Furius
Prince
Remember CTP2, they had underwater cities in that. Think, though, how would one get a Settler there?
the future Age
- Thread starter Highgeneral
- Start date
Furius
Prince
Same in CTP2 but I doubt they'd put sea settlers in an expansion, I wonder would it be possible to Mod?
Anyone remember Civ2:TestOfTime? It had the possibility of having up to 4 maps (=worlds) in a game with travelling between them. This allowed some very clever mods, for example:
Map 1: Pre-made world map looking like your regular civ world.
Map 2: Undersea map where you had the terrain reversed with the surface continent areas marked as impassable. Land and naval units not mixing made travelling to undersea a bit complicated but there were several different workarounds to that problem.
Map 3: Orbit which would be empty single terrain and just waiting for you to set up some space stations.
Multiple maps won't be in C3C but perhaps in the expansion pack after that...
Map 1: Pre-made world map looking like your regular civ world.
Map 2: Undersea map where you had the terrain reversed with the surface continent areas marked as impassable. Land and naval units not mixing made travelling to undersea a bit complicated but there were several different workarounds to that problem.
Map 3: Orbit which would be empty single terrain and just waiting for you to set up some space stations.
Multiple maps won't be in C3C but perhaps in the expansion pack after that...
Furius
Prince
Oh, COOL! I wish they'd do that in Civ 3. I've always wanted to establish my civ on the moon. Just one question, how did one move between maps?
If I remember correctly there were three options:
1) Units could be flagged as "natural switchers" e.g. your sub could switch from surface to under-sea freely (you could also restrict between which maps the units could travel so you could prevent your sub from getting to the orbit map ).
2) You could set up travel points in the map and ordinary units could use them, e.g. you could implement fantasy type dimensional gates, sci-fi style wormholes, or just have each map represent a single continent and connecting them (simulating ocean travel) to create a Really Huge map.
3) Airports (or was it an improvement in its own?) connected cities so you could have improvements like "Portals" and "Jump gates" in your mods.
1) Units could be flagged as "natural switchers" e.g. your sub could switch from surface to under-sea freely (you could also restrict between which maps the units could travel so you could prevent your sub from getting to the orbit map
).2) You could set up travel points in the map and ordinary units could use them, e.g. you could implement fantasy type dimensional gates, sci-fi style wormholes, or just have each map represent a single continent and connecting them (simulating ocean travel) to create a Really Huge map.
3) Airports (or was it an improvement in its own?) connected cities so you could have improvements like "Portals" and "Jump gates" in your mods.
Furius
Prince
Did each map use the same terrain or could you have one map using ordinary terrain and another using Space terrain?
What about an armored suit?
No? Think about it.
What about an armored suit with actautor to increase strentgh?
No? Impossible to happen in the future?
Why do robots build cars today?
What about the fibrous robotic arms they are building that can lift 100's of time the weight that a human arm could lift, but bundled in the size of a human arm?
Yes, then wouldn't it be logical that as powered armor progresses, sizes and weaponry would get bigger and more advanced.
Also "mechs" can move over terrains tanks never could, and could easily outmaneuver a tank in a swamp, or in tundra, or sandy beaches, where conflicts over resources could be staged in the future.
The modern day generals would look blank a few seconds and then ask what's wrong with using planes, choppers and missiles.
It all comes down to what you mean by the word "mech".
Big bipedal human-looking battle robots don't make any military sense. It doesn't matter how technology advances because whatever you can mount on a big bipedal human-looking battle robot you can always mount double or triple on a horizontal platform with the added bonus that it's a smaller target and actually has a chance of staying upwards.
OTOH "mechs" in the sense of self-controlled battle vehicles are almost surely there in the future. Not those Battletech(TM) imbossibilities or StarWars AT-AT stupidities, but _useful_ stuff like:
AI controlled air planes: Lots of current day nations use automated surveillance planes that are equipped and programmed to continue their mission even if they lose contact to the HQ.
The next step is to mount missiles on it bringing us to the American Predator, which has already been used in real situations.
The next generation robot plane after Predator is the AI fighter pilot used not only for bombing runs but for all fighter missions. This is also not SciFi as at least USA (and probably some others) are experimenting with AI pilots in training flight simulation environment if they aren't actually trying to already get them up. Notice that if you remove the human you can build the plane smaller (or add more power) making it more agile and also what's a 20 G tight turn to an AI? If the mechanical structure of the plane can handle the stress the AI won't pass out or even complain.
AI controlled land vehicles: Why would you need humans inside your tanks? Automating a tank is a straightforward job as far as the fighting itself is concerned. The real problem is to make them intelligent enough to know where to go and which things to shoot. Which is no mean trick. But that's an engineering problem and it's not as "friendly fire" is something unheard of even when we have humans steering the tank.
Tracked vehicles can function on quite a rough terrain and flying vehicles usually take care of the rest. Also nothing precludes using robotic boats or even ships the same way you'd mount AI on war planes. For the really odd job where a plane, ship or tracked vehicle can't go you take off the tracks from your tank and install 8-12 pairs or propelling double or triple axled feet creating a cockroach style tank that won't even care which side is up and which down.
Smart bombs taken a step further: Guided missiles are a pretty old and standard weapon type by now but it's by no means the pinnacle of smart bombing. Why should we have to decide beforehand the exact target? There's already the scatter mine ammunition that will create you an instant minefield. Now combine these two ideas: An AI controlled B-52 drops a couple thousand smart mines each equipped with a small engine, rough sensor equipment, an AI module, and of course an explosive charge. Once they reach ground the mines crawl around guided by satellite recon towards a general direction but they identify targets of opportunity themselves, move close to one and blow it up.
