Only 7 civs tops no changing it.:(

[General Ludd]

Don't forget that you can play on much larger maps, in a map 6x as large as in civ2, having more civs would actually be required to keep the game balanced. Otherwise the civs will grow to be either very far apart, or insanely huge.

[Inverse Icarus]

"The Roman Empire Spwarls Across Europe, Asia, Africa, and Australia"

on 6x the current size?

whoohoo.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Osweld
Don't forget that you can play on much larger maps, in a map 6x as large as in civ2, having more civs would actually be required to keep the game balanced. Otherwise the civs will grow to be either very far apart, or insanely huge.

Good point!

[mark13]

Not to mention that tech costs will be astronomical, so civs would need to be insanely huge to get to AC in the timeframe. A game like that, for me, would be extremely tedious.

I foresee some kick-arse comparison scenarios coming out before too long

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


Not sure if you are kidding or not (I'm a bit tired and missing english subtle here and there ), but taking your post as an argument against too much Civ on the same game, given CivII rules and AI, I would note it's only a matter of game balancing and dinamic tuning.

Chess doesn't evolved during century of "development" into a great game just reducing pieces on the board from 32 to 8, does it?

No. I am not reasoning from Civ2 rules. I'm reasoning from the human hardware. I am doubting that 64 civs in a game will be much fun.
Also, I do not think that possible AI difficulties in handling more civs effectively should be downplayed.

Lastly, your remark regarding chess is irrelevant and misplaced.

[ancient]

who say the size of the leader cant5 be adapted to fit more in there?

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
No. I am not reasoning from Civ2 rules. I'm reasoning from the human hardware. I am doubting that 64 civs in a game will be much fun.
Also, I do not think that possible AI difficulties in handling more civs effectively should be downplayed.

I never speak of 64 civ in a game. I mentioned 12, max 16 out of 32 max available in the standard list (adding some later to the available list, officials or fans edited, is an easy feature).

I don't downplay the problem (you can probably find some of my old posts on the topic, searching a bit), I simply note that computers performance are really multiplied since the Civ II release, and some of the power in excess can really manage any reasonable number of Civ.

The real problem could be the AI routines: may be they have too deeply embedded the eight limits, so it's a problem of software reuse vs. software fresh written.

Lastly, your remark regarding chess is irrelevant and misplaced.

You discovered my bluff! Most of my posts are irrilevant and misplaced, and with some typos and mistake throwed in for good measure

[Provost Harrison]

Well the thing is that the positions of the civilisations on this screen may be calculated rather than fixed in place. It may actually be possible to fit 16 on that screen...

[JellyDonut]

As the number of civs in a game increases, the more difficult it is to play a major role in world politics. If you had, say, 25 civs in a game, you would have to have a spectacular start in order to be able to have any resources, land or power, which would mean delaying development of cities for a while so you can crush your neighbours. This would surely stunt the growth of your cities just to have an OK amount of land and resources. And even if you killed off five civs, you would have 19 more to deal with, crowding you in and forcing you to build cities in questionable locations and perhaps forcing you to go to war again as the politics of the game get more confusing and you begin to outgrow your stake of land. I'd say 16 is a good maximum for one game, giving you enough space to work with and not forcing you to go to war.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Adm.Naismith


I never speak of 64 civ in a game. I mentioned 12, max 16 out of 32 max available in the standard list (adding some later to the available list, officials or fans edited, is an easy feature).

I don't downplay the problem (you can probably find some of my old posts on the topic, searching a bit), I simply note that computers performance are really multiplied since the Civ II release, and some of the power in excess can really manage any reasonable number of Civ.

The real problem could be the AI routines: may be they have too deeply embedded the eight limits, so it's a problem of software reuse vs. software fresh written.



You discovered my bluff! Most of my posts are irrilevant and misplaced, and with some typos and mistake throwed in for good measure

Hehehe. I took the number of 64 to make a safe exaggeration in order to ease the imagination of the burden it would place on our poor brains dealing with them. Don't think I'm happy with the measly 7/8 civs in a game now. A few more would be interesting and certainly cognitively manageable. Your proposition of 16 seems fine and the total choice number of 32 would pave the way for the much-needed inclusion of "Officially Ignored by Firaxis" civs.

Regarding the comments I made on the troubles the designers might face with many more civs; I was not so much talking about limits to the consumer's PC hardware, but about gameplay and AI issues.

Hahaha I could tell your bluff by that nervous twitch of your eyebrow!

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
No. I am not reasoning from Civ2 rules. I'm reasoning from the human hardware. I am doubting that 64 civs in a game will be much fun. Also, I do not think that possible AI difficulties in handling more civs effectively should be downplayed.

None of the criticisms I would post about EU would have anything to do with the fact that there are over 150 computer opponents capable of playing and interacting simultaneously. That was why there was much excitement here and elsewhere when Firaxis hinted at 'minor' civs in Civ3 which seemed a similar concept. Processor capabilities have advanced massively since I first started playing games yet for some reason almost all the extra capacity seem to be ploughed into improved graphics. Some of the civ rules would need to be reconsidered to make more nations workable, especially the instantaneous transfer of learned techs, but in every other sense it should be a positive step.

As the number of civs in a game increases, the more difficult it is to play a major role in world politics

In ancient times there shouldn't be world politics, just regional ones. Think how exciting it could be when contacting a new continent in AD 1400 to find it has had its own shifting alliances and interactions for millennia that you are totally unaware of...

