Only 7 civilizations per game

[Kautilya]

"Maybe you are right, but do you actually have any other statistic on what te people want in the game?"
No but the business types at Firaxis probably have a better idea of what the market as a whole wants than either you or me. If they have decided not to implement this feature it's probably because they figure that the overall demand for it isn't worth the cost.

Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.

[Roman]

Ok, I think the point has now been made - after all this thread has reached 4 pages in just 3 days. Hence, I will now quieten down on this issue, but I would still like to hear from Firaxis whether the 7 civilization limit will be tweakable through text-files and if not what programming challenge stood in the way of that.

In the meantime there are plenty of other news to discuss about Civ 3 and in all other respects (other than this accursed limit) the game seems to be heading in the right direction and I am very excited about it.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.

BTW: This poll had one of the highest participation ratios I have ever seen on Apolyton with way more than 700 respondents, which indicates that people are really interested in this issue.
I agree that a better poll would be the one you propose, but this is poll was the best we have and it is also the most overwhelming response (92% in favour of more civs ) I have ever seen in a poll.

[Roman]

Perhaps we could e-mail Firaxis to get an answer to whether the limit will be tweakable in the text files.

Someone willing to undertake this?

[Chronus]

MARKG QUOTE: "7 + you = 8"

Um ... when I fire up Civ2 and then select "7 Civilizations" (the option with the highest number of civs as far as I can see) then I get my own civ competing against 6 other civs. This final total comes up to 7 ... not 8 ... no? :-p

[Phalanx_TS]

Is the 7 civs confirmed, i thought this would have been something they would let the public choose for themselves. You know, when you start a new game and select how many civs, a max of 7 is just to small.
I'm a scenario man, for civ2 i created a ww1-ww2 mod which had alot of basically everything. Every graphic and tweak possible was implemented into the mod, new sounds, new units, new animations, new cities, new terrain, new wonders. The *only* problem i had was that in didn't truly capture a war like atmosphere, not enough civilizations.
A rather annoying aspect of civ2, to change governments a civilization had to go through a process of anarchy before forming a new government. In this period of anarchy a city can be bought dirt cheap, 50 gold on occasion. I use to give enemy civs government techs, watch them go into anarchy, then buy half their cities. Will civ3 have this same annoying aspect?

[St Leo]

I have been designing scenarios for years now with two critical successes (Fictional Americas, Roman Riots) and the seven civ limit disgusts me. For example, I have been planning a sequel to Fictional Americas for some time now and it requires fifteen civs for it to be any fun.

I will make up a hypothetical scenario on the fly to illustrate my point:

The Gandalf Wars - Gandalf succumbs to the temptation of the Ring, builds a mighty kingdom in the Shire, and prepares to wage war across Middle-Earth.

To make it fun and balanced I would need the following civs:
-Shire (Gandalf)
-Isengard (Saruman)
-Mordor (Sauron)
-Rhun (Pallando)
-Harad (Alatar)
-Gondor (Denethor)
-Rohan (Theoden)
-Dwarves (Dain II)
-Orcs (Azog?)
-Imladris (Elrond)
-Laurelindorenan (Galadriel)
-Grey Havens (some shipwright)
-Arnor (Elessar)
-Carrock (Beorn)

This adds up to fourteen civs and there are probably others that would be a good addition.

---

Basically, what makes [Europa Universalis] interesting is the large number of nations. That's it, period. I don't recall any other game of this type with more than 8 or so nations. Imagine if EU had only 8 nations - the game would just totally suck. Really, I don't think the game engine has much going for it other than the interaction between 70+ nations. -Roberto Ullfig

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

[St Leo]

I know I have just posted a good argument, but there's nothing wrong with backing it up with a bad one:

-The Civ2 AI was excellent except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't. All of its fallacies could be fixed by giving it free units with events.
-The Civ2 map size limits are fine by me (the Gigamap could easily fit 128 perfectionist civs and I though that 10000 square maps were large enough).
-The Civ2 improvement model was fine, although custom wonders would have been great.
-8-bit graphics are fine by me.

I want more CIVS!

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

[MrFun]

Wow -- I am impressed by how quickly so many people have taken up on this important issue, either for or against more than seven civilizations in each game.

I truly hope that Firaxis will take notice in their customers' concern over this. Of course, in my opinion, that means considering the customers' opinion that seven is enough, then rejecting their opinion and increase it to 12 civilizations in every game.

