Kerbal Civ: Your opinion on interacting with the Kerbal Civilization

[Superfluous J]

I don't care to see each building, but Kerbin looks so *bare* from space. I've installed the Cities and Clouds mod so at least the night side looks good, but I'd love it if those cities showed up on the day side as well.

[PrISM]

I'd like to see some kind of benefit for various thing you do within your space program. Maybe returning a resource on Kerbin that's rare which benefits the planet. For example, Helium-3 mined on the Mun and returned to Kerbin to power fusion reactors which give some kind of benefit, maybe cheaper parts within career mode or something along those lines.

[Kinglet]

Pretty sure they would give you missions.

Some of them would be like this:

LAUNCH OUR MILITARY SATALITE SO WE CAN DOMINATE THE WORLD AND TURN IT INTO A CRUEL DICTATORSHIP! Please.

[Mr.Rocket]

I just wish the Kerbals got more appreciation. They could get experience from missions, and you could see all the past missions they have been on. Also, if you could give them positions in your space program, that would be cool

[Martijn404]

And I thought this thread was about interactions between Civilization (V) and Kerbal Space Program.

I can see a few:

- Play Civilization on Kerbin map (there is one!)

- Civilization techtree allowes Kerbal components (Explosives for SRB's; Electronics for Solar panels etc)

- When you've completed Apollo project, the location of your Civilization game's cities, landscape etc become visible from Kerbin's orbit

- You can only land in Friendly territory on Kerbin, or near naval vessels... else your landed Kerbals are considered captured by evil enemies and taken hostage

- Bringing back Eve surface samples to Kerbin is a requirement for Space victory!

Edited January 4, 2014 by Martijn404

[StrandedonEarth]

Even something as simple as having cities on the globe, with negative consequences if your debris hits a city. Or a little kash boost if your debris hits unpopulated land and can be recycled.

[irongut]

I'd love to see a bit more life on Kerbin, especially city lights during night lanches and while orbiting the dark side, but I have no interest in any form of KerCity, Kerbalisation, etc. I have other games for that.

[Nahim]

I always imagined a Career mode that would cue a newspaper and show you the headline "Kerbal Lands on Mun", etc., and completing milestone missions (Leaving Kerbin's SOI, going to other planets) would increase public support and funds.

Mee Too.

It actualy add more to the gameplay, you know.

Also, Kennedy Kerman and the Komunists space race making appearing would be great!

A Kerbal Civ is Cloth to sleeve a bunch of jokes about the space race age and the Kerebals theyselfs...

[epicbuilder333]

When I first read the title I thought it was about a mod for Civ 5 that adds the Kerbals.

[epicbuilder333]

and i thought this thread was about interactions between civilization (v) and kerbal space program.

I can see a few:

- play civilization on kerbin map (there is one!)

- civilization techtree allowes kerbal components (explosives for srb's; electronics for solar panels etc)

- when you've completed apollo project, the location of your civilization game's cities, landscape etc become visible from kerbin's orbit

- you can only land in friendly territory on kerbin, or near naval vessels... Else your landed kerbals are considered captured by evil enemies and taken hostage

- bringing back eve surface samples to kerbin is a requirement for space victory!

give me a link to the kerbal civ 5 map!

[Superfluous J]

I'd love to see a bit more life on Kerbin, especially city lights during night lanches and while orbiting the dark side, but I have no interest in any form of KerCity, Kerbalisation, etc. I have other games for that.

Have you seen the Visual Enhancements mod? It's a must-install for me.

[Johno]

No, Kerbal cities shouldn't be terribly detailed things. But they should be present. And they're a part of play too - you need to avoid whacking them with pieces of space debris! That's an important thing in real-world space programs . . .

[Nimja]

No, Kerbal cities shouldn't be terribly detailed things. But they should be present. And they're a part of play too - you need to avoid whacking them with pieces of space debris! That's an important thing in real-world space programs . . .

Exactly my sentiments.although I would probably WANT to hit them just for the chaos it would cause.

[Duke23]

I was thinking it would be nice to have something more than just a launchpad on Kerbin, like cities maybe some bridges.. It would make atmospheric planes a little more useful and interesting imo. Right now I suck at planes so when I do get one that flies right I'm like Yay I could have done this faster by launching a rocket at 45-60 degrees in this general direction (which I actually did for a while to hop biomes)

If there was some other sign of life it would give me a reason to stay low and cruise by to check everything out, or opportunities for Kerbin based missions. Like taking passengers from one airport to another, or taking a group of civilians into lko and back etc, all to gain funding and/or public support and reputation for your rocket program of course.

I agree too about having targets to aim away from when staging or landing (crashing). I can see it now - since everything goes on rails when not focused there will be an equation based on number of objects left in a decaying orbit and you might get a message that says a city was destroyed by your oversized lifter core and you have to pay to rebuild it

Edited January 5, 2014 by Duke23

[JordanL]

Just everyone didn't read I guess. This thread had zero to do with setting pointless, pretty cities on the surface.

[Guest]

I got into KSP for the same reason I got into Orbiter: to build and fly rockets, not be some planet-bound mayor/emperor/overlord. KSP is not Civilisation or Sim City or the Sims. Why the desire to force KSP into those overfilled categories?

[Hyomoto]

I'd like to see the flight sim approach taken to cities on Kerbin. I don't think you should need to interact with it, but I do think there could be some interesting parts it could be used for. As I see it, career mode would be most beneficial if ran like a administration simulation. You can look at it, but it pretty much just means you get money every couple of months since the only way to affect it would be by playing.

