posted 03-04-99 04:03 AM ET        

Also the map is miles & miles out, how on earth does your oblong map WORLD map wrap round the planet...?

Or is Planet perhaps a spinning cube...?

It seems amazing that although this was an original flaw of the Civilisation it still hasn't been fixed! I mean here we are with Fusion Helicopters but we can cross the North Pole...?

So tell me again how intricate and accurate this model of a planet & it's ecosystem is when Sid obviously still thinks the Earth is flat!

Fraxis answer this one!

Darkheart

posted 03-04-99 04:16 AM ET            

The map is shaped more like a cylinder, rather than a sphere. There should be more tiles on the equator than at the poles. This actually seems easier to do with SMAC, everything being 3D.

I think back to the way XCOM handled the planet, would be neat if you could zoom back in SMAC and actually see the planet's edges, then zoom in.

posted 03-04-99 04:37 AM ET            

Yes, using a true sphere would have made naviagtion a little more difficult but it would have made it a LOT more realistic! For at the moment the geography of the planet is just a joke!

I think the reasons for Fraxis not including this feature are one of the following:

1) They think we are too stupid to notice.
2) They WERE too stupid to notice.
3) They were too lazy to bother.

posted 03-04-99 05:03 AM ET            

As far as them being too stupid to notice, i am guessin gthat durring thier brainstorming sessions some where along the line there was a descision to be made on the type of world they wanted to make, And I am guessing they decided to make it in the traditional sense rather than have a map that would probably beef up system requirements & require a much longer production time. Besides it isn't like they decided to remove half the technologies in the attempt to make the game real tmie or something.

posted 03-04-99 05:23 AM ET            

I don't think having a globe map is a trivial feature, if you are supposed to be developing a civilisation on a planet with an ecosystem I think it is a pretty major feature. It will effect everything that takes place there: Climate, Weather System, Flora, Fauna, everything!

I'm not saying I don't enjoy playing SMAC, I do and I think it's a pretty good game. I just feel this is one place were they really could have done MUCH better and didn't for no good reason.

I would still like to see this acknowledged & patched...

posted 03-04-99 06:05 AM ET         

Just my $.02.

Maybe in the sequel?

posted 03-04-99 07:21 AM ET            

may I assume that if I come to visit you at your house I will not find any atlas or map, those books with flat maps painted on flat sheets of flat paper to awkwardly try to represent a spherical world, but only, er, howdyasay mappamondo, earthglobes, those big balls with a map of the earth painted on its surface?

Indeed if you WEREN'T allowed to zoom out (not too much at least) the idea could be viable: you see on a flat screen only a portion of spherical surface, that seems flat, but you can realistically travel around the planet in any direction, tho you'd need a compass onscreen.
That would come neat to be coupled with another forgotten issue: why do we have to look only northwards? If I want to look clearly behind a ridge, why can't I rotate my point of observation without flattening orography?

posted 03-04-99 09:13 AM ET            

1) It's perfectly possible to use a glove perspective and a flat screen map together.
If you've ever looked at a map of the world you'll notice it is Oval because there is more area at the equator than there is at the poles. Now you could still allow a Zoom out to see the spherical planet and use an oval map for reference to units across the whole globe (players choice).

2) Sauce I think you definatly need to have another look at a map or globe, maybe just engage your brain for a couple of seconds.
If I am 1 mile away from the North pole & facing North, then I move 3 miles in the current direction I am facing what happens...?
Guess what I have gone onto the other side of the planet and am now heading towards the South Pole!
The SMAC map is all over the place, it is either not showing one side of the planet or the poles are in completely the wrong place. As I said in SMAC at the moment the geographical system is a joke.

Anyway enough already with trying to justify this stuff Fraxis obviously screwed up or just blatently ignored geography to make the game. What gets up my nose is that they have tried to lay us off with the lie that this is an accurate planet with stars,moons,ecosystem, weather, climate & sea changes and all the other guff when their planetary model is obviously a load of bollocks.

It's closer to Prachett's discworld than any kind of planet!

posted 03-04-99 10:20 AM ET            

And the units.

And the economy.

And the diplomacy.

posted 03-04-99 10:38 AM ET            

I was using Xcom as an example to show that it would not require enermous system requirements idiot!

