And secondly, there should be probably several hundred if not thousands of civs to choose from so that there will be ancient, renaissance, industrial, modern civs, as well as civs that have been around since the dawn of human civilization until today. Also, the variables can be programmed to cause older civs to more likely be destroyed early in the game and be replaced by more modern civs.

Having 100+ civs would not be hard to implement on a computer as long the total number of civs is divisible by 8. Take 128 for example. 128 bits divided by 8=16 bytes.

When programming, there are memory register and routines. Routines are the programming that run the logic and memory register record the results. The more complexity you add does not advance the resources required in linear fashion. It is an exponential factoring.

Think of it this way. With eight civs, your civ must relate to 7 other civs. You will feel differently about each civ. This is true for all eight players. That can be expressed as 2 to the 7 power. The "2" is the civ a as it relates to civ b. The "7" relates to how many civs in play other than yourself. (You will relate to yourself just fine ) When you want 100 civs that is 2 to the 100 power. That's a big difference!

Also, and this is especially true of Microsoft products, there are limitations within the OS code itself for certain operations. I think most CIV players are familiar with the graphical problems near the end of a game (2010..2020 AD) when you play the largest map. Your system can crash or misbehave. That is not because Civ was programmed poorly or your system is inadequate. Sometimes this is a function of the preset memory "set asides" that Microsoft programs in their OS for GDI (for graphics) and other memory registers for other system operations.

When these guys program games, they have to take all of that into consideration. Great concepts are lousy concepts if too many people have trouble with the feature. It can ruin a good game.

Reading through these posts, you can see the same request over and over again: playability, playability, playability. People are willing to sacrifice "reality" or really cool features to have an easy to play, balanced game.

The unbalanced AI feature with only eight civs is a constant source of irritants for CIVers. I can only imagine how much more of a problem that would be with 100 civs.

A bigger concern would be how the AI handled it though. AI is hard enough to make smart without having 99 opponents.

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-27-2000 11:38 PM Also, and this is especially true of Microsoft products, there are limitations within the OS code itself for certain operations. I think most CIV players are familiar with the graphical problems near the end of a game (2010..2020 AD) when you play the largest map. Your system can crash or misbehave. That is not because Civ was programmed poorly or your system is inadequate. Sometimes this is a function of the preset memory "set asides" that Microsoft programs in their OS for GDI (for graphics) and other memory registers for other system operations.

This is why I also suggested the following in the "Speeding up the game with 100+ Civs" thread. . .

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-27-2000 11:50 PMNow of course we all know that human players are slower than the computer. Humans have to think; computers just "get up and go!" But some people have very slow computers, so to compromise an extra utility should come with the game that takes into account such things as the speed of your processor, the amount of system RAM you have, how much video memory you have, the speed/size of your hard disk, etc., and calculates the maximum number of tribes that your computer is capable of handling without having any problems.

I'm telling you it's not a function of RAM, disk space, disk speed, processor of YOUR computer. It's a programming issue. Take my word for it, it would be incredibly difficult and I'm absolutely sure it would outstrip anything you could put together from computer equipment on the open market.

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-28-2000 11:33 AM Once again, a great idea, just not workable. I'm telling you it's not a function of RAM, disk space, disk speed, processor of YOUR computer. It's a programming issue. Take my word for it, it would be incredibly difficult and I'm absolutely sure it would outstrip anything you could put together from computer equipment on the open market. Unless you purchase 20+ risc workstation and network them together in your home. Of course the game would need to programmed to take advantage of this configuration. You think people complained about system requirements before!!!

Well then, have you asked Firaxis about this to see what they have to say?

I guess, in the wonderful land of theory that could be possible, if they were stripped down a lot..maybe in scenario's, you could have up to 32 'active' civs, who move units and plans strategies and stuff, and the rest 'inactive', only doing basic city management. After all, the thing that takes up the majority of AI time is moving units, as appose to basic city management and maybe even some diplomacy.

