Only 7 civilizations per game

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: actually, you want ONE civ to have fun: the player's! if the resources or the map is to small for more civs, then some of them will be conquered sooner or later! it so simple(and fun).....

I, for one, want at least 7 civs to have fun -- because I want to play games where the other 6 civs are human controlled, eh?

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-27-2001 10:48 PM The main reason i want more civs is this, in a regular game 100 turns in and you have 5 civs. When i play ctp2 with 14 civs, 100 turns in i have 8 civs. While more have died, you are still ahead and have more civs. The only prob with ctp2 it takes to long, so by mid game comp turns took a couple minutes. Just depends on ones patience, at least id like the option for more civs.

It appears that the desire for more civs is partly based on this assumption that since a few civs will be conquered pretty early, we need more starting civs to balance this out. Perhaps, this assumption is false. Looking at the new resource model that will put an emphasis on trade and the culture model that will make pacifying conquered cities harder, it seems to me that Firaxis is aiming for all 7 civs to be as strong and active and long-lived as possible. If so, doesn't this change our debate? Do we need more civs if all 7 civs are going to be much stronger and active than before. What if all 7 civs will typically last through much of the game and be very active?

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

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:06 AM What if all 7 civs will typically last through much of the game and be very active?

Actually while it is good the more active they are, it wont remove the limitations for scenario creators

[BeBMan]

I´ve just seen that in the SLeague, I can only agree with all posts that say 7 civs are not enough!!! Fireaxis has said the scenario making options are fine in Civ3. But good scenarios require often more civs, so please, Fireaxis, GIVE us more of them!

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 07:36 AM Mark, how about a new poll about this issue?

like this one http://www.apolyton.net/cgi-bin/poll/civ3f/results.pl


Number of Civs in a game?
---------------------------
More than 32 385 / 43%
Up to 32 237 / 26%
Up to 16 184 / 20%
8 is enough... 70 / 7%
No opinion 12 / 1%
---------------------------

[DarthVeda]

God, what a bunch of whiney babies--who seem to think programming is a democracy.

Frankly I don't care if there are 7 civs or 4,000,000. I got along just fine with 7 in Civ, Civ2, and Call to Power 2 (even though it had the capacity for more).

The argument that fewer civs hinder mod development is bunk. There are at least 500 scenarios for Civ2. I have made at least 8 secnarios and each one had 7-8 civs (barbarians included obviously).

You guys are acting like Firaxis just took a pee in your corn flakes. So what if there are 7 civs? Are you trying to tell me you won't buy Civ3? Bully!

Sure, there are times when I'd like to have 9 or so, but is it a major roadblock to scenario development? Hell no. I'd rather Firaxis concentrate on more important issues like Graphics importation, Events, and other modification abilities in the game to make it as easily modifiable as Civ2.

Having no macro language and difficultly importing new units is a MUCH MORE important road block to scenario development than not having fourty billion civs. Do you have any idea what kind of system you need to run a game with 20 civ AI? That's going to seriously hinder your audience and serious mod developers know/should know better than to eliminate their audience.

Then we start to talk about the Unit Limit. There is going to be one--that's how programming works--whether it is hard coded or simply a stack overflow or another kind of system limiter. What it is--do we know yet? I do not. The more civs you have, the more units that have to be on the map. And unless you like max unit errors, you're going to want fewer civs.

You honestly have to ask yourself though, and let's take the prolific ww2 scenario as an example, if the Serbians are actually important to put in so that your scenario has 27 civilizations? I think not. Most scenarios can easily slip away with 7 civs, and possibly less. Hell, you could get away with two or three in a worst case scenario.

It's all about your own end of the design process. Are you so absolutely miserable at design that you can't work within restrictions? Or do you plan things out ahead of time to work within the constraints you are given?

However, while a seven civ limit is just fine, it would be nice to have the ability to change it to something higher. But is it the end of the world as you portray it?

NO

[Rasputin]

This once again shows the lack of Multiplayer input into Civ 3 and means there is less and less chance of me buying it...