Dredd,

The map is not abstraction but a direct invention a flat earth would radically change every other variable and factor. The idea of the game was to have it's roots in reality and extrapolate to give technologies, climate, diplomacy etc.
By leaving this path at the very start much of the realism is lost in SMAC.

posted 03-04-99 03:54 PM ET            

zaz: Just remember, a geodesic globe isn't a sphere. While it would lend itself to a flat map, there would be large gaps and 'arms', thanks to the pentagrams needed to create the sphere (I'm pretty sure about this; but not totally). Fallout used hex-based flat maps, but there were no pentagrams.

posted 03-04-99 05:17 PM ET            

I make a sensible observation that you cannot traverse the planet N to S and everyones saying:

"Oh it would be too difficult if you could do that!"

Next about the map, the fact it simply will not, and cannot wrap around a sphere.

"Well, it would be too difficult for the poor computer to do, can't be done!"

So well how about X-Com released about the same time as Civilsation and it had a sphere. Surely with the imporvments of the last 10 years SMAC can manage it...?

"X-Com only has 2-3 textures etc. etc."
Well you would think they would bring it up to date I was just saying it obvisouly is possilbe. Far too many idiots comparing X-COM which is 8 years old to SMAC. I wasn't suggesting for a second SMAC should run a 386 DUH!

Next back to the map, "If Fraxis haven't done it, then it just can't be done". What kind of crap is that...? Masses of things considered impossible are now possible and this isn't even considered impossible, it's already been done.

Can't you guys take critism of this game at all...?

Personally I think units look pretty damn awful and extremely similar. I enjoy playing this game but I don't think its any kind of "landmark achievment" or that Sid is some kind of God.

Could it be Fraxis made a mistake or simply sidestepped the problem because it would have delayed release...? If they never intended it to be any kind of planetary model why the hell include all the stats and other junk in the manual...?

Try taking your "SMAC is my shrine and my sole purpose in life" helmet off for a second have a really good look and you'll see the game does have lots of flaws and while still quite good to play there is PLENTY of room for improvment...

Darkheart

posted 03-04-99 05:59 PM ET            

Having a 2D map that 'flipped' to four different sides, showing the north, east, south, and west poles repectively would make the game easier to understand, especially if it only moved to the north or south pole (which show HALF the world each - i.e a top down view of each pole down to the equator) when a unit was very close to 'crossing over'.

Having a rotating graphical display of the world map would also be a neat wee idea.

posted 03-04-99 06:20 PM ET            

As for the "bug", it's a design decision, not a bug... The way you've described it, yourself, isn't even correct... The north edge of the map does not connect to the south edge of the map on a true globe... The only way to come *close* to spherical realism on a flat map using squares would be to have less squares across the top and bottom than across the center (a sort of irregular oval made of squares)... Really, since the basis is squares, the shape would be more like two cones placed bottoms together, with the tips cut off...

like this, basically, assuming each . is a SMAC square:

........
..........
............
..............
................
..............
............
..........
........
12345678

Obviously, hexagons would be better, but I regress... I've numbered the squares at the south pole for illustration of how the poles should work... moving south from square 1 would put you at square 5, 2<->6, 3<->7, and 4<->8...

At any rate, this is no *small* design decision, and the easiest to understand and use is the one they chose... They decided to focus on tech and other game design instead of spending half their alloted design time getting the world to work, and even the above is no more realistic than what they used...

If you want to be concerned with issues of realism, figure out why a plane has two *years* of fuel, yet still has issues getting back to home base... or why it takes decades of marching for some infantry to march across a medium sized continent... Personally, I believe turns should have been set to tenths of years like they were in Master of Orion II to solve this problem...

At any rate, your problem with the realism of the map is easily solved by making a concession, yourself... Assume one of the following:

1) Chiron is a ringworld. Ignore the information in the manual. Voila, problem solved.

2) Huge sections at the north and south ends of the globe, leaving only a 90 degree strip along the equator, are *so* totally overrun by fungus and native life, it would take 100 years to move around a pole, and death would be likely at the hands of mindworms on such a march. This doesn't even conflict with the information in the manual, and explains the map *completely*. This is the way I think of it... "Whoops, there's the south edge. Mindworm chaos down there. If I want to move to the other side of the world, it'd be faster marching *around* than across that sea of fungus."

You're making a huge deal out of a design issue that's meaningless to most people, not because they're idiots, but because they realize creating a game is about giving up trivial issues to focus on the important things.. Try designing a game, yourself, and I'll put more credence in your words.. A friend and I are working on designing something now, and it's a much more involved job than it seems on the surface..

