Civ3.com: 16 Civs in a huge world!?

[yin26]

Quick question: When you use the editor, don't you have to 'seed' the civs? So unless you use a scenario made by somebody else, you'll always know where all the civs are once you've placed those 16 civs on the 'non-standard 16-civ map.' Sorry to state the obvious...but unless you plan to play with 16 civs on the standard map, the editor option will be rather irritating.

Firaxis: Please just let us determine the number of civs and maps size without having to do editor hacks. Feel free to put in the AI warnings as needed. Thank you.

[faded glory]

I agree with brain damage...


Better AI, not more. I dont want the preplanned boneheads of CTP and CIV2. All they did was build irrigation and make for pathetic adversarys. Neither of the games do I recall losing more than a few cities out of the 3 years I have been playing. Yet i have taken thousands of AI cities.

Dont get me wrong, 16 is great. But how long will the turns take? just using a calculator and the Civ2 AI time frame.. it would take about 3 minutes to complete a turn .

Do I want 16 stupid nations running around? Make an alliance with them like in Civ2, only to have them turn around and pillage a road...or Demand heaps of tech just to stay friends?


Better AI will satfisy me.

[Boris Godunov]

Don't think so

Originally posted by yin26
Quick question: When you use the editor, don't you have to 'seed' the civs? So unless you use a scenario made by somebody else, you'll always know where all the civs are once you've placed those 16 civs on the 'non-standard 16-civ map.' Sorry to state the obvious...but unless you plan to play with 16 civs on the standard map, the editor option will be rather irritating.

Firaxis: Please just let us determine the number of civs and maps size without having to do editor hacks. Feel free to put in the AI warnings as needed. Thank you.

First, in Civ II editing you didn't have to seed the civs. You could just make a map and when you started the game, if the civs weren't placed by you, the game randomly placed them on the map.

I think you're mistaken in how you are viewing the editor. You are looking at it like the scenario editor of Civ II. This isn't a scenario editor--it's a program to modify the entire game, which will allow you to change the very rules of the game.

From everything I've seen and read, The editor will be very easy to use and robust. There should be nothing stopping you from having the game randomly place civs on the maps.

Cheers.

[Steve Clark]

Boris is quite correct. This would mean (as with Civ2) that several civs will be randomly placed in a very bad spot (like a single square island) and won't grow.

I also want to add, again, I really don't expect most of you will have the patience to play with 16 civs. It would be tedious than fun, esp. taking into account what faded glory said about it can take 3 minutes per turn. Assuming 5 minutes for your turn, that's 40+ hours FOR ONE SINGLE GAME of Civ. And I really believe that that figure is underestimated. But we'll see.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Boris is quite correct. This would mean (as with Civ2) that several civs will be randomly placed in a very bad spot (like a single square island) and won't grow.

I also want to add, again, I really don't expect most of you will have the patience to play with 16 civs. It would be tedious than fun, esp. taking into account what faded glory said about it can take 3 minutes per turn. Assuming 5 minutes for your turn, that's 40+ hours FOR ONE SINGLE GAME of Civ. And I really believe that that figure is underestimated. But we'll see.

I think the initial placement of civs will be much better in Civ3. They've said that the game will be much smarter at placing the civs in more suitable areas for growth. Let's not start putting Civ2 presumptions on Civ3 (something people seem to do a lot...folks, Civ3 is a DIFFERENT GAME).

I will certainly try the 16 cive game, but only on a very large or huge map. I personally don't have the time to play for 6+ hours straight (which is why I don't vare one bit about MP), as I usually only play for 2 hours max on weeknights when I get home from work/the gym/going out/etc. On weekends, I may get some playtime in the mornings, but not likely. I think having 8-10 civs, including my own, will prove to be enough for me. But, like I said, I will gladly give it a try! :-)

OH, and since we don't know how gameplay in Civ3 is going to be just yet, let's not assume that it will be as tedious as Civ2 games could get.

Cheers.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
They've said that the game will be much smarter at placing the civs in more suitable areas for growth.

Did Firaxis or a preview really state this? I´d like to see a link.