Maybe, in scenario's, we could even set a date for a civ to become 'active' and another to become 'inactive'. Just a thought of a bored chrispie.

Once again, I'm not busting your chops. I think it's a great idea and hope something like this is done. I have a lot of co-workers and friends who are programmers and I have asked them questions like this myself.

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-28-2000 02:17 PM I have sent an e-mail to Firaxis myself to see what they have to say about this. This will certainly settle the debate.

Somehow I doubt it.

I like the idea of "active" and "inactive" civs. But shouldn't the "active" ones stay that way thruout the game? That way they'll be more of a challenge to the player.

quote: I mean think about it, realistically, in today's world there are well over 100 nations! And don't you think it would be wise to have the ability to simulate the existence of these nations--to simulate the part that they took in a modern-day, or industrial revolution, historical scenario? It WILL make such scenarios quite historically accurate! Even in the times of renaissance here on earth there were lots of civs around.

i mean really do you really need to simulate Mauritania or Liechtenstein to create a good scenario? do they really have that much influence on world affairs?

just wondering

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-28-2000 11:33 AM Once again, a great idea, just not workable. I'm telling you it's not a function of RAM, disk space, disk speed, processor of YOUR computer. It's a programming issue. Take my word for it, it would be incredibly difficult and I'm absolutely sure it would outstrip anything you could put together from computer equipment on the open market. Unless you purchase 20+ risc workstation and network them together in your home. Of course the game would need to programmed to take advantage of this configuration. You think people complained about system requirements before!!!

Programming lots of nations and their diplomatic relations is not difficult at all. It has been done several years ago in "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance". The real question is: will it add anything at all to the gameplay? I have my doubts. Chances are, having many more civs will merely increase the luck factor, unless it would be much, much harder to conquer a city. But then we would have a totally different game.

- The looong, looong turns that Stefu talks about is a second BIG problem.

- The AI-programming nightmare that i am talking about is a third really BIG problem. Both Civ, Civ-2, SMAC and CTP have had unit-navigational and diplomacy-related bug-problems managing only 6 AI-civs. And that above problems would grow NOT logaritmically, but exponentially by adding 90+ independent AI-civs.

- The fact that Firaxis only staff 25+ people, and only maybe 3-4 dedicated to AI programming is a fourth BIG problem.

- The fact that Firaxis *must* release a game that is playable also on at least 2 year old machines to ensure the maximal of potential customers is the final nail in the coffin.

Ribannah quote: "Programming lots of nations and their diplomatic relations is not difficult at all. It has been done several years ago in "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance".

Not difficult at all, huh?
Somehove i believe that making comparisons with a several year older and a lot less complex DOS-game is rather irrelevant.

Anyway, lets hope Firaxis will answer jrhughes98 mail.
Quote: "This will certainly settle the debate".

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 10-29-2000 02:05 PM Ribannah quote: "Programming lots of nations and their diplomatic relations is not difficult at all. It has been done several years ago in "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance". Not difficult at all, huh? Somehove i believe that making comparisons with a several year older and a lot less complex DOS-game is rather irrelevant.

BtGA is in many ways more complex than Civ2, especially the diplomacy part. It's just not as good. The version I have is playable over the Internet btw.

There have been pen & paper games more complex than Civ2, which is in fact not a complex game at all. It's trying to play the game WELL that creates the complexity, that is what makes it so great.

Ralf, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. It is hardly any extra work to allow for 100 civs. On the contrary, with fewer civs the artificial intelligence needs MORE work to make it a challenge.

Speed and memory are not an issue with a mere 10,000 relationships. The expansion is only quadratic btw, not exponential.

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 10-29-2000 05:41 PM [QUOTE]Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-29-2000 05:08 PM Still waiting for a response from Firaxis. . .

[/quote]

No, silly! I can see you haven't done your homework.

Games with voluminous programming code, more features with more complexity have more bugs and inter-operability problems. It's basic to Software Engineering. Refer to http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/
That's who told me!

In never heard of "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance." I might have to check that out to see how that works. Worth my while?