This is an unpatchable issue on Firaxis' end (*), but easily patched in your *own mind* by just picturing the globe covered throughout 50% of the northern and southern hemispheres by completely impassable terrain of some kind...

posted 03-04-99 06:45 PM ET            

I certainly miss those polar regions, too. Some icy blue/white caps would be a great help in breaking up the monotone colours of planet. And watching my marines trudge through the polar north to reach the Hive on the other side would be something fun to see as well.

posted 03-04-99 10:28 PM ET            

a) Not all of us old-timers are zealots. I have no psi-blades, nor am I willing to give my life for Chiron. however, I really am tired of all of these people, including you, Darkheart, who are PMSsing over SMAC not being "realistic" enough. It's a game. Deal with it. If you're going to complain about it, go right ahead. I just wish the lot of you would be polite about it, have some semblance of respect, and not go shooting off your mouths and attacking/insulting the makers, the "zealots" and such.

This goes for you defenders, as well.

b) Firaxis could have implemented that. They didn't. Not because they were stupid, not because they thought we were stupid, and not because they didn't give a hoot, but because they simply thought that it would break the game.

c) The game, and the information on the planet, are works of FICTION. FICTION is almost never REAL. if you want REAL stuff, go experience it yourself. Board one of the landing pods, and see how long you'll stay in power with flagging morale, alien environmental problems, hazardous lifestyles, and your own friends trying to kill you over some theological or ideological point. As for the "cr*p" about the planet in the manual: what...did you think it wouldn't be "cr*p"? Firaxis researched this deeply, but in the end, their best guess about the planet is no more as correct or logical as your best guess. There's even some doubt to whether a planet could form in the AC system. So, most people have a willing suspension of disbelief...they realize it's a game, and if they find that it's fun, they go on with it.

d) Really...you're all insulting each other like six-year-olds who want to be talk show hosts: "You're an idiot if you don't agree with me!" - which is what a lot of your character assassinations boil down to you. Step back, and try to be more reasoning...

posted 03-04-99 11:09 PM ET            

This is an exceptionally silly thread and should die a painful and lingering death. If it was a lawsuit it should be thrown out of court as frivolous. A waste of electrons.

posted 03-05-99 12:15 AM ET         

As everyone has tried to explain; usual map projections represent the poles as the line at the top and bottom of a flat page. You can not go past this point without turning around. This is exactly how the game is played; you go to the bottom of the screen and then have to turn around.

However, if the projection had a pole in the centre of the page, the opposite pole would be represented by all four boundaries of the flat page, hence you could, as you so desperately want, move from any edge to the opposite edge in one move.

So it is a question of map projection types.

It doesn't make a jot of difference to the game play as all players are working within the same environment, which is the most typical projection.

posted 03-05-99 01:00 AM ET            

I started up writing reasons why it couldn't be done but then I just got sick and deleted them. There is no point arguing any more. Enough people have given you good reasons, and you only need one reason. I don't think that anyone should waste anymore time on this worthless thread.

If you really wanted people to agree with you then you should have started off telling everyone how your idea might work, not blaming firaxis for not using it. Then people could point out the flaws and maybe they would come up with ways to fix them.

Instead you talk about ovals and other crazy things. It never seems to occur to you that flat maps of round things are always, by definition, inaccutrate thus you come to the discussion without the ability to understand arguments against your idea.

posted 03-05-99 02:39 AM ET            

Anyways, my thoughts
1) yes it is unrealistic

2) they meant it that way

3) because this is probably the most realistic map one can make out of squares.

4) In my opinion it is also the Most realistic part of the game (forced ignorance of the poles is nothing compared to all the other approximations in the game)

5) In my opinion it is also the thing which making more realisic would have the least effect on fun (the only advantage I can see is the ability to found a city on the actual N/S pole instead of near it)

6) PS There is a way to go from the N to the south pole. 1-Go North,2-When you get to the pole move east/West until you are north of the path you want, 3-Go south, reitterate, because this is what one does in real life except that in this case it takes movement points to turn around.

posted 03-05-99 03:49 AM ET            

But then the Replay would only show most of
one hemisphere.

The Empire family of games (and my old favorite Diplomacy) have traditionally been
played on flat maps, because they began as
board games. Civ and SMAC have continued that
tradition, because it suits strategy games.

