Yes what is a singularity but one entity? Turning into one neuron in a collective brain is a pathetic purposeless existence with a void of time to kill until the universe ends.

I think the matrix is a good example how it should work, because programs were uploaded into bodies to actually live and could also be freed. Even Neos soul was the same "the one" reincarnated over the previous matrixes and reinserted each time. Oh and the programs loved and did stuff! That is a Sovereign existence.

DARCA.

This is really interesting. We must be talking about humans because this game plays off different aliens think differently. Industry is based off population and how they think. If you don't have a demand then you don't have as many factories just look at the united states. Are the PSOE trying to save money spend their money or borrow money to have more stuff. Now as far as mechanising future their are several options. One is robotics. Maybe not everyone figures out artificial intelligence. It will probably possible to make a serrigate. A serrigate is where you control a robot of you through virtual reality. Genetically engineered mutant idea competes against robotic idea. Cyborgs and yes they toss around putting your brain or conciesness into a machines. Or making an exact machine copy of you. Artificial DNA or different nucleac acids. Energy instead of matter. Let's not forget nanobots.  I guess there can be a virtual reality future.  Let's not the civil war between man and machines. Replicaters are an option.

What about the simultaneity of space civilisations?

The fact that The Matrix was referenced in a tread titled "A more realistic future" makes me very very very sad. 

my bad, double post

BLASPHEMY! BLASPHEMY!! BLASPHEMY!!! OH HOW I HATE YOU RIGHT NOW!!! AGGG!!!

Anyway, more to the original point, I don't think measuring productivity "in the future" in terms of population or widgets produced per unit time is any more anachronistic than measuring work done in horsepower is today. 

The core of this argument is that manufacturing should not be tied to directly tied to population.  The rest, military, economic, research, and influence, should be directly tied to population because in those areas human has a greater role than machines.

The issues with this as far as game play is concerned can be overcome.  First, population caps should not be tied to how much food can be produced but on type and size of planet, type of government and environmental policy.  Can the planet support life?  If yes, large max population cap.  Does the planet have large land masses?  If yes, increase the population cap.  Does your government maximize the lives of the population?  If yes, increase the population cap.  Does your government care about preserving wilderness?  If yes, lower the population cap.  This also means large landmasses on non-biotic woulds can be made into forge worlds but conversely if your government cares about preserving wilderness it also caps your manufacturing on that world.

So a government that packs people on planets and doesn't preserve the bioshpere would have high population but low morale but can keep up in research and influence just by population but government that encourage people to have personal space and parks and wilderness preserves are happier and are produce better research and influence with smaller populations.  This can also have the added benefit of removing farms from the game so you are not wasting space on your planets building them and researching as many techs for them as mostly they are filler anyway.  Who likes building farms and incremental farm tech?  Drop them and give me an interesting choice.

I'm not a programmer but these changes should allow, with some tweaking, to make the game fun and a bit more based on reality but also balanced.  Which I for one would like in the game

Better yet, it would be simpler to make planet class equal to population cap. Like class 10 holds 10 billion kestlstw. if it were to happen.

Are you crazy?

Am I crazy?  I don't think so.  I have reason and logic behind my thinking that farms and most of the farming tech is poor game design.  Honestly the tile systems is bad mechanic too.  

So let's look at why you want to keep farms in the game and as they are.  Currently farms provide higher population and population drives everything.  In my last game, which was about a month ago, to have a planet be really worth colonizing it had to have at least a population of 20 billion, that's not hard on a class 10 to 12 planet even early game but you are using a partial hex ring to get that most of the time, 1/3 to 1/4 of the planet is devoted simply to increasing the planet's population to useful levels.  How is that fun?

Cropland in the US is about 1/5 of total use but food is a major US export, we feed a large portion of the world with a small fraction of the total land area of the world.  To me its insane that a more advanced space faring civilization has to double or triple the amount of land needed to feed its population.  

Now let's consider what I'm proposing.  I will use Earth as an example, class 10 and home world.  Earth should start with a population cap of 20 billion and the remaining food production techs just increase the population cap but don't require buildings.  Growth rate should not be static either, it should be based on a few variables, like current pop, max pop, and planetary wealth, when there is a lot of empty space people have more kids and low wealth rates tend to mean more kits too but when a society becomes wealthy the growth rate drops to equilibrium or lower.   The tile system is an abstraction already and never fully covers a planet, so why does so much area have to be devoted to that when food production generally requires space but only a few people, so why can't it be where your specialized manufacturing and research isn't?  

By the time your ready to send your first interstellar craft most heavy industry should be in orbit anyway.  By that point you're not using the mineral wealth of the planet but the asteroids mineral wealth and you only drop the stuff that's needed on the planet not send everything and send it back up at a high energy penalty.  The problem with all that for the game is its overly complex so we build on the planet.  Not arguing that, while I would like orbital manufacturing I'll concede the point for ease of game creation.  What I will not concede is the need for the tile system, its too restrictive.  Your industry is mostly in orbit, abstracted to being on the ground for ease of play and game creation but that also means that you have more space to build it.  

I don't actually have the details of a better system that shows the player what they have created but still even with the adjacency and tile bonuses the tile system is a bad one.  Why can't I find the space on the surface or in orbit to build all of my toys?  Honestly I'd be happier with a list and some sort of "you have this much space to build all of your toys, optimize it how you like" system.

Farms aren't just cropland, and 51% of the land base of the US is used for agriculture.

Why is building farms any less fun then building factories and laboratories?

