Actually, it's a good thing to have dreamers around here, not only realists like me

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 11-05-2000 02:09 AM I saw this from Ralf's link (which I think is in the news drop down combo), and I'll quote the bloody thing for lazy people. It's about how they can't have 32 civs in CTP2:

... and the answer I gave there still applies:

quote: If the map is of the same size or even say 4x as large, the number of unit interactions will not grow quadractically. There will be more civs, but they will be small. Or a lot will have perished already by the time the entire world is covered. If we modify map-exchanging to exclude unit locations, growth in this respect will in fact be non-existant since the civs will only know about units in the proximity of their own towns and units. Diplomacy options may grow quadratically - in the extreme case that all the civs are still in the game and all have contact - but that doesn't take much computer time even for 100 civs.

In another thread I already mentioned the fact that Sierra's "Birthright: the Gorgon's Alliance" (1997) has a large number of civilizations, which all have diplomatic relations with each other right from the start. "Imperialism" has quite a few nations as well, and has no problem at all handling a much more intricate diplomacy system than Civilization.

The essential question remains, however: does increasing the number of civs add anything to the game?

But one thing I would like to have cleared up is the meaning of civ in the game. Does it imply an entire civilization like Greco-Roman or Mesopatamian? Or does it apply to nation-states, cultures, or tribes? Anybody know the developers' answer to these questions?

quote: But one thing I would like to have cleared up is the meaning of civ in the game. Does it imply an entire civilization like Greco-Roman or Mesopatamian? Or does it apply to nation-states, cultures, or tribes? Anybody know the developers' answer to these questions?

I would believe it applies to nation-states ate the very least; the developers most likely considered the Sioux as a nation-state tribe, though the Iroquis would be better suited for this.

The major difference, tho, is in MoO III (sci-fi genre) expansion is limited by technology, thus giving each empire a chance to build a "base" for the empire. In Civ III, if a few civs start on the same continent, finding the most goodie huts the earliest will give you (or the AI) a good chance to knock off a coupla enemies before they know what a wheel is.

quote: Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

Good point Urban Ranger. Of course we must consider that Chess is a more "deterministic" game, while Civ has some more "random" elements:
- starting points are different (chess is specular) and some are better than others
- some battle results are a bit uncertain (same unit fighting, you can't see who will win), while chess ones are clearly predefined (an attacking piece will ever win over the defender)

Well, to make it short, random elements loose the rules a bit, so a balanced number of Civs can make things more interesting, as far as AI can manage it. In fact Minor Civ (as many interesting suggestion already posted, as predefined "city place") is probably a way to help AI to keep the mid-late game interesting.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 11-14-2000 05:12 AM The reason why Civ 3 can have less major civs than Imperialism II is mechanics. The former is just a lot more complicated than the latter. Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

You forget that chess computers don't have a Deity advantage!! Also, a simple $100 chess computer beats 99,9% of all chess players, even though humans, too, have only these "limited interactions and options" to consider. (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.)

Why do you say that Civilization is more complicated than Imperialism? I don't think it is. Not that the Imperialism AI is so tough ....

Also, there is no law that says a game becomes more difficult just because there are more parties. Some games do, but other games become easier (Magic) or have an optimal value somewhat higher than the minimum (Mah-Jong).

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-14-2000 08:07 PM [quote]Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-14-2000 02:30 PM (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.) Thats quite impossible since the total number of atoms in the universe are utterly immeasureable due to the fact that the universe is expanding on nothingness every second.

By the time enough atoms have been generated the universe will have returned to a mere singularity.
The game of chess will probably need some adjustment by then

quote: Not to mention that at the theoretical 'borders' of this universe do not have laws of physics making atoms and other matter a concept that cannot be fully understood by the human mind.

As far as I know the boundary of the universe is out of reach. It is not a part of the universe, just a mathematical concept, and therefore has no real physical laws at all.

I can pretty much build 220 cities on the Earth with 7 civs now. So a much larger city cap and map size is needed for the 14 civs or the game will become crowded.

Many of the you (Tiberius, HsFB, Ribannah, UltraSonix, DarkCloud, to name a few) have explained this point well. For those of you who like to say, "Computers are getting better all the time...they should be able to handle x, y and z" most likely are not software engineers. These expectations of huge Civ III games with so many features and so many civs seems so easy for non-programmers! If you doubt me, read a book on C++ or some other similiar computer language and you tell me how easy it is.

Good point about number of cities created by all civs and map size. If there are a substantial increase of the number of civs, I would assume a reduction in the number of cities created by each civ. That just goes to follow unless map size is increased. Logical.

You get the idea in Civ II that the designers did not anticipate people would let their civ grow past 20-30 cities. You always run out of automatic city names around then. That puts good use for my National Geographic maps in my office! If the designers did anticipate larger empires, why not add to the city name listing? They can read a map also, I assume. I guess my complaint is that when I'm playing in the middle of night around 3 AM (after sending an email into work telling my boss that I'm not feeling well ha ha) I don't want to turn the light on and study the map each time I settle another city.

And fellas, we will NOT have a recount. LOL!!!

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 11-22-2000 08:26 PM Well, the poll is finished, has been taken off this forum and the results are in, with the majority wanting more than 64 civs! ... And fellas, we will NOT have a recount. LOL!!!

If you think 28% is a majority, we'd better have that recount! There IS a majority for more than 24 civs though.

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-22-2000 06:47 PM If you doubt me, read a book on C++ or some other similiar computer language and you tell me how easy it is.

Whoever said they've got to use C++ to do it?

quote: Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 11-25-2000 10:51 PM And what do you recommend? Can we get a response not using the encyclopedia this time?

Careful, careful! For using some kind of resource, whether it be an encyclopedia, a dictionary, a trustworthy website or some other kind of resource, it's better to have proof of something than to literally be called a liar and get pushed around by others.

I'll get back with you on this one. . .

quote: Originally posted by Zero_Tolerance on 11-26-2000 02:10 AM I'll get back with you on this one. . .

No need.

Why does everyone assume that it's 64 with 20 cities each? I would be much happier (and much more likely to finish a game) if I could have three cities total for most of it.

And, I will be the Swiss Civilisation

But I am sure Sid Meier will done his job well