Whereas Darkheart and company wish that they
could play xbattle on xearth, but with
better unit graphics and without the world
spinning. That's fine, and I'd also like to,
but the only way I can see us getting that
dream game is for one of its enthusiasts to
write it.

Presumably, DH, you have a grudge against
MOO1, MOO2, BOTF, SE3, etc, etc, because
they're played in two dimensions, but space
is obviously three dimensional. (For that
matter, why do all aircraft in Civ and SMAC
fly at ground level?)

There are 3-D space empire games, such as
Universe which I'm following the development
of, but one must ask why are these still in
the minority?

The issue for both spherical maps and 3-D
galaxies is not technology but human
perception. A rotatable 3-D starmap was
tried in Microprose's Star Trek: A Final Unity. Personally I loved it, but most
people can't relate to the very realism of it
because they're so used to flat maps.

If aircraft in SMAC flew at different
altitudes, over cities, ground units, ships,
and other planes, then everyone would
complain that they couldn't see what was
going on underneath the planes, and that it
was too complicated changing the altitude of
a fighter to attack an incoming bomber.

And if the map were a sphere, then there'd be
complaints that the whole world map wasn't
available.

If movements were continuous, the complaint
would be: `Where did the simplicity of
discrete moves go? Now the game's turned
into hunt-the-pixel!'

As Sid and a zillion other people have said,
a game's meant to be fun. Indeed, pursuing
the Moby Dick of obsessive realism can lead
to the quick demise of the Captain Ahab of
enjoyment of the game.

In the Universe discussions, I'm on the side
of strict realism (wherever feasible), but
one has to recognise that the other side of
the debate has a very reasonable view when
they say that non-core issues must be
simplified if a game is to be fun.

posted 03-05-99 10:34 AM ET            

I believe you readily admitted that changing the map into a globe would probably change the whole process of the game, since it would be one of the earlier decisions made (if I am wrong about this please correct me). Basically Alpha Centauri would have been a completely different game if that one decision had been made.

In another thread, there was discussion over the tiles. If you went with a globe, I would argue tiles would probably have to be eliminated altogether. The city resource scheme would probably have to be redone. In fact the game would probably have to be converted into some sort of quasi realtime game.

I also think that this would be do-able. It would have probably taken more time due to the fact that they would pretty much be changing the entire engine and interface. But the biggest effect it would have, is that it would not be any kind of successor to Civilization (which I belive you mentioned in you initial post). I think Sid and Brian made conscious effort to court Civ veterans. I think these changes would have alienated quite a few of them. Plus, you also have to think how buggy and counterintuitive a completely new engine would be. And lastly, I think the ability to see the whole map simultaneously is a necessity in a game like this.

There is a saying: "If it ain't broke; don't fix it." I know you do think this is a broken aspect of the game. But from all the heated responses (and my own opinion) I don't think it is. I think this is something that was concsiously chosen because the ramifications of changing it could change the game into something completely unfilimiar to its fan base and something that would have a greater chance to fail.

Personally, I would kind of like to see an empire game built on a globe with the complexity of a Civ or a SMAC. It's something to look to the future for.

posted 03-06-99 06:34 PM ET            

If you're really concerned about realism, ask this question: Why are distances for air units the same as distances for land units? Same question for subs.

Here's the point: flying 1,000 miles on Planet Earth doesn't actually take you 1,000 miles.

Draw a circle with a 6" diameter on a piece of paper (how lo-tech!). Then draw a 1" straight line directly perpendicular to the arc of the circle at one point. Then draw a circle. The first thing you should notice is that the new circle has a diameter significantly larger than 6" (actually, 8").

Now draw a 2" line along the arc described by the 8" circle (i.e. not parallel to the circle, but measured along the circle).

Now draw a line perpendicular to the 6" circle to the end of your 2" arc on the 8" circle. (For those geometry geeks like me, you've just described a section of the circle.)

Now, what you should notice is that, on the 6" circle, the arc described by the section is significantly smaller than 2".

What I've just shown is that, if you describe an air unit as having 3 moves per turn, the actual distance covered on a spherical earth would depend on factors such as:
1) the altitude of the air unit
2) the altitude of the base from which it took off
3) the altitude of the target area
4) you get my point.

