Only 7 civilizations per game

[Roman]

BTW - People who are pinning their hopes on minor civilizations to rectify this limit will most likely be very disapointed. By now many details of the game have emerged, there have been several previews and the Firaxis website has a wealth of information about Civ 3 and other than the barbarian cities there is no sign of minor civilizations, which would be a major change to the game and hence would almost certainly have been already mentioned. The only way to squeeze out more civs out of the system would therefore be if they allow the limit to be modifyable in the text-file.

[Ilkuul]

quote: Harlan: 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 made a very similar comment earlier in this thread; and I'd like to underline Wittlich's point that we really need to know more on this vital issue. To his list of 5 questions for Firaxis, I'd like to add another:

6. Will it be possible for a city/cities that revolt to become a minor civ?

To me this is of crucial importance, because it would add great depth and interest to the game if your own empire can fall into civil war, with a whole section of it breaking away to become a separate minor civ. It would add realism to any attempt by conquered cities to rejoin their original civ, as in the short term they could become a minor civ, with diplomatic negotiations in both directions, and possibly end up as independent from either of the two major civs.

This, IMHO, would go a long way towards mitigating the 7-major-civ limitation.

[Zylka]

Excellent point Ilkull. Perhaps that might be worked in to the new culture aspect they are inroducing, regions of constant revolt and asymmetrical culture to the whole tending to break away easier.

[Wittlich]

Yes Roman, even though I hope it will be otherwise, I have to agree with you. Yes, in the corner of my mind I continue to hope for some earth-shattering break-though concerning the Minor Civs. But I have to accept that what you say is most likely true - the "Minor Civs" will most likely play a very "minor" roll in CIV3 - given the fact that we have heard basically NOTHING concerning the minor civs except that they (the minor civs) will be included in the game...The only thought that keeps my hope alive is that Firaxis is being very secretive concerning the "major" roll that the minor civs will play in the game (trade secret and all).

Without hope, what else is there?

[Insigna]

"Seven" This is an outrage.They must be joking or somthing this is one of the most important aspects of the game and it has not improved scince civ 1. The more civs the more realistic it would be. Hopefully the minor civs will make this problem barable. If your computer cant take 16 or so then just don't play with 16.

[Wittlich]

I concur Insigna, if you have a low-end computer and can't keep up with the number of civs, then just play with fewer...but to limit folks who have a cutting-edge type computer does sound rather restrictive.

[Roman]

This is a quote from one scenarion maker on the scenario forum:

quote: Originally posted by Exile on 04-28-2001 More than 7 civs is the least we could ask for, and they've blown it already. What is wrong with the game companies? No matter how hard I try, I cannot imagine what possible motivation any designer could have for sticking to the 7-civ limit. You know, my hopes for the next civ game did not include ONE SINGLE THING, except more than 7 civs. THAT was all I wanted. Everything else; who cares. But more than 7 was the VERY LEAST they could do. Now we find out that Firaxis can't even manage that. I am dumbfounded. What derogatory term carries sufficient weight to describe such a stupendous blunder? There isn't one. Sticking with 7 civs; It is inconceivable. Firaxis; it figures. Exile

This also speaks for many others, though.

Ok, personally I will still buy the game, but the reaction on the scenario forum has been a complete outrage (not a single post supporting this limit). I think many of the folks there might not.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Wittlich on 04-28-2001 08:08 PM the "Minor Civs" will most likely play a very "minor" roll in CIV3 - given the fact that we have heard basically NOTHING concerning the minor civs except that they (the minor civs) will be included in the game...

To be honest I think that it is extremely likely that what they mmeant by including minor civs was the barbarian cities.

[Insigna]

I also sometimes liked to play a spoiler roll as a small civilization some times, i can't see this being done with minor civs.

Also I think the other reason they went for 7 was the higher you go the worse the AI gets. But they should at lest give us the option i mean if we want to play a better ai Then we go for 7 or a low number and if we want more civs chouse more which will sacrafice some ai probably but there is no reason not to give us the option to chouse.

