How many civs in Civ 3?

[Cyclotron]

Raingoon is entirely right. If anything, huge amounts of civs will make the game easier, because instead of a single united enemy you will have many warring against themselves and unable to coordinate attacks. The sheer amount of civs is pointless past a certain reasonable amount (I think 8 to 10), and then it spirals into stagnant thinking. Minor civs really are the way to go, and I hope Firaxis does a good job with them.

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[SerapisIV]

This might be extraneous, I guess it is already assumed that the AI will actually be one that is able to fight amongst itself, as SMAC did. It would be pointless if they went back to CivII where a war amongst the AI meant 5 units every 50 turns would were lost. Sometimes whole civilizations were lost but only because the losing civ stunk from the get go.

[Maccabee2]

The more the merrier! Just an excuse to go out and buy a faster, better computer. ("But honey, without a faster computer, I can't play my new game." {Use puppy dog eyes here.})

[King Richard]

As long as specific civilizations doesn't appear at the same time, I can't see the problem in having hundreds of civs! Romans and italians and bysantines can't be in the same game... When it comes to how many civs that can play at the same time, It really boils down to the map-size. If there is so many, that you can't build more than two or three cities before encountering a foe, then we have a problem! But offcourse: Someone out there might like the idea of instant war...

[Roman]

I do not understand why some people are arguing against the possibility of playing with many civs at the same time. It is no more difficult to program than 8 civs per game and they don't have to play with so many if they don't want to do so. Moreover having the possibility of more civs per game allows much more flexibility in scenario making.

[King Richard]

I see your point. You can have a lot more civs in a game, but you cant have certain civs at the same time, since a lot of civs have the same cities...

[Maccabee2]

I like the idea of minor civs. CTP's inclusion of recently independent nations (Jamaica, Nicaragua, etc.) along with old empires annoyed me.
Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.) (It's after 2 a.m.; the games not out yet, and I'm already addicted!)

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-14-2001 02:09 AM "...(It's after 2 a.m.; the games not out yet, and I'm already addicted!)"

I can relate Maccabee2! My roommate and I have gone back to "trying" to play CTP2 Multiplayer - only because we both need a "fix" of something "civishly" new, and to date, we still haven't been able to finish one game of CTP2 - because of the massive bugs inherent in the game and the basic "unplayability/stability" of it...Talk about someone constantly ASKING to be slapped around!

I guess it's just a sign of a true civer! So you're not alone in the yearning for the eventual release of CIV3!

[kolpo]

Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.)

I think that is unavoidable. Quite all important current European nations where once a part of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire has started many cities from which many are still very important. Quite all American Nations are created by Spain, England and Portugal. But they are all(both Europeaan and Americain) independent nations with there own culure. And so is it also with Byzantium. Byzantium was indeed once a part of the Roman Empire but it became independant and has developed it's own culture, which was very different from the Roman culture and it is that culture that has still a very big influence on Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, ...

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 04-14-2001 05:30 PM Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.) I think that is unavoidable. Quite all important current European nations where once a part of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire has started many cities from which many are still very important. Quite all American Nations are created by Spain, England and Portugal. But they are all(both Europeaan and Americain) independent nations with there own culure. And so is it also with Byzantium. Byzantium was indeed once a part of the Roman Empire but it became independant and has developed it's own culture, which was very different from the Roman culture and it is that culture that has still a very big influence on Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, ...

About the roman thing: It is true that the romans created a lot of the major european cities of Spain, France, England etc. My point is that these cities were quite insignificant in the roman empire, and probably will not even be programmed as roman cities. If they do: You can use their roman names (Londinium, Lutetia, Byzantium etc.). This makes it possible to have other nations inside the roman empire included. Concerning using civs like Italy and byzantium, it gets a lot harder: Rome is the capitol of both Italy and Rome, and Byzantium (Constantinopel) and Caesarea are major cities in both Rome and Byzantium. A possible solution could be to have both the romans, the byzantines, the egyptians etc. but to use the city-names of the western-roman empire to the romans, and the city-names of the eastern-roman empire for the byzantines (minus Egypt...)