(By the way, exactly the same point works for the sub units, just in reverse.)

posted 03-08-99 09:05 PM ET            

In effect, your two circles are the same size.

posted 03-14-99 02:26 AM ET            

Well, I would like to start off by saying that I think SMAC works just fine the way it is right now, and does not need to be changed. It is actually one of my all time favorites, and I am not bashing it at all. I just want to put in my thoughts on this complaint.

Responding to Darkheart's complaint,

After reading Darkheat's complaint I thought he had a point. Now, I agree with people like KJohnstone when they say that it is imposible to move into the north pole, and come out on the south pole. But, I also think that there may be the posibility for change in the movement at the top of the map. For example if you visulize a top down view of the north pole, you see how the north pole is in the center, and the land and ocean can be seen until the equator. Now, if you have a unit at the equator, and a unit on the north pole, lined up on the same latitude, and they start out traveling at the same speed the unit at the nort pole will get around the Earth much faster than the one at the equator.
A simple solution to this complaint could be to allow the units at the top or bottom of the map to move farther than the units at the equator. For example a colony pod at the equator moves one square a turn, whereas a colony pod on the ice caps moves 3 or 4 spaces a turn.
Just seems like a simplier solution that making a 3D model of the planet.
Anyways, just wanted to throw in my thoughts on the subject.

posted 03-14-99 04:40 AM ET            

If the world were run by people as intellectually demanding as you, we'd still be playing Pong--and you'd tell us all to shut up because we think it would be nice if the little block (a.k.a. ball) actually looked round.

"C'mon--Can't you guys just accept that it's a ball! Just have fun. Geez!"

I am stunned at the number of people on the Internet who seem to be encountering criticism for the first time in their lives.

posted 03-14-99 02:21 PM ET            

You opinion matters zero to me. The first 10 or so of your posts I read when I first came to this board were flames or insults of some kind. You're just like the great majority of users on the internet. You use the anonymity the net gives you to be an @ss. Too bad this forum doesn't have a filter...

posted 03-14-99 04:16 PM ET            

silt: Yes, people should be intellectually demanding. Intellectual integrity is one of the things that moves a society forward.

your point is somewhat valid; but accept the fact that criticism, when constructive, benefits us all.

also: the notion that it's unrealistic because of the colonization method: it's already been mentioned.
======
yin: No, people should not be intellectually demanding in your manner. Your definition of being intellectually demanding is insulting, demeaning, and destroying everything that is not a realistic model nor a viable creation of the world. This means that all of the games you are possibly enjoying now are pieces of crap that are so unrealistic, that nobody should ever play them. MechWarrior 2, which many thought was an excellent game, isn't realistic because, even though it simulates many things that could possibly happen, the PPCs wouldn't work because of the Heisenberg principle. The Lasers wouldn't be visible at all. Civ2 wasn't realistic, nor historically accurate. The tech tree system is flawed, because nobody in real life discovers things in such a manner. discoveries take a period of time, and during this period of time, advances are made; who's to say when the discovery actually takes place? especially with things like Literacy and Mathematics.
If people WERE that intellectually demanding, we'd all thing quoting 700-line passages from Shakespeare was entertainment.

I forgot...we wouldn't HAVE Shakespeare. He's too flowery in his language, and his situations can't happen in real life.
We wouldn't have art, nor would we have an entertainment industry.

posted 03-14-99 11:47 PM ET            

Artists, game designers and implementers normally welcome criticism as a means to improve their future work. But this constant and repetitive yammering. Aieee! It constitutes harassment more than it does criticism.

And if the game was so easy to alter after the fact to add features and, yes, bug fixes, don't you think that effort would already be done by now?

I'm going to do my best to enjoy what I have now, point out something that hasn't been harped on a few hundred times and hope that improvements will be made in the future. There is no guarantee of this, nor do I expect a guarantee.

I would like improvements and I expect they are forthcoming. But it takes time, energy and resources to accomplish this. Not the harassment, discouragement and disdain that you heap on them.

Actually, you have become such a characiture (sp?) of yourself that maybe they get a laugh or two from your posts in the Development meetings at Firaxis.

posted 03-15-99 01:42 AM ET            

Not that I agree with Silt, whose dull witted sycophancy ("nothing is perfect, therefore nothing should be criticised") makes itself irrelevant without needing any reply.

posted 03-15-99 01:51 AM ET            

>>> Think of the computational power required to map sphere (as compared to the cylinder-rectangle mix currently used) with the weather generation still in place. Even the basic mathematical formula for the surface area of a sphere is a hell of a lot more complicated compared to the ones for cylinders and rectangles.
On top of that, the entire hex based system would be thrown out the window. You cant replace it with a series of pentagons and hexagons for two reasons;
1) The only way to move would be using the mouse, as the number pad doesn't have 10 to 12 keys, and
2) It's just plain stupid to have different shaped hex "squares".

