12th POLL: How many civs in a game?

[DarkCloud]

quote: But one thing I would like to have cleared up is the meaning of civ in the game. Does it imply an entire civilization like Greco-Roman or Mesopatamian? Or does it apply to nation-states, cultures, or tribes? Anybody know the developers' answer to these questions?

I would believe it applies to nation-states ate the very least; the developers most likely considered the Sioux as a nation-state tribe, though the Iroquis would be better suited for this.

[Ubersandwich]

I belive that MoO III (Master of Orion III) is planning on enabling up to 32 empires, but of course it is due out in early 2002. This # includes the "minor" empires, which QuickSilver hasn't said how they will impliment the difference between the major and minor empires... Why am i bringing up MoO III? Well, just to say that one company is planning a TBS game what can feature 32 civs, including empires.

The major difference, tho, is in MoO III (sci-fi genre) expansion is limited by technology, thus giving each empire a chance to build a "base" for the empire. In Civ III, if a few civs start on the same continent, finding the most goodie huts the earliest will give you (or the AI) a good chance to knock off a coupla enemies before they know what a wheel is.

But, it think it'd be fun for civ III.

[Urban Ranger]

The reason why Civ 3 can have less major civs than Imperialism II is mechanics. The former is just a lot more complicated than the latter.

Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 11-14-2000 05:12 AM The reason why Civ 3 can have less major civs than Imperialism II is mechanics. The former is just a lot more complicated than the latter. Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

You forget that chess computers don't have a Deity advantage!! Also, a simple $100 chess computer beats 99,9% of all chess players, even though humans, too, have only these "limited interactions and options" to consider. (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.)

Why do you say that Civilization is more complicated than Imperialism? I don't think it is. Not that the Imperialism AI is so tough ....

Also, there is no law that says a game becomes more difficult just because there are more parties. Some games do, but other games become easier (Magic) or have an optimal value somewhat higher than the minimum (Mah-Jong).

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Tical_2000]

[quote]Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-14-2000 02:30 PM
(Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.)

Thats quite impossible since the total number of atoms in the universe are utterly immeasureable due to the fact that the universe is expanding on nothingness every second. Not to mention that at the theoretical 'borders' of this universe do not have laws of physics making atoms and other matter a concept that cannot be fully understood by the human mind. Trust me, I'm a physics teacher. That's your lesson for today class. Read page 100-120 then write a report and have it on my desk by eight sharp tomorrow.

[Shogun Gunner]

Wow. I think I need an extra credit assignment!

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

Good point Urban Ranger. Of course we must consider that Chess is a more "deterministic" game, while Civ has some more "random" elements:
- starting points are different (chess is specular) and some are better than others
- some battle results are a bit uncertain (same unit fighting, you can't see who will win), while chess ones are clearly predefined (an attacking piece will ever win over the defender)

Well, to make it short, random elements loose the rules a bit, so a balanced number of Civs can make things more interesting, as far as AI can manage it. In fact Minor Civ (as many interesting suggestion already posted, as predefined "city place") is probably a way to help AI to keep the mid-late game interesting.

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

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-14-2000 08:07 PM [quote]Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-14-2000 02:30 PM (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.) Thats quite impossible since the total number of atoms in the universe are utterly immeasureable due to the fact that the universe is expanding on nothingness every second.

By the time enough atoms have been generated the universe will have returned to a mere singularity.
The game of chess will probably need some adjustment by then

quote: Not to mention that at the theoretical 'borders' of this universe do not have laws of physics making atoms and other matter a concept that cannot be fully understood by the human mind.

As far as I know the boundary of the universe is out of reach. It is not a part of the universe, just a mathematical concept, and therefore has no real physical laws at all.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[airdrik]

Could we, somehow, get back to what was supposed to be discussed on this thread? Namely the number of civs in a game. I think it got lost in the workings.

[Roman]

Sorry to be prolonging this conversation, but I want to clarify a few points. Physicists estimate there are 10^80 atoms in the universe (not photons or elementary particles or some other conceptual stuff, just plain atoms). While this may seem like a huge number, I think that it is completely feasible that there are more possible combinations in chess, though I cannot be bothered to make an actual calculation how many.
Moreover, even though the fact that the universe is expanding is pretty much proven, it is not yet certain that it is creating new matter/energy in the process (although there is some compelling evidence for this). Even if new matter is being created, it is done at a relatively low rate and who says it actually creates atoms and not say leptons, or something else.

In conclusion, I contend that the proposition that there are more combinations than there are atoms (and atoms only) inn the universe may well be valid.

[Roman]

Ok, I went to the trouble of doing some calculations on this. It is quite painstaking, since you have to take into account combinations which are forbidden by the rules.
Due to this I am nowhere near completion of the calculation, which means there are far more possibilities than the number at which I have arrived. So far I got 1.0330862157900398743460630790859*10^99 combinations, which is several orders of magnitude greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. Hence, I will not continue with my calculation, as it would only increase the number of possibilities which is already greater than 10^80.

It is apparent that if the physicists' estimate is correct (or even if it is an underestimate by several orders of magnitude), there are far more possible chess combinations than there are atoms (I stress again, atoms only) in the known universe).

[airdrik]

Are you done?
Yay, everyone celebrate. We've figured out that there are more possible chess combinations than atoms in the universe

Now back to how this ties into the number of civs in a game.

[Calorman King]

64+ units sounds like an awful lot but perhaps we're looking at it from too much of a Civ2 scale perspective. That many civilisations would require much much larger maps and this of course would have consequences on the game engine as a whole (movement factors, number of units etc).

Personally I'd favour a smaller number, say 16 or so.

[MarkG]

final results

Civ3: How many civs in a game? Option Votes / Percentage 8 22 / 9% 16 64 / 26% 24 26 / 10% 32 47 / 19% 64 14 / 5% More than 64! 69 / 28% Total Votes: 242

| View Comments Forums Main Page

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 22, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

More than 64 had that many votes?
How does anyone think that a game on Earth can reasonably support that many civs unless maps are significantly enlarged (which I am for)
64 Choices and 14 civs in a game is a far more reasonable estimate for: the Game could have alternating half/colors or be like Alpha Centauri with all of its shades of colors.

I can pretty much build 220 cities on the Earth with 7 civs now. So a much larger city cap and map size is needed for the 14 civs or the game will become crowded.

But 64, come on- do you really want the req's to be a 2 gig 1gps 264 megabytes processor?