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-29-2000 05:51 PM I think Ralf is making a lot of good points. I don't understand why you would say that adding more complexity to a program will make it run better and without additional problems. Increasing the number of civs will magnify any bugs that do exist. Your premise of a more complexity game easier to program than a simple game is not in synch with what we see in the industry. Games with voluminous programming code, more features with more complexity have more bugs and inter-operability problems. It's basic to Software Engineering. Refer to http://www.sei.cmu.edu/cmm/ That's who told me! In never heard of "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance." I might have to check that out to see how that works. Worth my while? I seriously doubt we will hear anything from Firaxis, so it will most likely wait until product release.

You know, if Firaxis just decided to "keep it simple" then we would end up with a game not much better than Civ2. It'll be just like Microsoft's pitiful upgrades from Windows 95 to 98 to ME. I expected something much more from each upgrade of Windows and Microsoft just didn't deliver it. Let's face it! This is the 21st century and high standards is a very BIG priority!!!

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-29-2000 05:51 PM No, silly! I can see you haven't done your homework.

you sent a mail to firaxis perhaps less than 24 hours ago, and on a Saturday, and you expect an answer????

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-29-2000 05:51 PM I think Ralf is making a lot of good points. I don't understand why you would say that adding more complexity to a program will make it run better and without additional problems. Increasing the number of civs will magnify any bugs that do exist. Your premise of a more complexity game easier to program than a simple game is not in synch with what we see in the industry.

My point is that increasing the number of civs DOESN'T add complexity. It doesn't even add (much) programming code. In fact it's likely to reduce the code. Naturally this would change if Firaxis would think of a way to actually do something with the new scale, like introducing religion as is discussed in another thread.

About "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance": as a game (by SIERRA), it could have been better. I find it interesting because of some of the features. It is a mix of strategy & adventure - with to my taste too many compromises in both fields. For discussing Civ3, the diplomacy is very interesting, as well as the use of leaders.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 10-29-2000 02:05 PM - The looong, looong turns that Stefu talks about is a second BIG problem. - The fact that Firaxis *must* release a game that is playable also on at least 2 year old machines to ensure the maximal of potential customers is the final nail in the coffin. [This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 29, 2000).]

I can see someone hasn't been doing their homework.

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-27-2000 11:50 PM Again, a simple solution: Allow a maximum of about 10 human players and about 90 AI's on a HUGE map (with units that can move around much faster than in Civ2). In the game setup you can choose the maximum number of human players you want, and the minimum and maximum number of AI's you want (for when tribes split apart, form federations, etc.). Now of course we all know that human players are slower than the computer. Humans have to think; computers just "get up and go!" But some people have very slow computers, so to compromise an extra utility should come with the game that takes into account such things as the speed of your processor, the amount of system RAM you have, how much video memory you have, the speed/size of your hard disk, etc., and calculates the maximum number of tribes that your computer is capable of handling without having any problems.

So anyone out there who wants to wait 3 hours a turn, then by all means do it, f*ck the people who sh*t on you.

But the 100 civs would not be set on a world that is 100/7 times as large, they would be smaller empires on average. Also, you could opt not to see all moves in sight.

So, what exactly is the problem?

However, when creating/playing a scenario, there can be as many civs to start with as the game can handle.

Well, often it can't work! Programming life isn't so easy: every time you consider to put anything IN game, you must build a data structure that can manage it, build functions to cope with them, adapt AI to consider that option if ON (and ignore it if OFF!).

"Option" mean the QA staff must test&debug twice (On and Off), but that's not enough, because every option could grow the tree as power of 2!

Raising the max number of Civ is not simply a matter of personal taste. AI tactics must change because game will change when the number of civ per map square change so widely, mid age diplomatic relations will be too much to be managed easily.

To keep game turns short enough with 100 civ (players will complain anyway, if the game will slow down too much at larger setting, we know ), Firaxis must spend most of the optimization about this aspect, avoiding much more important task.

