Comparing Civ Lists: Civ3, AoE2, Rise of Nations, etc.

[Locutus]

Easily, one can only play with (at most) 32 civs out of 64 (or 63, some bug seems to make adding #64 very difficult). That means that at most only half of all the civs will actually play (but 99% of the time this is even less). With only part of the civs playing, the game is smart enough to not make the civs that are very close to each other start at the same time. When the player manually picks the civs he wants to play with, it's of course the responsibility of the player to make sure the map is balanced (or not - it might be fun for a change to play with 10 ME civs on a world map ).

But yes, playing on a 140x70 map with 30 civs is crowded, what do you expect?

But as I said before, CtP2 players generally don't care too much for the earth map and prefer random maps (those generally give a more fair and challenging game anyway), so so far this sort of thing has not caused any problems...

[siredgar]

I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

[Spiffor]

Siredgar :
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities.
Not every places emphisize on cities for a long time : Siberian tribes are mostly nomads, prime Africans mostly lived in unexpanding villages, North americans before the colonization didn't have big cities either (north of the Aztecs).
About the specific cultures : in Europe, because of the rich land, the continent was heating with conquests, mass migrations etc. since the fall of the Roman empire, creating a mix of cultures, which get specific over time (i.e : Spanish civ has its own culture, directly rooting from its Roman and Arabic legacy, with a bit of Wisigoth). Other places where there were many Civs was the mediterranean in ancient times, but most of these Civs (Hittites for example) have left very few historical data.
I agree there should be more extra european (esp. Asian) civs in the list... But since the "civilisations" of the game come from a european perspective, it's quite normal Europe gets more filled with Civs than other continents

[Imp. Montezuma]

Mongols were barbarians BEFORE Chingiz-khan.
Francs were barbarians BEFORE Hlodvig (Klovis)
Rus (Russians) were barbarians BEFORE Yaroslav The Wise.
et cetera

[Beren]

Originally posted by Imp. Montezuma
Mongols were barbarians BEFORE Chingiz-khan.
Francs were barbarians BEFORE Hlodvig (Klovis)
Rus (Russians) were barbarians BEFORE Yaroslav The Wise.
et cetera

Maybe it could become a game concept. Barbarian tribes turning into civilization!

[Locutus]

Originally posted by siredgar
I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

It's already possible, all it takes is a Cray (= supercomputer, for you non-nerds)

[siredgar]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I think it's normal Europe gets more crowded by "civilisations" than other continents, since a "civilisation" in the game is a group of people with a specific culture, a sedentary way of life, and an emphasis on cities.

It seems that you are suggesting that Europe has more distinct cultures and is more civilized than other parts of the world, like Asia. If so, I have to respectfully disagree.

There is a common perception among many Westerners that our societies are more different from each other than those in Asia. Indeed, some consider Asia as some sort of monolithic society centered around China. This is no more true than saying that Europe is just fragmentations of the Roman Empire. And yet, I can assure you that France and Italy have much more in common with each other than Korea and Japan. In fact, Asian societies are far more distinct and apart than European ones.

In terms of level of "civilized" life, I can argue that many societies in Europe would have been considered backward by some Asian standards for a long period of time. Of course, this is not the case today and the present matters most to many people.

The primary reason why there are more European civs in the game is because there are more powerful nations in Europe than other parts of the world today. Europe has dominated world affairs for the past half-milennium, eclipsing Asia. There is not a single piece of land that has not been affected by Europeans in some way. Another reason is that most of the game players are from Europe and parts of the world settled by Europeans.

These reasons make a powerful argument for including more European civs. Why do you think that the Netherlands, Sweden, and Portugal can conceivably have their own civs represented in the game, while Vietnam, Burma, and Malaysia could not?

Thus, in my opinion, it is not a matter of distinction and level of civilized life, but European power and player reach.

That is not to say that I do not think that there should be more European civs in the game. In fact, I would like to play more European civs for the exact same reasons I have described.

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Beren
Main goal: have Locotus's mod in Civ3. Huge map, 63 civs. That'll be cool!

Even though it would take forever, that would be heavenly! So complex, so fun, so many civs to worry about...intriguing game!

PS: what about on a tiny map ?

[civman2000]

North americans before the colonization didn't have big cities either (north of the Aztecs).

*ahem* Cahokia was the largest city in the world for a time with over 1000000 people!

[Spiffor]

Civman : Thanks for teaching me this. I never knex there were huge cities north of Mexico before the European colonization. Could you give me some details about it ?

Siredgar : in fact, my statements opposed more Europe to America or Africa than to Asia. I know there are many differences between the Asian cultures, and that many more Civs should come from Asia, such as the Nepali, the Koreans, the Khmer etc... Asia, like Europe has a long tradition of sedentary / agricultural living on large lands, and thus Asian civilisations come into the concept of "civilisation" in the game more than the Zulu or the Mongols (who were only partially sedentary).
Mea culpa, I should have been clearer I opposed Euro civs to American and African ones.

[Jer8m8]

Anyone want to list Europa Universalis 2...That's probably 100+, and it has natives, pirate and rebels...

[siredgar]

Originally posted by civman2000

*ahem* Cahokia was the largest city in the world for a time with over 1000000 people!

According to this document, Cahokia only had about 10,000-20,000 inhabitants, not 10 million as you say.

http://www.hp.uab.edu/image_archive/up/upi.html

[Ribannah]

20,000 at its maximum (1150 AD) sounds about right. That is still a lot larger than Paris at the time, I think.

[siredgar]

Yes, according to some people, the population was up to 40,000. That is impressive for its time, but we are comparing civilizations at the height of their history. The French did not comprise much of a civilization until years later when they developed into a large empire spanning across five continents (six, if include New Caledonia and French Polynesia as part of "Oceania").

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by siredgar
I wonder if there will ever be a day when you can play 64 civs on a HUGE map and not have too much wait time between turns.

*Dreaming*

Yeah, it's called "Europa Universalis"