that a larger train set would be on a larger planet than a smaller train set would you? Then why should you think that for this game?

6. Ok now for the fun part. Since the Milky Way Galaxy is very huge we will treat it just like the Earth maps do for Earth. Where they do not list every single city on the planet but only show the most well known and major stars and dominant cosmic terrain.

So if the Milky Way Galaxy is to represent Earth then the Spiral arms would be like our 7 continents. In addition the galactic center could be countd as one too. And the space between them like the ocean.

General Milky Way Map
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/89/236084main_MilkyWay-full-annotated.jpg

- Perseus Arm
- Norma and Outer arm
- Scutum-Crux Arm
- Carina and Sagittarius Arm
- Orion-Cygnus Arm (Where we are)
- Galactic Core

Beyond that each "Neighborhood" could be considered like Regions on Earth. Take for instance North America has the Great Plains, Rocky Mountains, Central American Rainforest, etc.

And then each Star could be like each major city. Such as LA, New York, Seattle, Chicago, Miami, etc.

However we do run into a problem once we get down to planets. Sure we know most of the major stars in our galaxy but we have no idea the planets. And there is a good chance that the ones we know are such big stars that they would not be very good to inhabit.

Which makes mean lean towards the randomly generated stuff now. I mean lets say we used Alpha Centauri. We have no idea what planets are there. Even our own solar system has so many moons around each of our gas giants.

So I am think that we should have it where everything is randomly generated included your home system. However there will be some constancy such as a moon, a sun, asteroid belt, atleast one other terrestrial planet in the inner solar system and at least one gas giant with atleast one colonizable moon.

As long as we know each "type" of thing we should not have a problem.

-Galaxy
--Spiral Arm
---Local Neighborhood
----Star
-----Planet
------Moon

I understand perfectly well what you're pointing out, but that's not what I was talking about, this is...

...In any case, good ideas here and the basics sound realistic. However, since the plan is to have a bit of a random solar system I wonder why you would restrict yourself to the standard 'habitable planet with a moon in orbit'. How about the home planet's location depend on the mapsize? For instance tiny/small sized maps could be considered a home'moon' orbiting on a safe distance (radiationwise) from a gas giant near or in the habitable zone of a sun. And the larger the size of the map, the more chance for multiple and large moons orbiting the homeworld (planet in this case). And dependent on the kind of star(s) in the system, there could be more then one planet in the habitable zone(s)...

2. The main reason for starting everyone off with an Earth-like planet with at least one moon is so history nd in turn the tech tree stays the same. Orbiting a huge Gas Giant would change human history, culture and religion. In addition other factors play a part. One is having a moon gives us tides and protects us from asteroids. Note we also would have at least one gas giant in the solar system to attract asteroids to. If we were orbiting a gas giant we would risk being hit by asteroids all the time since the planet would pull more towards us. In addition our sun would stay the same. In short all of these factors that make Earth, how it is today is staying the same since changing it could result in a much diffrent Earth, evolution and civilization then we currently have.

3. I do like your ideas of map size effecting things. Perhaps map size could effect the number of planets/moons in the solar system to discover...

Then I responded

Now that I think about it, I'd have to agree with Hydro. However the map size could play a role in what size planets are more easily colonizeable due to gravity differentials like if the home world exerts 6.5m/s/s of gravity (Earth exerts 9.8) then planets with 6-7 would be ideal to those weak-legged citizens while home worlds that exert 12.8m/s/s would have an ideal gravity 8-13 since those people wouldn't want to lose muscle mass and work out 7 hours a day like the astronauts currently taking residency in the international space station.

As I was saying, pertaining to what that discussion was about, we should just ignore map sizes.

About 6 and after, you're contradicting yourself somewhat, and to keep it simple, I'm just going to have the player start at the Sol solar system with a randomly generated everything else with a few recognizeable names i.e. Sirius, Alpha Centauri, etc. but now we're getting off topic from units/buildings and/or planet type XML tags.

 

[Hydromancerx]

About 6 and after, you're contradicting yourself somewhat, and to keep it simple, I'm just going to have the player start at the Sol solar system with a randomly generated everything else with a few recognizeable names i.e. Sirius, Alpha Centauri, etc. but now we're getting off topic from units/buildings and/or planet type XML tags.

I think all I was asking was could you give generic names for things rather than specific ones? For example saying something other than "Mission to Mars" for the nearest inhabitable terrestrial planet. Or even somehow have it randomly generate the name. I thinks its impossible but I thought I should ask.

And as I think about it more the harder it is to think of a better name than "Mission to Mars". All i could think of is the lame name of "Mission to NTP (Nearest Terrestrial Planet)". Its not very creative but it is at least general enough to work.

Whatever. In this case and other names like ie. Lunar, Solar, Alpha Centaui, Europa, Jupiter, etc. I will have to agree with you.

Disregard my previous ramblings and I support your plans for a familiar solar system and a randomly generated Milky Way Galaxy with some familiar names sprinkled in. Here are some real life star systems from the game "Outpost". And in the game it gave them each planet info from the deep space probe.