Also a more complex weather generation system would have to be written, taking into account polar temperatures, which in turn would affect ocean currents, which in turn would affect nutrient distribution and tidal harness efiiciency, which in turn ...... well you get the message.

Bring the idea up when the following things happen;
1) We create personal computers that can handle this type of processing
(Optical Computers: D3)
2) We discover a system that can move the units without wasting time a t the mouse
(Mind/Machine Interface: C6)

-Biddles

posted 03-15-99 02:06 AM ET            

I always loved the "Grow Up" line.

"Grow up because I'm superior."

Just say it. It's O.K. You'll feel better. Here, watch me:

We all (well except for a few total idiots) want a better game. Some make teeny tiny hints because they are afraid of Brian. Some throw every statistic they can get their hands on at the forum and hope the math tells the truth. Some just accept the problems and would love to talk about anything else but the problems. Others say the game should be warezed because it's that bad in their opinion. Still others, like me, I guess, criticize more than they should. They piss people off with their opinionated style. For the record, I do not think I'm superior to anybody on this board. But, let's face it, Firaxis just drop the ball on this game. Is it a good game? Yes. Is it great. Not even close. Now, if all it took were a bunch of very vocal gamers to let Firaxis know that it can't just give us an O.K. game and go on to the next project, don't you think it's worth it?

Anyway, whatever you think, just sit back, relax, read the posts or don't. Flame me or don't. It's just a conversation--so pull up a chair and give us your two cents (which is about all your comments are worth--see, now, that was a joke )

posted 03-15-99 03:52 AM ET            

That'll be just about enough denouncing of XCom outta youse!

posted 03-15-99 02:54 PM ET            

All that would be necessary, in the short term, is to first make the statement, "The north and south poles are uninhabitable." Then, when the player attempts to move upward, into the black (uninhabitable) void, they are placed at a point relative to the exact opposite of their position, yet still on the top of the map. This would require an airborne craft due to the fact that the north/south poles have volitile and dangerous crevaces, which would consume any land based travellers. For example, if the world grid was 100 squares wide, and the aircraft was at say square 25, then when he enters the void, a confirmation would appear, "This action will require 10 movement points to complete." If confirmed, after the equivalent turns of 10 movement points, the ship would appear at square 75.

posted 03-15-99 08:38 PM ET            

----
Back to the map bit.
My guess(and it is only a guess), is that a flat map was chosen:
a) Because it lends itself to a flat display in a more readily understandable format than does any projection of a sphere that accounts for the poles.
b) Because it's easier to program. It allowed the programmers to focus on the other game mechanics.
c) Because it's the accepted standard for this type of game. I'm not saying that this means a game of this type on a spherical map should never be done. I'm saying that given the timeframe the Firaxis team had to work in they had to choose which features to implement. Basically, IMHO, they could either have done Civ 2 on a spherical map(i.e. putting all their effort into changing the map) or they could do a new game on a flat map(i.e. putting all their effort into advancing the rules of the game).

posted 03-15-99 09:47 PM ET            

As for high-energy lasers. they aren't visible unless you're looking at them straight on or in a dusty room. why? because lasers are coherent beams of energy, and for you to see them, the beams would have to be going every which way.
the dusty battlefield? yes, that might account for it. but that would mean there would be places in the beam where you wouldn't see it at all.

posted 03-15-99 10:00 PM ET            

Is that 200 won after IMF or before? (Living here during that crash was NOT fun.)

See, I'm glad that you and I can agree to disagree sometimes. That's what these forums are for (in part, at least).

posted 03-15-99 10:19 PM ET            

but that's because the D club is an offshoot of my favorite bar, the I club.
care for a Pholus Mutagen? it glows.

hope we're still friends.

as for the IMF, yeah, i hated it too.
all ofmy pocket money went down the drain. (ugghh...)
and dollars are just so green.
anyway, the W200 would be after, i'd say, if i did my math well.

posted 03-15-99 11:07 PM ET            

As for Hadrons, these are particles which can be quite happily held and fired, being composed of quarks and such. When composed into large spherical groups, they become atoms, unless I'm really way off beam (I don't think I am).

