(fixed) How many Civilizations at max should be in a Game?

[Zeiter]

I think a massive marathon game with 190+ civs, similar to real world politics now, could be really fun every once in a while. I certainly wouldn't play that type of game all the time (or even very often) but I'd like that option to be there.

[anti patriot]

i would!! i love big games. they take soooooo long and if you made the turn sequence shorter so the game gould last longer and slow down tech gettting, well just wow, that would be a really weird and cool game.

[Max Sinister]

If they'll allow many more civs, they'll have to fix the "every turn, every unit you can see is moving" thing. Can't they cluster the movements and tell me at the end of the turn "troops were moved in Eastern Europe, India and West Australia"?

[Dauphin]

I remember playing a game of CtP with an insane number of civs. Each civ had about 2 cities before it ran out of breathing space and was forced into conflict.

If they have no hardcoded limit the ability to trade techs must be scaled somehow, else you just evolve too fast.

[fezick31]

I voted unlimited for both, but here is my reasoning...

Most people on these forum complain about a specific civ not being included, or having to replace civs in order to get the one they want. Having unlimited civs allows for many more choices. The actual number in play could be variable (just as it is now with Map Size).

As far as minor civs, the only difference should be power. You could limit the capabilites of an empire based on a number of factors - from population, to military, to land area, to technology level. A certain score, and the civ changes from minor to major. Only major civs could make trade agreements and aliances, and would hold dominion on bordering minor civs.

Each civilization would start as a minor civ, and would have to work it's way to a major power. For example, Greece, as we know it, was only a world player after alexander united all of the various kings and provinces under one banner. Before that, you saw only internal warring between the cities.

Thoughts & Ideas?

[Vince278]

I'd like to see the barbarians have more of an impact. The Mongol hordes dominated even major civs (China, etc.). The Saxons went from being a minor Germanic tribe to rulers of England. The Celts before that dominated most of western Europe.

It may also be good to have some minor civs rise then fall in unoccupied areas (such as the Mayans for example).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I remember playing a game of CtP with an insane number of civs. Each civ had about 2 cities before it ran out of breathing space and was forced into conflict.

If they have no hardcoded limit the ability to trade techs must be scaled somehow, else you just evolve too fast.

No problem - having an unlimited number of civs doesn't mean they have to optimize play for every number of civs. Just leave the option open (would be especially useful for scenarios).

[Pizza]

I think the barbarians should have a chance of forming their own civ if they manage to capture a city.

[Heresson]

That's a ood idea.

Weakness of civ when it comes to revolts, new civs etc appeared to me when I compared it to EU2. It's a model how it should look; a city stays barbarian for specific time - it becomes independant.

Vassalisation?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Dauphin
If they have no hardcoded limit the ability to trade techs must be scaled somehow, else you just evolve too fast.

If you can change the research speed like in Civ2 this won't be an issue really.