12th POLL: How many civs in a game?

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 10-31-2000 03:05 PM i just don't think it would be possible on a 300 mghz pII machine with 64 MBs of ram...which is what i think that civ3 should be able to run on what does everyone else think civ3's minimum requirments should be?

The minimum requirements should be right about what you think it should be, korn, however, Firaxis has mentioned that it will support the capabilities of higher-end machines. Take Civ2 for example, which had the option to turn heralds on or off. For more information click here --> Civ3 FAQ and look for "What will the system requirements be for the game?"

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 31, 2000).]

[Dr.Oogkloot]

To all you people who are arguing for 8-32 civs: what's wrong with having the OPTION to play with more than 64 civs? Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play a game with lots of civs, just because you don't want to play that way yourself?

More is better!

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 10-31-2000 04:42 PM To all you people who are arguing for 8-32 civs: what's wrong with having the OPTION to play with more than 64 civs? Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play a game with lots of civs, just because you don't want to play that way yourself? More is better!

Oh yeah! Man, that was good!


------------------
JRH

[jrhughes98]

***E-MAIL RESPONSE FROM FIRAXIS***

Subject: RE: Question about Civilization III
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:55:47 -0500
From: "Kelley Gilmore" kgilmore@firaxis.com
To: jason-hughes@home.com

Hi Jason.

Well, in our minds the question is not whether or not it's technologically possible for Civ III to support 100+ civs in a single game, but what will make the gameplay most fun. In this case, more is not necessarily better, so the number of civs will be determined by what the development team feels will be best for the game.

Thanks for your note.


Kelley Gilmore
Communications Manager
FIRAXIS Games
(410) 891-3001 x131
Email: kgilmore@firaxis.com www.firaxis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Jason R. Hughes [mailto:jason-hughes@home.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 11:57 AM
To: pr@firaxis.com
Subject: Question about Civilization III


Dear Kelley Gilmore,

What are the chances that Civilization III could support up to 100+ civs in a single game? Is it technologically possible? Is this in Firaxis's plans for Civ3? If not, is Firaxis even considering such a thing?

Cordially,

Jason Hughes
Civilization Fan
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 31, 2000).]

[chrispie]

Hmmm, reading the FAQ page and that email...I'm starting to see a pattern...summed up well in the phrase "we want to be sure the game is fun before we commit to a specific set of features".

Has anyone seen any solid info about the game yet? Anything???

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by chrispie on 10-31-2000 06:19 PM Hmmm, reading the FAQ page and that email...I'm starting to see a pattern...summed up well in the phrase "we want to be sure the game is fun before we commit to a specific set of features". Has anyone seen any solid info about the game yet? Anything???

I haven't, but here's an idea. Firaxis has mentioned in the FAQ that they develop all their games starting with months of prototyping because they want to be sure the game is fun before they commit to a specific set of features. Well, what if they released a prototype of Civ3 in the form of a beta. The beta doesn't have to be for a price, or with a limited set of features. It can be FREE fully functional beta that will stop functioning by the time beta 2 is available, and beta 3, and will probably stop there. This way the customers (fans, players) can play the beta and comment, make suggestions, and/or report bugs to Firaxis. BESIDES, THE CUSTOMERS ARE THE ONES THAT REALLY KNOW WHAT'S FUN AND WHAT'S NOT!!! TELL FIRAXIS TO GET TO IT!!!

------------------
JRH

[ContradictioN]

Firaxis: That is a pile of rhino poo, and you know it.

"Opens txt file, changes civ limit from 24 to 100 as he pleases".

[jrhughes98]

quote: Originally posted by ContradictioN on 10-31-2000 08:02 PM Firaxis: That is a pile of rhino poo, and you know it. "Opens txt file, changes civ limit from 24 to 100 as he pleases".

LOL!! Would a beginner know how to do that? Besides, what about support for huge maps to accomodate those 100+ civs?

------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 31, 2000).]

[ContradictioN]

half a year after playing civ2, I found out I could edit the *.gifs, shortly after I found out I could edit the txt files. Its nice and easy. They can do it, they can programme it so that it is customizable to your wants.

