How many players should civ3 support?

[Stuff2]

I would really wan't to see more civs at the same time.

If you change the civ-flag to be two-colored you can get 36 different flags with 8 colors. So why not have the possibility to get atleast 32 players in one game?

Also, no pre-colored civs. When creating a new game any opponent can show up (unless you choose opponents).

Also I think that civ personality should be random.

[Builder]

the more the better.

[Shadowstrike]

No more then 1000, but a couple hundred would be nice. Remember that in real life, civilizations didn't settle vast tracts of empty land. There were already people there....

[Caesar]

Remember, as realistic and engrossing we want it to be, too many civs would be hard to manage. Imagine rumagging through the Diplomacy window. I like the 32 civs or two-colours idea. 32 is a good number.
That was one of the things I couldn't understand about Civ2 - why there were still only 7 civs.

C.

[UltraSonix]

quote: No more then 1000, but a couple hundred would be nice.

Are you guys talking about how many civs should be available, or that how many civs should be on the map at a time (like the title suggests)? Because playing a game with 1000civs on the map is rather difficult for my computer to handle...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Yes, the more the better, but 32 would usually be enough.

[Empress]

hmmm.. for multiplayer capacity I would suggest no more than 8 multiplayers at at time b/c the game can get pretty laggy with 7 as it is now...

[Ralf]

Because anti-ICS and anti-BAB finally have been implemented i Civ-3, the expansion strategies cannot be nearly as aggressive as in Civ-2/SMAC.
Therefore one cannot expect to bumb into neighbors and share borders with them as quickly as in above games.

It isnt fun being surrounded by uninhabitad wasteland for to long however, so i suggest that the maps should generally be somewhat smaller and the number of civs that can participate in a game should rise from 7 to 8, or max 9 (human player included).

Not more then that - the AI cannot handle more effectively anyway.

[red_jon]

It depends how many there should be....

In CTP with 28 civs the game suffers MASSIVE slowdown as each civ has to take their turn (and I don't like waiting too long).

If they could get around this, perhaps they should introduce around 32, but not all at once, perhaps new civs could appear through the game.

Plus, civs should be able to merge (like how Germany was formed- from many samller states) and be more willing if they're small and weak.

[zyxpsilon]

32 civ's because of flags limits on coloring?
Hummm... interesting observation.
Balance and response time of AI's must also "stay" within realtime pace; IF it's turn-based!

There shouldn't be any limit on amount of adversaries, specially on GIGAmaps; weren't the Europeans unaware of the Aztecs, Mayas and Australians tribes flourishing on their own while the Atlantic ocean sailers went for a wild chase of India spices?

256 colors... hint-hint-hint!! TOT(64K)
Hummm... i wonder.

[DarkCloud]

Technically, you could run it with 8 or perhaps 10 colors.

All you would have to do is make the colors interchangable with civs... there would be no set colors per civ.

[Tim White]

I say at least 16 civs to play with at a time, and about 100 more to chooose from, I would like some civs like these:

-Irish
-Australians
-Canadians
-Mexicans
-Austrians
-Swedish
-Arabians
-Koreans
-Pawnee (indian tribe)
-Cherikee (indian tribe)
-Eskimos

and more.

Also, I want the maps larger!!! At least 10xs as large as the ones in civ 2.

[CornMaster]

I'd say 15 is about enough. And I mean 15 at a time with 40 or 50 predefined and colors can be changed but should also be standard to some civs. And 15 colors or "Patterns" at least with the customize button allowing you to change you titles, colors, country/leader names, flag, and civ color or pattern.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"The best meat is in the rump!"
I AM CANADIAN!
CornEmpire Index
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Irish -Australians -Canadians -Mexicans -Austrians -Swedish -Arabians -Koreans -Pawnee (indian tribe) -Cherikee (indian tribe) -Eskimos

This list of civs poses an interesting question - shold Firaxis have a few "true" (ie famous/sizable) civs, or should they start using civs that aren't really civs as such.
An example of what I mean is the "Australians" (yes, us!) - Australia was only setlled by white people in 1788, and before that, the indigenous people didn't have writing, cities, etc. So should that sort of "civ" be in the game?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[phoenixcager]

Ultra: Like I mentioned in another thread. I think part of the attraction of Civ, is the illusion of rewriting history. This is best done with 'real civs' that existed in ancient history.

However, since some people might like to play their real-life home countries, maybe the newer countries could be options for players, but not for AIs. This would keep the 'feel' f the game.

If we had too many newish countries (with the associated city names), IMO, the game would lose its feel.