I think it is all a question of space. As long as your nation 'feels' big, then whether you have 2 neighbours or 200 it should not be oppressive. If you are constantly being pressured and attacked then the opposite is true no matter how few your enemies are.

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Grumbold

None of the criticisms I would post about EU would have anything to do with the fact that there are over 150 computer opponents capable of playing and interacting simultaneously. That was why there was much excitement here and elsewhere when Firaxis hinted at 'minor' civs in Civ3 which seemed a similar concept.

Processor capabilities have advanced massively since I first started playing games yet for some reason almost all the extra capacity seem to be ploughed into improved graphics. Some of the civ rules would need to be reconsidered to make more nations workable, especially the instantaneous transfer of learned techs, but in every other sense it should be a positive step.

EU? I assume this is some sort of Civ-like game, based off your slightly mystifying first paragraph.
I infer that you liked to play said game with 150 computer opponents, but also that those opponents weren't as fully fledged as they are in Civ.
Well then I have two comments: 1) -a- Did the last 100 opponents really add anything? -b- Do you think the multitude of opponents resulted in a more shallow interaction with each of them? 2) Minor civs would indeed allow more opponents to enter, as they simplify matters on the one hand and add a dimension to civs on the other, but the discussion so far was about full-blown civs.

Re: second paragraph - I was not talking about consumer hardware, but AI and gameplay issues. And I agree more effort should be put in using those Gigahertz PC's for AI improvements in games!

In ancient times there shouldn't be world politics, just regional ones. Think how exciting it could be when contacting a new continent in AD 1400 to find it has had its own shifting alliances and interactions for millennia that you are totally unaware of...

I think it is all a question of space. As long as your nation 'feels' big, then whether you have 2 neighbours or 200 it should not be oppressive. If you are constantly being pressured and attacked then the opposite is true no matter how few your enemies are.

To boot, the second quote your post addresses is not mine. Regardless, though 'space' is a necessary condition for additional civs, it isn't a sufficient one.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Grim Legacy
EU? I assume this is some sort of Civ-like game, based off your slightly mystifying first paragraph. I infer that you liked to play said game with 150 computer opponents, but also that those opponents weren't as fully fledged as they are in Civ.

Well then I have two comments: 1) -a- Did the last 100 opponents really add anything? -b- Do you think the multitude of opponents resulted in a more shallow interaction with each of them? 2) Minor civs would indeed allow more opponents to enter, as they simplify matters on the one hand and add a dimension to civs on the other, but the discussion so far was about full-blown civs.

Re: second paragraph - I was not talking about consumer hardware, but AI and gameplay issues. And I agree more effort should be put in using those Gigahertz PC's for AI improvements in games!

Reviews of Europa Universalis are widely available if you want to read up about it. Yes, it is a 'Civ like' game in many of its aspects. You control the scientific, economic, military and diplomatic moves of your country over 300 years. In some ways they were more developed, in others less.

1) Apart from needing to be there for historical accuracy, yes every Civ had the same potential to do much better than historically true. They are not just easy targets for the big boys although inevitably some do fall to expansionist neighbours. Later revolts in those provinces can see them spring back to life though! As a big nation you did not ignore small ones that were anywhere near you. An alliance of one big nations and six small ones was a considerable force to be reckoned with.

2) I'd be just as happy if they were full-blown civs. Just mentioned minor ones as something that Firaxis has already thought about as a way of introducing more opponents.

I don't think we are disagreeing about much, just the point of whether more civs in itself gives the computer a significantly harder job to do AI wise. I believe that if the rules are written right, it does not. EU is a good example of a game that would be impossible if that were true. It still has AI flaws, but they are qualitative ones, not quantitative.

[Rasputin]

perhaps the extra capabilties of greater than 8 civs is for MP only.. possible you wont need to use those screens in MP so it becomes irrelavent as t ohow many fit on it

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by Grumbold


Reviews of Europa Universalis are widely available if you want to read up about it. Yes, it is a 'Civ like' game in many of its aspects. You control the scientific, economic, military and diplomatic moves of your country over 300 years. In some ways they were more developed, in others less.

1) Apart from needing to be there for historical accuracy, yes every Civ had the same potential to do much better than historically true. They are not just easy targets for the big boys although inevitably some do fall to expansionist neighbours. Later revolts in those provinces can see them spring back to life though! As a big nation you did not ignore small ones that were anywhere near you. An alliance of one big nations and six small ones was a considerable force to be reckoned with.

2) I'd be just as happy if they were full-blown civs. Just mentioned minor ones as something that Firaxis has already thought about as a way of introducing more opponents.

I don't think we are disagreeing about much, just the point of whether more civs in itself gives the computer a significantly harder job to do AI wise. I believe that if the rules are written right, it does not. EU is a good example of a game that would be impossible if that were true. It still has AI flaws, but they are qualitative ones, not quantitative.

Aaah Europa Universalis. Ok, the abbreviation didn't ring a bell.

I also think we can agree on the thought that *more* civs than 7/8 will offer benefits. The only differences between us is that I think a massive amounts of civs would not necessarily bring benefits over a more reasonable number in terms of gameplay (human factor) and that I have some doubts about the quality of the program codein being able to deal effectively with such a high number of civs (hardware factor). You seem to be more optimistic.