Only 7 civilizations per game

[Zylka]

There are usually enough problems with disconnects on a five player game, but the odd seven player goes flawlessly. Seven is ok, but can't you guys just round it up to an even ten? We'd at least like the option for diplo massives... give us something new for mp.

[Zylka]

Oh my, only seven civs for single player games as well?! Aside from lackluster AI difficulty, this is one of the biggest problems there is in civ2!

ALLOW AN EVEN TEN CIVS AT A TIME, PLEASE!!!
It's not that radical a change from seven, but would still be a huge improvement.

Even eight would be an improvement, just make it a LITTLE bigger, please

[cyborgasm]

I too am upset at the number of civ's. Although I've read the arguments about the exponentially higher amount of processing power it takes for each additional AI controlled civ, why would they take away from the number of civs that you can choose from? And despite those arguments about the limit of in-game civs, I have great trouble believing that the limits cannot be stretched just a little bit farther on a computer today from the limits established for computers several years ago. I propose we all write letters to askthecivteam@firaxis.com I also think we should run another poll to see what peoples' current opinions on the civ limit are.

[The diplomat]

I think a lot of you are making the false assumption that it will be easy to beat the AI, so you want more civs to make the game more of a challenge. I think the asumption is false because I suspect that Firaxis is really focusing on making the AI super tough.
I think that Firaxis has decided to keep the no. of civs at 7 because they will focus on gameplay, on the AI and the unique civs. They want to give us a great experience where each civ has unique character and style and where ALL civs present a super challenge to the player.

It boils down to quality vs quantity. You are asking for quantity. Firaxis is focusing on quality. There will "only" be 7 civs but each one will be great!

Personally, I prefer quality over quantity.

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

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 04:34 PM I think a lot of you are making the false assumption that it will be easy to beat the AI, so you want more civs to make the game more of a challenge.

dont know about the others, but i dont want more civs for that. as i said, the issue for me is the improvement in the realism and the atmosphere and the complexity of the game. nothing to do with difficulty...

quote: They want to give us a great experience where each civ has unique character and style and where ALL civs present a super challenge to the player.

dont know... we saw this in smac and while the feeling of the unique civs with their ideologies was great, i ended up playing with the morgan 90% of the time...

quote: It boils down to quality vs quantity. You are asking for quantity.

actually, i'm asking for quality as well

[Harlan]

The people who are arguing that seven civs is enough are making "straw man" arguments. First, there is the argument that a huge number of civs like 32, or even more, would slow down the game. Whereas other people are generally arguing that something like 10 or 12 civs would be a good compromise amount, so people are arguing about different things. You can't say anything over 7 isn't necessary cos 32 is too much, it doesn't follow!

Another argument made by Darth is isn't it more important to have something like a better AI or an events language? This is silly, cos there's no good reason why you can't have a great AI, an event language, AND more than 7 civs. I hope Firaxis takes its time to make a great game, rather than cut corners and rush something out for the holiday season.

Then there is the argument that Firaxis, in their genius, actually want a max of 7, for really excellent gameplay - quality over quantity. Highly dubious. I compare the situation to how computers have some limitations in them still, based on the limits of DOS back in the early 1980s. For instance, having file names be no longer than 8 characters long, which can still be a problem today. In the same way, this 7 limit is no doubt because earlier games (esp. SMAC) had that limit, and so we're inheriting limitations based on the state of computing power from years back. There's no genius in that, just inertia.

My one hope is with the minor civs idea. Nobody really knows how they work. But if they in fact are more than just the barbarian civ with cities, that should go a long way towards making scenario makers happy. I hope someone from Firaxis could elaborate on those, and/or otherwise mollify concerns about this 7 civ problem. Its the worst problem of what sounds like an otherwise great game.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 04:34 PM It boils down to quality vs quantity. You are asking for quantity. Firaxis is focusing on quality. There will "only" be 7 civs but each one will be great!

Above pretty much sums it up. If I thought that each AI-civ would be just as lame as they where in Civ-2 & SMAC (mainly in overal strategical & logistical areas) I also would complain loudly.

I want a significant AI-improvement above SMAC, God dammit!

It just that its so totally misguided to think that shreding the available computing-time into smaller slices, and also by that creating even more opportunities for AI-civs to fight amongst each other, is going to be the heureka-solution for a stronger challenge/ better game.
Have you guys ever heard about "divide and rule"? It was what the british did in colonial India, and it is what the clever civ-veteran will do with too many mediocre sitting duck AI-civs in the game.

Also, may I remind you that many employers of Firaxis is visting this forum on a regular basis. They know pretty well that most civers want more then just 7 civs in the game. Why would they go against the majority, if they didnt have pretty good and substantial reasons to do that?

