Are the hardware req for CIV3 too low

[SpencerH]

I was reading the great thread about the how the UN could be revamped when I started wondering about how such changes would slow down the game. Those improvements and many of the changes some of us would like to see would be fairly CPU intensive. There are many posts about how slow the game is already playing with a huge map 16 civs etc. The min requirements for this game are a 300MHz PII! In comparison, the upcoming warlords III will require a min 600MHz PIII.

So what I'm asking is this, are the problems some of us have with the game a result of minimizing code because of these low hardware requirements? Obviously, these requirements allow the game to be played on more machines. I think though that if CIV3 had required at least a 1GHz processor but with a more complex game I think many people would have upgraded in order to play it (I know I would have) if they didnt have one already.

[player1]

With my 333MHz Celeron with 64MB RAM I have no problem on Standard 8 opponents maps.

Only long loading time.

But on large and huge maps game in unplayable.

Also:
if I don't turn music off, game is also unplayable (too much swapping)


P.S.
In one of recent chats FIRAXIS said that main reason is in ADVANCED patfinding algorithm.

In previous Civs it was used inferior techinc, but they THOUGHT that todays computers are enough fast for a new, more demanding pathfinding technic.

Personnaly, I guess that they are WRONG.

P.P.S.
Tip: If game is slow, play on smaller maps with less oponents.

[Grumbold]

Unlike a FPS where framerate is critical, playing a slow game of Civ III or any other TBS wouldn't be a problem if the gameplay was worthwhile. Chess players have had this trade off between fast moves and better AI for years. Civ III keeps it simple - the better your PC, the bigger the map you can run without experiencing significant delays.

No-one is (yet) coding for a minimum spec of a 1Ghz simply because they won't make any profit. The PC games marker is already much smaller than competing consoles. Cut off 75% of your potential purchasers would be financial suicide. Not even the processor hungry shooters aim higher than the level of processor considered to be gamer standard by the time they ship to the store.

[SpencerH]

Some interesting points, but what I'm getting at is this. Are "improvements" such as more realistic combat, more complex culture and trade, pie in the sky hopes that cannot be attainable because of the limitations enforced by low system requirments. When CIV2 came out its requirements a 486/33MHz processor when a pretty run-of-the-mill PC ran at about 133MHz. It seens to me that we might of had a more complex game if it had been based on higher min requirements.

[Rimpy]

Given these two choices, which would you rather have?

(A) Allow high upper limits for map sizes, knowing that the today's average computer will choke on them, but also knowing that computers two or three years from now will probably fly through them without any problem?

(B) Set the upper limits for map sizes low enough that today's average computer can handle them, and thus avoid biching and moaning from players who torture themselves by trying to play map sizes that their computer can't handle?

Personally, I'm happy that Firaxis went with (A) and I wish that the complainers would just shut up already.

Rimpy

[SpencerH]

This is not just about map sizes.

[Rimpy]

Originally posted by SpencerH
This is not just about map sizes.

Yeah, I know. Please excuse my vitriolic message, I just had to get that off my chest.

[SpencerH]

Just to make it clear. I wasnt trying to crap all over Firaxis. I'm genuinely interested in whether the hardware limits are a factor or not. I'm not a programmer so I dont know. It just seems to me, that the amount of code that a PII 300 can handle to run a playable game will be considerably less than more current PC's. It may be impossible to squeeze in more code in order to allow the more complex rules a portion of this community would like to see. Is it possible to release a beefed-up CIV3.exe that includes substantial changes but requires a much faster PC? If it could be done I'd pay to try it!

[Carver]

When I bought Civ3 it wouldn't work on my 333Mhz AMD K-6 II because it wasn't DirectX v8 compatible. Guess what I did? I went to Circuit City and bought a 1.5Ghz P4. So if this game was dumbed down to help people with ancient machines that would not be good. If Firaxis wants to be a software leader that means producing cutting edge software which means using very good hardware.

[SpencerH]

No-one is (yet) coding for a minimum spec of a 1Ghz simply because they won't make any profit. The PC games marker is already much smaller than competing consoles. Cut off 75% of your potential purchasers would be financial suicide. Not even the processor hungry shooters aim higher than the level of processor considered to be gamer standard by the time they ship to the store.

While not disputing the facts of your post, I wonder as to the logic of game producers who use it. I was (and am) a mac user but I bought a PC to play CIVII (I'm a big fan of CIV). I upgraded that machine to play other games. I bought a N64 to play Zelda. I will build a new machine for home to play the up and coming generation of games. Maybe I'm extreme but I dont think so since at least one other member has done the same thing

Guess what I did? I went to Circuit City and bought a 1.5Ghz P4.

As I understand it, one of the reasons for the slump in PC sales is the lack of the "killer app". I think games were a part of the surge in PC sales in the mid 90's and could be a catalyst for the next surge. You dont need a 2GHz machine to run word! In fact scrolling with my PC at work is next to impossible.

[Thrawn05]

I think they are too high. My P3 550Mhz runs Marla's map with all civs pretty well (i'm in industrial age now). I get about 15 seconds of waiting.

[Panzer]

I use a comp with 350 MHz and 128 RAM. I've played on a normal map with 12 civs without significant probs, and the time between turns was completely acceptable. I've also played on a large map once with 12 civs and played well into the industrious era without problems. The only thing that happened was that the music would get funky. Reloading solved that particular problem. I'm currently playing on a large map with 16 civs. No probs yet......

[SpencerH]

My question is not about map sizes or how long a turn takes. Obviously, game turns on a PII 300 running a huge map with 16 civs will be slower than if that game is played on a 2GHz PIV.

I'll add a link to the thread that started this.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44682

Are such interesting ideas even possible with the limitations imposed by (relatively) outdated machines?

[Borat]

Well I don't normally use my PC to play games so I have a crap computer. But I had to buy Civilisation 3 because my most favourite game is Civ 2. So before I bought it, I didn't know if it would work, because I didn't even know that my Video Card would be Direct 8.0a compatible. Even if it did work, I thought it would work too slow. Anyway, I still bought it...

My computer is:
133MHz
120MB
4x speed CD-Rom
Video Card compatible with Direct 8.0a
Sound Card compatible with Direct 8.0a


So I put the game in and installed it, and then I installed Direct 8.0a. Then I clicked on the game to play, and watched my Monitor go Blank and then a few pictures and the writing Civilisation 3 appeared. So then I finally knew that my computer was Direct 8.0a compatible.

But when I actual started the game, the game was just so slow. So all I did was turn the music off, but kept enemy battles sounds on. And the game works perfect on a Large Word and eight civs.

I'm now half way through a game with 16 civs and a huge map and it works quite good. But loading time is a bit slow, but that is only when I'm at war with someone.

[Murtin]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm genuinely interested in whether the hardware limits are a factor or not. I'm not a programmer so I dont know. It just seems to me, that the amount of code that a PII 300 can handle to run a playable game will be considerably less than more current PC's. It may be impossible to squeeze in more code in order to allow the more complex rules a portion of this community would like to see. Is it possible to release a beefed-up CIV3.exe that includes substantial changes but requires a much faster PC? If it could be done I'd pay to try it!

As has been argued for before, I think the real reason we're not seeing a more complex ruleset is that the AI wouldn't handle it very well. This is designed to be a single-player game, and as such it is dependent on at least a moderately challenging AI. Add more complexity in the form of more units, more improvements or more diplomatic opportunities, and it becomes exceedingly difficult to code an AI that doesn't lose it completely in the middle of all that complexity.

So my bet is that the ruleset easily could have been much more complex with hardly any change in hardware requirements.