Why 7 Civs could be a GREAT indicator...

[Fiera]

No, I really don't think they will.

But now that the 7 civs limit seems to be confirmed, the "how are you going to patch/extend the game after the original release" comeas as a very good question for the "Ask the civ team" section.

But I seem to recall that you (yin) were very concerned with how Firaxis were going to release a buggy Civ3, and then not bother to fix those bugs in upcoming patches...

So why should this (that seems a most complicated matter) be different?

[yin26]

Fiera:

It's a fair question. My attitude began to really turn around the moment Sid took control over Civ3. Up to that point, he was on the fringes doing his own stuff. Assuming he got REALLY involved with Civ3, I have much less to worry about. Also as far as a modpack, it's a money for them.

Keep in mind, though, I still very much worry about their playtesting system over there, so I'm still watching that end of things.

[To_Serve_Man]

Think of how advanced the game would be. In Civ2, with 8 civs (including you), you would have Gunpowder by 1100.... i always did, and the computer AI was always like that too, because with 32 civs, technology would trave lso quickly, there would be no point in investing any money in it, since you could trade something for it within turns of the first person learning it. Its like this because there are more chances for a certian tech to be learnt (is that a word? i think i'm pulling a George DoubleYa)... 7 civs can be limiting for advanced Scenario designers. But what can ya do?

[St Leo]

I design scenarios and I can honestly say that the only things I wanted out of CivIII are more civs and diplomatically-friendly AIs. Additionally, in the random game starting with 64 civs would:

1) Make early-game conflict realistic and relevant.
2) Minimise micromanagement by giving each player fewer cities to bother with.
3) Eliminate ICS by eliminating empty space.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[Cyclotron]

Quote by Yin:

quote: 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.

Oh, I see Yin. You'd rather have the game source code determine the individuality of your Civ instead of you controlling it. Well, some of us like to play a game where we have some control over our own civs. You sound just lazy to me!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited April 30, 2001).]

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i dont think yin means that Cyclotron. I think he means the leader personalities of the AI controlled civs.

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

[Chronus]

I think To_Serve_Man brought up a good point. The technology charts will need a lot more techs to compensate for all that trading that will be going on. Or, perhaps it can simply take a lot longer to discover something. Whatever the case, I have to agree: more civs will mean zipping thru the tech tree a lot faster.

[yin26]

cyclotron7: As pointed out, I mean the AI civs. Afterall, this is a game basically against the computer. And in order for it to be of ANY challenge to veteran players, the comp needs its task to be more defined and (if done well) more tools to help it be a better challenge.

This is why I think fewer but more unique civs could be a very good think for gameplay and for the overall personality of Civ3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, Yin, there might not be 7 civs at all in the game. Going back to Europa Universalis, the 7 might be the number of MAJOR Civs, which are unique... however, there may be a vast quantity of MINOR Civs, allowing for perhaps 16 Civs in a game, but only 7 being of the MAJOR variety. But no one has explained to us about minor civs, only that they will be in there.

[LzPrst]

i think its vital that small civs should be part of the game.
i mean look at the political world map how it has changed over the last 2000 years. there must be possibilites for new civs to emerge and for minor civs to become major civs.
for example holland. tiny nation completely unimportant in the major european theater then BOOOM! a global trading empire taking in more cash than britain or france. or the USA, originally british colonies suddenly tearing themselves from the motherland and becoming a new nation.
the duchy of moscow, the mongols, the roman empire, france, italy and germany, japan, the friggin changes of powerbalance in the 20th century alone, from european colonial powers being the big boys to the division into east-west shows that there must be minor civs present that can change!

"flexibility!!!" (that spartan chick in SMAC)

there should only be 7 big ones, but those should change status during the game, through wars, revolutions, economic collapse etc, making them into minor civs and other minors would become majors. i know that it will be he*l to code, but it would be worth it.


LzPrst

[Guest]

I cannot understand what all the debate is about, especially since nobody knows what the maximum allowable number of Civ's is going to be. We don't even know what a "minor civ" is, but yet everyone is either for it or against it, that really bafles me? How can you have an opinion of something in which the facts are not known? General arguments can be made, but it seems that these are arguments based upon someone else's deciphering of the infomation that Firaxis has provided and then turned that information into what they consider fact.

If Firaxis does go for the "Faction" type set-up as in SMAC (Alien Crossfire), I hope they are all equal in a way that attributes are counterbalanced. In SMAC, they were not absolutely balanced. IMHO there was a clear order in which the "Factions" could be listed. They were not properly balanced. I haven't played it in over a year, but I think it was "University" that was heavily favored. Correct me if I'm wrong; better yet give me a list in which you would rank all the "Factions."

[Deathwalker]

I'm sorry but I want more than seven civs, personally though I think 16 should be the limit.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[STING]

What I loved of Civ1, were the differences between the civs in the diplomacy screen (graphics, music). In Civ2 those differences already disappeared

[hexagonian]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 03:39 AM Of course, Yin, there might not be 7 civs at all in the game. Going back to Europa Universalis, the 7 might be the number of MAJOR Civs, which are unique... however, there may be a vast quantity of MINOR Civs, allowing for perhaps 16 Civs in a game, but only 7 being of the MAJOR variety. But no one has explained to us about minor civs, only that they will be in there.

Isn't anyone concerned about about these minor civs? Granted, from a realism perspective, this idea sounds very good, but from a playabilility standpoint, these civs sound like cannon fodder for a warmongering human player.

This is where the diplomatic aspect of the game really needs to be developed, because the whole game will fall on its face if these minor civs end up being easy targets. A possible solution would be to have regard drop to the point that all other civs will gang up on the civ that attacks the minors. But this would actually prevent the AI from picking on the minor civs within the game, because then the AI would end up weakening a potentially strong human opponent, making the game easier for the human player.

I would rather see the development of a solid set of 7 civs that will give the human player all he can handle.

[Jeje2]

EU
- there are max 8 majors and a lot of minors.
- There are a few basic set of units, that then have small colour changes for nations.
- In EU chosing a country also affects to how easy/hard starting you have.

I personally hope for unique civ's, like SMAC. I never useed the faction editor, but if the game comes with 16 we should be able to create own, even with grafics. (Like SMAC)

A game 7 majors and some minors would sound OK to me, just as long as I don't know the majors in advance. Best would be that in the beginning there are n minors as game begins. Then you are allowed to become a major. The other major's could then be chosen acording to for example speed, first four to reach the minor max size become major's. The best reasercer at the time that fourth minor (from speed) becomes major is made a major and the last major is randomly chosen from rest.

Also the civ's must be able to adjust to the game.
Ex. Let's say a game of SMAC were Spartans are alone on a continent. They are not threatened for the first 150 years => Maybe they shouln't be as aggressive if you compare to a game were Spartans spent first 150 years between Yang and Deidre.


Right now we just have to wait for more information