These kinds of arguments are why arguing realism for a game is just not productive. The tile system is a simple abstraction of how to exploit any planet's limited resources. It allows fun gameplay because it is clear, easy to manipulate, and with the addition of adjacency and tile bonuses, produces interesting strategic choices. You keep saying that building farms isn't fun. It isn't building farms that's fun, its making decisions with limited resources. Do you want to raise your population cap, or increase the productivity of the population that is there? I think that is a much more interesting decision then weather to specialize in manufacturing, research, or wealth.

Quoting peregrine23, reply 37

Quoting kestlstw,

reply 36

Cropland in the US is about 1/5 of total use but food

Farms aren't just cropland, and 51% of the land base of the US is used for agriculture.

I stand corrected, although following the link its the same data I used. I just didn't include all grassland, pasture land and range land and whatever the 6% additional you included, I didn't spend the time to find the break out of of much of the grassland, pasture land and range land is pasture and range that should be included.

Why is building farms any less fun then building factories and laboratories?

These kinds of arguments are why arguing realism for a game is just not productive. The tile system is a simple abstraction of how to exploit any planet's limited resources. It allows fun gameplay because it is clear, easy to manipulate, and with the addition of adjacency and tile bonuses, produces interesting strategic choices. You keep saying that building farms isn't fun. It isn't building farms that's fun, its making decisions with limited resources. Do you want to raise your population cap, or increase the productivity of the population that is there? I think that is a much more interesting decision then weather to specialize in manufacturing, research, or wealth.

 

Again I'm saying raising population cap is a false choice, you don't really have a choice in it and even with adjacency and tile bonuses its still a false choice.  The bonuses aren't enough to make it a real choice and thus interesting and fun.  So I'm saying leave it abstracted in the background since its not really a choice.  If you don't make that choice you can't keep up and why even godlike AIs aren't really a challenge at the moment.  So again, since I have to make this "choice" take it out and put in a choice where I make a difference in the outcome.

Also realism could be done as well, most of those factories, laboratories and trading posts should be in orbit leaving farms arcologies and banks to be left on the surface.  You have to defend them though because its very easy to destroy if left undefended.  That is an interesting choice, is my industry safe to leave alone for a few turns while I send out a raiding force?  If I reserve some ships to defend will my raiding force be destroyed?  Having those meaningful choices is what makes the game fun and interesting and why building farms is not fun.  Building farms is a necessity not a choice, that is why its not fun and why it should be left out of the game.

When you think about it, choices don't really exist. Fate does. :p

Buddy, there are a few types of change; change that adds to something; change that replaces something; and a bit of both. The idea to have things in orbit per say is a change of nonsense. Use your imagination, and also there are already orbital factories call starbases in the game!

But you may be right in the way of building farms may not right in a game where population=everything. I would make the techs increase all planets capacity, that may prevent the game from turning into "the farm simulator". And it will technically be a change that adds.

DARCA

Regarding building factories on the planet and pretending they are in orbit, I already do.  The whole the tile system is an abstraction thing that's been rehashed a million times.  However it can be a change that adds, add a graphic of a ring around the planet and build your factories, laboratories and ports there and add a bit of code that allows space based weapons to damage it and now you can destroy your enemies manufacturing, research and trade without having to invade or bomb the planet.  It also adds more offensive and defensive depth to the game.  Not really expecting this to actually make it into the game but I would like it.

If I can convince enough people that as the game stands not building farms is not a choice maybe it will become a choice or fade into the background, I'll enjoy the game more and that's why I'm arguing it in the first place.  Its also something I think might still make it into the game or I wouldn't bother and try again for GalCiv4 in a few years.

I seems to me, when you first start colonizing. you are not going to be able to build robotic factories in a new colony at the start. Given the premise of starting realistic, and within usable time frames, space travel, GC's future could come next year. we already have robotic factories, but we are not a unified race. Be glad GC doesn't model that nightmare for humanity. Establishing viable colonies in out near future would mean no robotic factories until regular factories have production up and running. Then the robotics can be produced to replace the old factories. The concept in the game isn't that flawed. I do feel different races should start with different technologies. Humanity should already have robotic factories and probably a fairly high missile tech, a low laser and rail tech, and a low armor tech to start. I mean, after all, we really have developed the art war and killing ourselves to a high degree.

I don't see why you wouldn't send the basis of the technology you plan on using when you start the colony with the colony ship.  You're sending 2 million people why not include the tools to mine and a small robotic factory along with the seeds and farming equipment to start feeding them.  Or at least the plans and tools to build the factory and tools to build the colony quickly rather than waiting years to build up to space faring level.  

Actually all that is technically on the planet..in the civ capital, there are farms, and factories adding bonuses. So you could imagine that all the realistic stuff you speak of is on the planet already!

(my display of the forums is acting funny. :/ )

DARCA.

Perhaps in the future the way of "claiming" a planet will be sticking a bunch of plebs on it. It's rather crazy in GC2 how fast population grows, because it's encouraged. Perhaps they don't use AI because of the Yor and everything is done by real people operating machinery, Perhaps nobody is immortal (brains in vats controlling their bodies remotely for example) and just natural fleshy humans because of some batshit ideology. Perhaps everyone is born and educated by the military and is battle ready to be pressed into military service as a foot soldier on massive planetary conquests. Perhaps their ability to think deeply about issues is suppressed and they are kept too busy to think for themselves. No matter if it's an imperial empire or a democracy, people are pulling the strings above them and keeping everything steady and conservative, birth, death, war, growth and expansion.