How many civs in Civ 3?

[raingoon]

32 civs? 64? I'm afraid that's become a marginal issue, something that might be possible for those who like to tinker with the game files, a la CTP. But the more I think about it, the more I like what I believe Firaxis is actually doing. They are most certainly limiting the maximum number of Great Nations to 8 (including yours) and I would guess 8 Minor Nations. As I said above. So that gives you a sense of a complex Civ world, which I think in practice will please even the 64+ grognards.

[kolpo]

if they ahve 8 major and 8 minor civs then is there a very easy way to let people play with more major civs, an option: minor civs get no penalties.

My main agrument for more civs is: quite everyone I know plays civ with the maxium number of civs: 7(barbarians aren't a civilization in my view). If quite everyone plays with the maxium number of civs doesn't that then not mean that many people like to play with amny civs.

I also remember me a poll where quite everyone choosed for 7+ civs, so it looks me just a fact that the majority of the players likes to play with many civs.

And you don't have to be affraid that it will take them much time to change the number of civs, making a game with 2 civs or with 64 civs is quite equaly difficult because they can reuse quite all code they just have to increas ethe size of some arrays, an di fit is well programmed have they only to replace:

Const max_number_of_civs 8
with:
Const max_number_of_civs 16 or 32 or 64 or ...

And those who prefere less civs have no reason to complain because the options to play with less civs will be still there(and will be selected by default I think).

There can be even a memory and CPu test at the start of the program to determinated the maxium number of civs you can choose in the menu's.

the majority likes it(see polls) those who don't like it have nothing to lose because they can still play with less. Nobody loses everyone wins or stays equal at least I see no problem with it.

[Ralf]

The number of simultanously plaing AI-civs is most likely to be max 6 or 7.

More AI-civs means less indevidual computing-time for each AI-civ. That goes without saying. And since the AI in Civ-2 left much to be desired, I think its more realistic (and more clever) to wish for a "quality-before-quantity" approach on this issue.

[Roman]

I must respectfully disagree Ralf. I believe the AI in Civ3 will be little better than is in Civ2. It seems that coding for AI is simply a very difficult programing task. Moreover, most people find the current AI challenge enough and would rather have more civilizations. The issue of AI, though, is irrelevant, because if you like playing with less civs, as you say - the AI would get more computing time anyway, or the people playing with more civs would have to wait longer, depending on the approach Firaxis chooses for timing the AI. Either way, you would be unaffected and people who like playing with more civs could wait the extra time it takes for the AI to move.

[SerapisIV]

Where is the Firaxis post regarding these minor civs? I don't remember reading much about them.

[MrFun]

I too, disagree, Ralf.

With Call to Power, or Call to Power II, a mid-ranged, older computer can compute and handle 16 to 20 civilizations very well. So, computing speed and time need not be a concern.

Plus, the quality need not suffer if more than 8 civilizations are added.

[MetalDeathRacer]

You can choose from only 16 civs?? No! Even in civ2 you can choose from 21 ones, and in CTP from 45 (Though there are some weird civs that no fit well in the game).
I don´t mind if you only compete against 10 or 11 civs, but i like to have more civs to choose! Variety is quality.
Add some classic civs to the 21 of civ2, like mayas, incas, arabs, phoenicians, hittites, ottomans and hebrews.

Cya

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 04-09-2001 05:47 PM And those who prefere less civs have no reason to complain because the options to play with less civs will be still there(and will be selected by default I think). There can be even a memory and CPu test at the start of the program to determinated the maxium number of civs you can choose in the menu's. the majority likes it(see polls) those who don't like it have nothing to lose because they can still play with less. Nobody loses everyone wins or stays equal at least I see no problem with it.

No, I'm not complaining. If Firaxis can build a good Civ III managing a thousand of Civ, fine!

But anything isn't free in software developement: if they must spend time checking and optimizing code to cope with a playable 64+ nation game I fear they'll left out some other feature. Is A LOT MORE than define and checking some constant into the game. That's exactly the way to throw tha game out of design borders, hence to have a bad game (bad balancing, inept AI, etc.), but I see lot of people don't agree with me: no problem, I'm not here to force anyone to See The Light

OTOH, I'm in favour of your "recommended max civ" test, just to help players to enjoy the best compromise with their available HW.