Of course, cruise missiles, ship torpedoes, etc. can have a similar enhancement: don't wait for the enemy but launch the missiles to seek him. In fact this is pretty much what you _have_ to do. In a sense the missiles and other automated projectiles would be used as picket units to shield your actual battle unit. At fast battle speeds if you wait until you can detect the enemy it's usually already too late.
Furius
Prince
You take far too much pleasure in describing these weapons.
The age of airpower can easily come to an end if a mobile power source for a laser is invented.
A powerful laser could cut planes to pieces, and easily too.
So it would have to go back to heavy, ground weapons, and who would fight in the swamps or the arctic, or along the shores of Oceans? Tanks?
A powerful laser could cut planes to pieces, and easily too.
So it would have to go back to heavy, ground weapons, and who would fight in the swamps or the arctic, or along the shores of Oceans? Tanks?
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Although mechs are uber cool, and personal "power armor" could have some limited application, I tend to agree that big Battletech type mechs would be woefully impractical. Perhaps if it was deemed worthwhile to create something that could fight in swamps or mountainous regions they would have some small scale use.
Considering the nature of advancing weaponry that is so destructive, the doctrine is avoiding that destructive weaponry. One guy with a rocket launcher could take out a 40 ton slow mech or a 40 ton fast tank. The primary advantage of tanks is their speed, not firepower or armor.
Also, a mech would never be a match for a jet. Think about it, since it is at high altitudes, a jet can see you long before you can see it. You can't laser or gatling or gauss something that you don't know is there. And as expensive as jets are, 100 ton walking skyscrapers would be even more so.
Considering the nature of advancing weaponry that is so destructive, the doctrine is avoiding that destructive weaponry. One guy with a rocket launcher could take out a 40 ton slow mech or a 40 ton fast tank. The primary advantage of tanks is their speed, not firepower or armor.
Also, a mech would never be a match for a jet. Think about it, since it is at high altitudes, a jet can see you long before you can see it. You can't laser or gatling or gauss something that you don't know is there. And as expensive as jets are, 100 ton walking skyscrapers would be even more so.
serpentx777
Chieftain
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2002
- Messages
- 20
The army has a working laser that they have been testing that shoots down artilley shells on the battlefield, they are also attempting to put a laser on a 747 to shoot down ICBMs. But as for the future era its hard to say. I would like to keep things as coventional as they are now with out all the power mechs and stuff, but also if you complete the space race and colonize a new planet, it would seem that you would have to pretty technologically advanced, but who knows, maybe they can gove you an option of adding eras and techs.
what about a 10 ton piece?
Also, who needs to see ajet to shoot it down with a laser? Radar will advance, it is only the mouse/mousetrap principle, and, a laser does not have to be accurate, like the American pilot who got blinded by the russian laser, it sweeps the skies.
Jets are fast, but do you seriously believe by the year 2200 there will not be a laser powerful enough to sweep in a spiral motion and burn through the armor of a jet, guded by radar, or even a laser beam "sonar"? The Russians in the 80's supposedly were working on a laser cannon to shoot down satellites.
It wouldn't take much to ignite a fueselage. I have sen footage of close range lasers that burn clean through a 1/4 inch thick piece of sheet metal in microseconds, They just moved the piece through the beam, which was strobing, and in 1 second over 8 perfectly round holes were burned clean through.
Another terrain armored suits or light mechs would be advantageous over tanks would be city ruins.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
If lasers were a common weapon of war, I'm sure jets/tanks/mechs would be fitted with some type of countering armor. Also, whatever you could fit on a mech, you could fit on something else, so said jet could be zapping said mech as well.
Honestly, I think it all depends on where the fighting is taking place. Maybe mechs will become vital. I'm no mech expert, but I've played a lot of Mechwarrior, and it is a seemingly realistic combat sim. For planet-hopping battles with adverse terrain of all kinds, you might need a platform that can hold as much hardware as possible. Maybe the gravity negates the effectiveness of air power, maybe the terrain negates the speed advantage of wheeled or tracked vehicles. Here on earth, they would only serve a very specialized role, I think.
I don't really put all that much faith in laser systems either, but only time will tell.
Honestly, I think it all depends on where the fighting is taking place. Maybe mechs will become vital. I'm no mech expert, but I've played a lot of Mechwarrior, and it is a seemingly realistic combat sim. For planet-hopping battles with adverse terrain of all kinds, you might need a platform that can hold as much hardware as possible. Maybe the gravity negates the effectiveness of air power, maybe the terrain negates the speed advantage of wheeled or tracked vehicles. Here on earth, they would only serve a very specialized role, I think.
I don't really put all that much faith in laser systems either, but only time will tell.
That is my main point, lasers could very well bring an end to the age of air superiority, and bring back the age of heavy ground weapony, simply because a jet could never be as armored as a ground weapon.
Yes a jet could be outfitted with a laser also.... (all though the power source would more than likely be very heavy, and more useful as a ground weapon), but it in no way could compare to the amount of armor a ground weapon could have.
Also, it is easier said than done to take out a tank with a RPG.
Yes a jet could be outfitted with a laser also.... (all though the power source would more than likely be very heavy, and more useful as a ground weapon), but it in no way could compare to the amount of armor a ground weapon could have.
Also, it is easier said than done to take out a tank with a RPG.
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
And a ground weapon could never move as fast as a jet. Ground weapon platforms will never be able to fill the role of airpower, no matter how much hardware they can carry. Or else they would be now.
Right, and there is no way a ground weapon could have the amount of armor an immobile building could have.
The Armor/Mobility exchange has been considered since the dawn on time. Nothing on two legs can move as fast as a jet, it's as simple as that.
But very cost-effective!
It's quite easy with a Hellfire missile, though!
Similar threads