------------------
"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, making exceptions to it -- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?"
-- Abraham Lincoln's quote, and his anti-racist ideals

[Kautilya]

"Look at the poll. 92% seem to consider having more than 7 civilizations important. 7% think 8 civilizations (including barbs) is enough and 1% doesn't care.;"
*Sigh* How many times do we have to repeat this? The poll is meaningless like all the polls here because it is a self-selected and not representative sample. Only the people most interested in the issue (who usually want more civs) bother to answer. In any case we can't even say that Apolyton is representative of all Civ players let alone the tens of thousands of non-regular gamers who will likely buy the game.

And let me say that if this feature is relatively easy to incorporate then I am all for it. But if , as a bunch of people here seem to think, it will take a lot of work then I personally don't want it to divert resources from things like AI. Different people will have different value judgements and it's really hard to say what the potential Civ3 community which is much larger than Apolyton thinks about this.

[BeBMan]

quote: You guys want 32+ civs playable in one game...

Many posts say, they want more than seven. I for example would be happy with 16.

quote: Would you like duplicate incarnations of the same civs in one game or something?

Who says that? And does that mean that more civs aren´t a problem of ressources anymore? What comes next?

quote: DUMB!

Wow, great argument!




------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

[Roman]

I suggest petitioning the Firaxis team at this e-mail to at least allow tweaking the limit through text-files.

[Roman]

Here is the address:

askthecivteam@firaxis.com

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 12:03 PM And let me say that if this feature is relatively easy to incorporate then I am all for it.

Excellent.

quote: But if , as a bunch of people here seem to think, it will take a lot of work then I personally don't want it to divert resources from things like AI. Different people will have different value judgements and it's really hard to say what the potential Civ3 community which is much larger than Apolyton thinks about this.

It shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate, as they can reuse the code from the previous seven civs for the next. Unless, of course, they are basing the game on an old engine (SMAC).

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by St Leo on 04-29-2001 09:40 PM -The Civ2 AI was excellent except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.

What a sad and pityful statement that is. It also rather revealing. Do you honestly not feel the slightest need for...

- a more effective & smarter AI-empire defence & attack capability?
- a better AI-diplomacy (= smarter cooperation between civs/AI-civs)?
- a more effective AI city-improvement & city-area development strategy?
- a better use of economical excess (no more dust-collecting AI-wealth)?
- a more effective AI-unit upgrade development (quality before quantity)?
- a better AI-exchange (avoid AI-disadvantageous tech-exchanges vs HP)?
- a more effective AI-land area exploitation within AI-borders?

The AI in Civ-2/SMAC reminds me of a computer car-racing game, where each AI-car drives more secure but always slower, by default. The human player always starts as jumbo-position - but he have always the fastest car, by default. If he is new to the game, he keeps bumbing into fences and slides of the track at first. Its however only a question of time before he learns to master his car, and after that, he keep on overtaking one AI-car after the other. Simply because he drive the fastest car, by default. Its more or less a question of 100% mathematical certainty.

The same can be said about overcoming the AI in present civ-games. For a casual player unfamiliar to civ-series the AI can appear strong at first. And sure: the early stages have some risky & uncertain moments also for seasoned civ-gamers. But as soon as the basic layout of cities had been made, and the consolidating stage have moved on a bit; the question of surviving and actual winning the game, becomes more or less a matter of foreseeing predictability: It becomes a question of 100% mathematical certainty - on way or the other. Just as in above racing-game. The challenge is gone, and one stuck only with some limited curiosity on in which order & how exactly that certain victory is going to establish itself.

I think its time for an upgrade in Civ-3 - dont you guys? I want to feel uncertain as long as possible. I only want to win every second or every third completed game on the higher levels. And when I win, I want to feel that I achieved something difficult. It that to much to ask for?

quote: ...except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.

The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game. As soon as the winning player are just as superior or even more superior then all the other players combined - the losing ones start to form multi-member contain-the-aggression pacts. They temporarily accept that it is in their common interest to "gang-up" as much as possible against that superior bully-boy.

Why should it be different then playing against losing AI-civs? If any single AI-civ instead was the strongest one, and you as a human player + all the remaining weaker AI-civs was soon destined to be crushed - one by one; wouldnt you then want to be able to form pacts with the other soon-to-be-conquered civs? A last desperate effort to "gang-up" and retaliate?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]