[MrFun]

MetalDeath -- please read the previous posts on here. I have clarified for the 100th time that I would like 40 to 60 civilizations to choose from and to have 16 civilizations in an actual game.

Let me know when I need to CLARIFY AGAIN for anyone else.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-09-2001 05:59 PM The number of simultaneously plaing AI-civs is most likely to be max 6 or 7. More AI-civs means less indevidual computing-time for each AI-civ. That goes without saying. And since the AI in Civ-2 left much to be desired, I think its more realistic (and more clever) to wish for a "quality-before-quantity" approach on this issue.

Sorry, I see your point about computing-time, but I disagree

First, I'm not speaking of simultaneous as Real Time like "every players move units on the table as fast as possible", it's the Simultaneous turn as we mentioned into CIV III Essential thread: every civ give orders, then "hit" a Ready to Resolve (end turn) button. When all players are ready (give a max time limit, if you want) the system will try to resolve every order, managing mutually exclusive situation (e.g. enemy units trying to move into the same square).

That said, the order process could be managed in parallel tasks until the Resolve phase start. Given the human response time, IMHO we can squeeze plenty of CPU power to manage a lot more than 6-7 AI factions without a boring turn waiting for human player. Yes, we divide the CPU but as Multitasking vs Sequential has proven, the whole job is more effective

The Resolve phase will be watched more like a continuous movie and been very smooth to see, and enjoyable (at least if anything as end buildings and battles will happen ).

That said, Quality before Quantity is good for me, too! Simply I think that given CIV III classical Turn Base the limits is probably around 8 Main Civ plus 8 Minor Civ (just a guess). I remember someone of the CTP II team explained all the programming trouble with lot of factions on the table, somewhere into the CTP II forum, before CTP II goes gold.

Any game company will like to put on the box the highest number of players it can manage: if they didn't so we can see there is a problem we can't reduce to "lazy programmers"

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[raingoon]

Something tells me there are more interesting things than are dreamed of in this thread...

First, I looked it up and the first mention of Great/Minor Nations that I found was actually Jeff Briggs explaining how Great Nations will have the ability to produce Great Leaders. But Sid mentions it at one time after that, specifically using the term Minor Nations.

Clearly anyone planning a Great and Minor nations system is thinking differently about this, something like the 8 + 8 scenario. This is far better than simply adding 24 more civs and widening the game. This is evolutionary thinking, not incremental thinking. Who cares if the map is more crowded or if the AI can handle it or not? Who cares if the river is a mile wide if it's also an inch deep? Simply adding more civs does nothing but widen the river. The probability here is that Sid has come up with a way that both widens and deepens it. I'm betting Minor Nations creates a deep diplomacy/trade/combat interaction that is quite nuanced and complex, unlike any Civ game to have come before. And to say you can't wait to just edit the rules so that Minor Nations become Great Nations (as if that will even be possible) is like saying "I can't wait to turn Civ 3 back into Civ 2." You'll excuse me while I YAAAAAAAAWWWWWWWWWNNNNN... huh? Where am I? Oh yeah.

Quality not quantity. That's where it's happening. Nobody cares anymore about the number of civs poll, 32, 64, etc., ad nauseum. It's dead, it's done, it's over, it's boring. I'm saying this is going to be a very different game then the one I being discussed with respect to quantity of civs. A far more interesting game. Alright, I'm sitting down now.

[Adm.Naismith]

Yes Raingoon, let's hope Sid and all the team will find the magic design again

[Roman]

Hmm, while minor civs on top of major civs would satisfy my desire for more civs per game, I think you are being overly optimistic on the issue. The last mention of minor civs was in the very early development phase of Civ3 and neither the new preview, nor the Firaxis website mentions minor civs. I fear the idea may have been "dropped".

[kolpo]

and it is also possible that minor civs are included in the maxium number of civs. So 8 civs would mean : 4 great civs + 3 minor civs + barbarians.


And I hope it will be possible for players to play with minor civs and that minor civs can chance to greats civs(happened often in history all civs started as minor civs) and that great civs can change to minor civs(example: Mongolia, Italy, Egypth).

