Why 7 Civs could be a GREAT indicator...

[yin26]

(Some of) You guys are missing something VERY important here. If there are to be "only" 7 civs (has that even been made clear?), then we must logically conclude that they are doing a great deal about the UNIQUENESS of each of those civs! That would take a GREAT DEAL of play testing if each civ is truly unique. Not to mention art sets, sounds, the whole thing.

Now if you ask me, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have 7 truly unique and interesting civs to play than 64 so-called civs whose only differences are player color and AI aggressiveness. One of the great things about SMAC, of course, was the difference in each faction. We can debate just how well that was done, but it was a step in the right direction if you ask me.

So, this is not a matter of "The computer can't handle more than 7 civs." We all know it can, especially if they are not different from each other. However, 7 honestly, truly unique civs would put a TREMENDOUS drain on the programmers, artists, sounds guys and play testers to make sure it all works, looks, sounds and plays well. And yes, if this is what they are really doing, then adding even 1 more civ would translate to a hell of a lot more work.

This looks like Sid once again making the right decision to go for quality over quantity. If you want a game with at least the mental image of lots of civs to play against, play Europa Universalis. Just keep in mind, though, those civs are hard coded on a pre-determined map and have no real difference from each other besides starting location and starting resources (oh, and diplomatic stance). Not only that, but EU only spans 300 years and is therefore much more limited in terms of what could unbalance the game.

If this 7 civs detail is really true, AND if it indicates what I hope it does, Civ3 will be MUCH better than I had imagined!

Of course, I still think you should be able to put 2 or 3 of each AI under a different name, etc., and setup games with MORE civs with the warning that the game "Was not playtested that way and could lead to imbalances." And rather than make us hack a .txt file, please just make it a option from the get go for people who want to play against more opponents at once despite the lack of playtesting.

[Kautilya]

Hmm I think 7 is the no. you can play in a particular game not the total no. of Civs you can choose from which is much larger. So it's like Civ2 where you have lots of Civs to choose from but you can choose only 7 at a time.

Anyway not everyone wants unique Civs. One of the basic ideas of Civ is that you start off from very basic origins so it makes sense that the Civs are similar at the begining. They become different later by choice of strategy. I personally think the right way to unbalance the game is through the Wonders that players choose to build and the strategic choices the players make rather than initial attributes.


BTW the countries in EU are very different. They have different religions, different military capabilities, different access to colonies, different initial technologies,different monarch capablities etc. In fact they are more different than the factions in SMAC.

[yin26]

By different I'm also talking about art sets, etc. I don't just mean what civ has been enabled to have such and such tech, although that's part of it. Do the civs in EU all have different art for each unit, different sounds, etc? That's what I'm talking about in terms of what would take so long to do.

Now you may well be right that you choose from more than 7 civs to play, although I still very much hope for the 7 unique civs idea TOTAL, though I am in the minority on that one.

[belusa]

I believe there will be 16 civs in total, from which you'll be able to pick a maximum of 7 civs to play in a game.

[belusa]

quote: Number of Civilizations: Cut down to 16. Number of Civilizations in one game: Still seven.

Quote from Snapcase

[yin26]

I see. I wonder, then, if all those civs will be unique? I also wonder if there will be "minor civs" in a 7 civ game? Hmmmm

[Kautilya]

"Do the civs in EU all have different art for each unit,
different sounds, etc?"
I think there are some visual distinctions between the units of different civs (of course there are only three kinds of land units so it's not much work). No distinction between the sounds AFAIK.(anyway the sound in EU is crap). You are probably right that there is much more scope for differentiation in Civ since there are a lot more units,infrastructure etc.


[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited April 29, 2001).]

[yin26]

I'll need to revise my statements a bit:

16 civs total = 4 art sets (Far Eastern, European, South American, Middle Eastern...or something like that). This way you can have Japan, China, and Korea all share the same art etc. Better to have 4 really good art sets shared by 16 civs than 16 civs using 16 uniquely crappy art.

7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power. More like programming time. With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

Kautilya:

I actually have the game unopened here while I finish Baldur's Gate 2 (GREAT game!). So I'll know more then I suppose, but thanks for the feedback.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 03:59 AM 7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power.

Well, you know what I think about the latter. Anyway...

quote: With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

My underlining. Good point! This should be the MAIN issue here. We can all draw conclusions from the CTP-2 failure. All the hailed features (hailed by many, not all) turned out to be very quickly forgotten, once it became apparent that the AI-civs where sitting ducks (well, more or less).

A very big slice of attention should instead evolve around: How can each AI-civ be more responsive and competitive! How can the game-mechanics and the rules be designed to achieve that goal? How can the built-in limitations in Artificial Intelligence be cleverly worked-around as much as possible? How can they add "AI-friendly" rules and features, thus enabling as "straight roads" for the AI-civs as reasonably possible? How can we make the text tweak-files more extensive and more accessible, letting the know-it-all civ-veteran "spoonfeed" the strategic AI-civ priorities and build-choices much better then ever before (in this latter respect the CTP-2 game where actually very tweakable, the way I heard it).

The AI:s ability to put up a good fight both in terms of defending its cities on an tactical level, but also achieving a substantially better overal strategical strength and producing-power (without to much give-away cheating) is absolutely vital and far, far more important then moaning about the limited civs issue, as if that where the very end of any hopes for an enjoyable game-experience.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 29, 2001).]

[ASHBERY76]

7 civs is no way enough considering that 2 or more civs get destroyed early in the game your left with hardly any it sucks.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

I think it is definately an indicator of that sort of direction, yes. Apparently firaxis is putting a lot of work into leader personalities, and with the unique units and different generals it will be even more apparent.

[The diplomat]

I completely agree with Yin's original post. Finally, some sense in all this madness!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ive never had a problem with 7 civs, which are later reduced to five or four. This allows you to get a more intimate feel of how each of the leaders react to each other. The 16 civs which you can choose from are obviously going to be very spiffed up and unique (like what Yin said.) Iim sure that in CivII, we are going to see a lot more wars between the AI (so that they can gain control of special resorces) and a lot more trading going on. This will lead to more complex diplomacy, which CivIII has provided. There will be more 'regional alliances' of civs which all share the same resorces (like a sort of OPEC) So, i think that 7 civs in one game is good, as long as the gameplay is a lot more intense and more thinking is needed. Already with the new way how nukes work, you will have to think twice about starting a nuclear war, unless you want your screen to become one bright, white, light.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Fiera]

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 03:59 AM 7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power. More like programming time. With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

Aha, so they could well come up with a modpack tested for playing with, say, 12 civs at a time. This Modpack could come something like a year after the original release, if they need programing time. I'd be happy with that.

But I'm afraid they won't do it. Instead, they'll come with the "seven civs are hard-coded" crap, and they'll move along to a new game, a new job, or whatever...



If the seven civs are hard-coded in the game, tell me, whose fault is it? Mine?

[yin26]

Yes, if we are talking about time and resources, the modpack would be a great place for adding in more civs. Don't you think they will?