- Alpha Aquilae (0 Planets)
- Alpha Centauri A (1 Mercury-like, 1 Mars-like)
- Alpha Centauri B (1 Mars-like, 1 Phobos-like)
- Barnard's Star (0 Planets)
- Beta Hydri (1 Moon-like, 1 Mars-like)
- Delta Pavonis (1 Mercury-like, 1 Moon-like, 1-Mars-like, 1 Saturn-like)
- Epsilon Eridani (1 Venus-like, 1 Ceres-like)
- 82 Eridani (1 Mars-like, 1 Pluto-like)
- Eta Cassiopeiae A (1 Mercury-like, 1 Mars-like)
- HR 7703 A (0 Planets)
- HR 8832 (1 Mercury-like, 1 Jupiter-like)
- Kruger 60 (0 Planets)
- 70 Ophiuchi A (1 Mars-like, 1 Neptune-like)
- 36 Ophiuchi B (1 Phobos-like)
- 36 Ophiuchi A (1 Pluto-like)
- Procyon (0 Planets)
- Ross 248 (0 Planets)
- Sigma Draconis (1 Mercury-like, 1 Venus-like, 1 Moon-like, 1 Mars-like)
- Sirius (0 Planets)
- Tau Ceti (1 Mercury-like, 1 Venus-like, 1 Mars-like)
- Wolf 359 (0 Planets)

Note these were based on the game and not real life. I am sure each of them have more planets in real life.

 

[Galacticat42]

Cool, but names are near the end, you're jumping ahead again.

As I said, the updated list is on the 3rd post.
Anyway, back to business, if you think of anything else for the techs that aren't used feel free to post something. Next in line is the Planet Types XML and tags, what I have so far:
NOTE: I'm adding the <p> prefix to stand for planet stats and such.

<bMoon>(boolean)
<bTerrestrial>(as in mercury-mars type planets)
<bAsteroid>
<bAstRing>
<bGasGiant>
<bComet>
<bWaterLevel>(0-100, 0 for barren, 100 for water ball)
<pAge>(instead of insane numbers, it will be 1-10000)
<pSize>(1-10000)
<pTemp>(1-100, 1 for complete ice, 100 for completely lava)
<pLandMass>(0 for no core[pure water/gas ball] 100 for continents, etc)
<pResources>(a list of resources this object has, pLandMass must be above 1 technically but doesn't have to)
<iTectonics>(boolean, null for comets, asteroids, gas giants)
<iHaveRing>(boolean for dust ring, null for comets, asteroids, moons)
<iAtmosphere>(1-100, the amount of atmosphere on the planet, only for <bTerrestrial> and <bMoon>)

PS If you want tons of names, download Google Earth, go to the space section, then grab all the names of all the stars you can see.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Cool, but names are near the end, you're jumping ahead again.

As I said, the updated list is on the 3rd post.
Anyway, back to business, if you think of anything else for the techs that aren't used feel free to post something. Next in line is the Planet Types XML and tags, what I have so far:
NOTE: I'm adding the <p> prefix to stand for planet stats and such.

<bMoon>(boolean)
<bTerrestrial>(as in mercury-mars type planets)
<bAsteroid>
<bAstRing>
<bGasGiant>
<bComet>
<bWaterLevel>(0-100, 0 for barren, 100 for water ball)
<pAge>(instead of insane numbers, it will be 1-10000)
<pSize>(1-10000)
<pTemp>(1-100, 1 for complete ice, 100 for completely lava)
<pLandMass>(0 for no core[pure water/gas ball] 100 for continents, etc)
<iTectonics>(boolean, null for comets, asteroids, gas giants)
<iHaveRing>(boolean for dust ring, null for comets, asteroids, moons)

PS If you want tons of names, download Google Earth, go to the space section, then grab all the names of all the stars you can see.

1. Better to jump ahead then wait and forget what the idea when your ready for it.

2. Will do.

3. What is the difference between <bAsteroid> and <bAstRing>? Is <bAsteroid> lik comets? Also where's Pluto-like "planets" fit in?

4. Just because you can see the stars doesn't mean they are in our own galaxy.

 

[Galacticat42]

1. Better to jump ahead then wait and forget what the idea when your ready for it.

2. Will do.

3. What is the difference between <bAsteroid> and <bAstRing>? Is <bAsteroid> lik comets? Also where's Pluto-like "planets" fit in?

4. Just because you can see the stars doesn't mean they are in our own galaxy.

1. sarcasm?

3. <bAsteroid> is a single asteroid (like Pluto) and <bAstRing> can be the asteroid ring and/or the Oort Cloud and comets have their own tag <bComet>

4. Just because some of those stars may not be in our galaxy, why can't we use the name anyway?

 

[Mister Giggles]

If we want to be technical, Pluto is a dwarf planet, not an asteroid. <_<

 

[Galacticat42]

Dwarf planet, extremely large asteroid, same thing.

 

[zappara]

planets, asteroids etc. do have resources - so perhaps there should be tag for available resources as well so that those planets can be mined.

 

[civ_king]

EG 3554 Amun with an estimated $20 Trillion in metals on it, more like $32 Trillion at today's prices! so yes they should have valuable metals

 

[Galacticat42]

planets, asteroids etc. do have resources - so perhaps there should be tag for available resources as well so that those planets can be mined.

Updated the list on post #67, it now has <pResources>

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Civ Fuehrer

So what's new with this? Any progress? Do you need me to find some tech or building icons? Or even start work on possible building stats?

 

[Hydromancerx]

@Civ Fuehrer

Any updates?

 

[Galacticat42]

Sorry, I was away at my vacation, shoulda told yall. On an unrelated note, I like what they did to the site for a more Christmas feeling to it.

 

[Galacticat42]

I'm finally nearing the end of my Modern Warfare 2 binge phase (I go in phases of what I do) and will get back on track with Civ, including continuing work on ATOM and actually do something productive for the first time this year .

 

[konradcabral]

I'm finally nearing the end of my Modern Warfare 2 binge phase (I go in phases of what I do) and will get back on track with Civ, including continuing work on ATOM and actually do something productive for the first time this year .

I had a Assassin's Creed 2 phase, and I stayed kind of away of Civ IV too.

 

[Galacticat42]

I finished AC2 in 3 days