You basically only require Newtonian mechanics (i.e not relativistic, and certainly not quantum) at these kinds of masses, and so certainly don't require a knowledge of quantum mechanics in any great depth. Basically, unless you're a philosopher, you only apply Heisenburg to particles of electron size and below.

posted 03-15-99 11:12 PM ET            

I'm sorry I ever hated you .

posted 03-15-99 11:22 PM ET            

First, let's define a cylindrical coordinate system. x will be along the axis of the cylinder, r is the distance from the axis. We can ignore the angle from vertical for our purposes.

Assume you are firing protons at, say, 0.5c.

Now, the main uncertainty in velocity we would be concerned with is radial, as minor differences in arrival time are unimportant.
With:
delta r * delta rho = hbar
(rho is momentum)
Let's assume a small uncertainty of 1 nm.
delta rho = hbar / 1 nm = 1.05*10^-25 kg*m/s
Divide this by the mass of a proton to get velocity:
1.05*10^-25 kg*m/s / 1.66*10^-26 kg = 63.5 m/s
This is exceedingly tiny compared to the velocity along x.

posted 03-16-99 08:27 PM ET            

you CAN cross the poles.just press 'up' key when you reach the top of the map.
if you've followed precised and detailed instruction written above and it still doesn't works try this:

a) buy a new set of keyboard
b) clean the old one
c) ask your dealer to replace that non-working-properly-game-of-yours
d) whatever

how can you be so sure that map isn't realistic?
did you ever been on alpha centauri?
or even on north pole earth?

i did.
there are some black triangles like this:
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
and they prevent you to going any further.

posted 03-17-99 06:40 PM ET            

First of all, paint the poles white, i.e add some nice polar caps to the tile set. Next, ban naval units from crossing the poles. Require ground units to have a 'survival' special ability, and Air units to have an 'all weather flying' special ability - and missiles can always cross.

Next, charge the traveling air unit 6 movement points to complete its journey. Ground units take 3 turns regardless, and cannot be contacted to have their orders changed during this time, due to the weather conditions and planet's extreme electromagnetic interference. Units with drop pods can make the journey in one turn.

Now, the location. Moving straight up into the arctic region moves your unit halfway across the world, i.e they come out at the same latitude, but say 40 squares to the left on an 80 square map. +/- 3 squares. Moving left or right takes you quarter of the way around, about 20 squares +/- 2. Jump pods can be knocked off course, landing up to 2 squares either side of their destination.

posted 03-17-99 07:31 PM ET            

[Mocking one of the recent salvos shot at me on another thread...]

"Boy, it sure sounds to me like you just want another game entirely. Listen, if you didn't play the demo or ask for personal e-mails from Jeff about the map BEFORE you bought the game, I really don't see what right you have to complain AFTER you bought the game. I mean, Caveat Emptor, right? Oh, and another thing, the map design IS NOT A BUG. It's design decision. If you take the time to understand the difference, I'm sure you'll be a happier person."

Wow. That was creepy. I'm never doing that again [insert face with absolutely no expression].

Polar Explorer,

posted 03-17-99 11:24 PM ET            

You're right. I feel kinda violated, having my (hopefully) rational argument subjected to such nonsense. Please don't do that again.

posted 03-19-99 07:09 PM ET            

Second, I agree, it ISN'T a bug. It's a feature.

Third, the real point of posting to the thread that really should die, but can't:

Spoe's post on uncertainty and velocity.
1nm!?! I dunno what YOU are shooting at, but according to MY rulebook, mechs are roughly 12m tall. . .now my technical readouts are at home, and I'm at college, so I don't have any horizontal dimensions "on hand," but 4m seems like a safe bet. (Personally I'd use 6m, but that seems a bit squat) It seems to me we could go with a radial uncertainty of up to 25cm, maybe 10cm for a top-of-the-line model, and still get incredible accuracy, especially for the ranges we're shooting at. . .which of course allows for a MUCH greater accuracy in momentum, in all directions.

Visions of probability cones projected by battle scanners from ppc ports. . .

posted 03-20-99 09:57 PM ET            

This is where the idea of 'singularity lasers' comes from, i.e using a very heavy mass to focus the light into a coherent beam. I don't know if you can do this, however, there seems to be some problem with photon-photon interactions that crops up at high densities - one of the reasons we aren't using optical computers yet!