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 04-28-2001 05:41 PM My one hope is with the minor civs idea. Nobody really knows how they work. But if they in fact are more than just the barbarian civ with cities, that should go a long way towards making scenario makers happy. I hope someone from Firaxis could elaborate on those, and/or otherwise mollify concerns about this 7 civ problem. Its the worst problem of what sounds like an otherwise great game.

Touche' Harlan! My thoughts EXACTLY. Before everyone gets "wrapped around the axle" concerning the 7 (major) civs in play, we FIRST need to find out the "inside poop" concerning the mysterious MINOR civs which will be in play.

Here's just to few questions concerning the minor civs off the top of my head:

1. How many will there be?
2. What is the minimum number of minor civs which can be in play?
3. What's the maximum number of minor civs which can be in play?
4. Can we choose the minor civs?
5. What are the limitations of the Minor civs over the Major civs?

The answers to these questions (and others like them) can shed A LOT of light on the "limiting factors" of having the maximum of 7 major civs in a game.

[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited April 28, 2001).]

[MarkG]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-28-2001 05:46 PM It just that its so totally misguided to think that shreding the available computing-time into smaller slices, and also by that creating even more opportunities for AI-civs to fight amongst each other, is going to be the heureka-solution for a stronger challenge/ better game.

read my post above. noone talks about a stronger challenge due to the biger number of civs

quote: Also, may I remind you that many employers of Firaxis is visting this forum on a regular basis. They know pretty well that most civers want more then just 7 civs in the game. Why would they go against the majority, if they didnt have pretty good and substantial reasons to do that?

i'd like to hear them
i heard the reasons back in 1999 from activisioners who explained why the wouldnt have more than 8 civs officially and left it in a text file
in a year from now, 3 years later, when civ3 will be released, i'll have a computer running at least 3 times faster....

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-28-2001 06:05 PM i'd like to hear them

Your not alone one this one Mark!

[El hidalgo]

Count me as extremely, extremely disappointed about only having 7 civs to play at once, and only 16 overall. I want the Turks, the Mali, the Arabs, the Inca and Aztec and Maya, as well as all the others, except maybe the Sioux. The fact is 7 is too few, certainly for the large maps (my favorite kind). Does this imply anything about the map size limits, by the way, that maybe they too will be limited to the size they were in Civ2? Anyway, the minor civs and barbarians is a nice consolation prize, but they're only that: a consolation prize. But I am hopeful that will compensate. (Please, Firaxis make the limit 16 computer/human players!)

Something else that would help: the ability to pick any seven civs to play against out of all the 16. It always bugged me that I couldn't play, for example, the Germans and the French at the same time without having to change rules.txt. Yes, a better AI would help, too, since it sucks to be limited to 7 civs only to have most of them wiped out because they're so stupid, so it's just me against the Mongols or the Russians. I hope for the best and no matter what I will still buy the game, though maybe I shouldn't say that in case Firaxis is reading.... ;-)

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by El hidalgo on 04-28-2001 06:52 PM I hope for the best and no matter what I will still buy the game, though maybe I shouldn't say that in case Firaxis is reading.... ;-)

El hidalgo, I think it is safe to say that everyone here in Apolyton WILL buy CIV3 when it's eventually released - no matter what the limitations the game may have. After all, we all (to some extent or another) live, breathe and think this stuff!

Do I need a civ "fix" or what?!

[Kautilya]

"Another argument made by Darth is isn't it more important to have something like a better AI or an
events language? This is silly, cos there's no good reason why you can't have a great AI, an event
language, AND more than 7 civs."

In a perfect world maybe. But in reality Firaxis has limited resources and can't do everything. Given a choice between Firaxis working to make a better AI and adding more civs I know which I would prefer.

"They know pretty well that most civers want more then just 7
civs in the game."
Well if by that you mean that most civers consider more than 7 civs a high priority , I think that would be debatable. I don't think the polls on this site or this thread mean much since only those who feel passsionately about the issue bother to respond.

Civ3 will almost certainly be a big-selling game with hundreds of thousands of people buying and playing it. I somehow doubt that Apolytoners are a representative sample of this larger audience.
[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Zylka]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 04:34 PM I think a lot of you are making the false assumption that it will be easy to beat the AI, so you want more civs to make the game more of a challenge.

In itself a false assumption. I regard quality and quantity seperately, and am not asking for extra civs to increase difficulty.

[Roman]

Harlan, aren't you the proffesional scenario designer Activision hired to make scenarios for Ctp2? Thank you for your support - if Firaxis should listen to any members of the scenario community it should be people like you.