[The diplomat]

I am sorry folks but I still don't get it: why is more civs better?

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

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.

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

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.
[This message has been edited by The diplomat (edited April 28, 2001).]

[jdlessl]

Ok, Diplomat, you don't see the extra fun inherent in having more civs. Fine. You are a member of the 8% that wants to keep it the same. But there's the other 92% who wants more, and to keep you happy at the expense of everyone else just plain sucks. Especially when having >8 civs allowable allows us to play how we want and you to play how you want.

Furthermore, all the arguments about it being too processor/memory intensive are bogus. If my setup can only support 8 players, fine, I'll only play with 8. But if I've got a 1.7GHz P4 with a gig of RAM, don't even talk to me about what it can't do. And this game isn't even released for another year! People are still playing Civ2, 5 years after it was released. Computers are, in gneral, 8 times more powerful than they were then. So even if there's a hardware limit on the number of civs now, that may not be the case in the next few years. I guarantee you I could play Civ1 with a hundred civs on my system. To deny extra playability for all time is just silly.

Ok, worried about extra civs messing up the gameplay? As I understand it, Civ3 is not SMAC in that the civs are not going to be different from one another. There's no balancing of that sort needed. And even if there were, there were 14 different civs in SMAC, all painstackingly balanced to be fairly well playable no matter which factions were actually playing. And still, they only let you play a few of them. Ack!

Why have more, you say? Why not? Since we've never played a game of Civ with more than 7 factions, how do you know that it doesn't leave ordinary games in the dust?

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

[El hidalgo]

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? if the game is fun, challenging, addictive, complex, realistic with 7 civs, isn't that good enough? 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. If the game is fun and challenging with 7, why have more?

Well, speaking personally, it's just that it would be more fun for me. I've hardly ever played Civ 2 with less than 7 civs, and certainly never with 3 or 4. 7 is almost a minimum; it's just average for me. It's just what I want. I would like it. There is so much that is fun and challenging in the world even without Civ 3, but Civ 3 is just something I want! It's just another thing to make it more enjoyable.

And regarding balance, I don't see how it would make a difference. If all civs have unique abilities that balance out with 7 or them, why would it be any different with 9? If a game with the Germans and the Spanish is balanced, why wouldn't a game with the Germans and the Spanish and the Carthaginians etc. be balanced, extending this beyond 7? If balance is achieved with 3 or 4 or 7, how would adding an 8th change things? I just don't understand, if all 16 civs are balanced in terms of their abilities when you play any 7 of them against each other, how would they be less balanced if you played all 16 at once?

[MidKnight Lament]

I'm not going to write a thesis here because it's all been said somewhere in the thread, but I'd just like to put my hand up.

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.)

------------------
- MKL ... "And a sun that doesn't set but settles" - Augie March
Shameless Plug: http://www.poetic-license.org ............. All welcome.

[SK138]

I think it would have been great to have more than 7 civs per game, but that is what were all used to so it can't be that bad.

[Cyclotron]

I have mixed feelings on this topic...

I personally would only play with about 7-10. Having more Civs than that is pointless, since all you do is make the game less chalenging by watering down your opponents, into "bite-sized" pieces ready for systematic conquering. I have no idea in a normal game who would actually want more.

On the other hand, being myself a modest scenario maker for Civ2 (VERY modest!) I can understand how this is bad for the community of people who want to make larger scenarios. I sympathize with this idea, and I think that they have a good point that this expands creativity and choice.

The biggest guideline of what I want for Civ3 has always been more choice and less restrictions, to increase strategy and satisfy more people. Therefore, I see no alternative than to conclude that more civs are inherently better for the game than less civs, within a reasonable limit to be dependent on logical limits of computing. I see no problem with 32 or 64 civs... I would never play this, but that does not mean I should call for limitation of those who would.

So, I condemn Firaxis' decision as unessecarily restrictive and alienating to many prospective civers. Think this over first, Firaxis!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"