Anyway, I note that some people actually want more than 64 civs... What I want to know is: WHY???

quote: Originally posted by Narck on 10-30-2000 07:25 PM Interesting comment from Monk in the list of comments Anyway, I note that some people actually want more than 64 civs... What I want to know is: WHY??? Is a game with that many civs enjoyable to play, or, for that matter, playable at all? I have some serious doubts about this

Yes, Narck! We want more civs because it enhances the top 3 aspects that Civ fans feel are most crucial: AI, Customisability, and Diplomacy. And on a personal note, I feel realism is most important, and this will also add realism to the game.

quote: Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-30-2000 08:09 PM Yes, Narck! We want more civs because it enhances the top 3 aspects that Civ fans feel are most crucial: AI, Customisability, and Diplomacy. And on a personal note, I feel realism is most important, and this will also add realism to the game.

I don't know, I think there should be a lower limit than 64 or even higher... I have a feeling it's going to add too much realism to the game (as in: games will take FOREVER to complete - I don't think I would like that)

1, computers will get better all the time, in 2 years, I could still play Civ3 and have 100 civ's playing at once.

2, it makes scenarios better.

3, you can choose whatever number of civs you want!

4, it applies to everyones wants!

5...6..7..

Though, I understand this question "How many civs in a game?" a little different: "What should be the MAXIMUM number of civs from which I choose the civs I play with when I start a game?". So, if the max. number is 32 or 64, I still want to have the possibility to choose only 16, when I start a game.

quote: RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES!!!

I, on the other hand...

quote: Originally posted by Narck on 10-30-2000 10:45 PM And you don't think this option would make the games way too long, and complicated? I don't know, I think there should be a lower limit than 64 or even higher... I have a feeling it's going to add too much realism to the game (as in: games will take FOREVER to complete - I don't think I would like that)

No, it doesn't have to take forever. For more information, follow this link ---> More civs, long turns? No way!

32 is easily enough for any scenario, I mean 100 civs...there is no way you'd be able to have relations with that many civs and not come out of it with a headache.

Of course we will have less huts, but minor civ will add benefit (or trouble, if enemy) for more than one shoot!

Adding some special to minor civ (to balance their presence in game, making less useful to simply crush and conquer their cities), we can realistically manage as many as a grand total of 32 (main+minor civs).

Main civs must be no more of 16 because of playability reasons, while minor civ can easily appears during game by empire split, refugee founding a new city, etc. as long there is enough room on the map).
I don't want to dispute about PC resources and AI ability to manage so many Civ as more than 64.
I simply think that few human players can manage and enjoy more than 64 diplomatic relations, trade, global (UN) council, front of war.

While at the beginning you probably know as few civ to keep things under control, very quickly the number of units and different borders on the map will bog down you, IMO.

i just don't think it would be possible on a 300 mghz pII machine with 64 MBs of ram...which is what i think that civ3 should be able to run on

what does everyone else think civ3's minimum requirments should be?

quote: Originally posted by korn469 on 10-31-2000 03:05 PM i just don't think it would be possible on a 300 mghz pII machine with 64 MBs of ram...which is what i think that civ3 should be able to run on what does everyone else think civ3's minimum requirments should be?

The minimum requirements should be right about what you think it should be, korn, however, Firaxis has mentioned that it will support the capabilities of higher-end machines. Take Civ2 for example, which had the option to turn heralds on or off. For more information click here --> Civ3 FAQ and look for "What will the system requirements be for the game?"

quote: Originally posted by Dr.Oogkloot on 10-31-2000 04:42 PM To all you people who are arguing for 8-32 civs: what's wrong with having the OPTION to play with more than 64 civs? Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play a game with lots of civs, just because you don't want to play that way yourself? More is better!

Oh yeah! Man, that was good!

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,

Has anyone seen any solid info about the game yet? Anything???

quote: Originally posted by chrispie on 10-31-2000 06:19 PM Hmmm, reading the FAQ page and that email...I'm starting to see a pattern...summed up well in the phrase "we want to be sure the game is fun before we commit to a specific set of features". Has anyone seen any solid info about the game yet? Anything???