[kolpo]

maybe great civ will change to minor one if it surrenders and a minor one can chance to a great one by winning a war against a great one(is possible if great one is very weak, Th eRoman empire was destroyed by minor civilizations from which some became major civilizations(like France))

[Cyclotron]

Raingoon is entirely right. If anything, huge amounts of civs will make the game easier, because instead of a single united enemy you will have many warring against themselves and unable to coordinate attacks. The sheer amount of civs is pointless past a certain reasonable amount (I think 8 to 10), and then it spirals into stagnant thinking. Minor civs really are the way to go, and I hope Firaxis does a good job with them.

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

[SerapisIV]

This might be extraneous, I guess it is already assumed that the AI will actually be one that is able to fight amongst itself, as SMAC did. It would be pointless if they went back to CivII where a war amongst the AI meant 5 units every 50 turns would were lost. Sometimes whole civilizations were lost but only because the losing civ stunk from the get go.

[Maccabee2]

The more the merrier! Just an excuse to go out and buy a faster, better computer. ("But honey, without a faster computer, I can't play my new game." {Use puppy dog eyes here.})

[King Richard]

As long as specific civilizations doesn't appear at the same time, I can't see the problem in having hundreds of civs! Romans and italians and bysantines can't be in the same game... When it comes to how many civs that can play at the same time, It really boils down to the map-size. If there is so many, that you can't build more than two or three cities before encountering a foe, then we have a problem! But offcourse: Someone out there might like the idea of instant war...

[Roman]

I do not understand why some people are arguing against the possibility of playing with many civs at the same time. It is no more difficult to program than 8 civs per game and they don't have to play with so many if they don't want to do so. Moreover having the possibility of more civs per game allows much more flexibility in scenario making.

[King Richard]

I see your point. You can have a lot more civs in a game, but you cant have certain civs at the same time, since a lot of civs have the same cities...

[Maccabee2]

I like the idea of minor civs. CTP's inclusion of recently independent nations (Jamaica, Nicaragua, etc.) along with old empires annoyed me.
Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.) (It's after 2 a.m.; the games not out yet, and I'm already addicted!)

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by Maccabee2 on 04-14-2001 02:09 AM "...(It's after 2 a.m.; the games not out yet, and I'm already addicted!)"

I can relate Maccabee2! My roommate and I have gone back to "trying" to play CTP2 Multiplayer - only because we both need a "fix" of something "civishly" new, and to date, we still haven't been able to finish one game of CTP2 - because of the massive bugs inherent in the game and the basic "unplayability/stability" of it...Talk about someone constantly ASKING to be slapped around!

I guess it's just a sign of a true civer! So you're not alone in the yearning for the eventual release of CIV3!

[kolpo]

Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.)

I think that is unavoidable. Quite all important current European nations where once a part of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire has started many cities from which many are still very important. Quite all American Nations are created by Spain, England and Portugal. But they are all(both Europeaan and Americain) independent nations with there own culure. And so is it also with Byzantium. Byzantium was indeed once a part of the Roman Empire but it became independant and has developed it's own culture, which was very different from the Roman culture and it is that culture that has still a very big influence on Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, ...

[King Richard]

quote: Originally posted by kolpo on 04-14-2001 05:30 PM Also, I agree with the idea of ensuring that the same people didn't appear under different names (as in the post mentioning Rome, Byzantium, and Italy.) I think that is unavoidable. Quite all important current European nations where once a part of the Roman Empire, the Roman Empire has started many cities from which many are still very important. Quite all American Nations are created by Spain, England and Portugal. But they are all(both Europeaan and Americain) independent nations with there own culure. And so is it also with Byzantium. Byzantium was indeed once a part of the Roman Empire but it became independant and has developed it's own culture, which was very different from the Roman culture and it is that culture that has still a very big influence on Greece, Russia, Yugoslavia, Macedonia, ...

About the roman thing: It is true that the romans created a lot of the major european cities of Spain, France, England etc. My point is that these cities were quite insignificant in the roman empire, and probably will not even be programmed as roman cities. If they do: You can use their roman names (Londinium, Lutetia, Byzantium etc.). This makes it possible to have other nations inside the roman empire included. Concerning using civs like Italy and byzantium, it gets a lot harder: Rome is the capitol of both Italy and Rome, and Byzantium (Constantinopel) and Caesarea are major cities in both Rome and Byzantium. A possible solution could be to have both the romans, the byzantines, the egyptians etc. but to use the city-names of the western-roman empire to the romans, and the city-names of the eastern-roman empire for the byzantines (minus Egypt...)