Only 7 civilizations per game

[Dr. Nick]

NO!

Let's boycott Civ 3 unless this is changed!

[Chronus]

Additional civs would be nice but, quite frankly, I don't see why everyone is giving birth to a cow over this.

I agree with Cyclotron7's theory: more civs only mean more bite sized empires. I think this will, consequently, make them too easy to conquer.

By the way, MarkG, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but . . .
. . . your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7 civs is enough" (just out of spite). The "No opinion" option DOES NOT reflect what I want. ;-)

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:23 PM I am sorry folks but I still don't get it: why is more civs better?

From the scenario perspective, this is a major problem. Many scenarios are forced to distort the historical situation they represent because there are only seven slots for civs. To show history in a more accurate light, as well as increase the enjoyment of the palyers, more civs are needed. This is a major problem.

quote: if the game is fun, challenging, addictive, complex, realistic with 7 civs, isn't that good enough?

From a gaming standpoint, I would agree with you, but there are larger issues at work here. More civs could mean higher sales (more people interested in MP, scenarios, ect.), a better gaming experience, and as this is the twentyfirst century, an improved game engine, not a rehash of a previous system.

quote: I also think we need to think about the fact that the game will have unique civs. So, Firaxis needs to play balance each civ and make sure that they are well balanced against each other in the game. The more civs in the game at once, the harder it will be to play balance them all. Already, people complained that the 7 factions in SMAX were unbalanced. I am sure that Firaxis is sticking with the safe number of 7 civs so that they can make sure that all the factions are well balanced in terms of gameplay. They don't want a civ that is overpowered or underpowered.

I disagree, for the reasons stated in my previous post, that is a cost cutting move, not an effort to improve play balence. If you follow this logic, then only two civs are needed with identical attributes on an identical map, then play balence would be assured.

quote: If the game is fun and challenging with 7, why have more?

Civ-1 and Civ-2 were fun and challenging, but why do we want Civ-3? We want more and better. If this whole thing is true, Firaxis has ignored a very large and active group of potential customers, and killed possible expansion games, because of the ill-will generated by such a decision.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Sabre2th]

I think people are complaining about this a bit too much. While it would be nice to play with more occasionally, it isn't necessary and the game will not be RUINED without it. Stop crying and move on.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Kautilya]

. "your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7
civs is enough"
Yeah and in addition to that there is the basic point that there is an opportunity cost in that providing this feature will mean less work in some other area. There might be lots of people who want more civs when looking at the issue in isolation but might be less keen if that came at the cost of AI or graphics.

A better poll would ask people to rank various features in descending order of importance.

In any case self-selected Internet polls are close to meaningless since the sample is usually biased.

[DarthVeda]

Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

There are physical limitations on the technology folks, you have to have some give.

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda on 04-29-2001 01:37 AM Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

what the hell are you talking about? we are talking about the simultaneous civs, not the total availiable ones!

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 04-29-2001 12:56 AM By the way, MarkG, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but . . . . . . your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7 civs is enough" (just out of spite). The "No opinion" option DOES NOT reflect what I want. ;-)

7 + you = 8

[MarkG]

btw, i should not that we had a poll on this not long ago

quote: Civ3: How many civs in a game? --------------------------- 8 22 / 8% 16 64 / 25% 24 28 / 11% 32 50 / 19% 64 14 / 5% More than 64! 74 / 29%

http://apolyton.net/cgi-bin/ubb-poll...owResults&id=9

which means that this discussion has been made on "big" level, at least twice, and the result is more or less: people want more civs

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-28-2001 10:52 PM To deny extra playability [by adding more civs] for all time is just nasty.

Oh, come on Jdlessl! Do you really think above is the very reason why Firaxis decided to have the official max 7 civs-limit? For some sadistic and grudging reason? Or perhaps from some economical shortcut rush-developing reason? I sure as heck dont believe so - not for one second. This title has been voted "best game of all times" (not just the best strategy-game, mind you). I think it safe to presume that the team does virtually everything reasonably possible, givin their not-limitless resources, to ensure yet another smash hit evergreen game-success. After all; its their developing-money and the team + Sid very reputation thats at stake here, not ours. They even canceled the Dinosaurs-project, in order to relocate resources to Civ-3. I say, give them a rest, and lets move on to more relevant and important stuff!

Read below quote from MidKnight Lament one more time - It makes sence doesnt it?

quote: If they thought they could increase the number of civs to make it a better game, they would. They know it inside out, and know perfectly well what it would do the the AI, minimum specs etc... They've no doubt play-tested with more and decided it wasn't worth the hit. I would be highly surprised if there isn't an option in the text files to tweak it yourself. I can't believe there's so many people on here who think they know more about what Civ 3 can do than the developers themselves. (No disrespect to those who ran their copy of Civ 2 to the ground.)

[jdlessl]

quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda on 04-29-2001 01:37 AM Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

Fine. So make the max 16. There are, after all, 16 civs to choose from, so using that as a max involves no extra work.

Technology has limits? Ok, so maybe I can't play Civ3 with 100 civs on my system right now. As I pointed out earlier, people still play Civ2 on machines many times more powerful than were available back then. It's just stupid to set an arbitrary limit like that. Especially when there are systems out there today that could easily run more than 8 civs.

Ralf: Didn't mean it was malicious, but it's not very intelligent. I have yet to hear a good reason why Civ2 had the limit.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Kull]

Let's try and put this in perspective. If Civ3 has support for no more than 7 simultaneous civs, will I buy it? Yes. Will just about everyone else here at Apolyton get it too? Yes. Will this single factor cause the game to "suck" beyond all redeeming? Almost certainly not.

But just for one minute, think about all your hopes for Civ3. All the things you dearly wanted included in this game. Improved AI, better diplomacy, gee-whiz graphics.....just take a look at the Civ3 wish list! It's full of far out concepts and ingenious new ideas. If some of these aren't implemented, at least you can console yourself with the thought, "Well it must have been too difficult to program" or "maybe it failed in gameplay". But extra civs? Come on! This is an improvement so obvious, so basic, so RUDIMENTARY, that I still can't believe it hasn't been implemented!

As a scenario designer, I'm left with the faint hope that the alleged minor civs will somehow resolve the problem. Yes, Darth, we've found plenty of ways to "finagle" the issue. When all else fails, the tried and true "minor powers" can always be used. But wouldn't it be nice to play a WWII scenario in which an attack on Thailand doesn't automatically put me at war with Switzerland and most of South America? Is that REALLY too much to ask for?
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Stefu]

BTW, would I be terribly wrong if I speculated that if original Civ had ben released with only six civs, and Civ2 would also have had only six civs, and AC only 6 factions, then all these "quality-over-quantity" people like DarthVeda would be arguing that six civs is the optimal number and having seven civs would hinder the AI too much to be worthy?

[Roman]

I think Firaxis is just reusing the SMAC engine for Civ 3, which had a 7 civilization limit, so Civ 3 will have a 7 civilization limit. That would also mean no tweaking if the limit in text files. What a pity.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kull on 04-29-2001 05:52 AM As a scenario designer, I'm left with the faint hope that the alleged minor civs will somehow resolve the problem. Yes, Darth, we've found plenty of ways to "finagle" the issue. When all else fails, the tried and true "minor powers" can always be used. But wouldn't it be nice to play a WWII scenario in which an attack on Thailand doesn't automatically put me at war with Switzerland and most of South America? Is that REALLY too much to ask for? [This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]

This is exactly my problem and I don't see why it should remain that way. I couldn't care for the normal SP game, I almost exclusively play scenarios and there this is the most major issue.