I can see a lot of reason for keeping the AI controlled civs to a mximum to allow a stronger AI. But what about MP when htere may be no AI's or jsut a few... Why not in MP allow more civs to allow more humans to play, of course this may make an already slow game slower, but me thinks it would open up a few interesting battles...

[Roman]

quote: Number of Civs in a game? --------------------------- More than 32 - 385 / 43% Up to 32 - 237 / 26% Up to 16 - 184 / 20% 8 is enough... - 70 / 7% No opinion - 12 / 1% ---------------------------

Thanks for bringing this up MarkG. This poll clearly shows that the vast bulk of Civ fans want more than 7 civilizations per game.

[Stefu]

Glancing upon poll, it would indeed seem that majority of civers want more than seven. Heck, even the option "keep it at eight" only got seven percent.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Stefu on 04-28-2001 02:15 PM Glancing upon poll, it would indeed seem that majority of civers want more than seven. Heck, even the option "keep it at eight" only got seven percent.

There is in fact further evidence for people wanting more than 7 civilizations per game. For example, almost everyone plays Civ 2 with all seven civilizations rather than using the options of having fewer civs in a game. This strongly suggests that people are comfortable with and in fact want more civilizations in each game they play.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 01:37 PM This poll clearly shows that the vast bulk of Civ fans want more than 7 civilizations per game.

That particular poll is only meaningful if each voter fully understands the AI/gameplay consequences of each alternative. And they dont.

------------ Edited:
At least those who limit themselves to max 16 simultaneously playing civs at least took gameplay complications and hardware limitations into account then they did that choice. They perhaps didnt understood the programming/AI/hardware side with above 7-8 civs in a random-map turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3 - but, hell: thats no crime.
-------------

Those however, who voted for 32, or even more (64, even "hundreds"). Frankly, I just cannot take those 26+43 = 69% seriously at all. It is just to much "off the roof" to even comment.

Also; why not read (and respond to) Darthvedas post? Pretty solid arguments if you ask me.

About scenario-designing: Dan Mahaga specifically asked us all what was important to add then creating/playing scenarios. Check out this link Civ3 editing tools: what do *you* want to see. Not much talk about the drop-dead importance of 32+ AI-civs in that thread.

------------ edited:

quote: For example, almost everyone plays Civ 2 with all seven civilizations rather than using the options of having fewer civs in a game.

Well, I usually played Civ-2 with only 3-5 AI-civs depending on the mapsize. Sorry Roman, I couldnt resist that. It is the truth - honest!

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

[MagyarCrusader]

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 04-28-2001 10:09 AM I´ve just seen that in the SLeague, I can only agree with all posts that say 7 civs are not enough!!! Fireaxis has said the scenario making options are fine in Civ3. But good scenarios require often more civs, so please, Fireaxis, GIVE us more of them!

I completly agree.

------------------
"The Rumanians are really the most reliable people in the world when it comes to depending upon their breaking any promises they make." - General Harry Hill Bandholtz, US Army, 22 NOV 1919. General Bandholtz was the one who saved the Crown Jewels from the Rumanians. His statue sits in front of the American Embassy in Budapest.
Truth

[jadlakha]

HERE IS WHAT I GOTS TO SAY, Just let the gosh dog players choose how many AI's they want. Allow them to choose from 2-(at least)15 other ai's or even 32. If the player has a slow computer or experiences alot of slow down make sure to note in the game that they should play with less AI's for better performance.

[Ceci n'est pas Snapcase]

MC: Azért nem muszály annyira utálni a Románokat. Bisztos van valahot eggy vagy kettô Román aki egeszen rendes... (Például ebbe a forumba is van eggy, Victor Gallis.)

[Kautilya]

Personally it doesn't make much of a difference to me. Seven is enough to provide an interesting game. Perhaps it might make a difference in scenarios but as Darth Veda said there are tons of scenarios which have managed to work within those constraints. In any event I am much more interested in the main game than scenarios.


I think that things like the quality of the AI are much more important for a good gaming experience than the no. of civs. That's what we should be shouting for. Not that Firaxis listens to us anyway.
[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited April 28, 2001).]