[Steve Clark]

Boris, you and I have the exact same gametime schedule and while I expect all of my strategy games to take around 30 hours (2 weeks of playing), much more than that would just be a bit much, unless Civ3 can hold that attention after the initial excitement wears off.

I understand what you are saying about the differences. For a spaceship win, I believe the game will go faster. But if you are playing bloodlust or 2/3 of the world for a win, it would take a looong time to find the remaining civs (esp. since more would last into the latter eras). Someone said that it would take 45 turns just to send a battleship around a huge map, in a straight line. So 20 turns just to get a fleet of caravels or battleships half way across a map is the basis for my point on having patience and perhaps be tedious for some. This is not taking into consideration having to move an army, esp. when moving on roads/rails would be somewhat limited (as they should).

No, I really believe at this point that 8-10 civs (as you said) on a normal map would be more than enough, esp. since we will taking more time for diplomacy, culture and resources gathering.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by lockstep


Did Firaxis or a preview really state this? I´d like to see a link.

I THINK it might have been Gamespot, since I rely on them the most for in depth coverage. BUT I could be confusing a post here from way back that mentioned it.

However, with the general improvements in the AI and such that we already know of, and with the undoubtedly strong feeling of gamers in this regard, I would be seriously surprised if Firaxis hasn't already addressed the issue. Seriously.

Cheers.

[Wernazuma III]

Ha, I already told my girlfriend that I won't have time for a week or two when Civ3 comes out. But 16 civs and huge maps will keep me busy for a month at least without the possibility to stop for even a second!! And after that month I will invent new govs and customize and customize and customize... gotta break this post up before my excitement overwhelms me!

[yin26]

...if the civs weren't placed by you, the game randomly placed them on the map.

O.K. That sounds good. Now for the quality of the placing...LOL!

[Boris Godunov]

Ok...

Originally posted by Steve Clark
Boris, you and I have the exact same gametime schedule and while I expect all of my strategy games to take around 30 hours (2 weeks of playing), much more than that would just be a bit much, unless Civ3 can hold that attention after the initial excitement wears off....

No, I really believe at this point that 8-10 civs (as you said) on a normal map would be more than enough, esp. since we will taking more time for diplomacy, culture and resources gathering.

Don't take this the wrong way...not meant as a slam...but what are you complaining about? No one is going to force you to play with 16 civs on a huge world, so why do you care if some other guys you don't know decide they want to try it? It doesn't in any way effect you, so why keep posting on it? Trying to convert them?



As I've said all along, the customization ability sounds like it will solve a lot of the gripes with the game.

Cheers.

[Steve Clark]

Nah, just following the edicts from the Civ3 Realists Club by-laws. Part of such realism is predicting what's going to be realistic as oppose to pre-release hype and excitement.

Customization is where Civ3 is going to be at, without a doubt. Not to fix "problems" but to tailor the game to suite any of our widely varied needs and desires (and for me to spend 90% of my civ time playing scenarios).

[HalfLotus]

Originally posted by Gramphos
Dan, can you have a 16 civ interface up as a screen next week. I like to see how the foreign advisor screen looks, now when you have added support for it.

This latest tidbit from Firaxis said nothing about 16 civ support on the advisor screens. The last we heard was that 8 civs will be the most supported. I hope they do support 16, but as of now I dont think it's the case.

[Slax]

Re: Don't think so

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
First, in Civ II editing you didn't have to seed the civs. You could just make a map and when you started the game, if the civs weren't placed by you, the game randomly placed them on the map....

How did this work in SMAC? Wouldn't this be a better indicator of how things might happen in CIV III?

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by HalfLotus


This latest tidbit from Firaxis said nothing about 16 civ support on the advisor screens. The last we heard was that 8 civs will be the most supported. I hope they do support 16, but as of now I dont think it's the case.

Picture that advisor screen with 16 civs (and all of their lines). Don't you think that it would render the screen unreadable and thus, unuseable?

Personally, I prefer a matrix as done in many other games, not colored lines. That's how you could fit in 16 civs and their relationships.