Re: GALAXY: A transport by any other name?

From: rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie (russell wallace)

Date: Sun, 02 Aug 1992 13:16:03 +0000

In <1992Jul31.231225.3784@nwnexus.WA.COM> ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy) writes:

>I like it! Size wuld simply limit the amount of industry, and your
>AGI rating on the planet would determine the amount of people you can
>maintain. You could invest research into Agri Tech for growing new
>and better foods. (Say, yeast cultures that feed twice the people,
>at tech level 2!) and also tech investment for Industry Tech. (Gee, boss,
>if we automated this planet, we could let tehse people do other work. Thus,
>twice the production at Industry Tech 2.)

>Hmm. Sounds cool. I've never really like having a limit on industry/population.
>Heck, baing one's planet on Asimov's Caves fo Steel city design, there's
>really no limit to the production one can make, except for the industry the
>people can run (More Industry tech means more automation) and many people
>there are at all. (More Agri tech means more food production, means more
>people.)

>I like it! (grin)

>I want to see some high tech, 10000 industry homeworlds... (grin) Imagine
>the ships this puppy could build! Of course, now we have a lack of resources,
>and resource tech comes into play... (Gee, we could mine this a whole lot
>more effciently... :)

This would certainly be realistic, but being able to support huge
numbers of people on one planet would remove the incentive to fight over
planets, which is the most fun part of the game.

--
"To summarize the summary of the summary: people are a problem"
Russell Wallace, Trinity College, Dublin
rwallace@unix1.tcd.ie

References

Re: GALAXY: A transport by any other name?
ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy)
Fri, 31 Jul 1992 23:12:25 +0000

Referenced By

Re: GALAXY: A transport by any other name?
ninja@halcyon.com (Jonathan Roy)
Fri, 31 Jul 1992 23:12:25 +0000