Moving SCs

Talk about Nomadic and moving SCs here. Not in the military thread.

eumesmo wrote:

erm, apart from what i said, nomadic sc could work like cityships. while on the move a cityship is still a city right? and on the move the nomads will still trade and such

But nomadic SCs are not tied to Tech Objects like cityships are.

no they are not, while a cityship is a City with the capability to move itself, the "nomadic SC" are a moving population that carries all knowledge, culture and possetions with them from place to place. What i mean, is that while a nomadic group of people is moving they should still remain a SC, i think that we should categorize them like this

SC:
-Fixed SC;
-Traveling SC;
---- Nomadic SC
---- CityShip


they should come with a tag of: homeworld, space or colony for the space stage,


but the main thing is, that we still need to see a moving people as a SC, because despite the phisical part not bieng there, the societal part is, and their knowledge, culture, architecture and thought remains as one, as one single people (this is different from a exodus from a regular SC where the people spread across the globe changing theirs and others' cultures)

As I said on the old thread: the game should identify an SC as any area with a sufficient density of sapient organisms and Tech Objects. Even nomads will take their weapons and such with them as they travel, and identifying an SC in this way would allow for moving SCs without requiring TOs specifically tagged for the purpose.

Xenopologist wrote:

As I said on the old thread: the game should identify an SC as any area with a sufficient density of sapient organisms and Tech Objects. Even nomads will take their weapons and such with them as they travel, and identifying an SC in this way would allow for moving SCs without requiring TOs specifically tagged for the purpose.

Hm, sounds better as long as it takes any TOs, not just buildings.

Exactly. That way, an SC isn't rooted to one place by definition and is still easy to define.

That is an AWESOME idea!
Agreed.
-Waap.

Xenopologist wrote:

Exactly. That way, an SC isn't rooted to one place by definition and is still easy to define.

Okay. But may i ask what happens to all the buildings? Just left to rot?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Xenopologist wrote:

Exactly. That way, an SC isn't rooted to one place by definition and is still easy to define.

Okay. But may i ask what happens to all the buildings? Just left to rot?

Pretty much. Look at Great Zimbabwe.

The could be taken over by others I suppose. The structurl advantages are still there.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Xenopologist wrote:

Exactly. That way, an SC isn't rooted to one place by definition and is still easy to define.

Okay. But may i ask what happens to all the buildings? Just left to rot?

Pretty much. Do we have any plans to simulate decay? Will that be taken care of by the environment and physics?

Xenopologist wrote:

Pretty much. Do we have any plans to simulate decay? Will that be taken care of by the environment and physics?

Dropping it's health over time is enough I think.

i think that "random damage" should be added over time. Having a thriving society would slow down that decay, but in a crumbling society the decay would be similar or even faster to the one happening in the wild.

decay should have the walls starting to fall over and such. do i need to explain it?

Commander Keen wrote:

Xenopologist wrote:

Pretty much. Do we have any plans to simulate decay? Will that be taken care of by the environment and physics?

Dropping it's health over time is enough I think.

VERY SLOWLY. Especially depending on material.

Quote :

Tenebrarum wrote:

Dropping it's health over time is enough I think.

VERY SLOWLY. Especially depending on material.

You are thinking about castle ruins, right? Well, I agree with you. Buildings should be unusable after relatively short time, but last quite long.

Maybe that a percentual value of current health should be subtracted, so the more damaged it is, the less it decays.

Commander Keen wrote:

Quote :

Tenebrarum wrote:

Dropping it's health over time is enough I think.

VERY SLOWLY. Especially depending on material.

You are thinking about castle ruins, right? Well, I agree with you. Buildings should be unusable after relatively short time, but last quite long.

Maybe that a percentual value of current health should be subtracted, so the more damaged it is, the less it decays.

But then we get to the stage where it starts to fall to pieces, and that will all happen very quickly.

the bigger the structure the faster from the moment it starts to it ends collapsing, skyscrapers and big domes fall quickly and small structures like houses take longer, gravity,shape, height and weight matter

eumesmo wrote:

the bigger the structure the faster from the moment it starts to it ends collapsing, skyscrapers and big domes fall quickly and small structures like houses take longer, gravity,shape, height and weight matter

Depends on how durable in total the buildings are. Small houses will certainly resist equal or bigger stress than skyscrapers. Ruins last VERY long time, below 10% health it should be only dependant on climate and material durability.

i mean the time from the moment it starts crumbling down to pieces and the time it stops. in bigger buildings, it's size makes that when they get to a certain point they just fall apart at once. smaller buildings dont have those problems, since their lower mass makes them collapse in parts.

but yes, material durability and climate are important factors in the decay (that i forgot to mention in the earlier post)

Will partly damaged building be repairable? For example the top half of a skyscraper is destroyed in a attack, would the building be repairable, even though it is no longer deemed "usable"?


A better example is partially decayed castles. Could you restore them to operating conditions?

yes, but the more degraded it is the more time and resources it'd take (fully destroyed buildings cannot be repaired, just rebuilt) At some point it could be cheaper just to demolish the building and build from scratch then to repair the whole building. If a building is fully repaired it's deemed usable again, but if it isnt it can still have value as well as unfinished stuctures. A bunker is better if finished, but if just partially complete, it can still shelter some

caekdaemon wrote:

For example the top half of a skyscraper is destroyed in a attack, would the building be repairable, even though it is no longer deemed "usable"?

This just gave me a thought... If the top half is destroyed it would be repairable...
If the bottom half sustains an equal amount of damage, it would collapse. So will gravity have an effect on decay? And on higher gravity planets, would the decay be faster, because of more pressure on the building?
Could we also expect to see bigger buildings on low-g planets, because there is less chance of them falling and they need less support? Although now I'm going too off topic. I shall stop posting to give you mercy from my wandering mind, the topic is off enough already. Hang on, on low-g planets, moving SCs would be easier to make.