Each Kerbal year you get a budget. That budget is broken down into quarters, and each quarter your operating expenses are taken right off the top (training kerbals, keeping facilities running, its just an abstraction that is automatically deducted). Then whatever is left you use to do whatever missions and research you want. This is important because the player always has an income, but the income for any given quarter is capped. Money does not roll over from quarter to quarter, so you spend it or its gone (I get this is an immediately unpopular idea but if you can just 'grind' money, the whole thing loses its value). Next up, contract missions are given from both government and private sides of things. Perhaps the government wants a study done of Duna, maybe a private company wants a satellite launched (or other subassembly). The big change here is you get no money for doing these missions, you only get reputation. And how does that all factor into Kerbal cities? Well, reputation will affect your yearly budget. The amount of money you have available to spend with increase or decrease with your space program's reputation. Doing thinks like dropping SRB's on populated areas is obviously frowned upon, and that has the tack on effect of being fun to try and land in interesting places or AWAY from interesting places depending on your goal. So you have a tug of war, but I think the scale would be pretty lenient. It also explains away having to do 'small missions'. If you don't have the BUDGET for a large mission, you do small missions to improve confidence so you can do larger ones.

This has the great impact of both encouraging players to spend AND be frugal. You want to do the mandatory missions for as cheap as possible, or tack them onto other missions to save money, but at the same time knowing your budget will reset means trying to milk every penny out of it before it does. The largest issue with this approach is you could simply buy parts, which would become the de facto method of draining the budget. Perhaps a limitation on manufacturing could both make that a VALID reason for doing so and also add another decision layer. If you wanted a game over in career, that would be the easy way to do it. Reputation drops so low your program is cancelled though this isn't meant to be a hardcore number sim, just an abstraction of confidence in your program that determines the size of you annual budget. In case you are wonder why annual, it's because you budget doesn't get reevaluated quarterly. Mistakes at the beginning of the fiscal year are less costly than ones before the end of it.

Anyways, yeah, that's a basic, game-friendly way to do an economy, deal with the abstraction of other Kerbals on the planet and I think it would be fun.

Edited January 6, 2014 by Hyomoto

[2001kraft]

Actually.. a Kerbin civilization wouldn't be that hard.

You know terrain scatter right? Replace trees with compact houses that spawn in specific biomes only..and you have it!

Add a simple collision box, and not-much-detailed design and this would drastically change the game.

[Tanner Rawlings]

I like the idea of companies having complexes around kerbin and should you blow up a building they will fine you and be less than happy to give you contracts, maybe missions to deliver kerbals to complexes or pick them up?

[TelluriumCrystal]

I'd like to see the flight sim approach taken to cities on Kerbin. I don't think you should need to interact with it, but I do think there could be some interesting parts it could be used for. As I see it, career mode would be most beneficial if ran like a administration simulation. You can look at it, but it pretty much just means you get money every couple of months since the only way to affect it would be by playing.

Each Kerbal year you get a budget. That budget is broken down into quarters, and each quarter your operating expenses are taken right off the top (training kerbals, keeping facilities running, its just an abstraction that is automatically deducted). Then whatever is left you use to do whatever missions and research you want. This is important because the player always has an income, but the income for any given quarter is capped. Money does not roll over from quarter to quarter, so you spend it or its gone (I get this is an immediately unpopular idea but if you can just 'grind' money, the whole thing loses its value). Next up, contract missions are given from both government and private sides of things. Perhaps the government wants a study done of Duna, maybe a private company wants a satellite launched (or other subassembly). The big change here is you get no money for doing these missions, you only get reputation. And how does that all factor into Kerbal cities? Well, reputation will affect your yearly budget. The amount of money you have available to spend with increase or decrease with your space program's reputation. Doing thinks like dropping SRB's on populated areas is obviously frowned upon, and that has the tack on effect of being fun to try and land in interesting places or AWAY from interesting places depending on your goal. So you have a tug of war, but I think the scale would be pretty lenient. It also explains away having to do 'small missions'. If you don't have the BUDGET for a large mission, you do small missions to improve confidence so you can do larger ones.

This has the great impact of both encouraging players to spend AND be frugal. You want to do the mandatory missions for as cheap as possible, or tack them onto other missions to save money, but at the same time knowing your budget will reset means trying to milk every penny out of it before it does. The largest issue with this approach is you could simply buy parts, which would become the de facto method of draining the budget. Perhaps a limitation on manufacturing could both make that a VALID reason for doing so and also add another decision layer. If you wanted a game over in career, that would be the easy way to do it. Reputation drops so low your program is cancelled though this isn't meant to be a hardcore number sim, just an abstraction of confidence in your program that determines the size of you annual budget. In case you are wonder why annual, it's because you budget doesn't get reevaluated quarterly. Mistakes at the beginning of the fiscal year are less costly than ones before the end of it.

Anyways, yeah, that's a basic, game-friendly way to do an economy, deal with the abstraction of other Kerbals on the planet and I think it would be fun.

That would actually be an interesting way to set up the game economy. As it is, the game functions more or less like the KSC is a private company, while your model has it functioning much more like a government organization. I'm not sure which Squad is going for, but I think it's an idea worth exploring. Perhaps someone could come up with a mod for this?

[Cmdr. Arn1e]

Nice Necro! But as things have moved on since the previous last post (6th of January)(new version, and plans for future versions out there), I think this thread should have been re-made instead of raised from the dead...

[wolfedg]

I wouldn't mind seeing a few small settlements, but what i would really like to see is more runways for my planes and spaceplanes to visit and perhaps make the KSC 2 usable for launches.