Don't take things so lighty, options is not a magic word to solve problems, more a source of problems itself

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 11-01-2000 06:04 PM Too many times I read about debated game features: "make it an option". Well, often it can't work! Programming life isn't so easy: every time you consider to put anything IN game, you must build a data structure that can manage it, build functions to cope with them, adapt AI to consider that option if ON (and ignore it if OFF!). "Option" mean the QA staff must test&debug twice (On and Off), but that's not enough, because every option could grow the tree as power of 2! Raising the max number of Civ is not simply a matter of personal taste. AI tactics must change because game will change when the number of civ per map square change so widely, mid age diplomatic relations will be too much to be managed easily. To keep game turns short enough with 100 civ (players will complain anyway, if the game will slow down too much at larger setting, we know ), Firaxis must spend most of the optimization about this aspect, avoiding much more important task. Don't take things so lighty, options is not a magic word to solve problems, more a source of problems itself

Someone hasn't been doing there homework again.
Check out the text in bold below.

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-31-2000 05:27 PM ***E-MAIL RESPONSE FROM FIRAXIS*** Subject: RE: Question about Civilization III Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:55:47 -0500 From: "Kelley Gilmore" kgilmore@firaxis.com To: jason-hughes@home.com Hi Jason. Well, in our minds the question is not whether or not it's technologically possible for Civ III to support 100+ civs in a single game, but what will make the gameplay most fun. In this case, more is not necessarily better, so the number of civs will be determined by what the development team feels will be best for the game. Thanks for your note. Kelley Gilmore Communications Manager FIRAXIS Games (410) 891-3001 x131 Email: kgilmore@firaxis.com www.firaxis.com -----Original Message----- From: Mr. Jason R. Hughes [mailto:jason-hughes@home.com] Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 11:57 AM To: pr@firaxis.com Subject: Question about Civilization III Dear Kelley Gilmore, What are the chances that Civilization III could support up to 100+ civs in a single game? Is it technologically possible? Is this in Firaxis's plans for Civ3? If not, is Firaxis even considering such a thing? Cordially, Jason Hughes Civilization Fan

quote: Originally posted by rremus on 11-02-2000 10:25 AM Too many civs are difficult to handle by the player, not by the computer! You won't be able first of all to distinguish between unit nations (the color will be clearly insuficient). even with 16-24 civs, banners will need to be added to units and they should be easily distinguished. Secondly, it will be difficult to concentrate to the diplomatic relations involved in the interaction of soo many civs. Who's allied with who? Who's in war with who?

To me I think the diplomatic relations between the very few major civs in the game is what's important. You can tell a lot by looking at this information. As for the several dozen minor civs, pay them no heed!

Instead of colors, use flags.

For some reason everyone is on this linear turn idea for starters. I play my turn, then you yours, and Bill his, and Sally hers and then back around the loop again ... this is crappy idea from the get go. Let everyone play/submit their turn at the same time and let the server queue the actions in a logical transaction based way.

As for the AI Shogun Gunner is right, it could consume a great deal of resources if implemented imporperly. But what's stopping there being a maximum number of AI countries? Nothing. Make a max of 16 and let the rest be humans.

Someone mentioned graphics. Once again still thinking in terms of Civ II and the little colored shields on the units ... what's to stop using little flags of say 20x15 pixel flags? It takes less computing power and resources to Bit Block Transfer a little flag than it does to paint a little shield shapped image some color, and even if they didn't paint every little pixel and did use bitblt then a little flag is still as inexpensive.

On CTP2 forum, Payray, an activision developer, explained the concept about game resources.

The reply from Firaxis, instead, simply try to concentrate about another subject; I spoke about "the magic word option" more in a way like what is described by the cartoon "Mickey Mouse Sorcery Apprentice", if you saw the Walt Disney original "Fantasy"

Look, this is becoming more like a religion war: no way someone can change the mind of someone else.
Enjoy yourself and be happy: let's hope Civ 3 will be good enough to play with 16 or 100 civ.