You can say, I want the computer to generate 50,000 by 50,000 and if your computer is powerful enough to handle that and 50 civilizations at once, then do it. You know in 2 years we're gonna have 5ghz computers. Ram won't be a problem either. They should be allowing the possibilities instead of limiting the games capabilities.

They will be making a mistake if they don't allow this, unless the games engine is going to be completely different.

Don't think that they can't do it. And if they can't, then they need to keep up with the times.
[This message has been edited by ContradictioN (edited November 01, 2000).]

[Adm.Naismith]

I'm supposing that because of Minor Civs presence (already announced by Firaxis times ago) we can throw away village huts (trade and diplomacy with a minor civs, no more hut quest for treasury) and, perhaps, barbarians (troops that have a Minor Civ as origin).

Of course we will have less huts, but minor civ will add benefit (or trouble, if enemy) for more than one shoot!

Adding some special to minor civ (to balance their presence in game, making less useful to simply crush and conquer their cities), we can realistically manage as many as a grand total of 32 (main+minor civs).

Main civs must be no more of 16 because of playability reasons, while minor civ can easily appears during game by empire split, refugee founding a new city, etc. as long there is enough room on the map).
I don't want to dispute about PC resources and AI ability to manage so many Civ as more than 64.
I simply think that few human players can manage and enjoy more than 64 diplomatic relations, trade, global (UN) council, front of war.

While at the beginning you probably know as few civ to keep things under control, very quickly the number of units and different borders on the map will bog down you, IMO.


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[JESSVG01]

Depending on how the "server" is implemented support for 100's of players is possible - can't do any of this one player at a time crap though.

100 player turns, each player with 1000 orders should take a 500mhz machine with 64 megs of ram about ten minutes to proccess ... giving ample time for ICQ wheeling and dealing.

[Tiberius]

quote: Well, in our minds the question is not whether or not it's technologically possible for Civ III to support 100+ civs in a single game, but what will make the gameplay most fun.

Thank God that the people there at Firaxis didn't lose their commom sense.

How could you even come close to enjoy a game with 100+ civs? It's a diplomacy nightmare, an AI nightmare, a trade nightmare, and maybe the most important, a time-nightmare (a single game could last several month!).

[zyxpsilon]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 10-31-2000 01:21 AM For me personally having more civs in the game at the same time is the no. 1 priority.

Historically... the world developped having well-over Eight Civ's. Knowing that "actual" economic models, polarize some if not many COUNTRIES to their interest, it is fair to say that less than 32 civ's is tediously unaccurate.

I agreed with you 3200% at the priority... for the new challenge.

[Lodi]

I echo the call for a CHOICE above the recommended limit on civs. Some of us can handle a higher limit, and it would be more fun and realistic to boot. What is wrong with that?

Another recurring theme here is the long turns argument. The only plausible way this could effect Civers like me is if we do play a MULTIplayer Civ III game with well over 16 players. Obviously this would be slow, but who would drag themselves into this? If you play multiplayer you are obviously gonna have a choice of how many civs in the game. So if you wanna stay out of long games you have the logical choice of keeping the game short by choosing a low civ limit. I don't wish to see a low limit of major civs (8 or 16 in my opinion) just because some shortsighted people have a momentary lapse of reason when it comes to imagining future multiplayer games.

Choices is what this should come down to. Please just try to imagine a choice on the number of civs. If you understand my argument then the compromise on number of civs can placate many different civers. The number of civs should not be predecided at a low limit where the game is planned for you like you were living in a communist state. It is bad enough we have to be warmongers in a "civilization" game, but we should not be limited in the numbers of civs to war against.



------------------
I am the Roman Emperor, and am above grammar.
-Emperor Sigismund

[rremus]

Even if the game starts with more civilisations (say 32+), it should reduce this number during play time, and not only trough conquest . A more than 10-15 turn alliance between two AI civ can result in a new, united civ. Usually, a big civ would disolve a small civ. Altough this model is not 100% historically accurate, it would be easier to play. In the beggining you will have to deal with more small civs, latter will have to deal with several (10-15) civs left.