I haven't, but here's an idea. Firaxis has mentioned in the FAQ that they develop all their games starting with months of prototyping because they want to be sure the game is fun before they commit to a specific set of features. Well, what if they released a prototype of Civ3 in the form of a beta. The beta doesn't have to be for a price, or with a limited set of features. It can be FREE fully functional beta that will stop functioning by the time beta 2 is available, and beta 3, and will probably stop there. This way the customers (fans, players) can play the beta and comment, make suggestions, and/or report bugs to Firaxis. BESIDES, THE CUSTOMERS ARE THE ONES THAT REALLY KNOW WHAT'S FUN AND WHAT'S NOT!!! TELL FIRAXIS TO GET TO IT!!!

"Opens txt file, changes civ limit from 24 to 100 as he pleases".

quote: Originally posted by ContradictioN on 10-31-2000 08:02 PM Firaxis: That is a pile of rhino poo, and you know it. "Opens txt file, changes civ limit from 24 to 100 as he pleases".

LOL!! Would a beginner know how to do that? Besides, what about support for huge maps to accomodate those 100+ civs?

You can say, I want the computer to generate 50,000 by 50,000 and if your computer is powerful enough to handle that and 50 civilizations at once, then do it. You know in 2 years we're gonna have 5ghz computers. Ram won't be a problem either. They should be allowing the possibilities instead of limiting the games capabilities.

They will be making a mistake if they don't allow this, unless the games engine is going to be completely different.

quote: 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.

Thank God that the people there at Firaxis didn't lose their commom sense.

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 10-31-2000 01:21 AM For me personally having more civs in the game at the same time is the no. 1 priority.

Historically... the world developped having well-over Eight Civ's. Knowing that "actual" economic models, polarize some if not many COUNTRIES to their interest, it is fair to say that less than 32 civ's is tediously unaccurate.

Another recurring theme here is the long turns argument. The only plausible way this could effect Civers like me is if we do play a MULTIplayer Civ III game with well over 16 players. Obviously this would be slow, but who would drag themselves into this? If you play multiplayer you are obviously gonna have a choice of how many civs in the game. So if you wanna stay out of long games you have the logical choice of keeping the game short by choosing a low civ limit. I don't wish to see a low limit of major civs (8 or 16 in my opinion) just because some shortsighted people have a momentary lapse of reason when it comes to imagining future multiplayer games.

Choices is what this should come down to. Please just try to imagine a choice on the number of civs. If you understand my argument then the compromise on number of civs can placate many different civers. The number of civs should not be predecided at a low limit where the game is planned for you like you were living in a communist state. It is bad enough we have to be warmongers in a "civilization" game, but we should not be limited in the numbers of civs to war against.

a PBEM capable mode of play could run one turn a day. each player submits their turn orders to the server via email or whatever mecahnisim the server host can deal with and then all the reports and updates are sent out after the turn is proccessed.

This is how multiplayer strategy games have been played for years, except for Empires, and I mean the orginal game from 1972 that ran on a VAX ... not the single player DOS game.

These one turn a day games last for a long time and lots of people like it that way. It allows for indepth diplomacy and trade, something you just can't get in RTS or in the current CivII multiplayer enviroment.

quote: Originally posted by JESSVG01 on 11-03-2000 01:12 AM If they implemet PBEM correctly then there is no reason not to allow a very large number of players on a very large map. a PBEM capable mode of play could run one turn a day. each player submits their turn orders to the server via email or whatever mecahnisim the server host can deal with and then all the reports and updates are sent out after the turn is proccessed.

This i can agree on. As long as the human players does the thinking and the decision-making, and the AI is reduced to have the role the go-between who just carry out the instructions - the number of player could be *much* higher then 8.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 11-03-2000 03:50 PM This i can agree on. As long as the human players does the thinking and the decision-making, and the AI is reduced to have the role the go-between who just carry out the instructions - the number of player could be *much* higher then 8. It can be a practical problem to gather 32 (or more) people and keep them interested, but thats another problem.

The problem is that

1) they still intend to design the game to be playable by people Vs Ai for theose new to CIV games

2) that said they also need to keep a game that is suportable by systems at the Advertised proesing power

3) They dont have the 1.5gig Pentium IVs now to even think of benchtesting a game that uses that level of prossesing power,

4) they may provied a .txt file for gettin the game to alow you to reset the civ count to 2002 Civs on a 100k x 100k map if you think your PC can hack it, but dont expect to see them mention a word about your being actualy able to run more than the advertised AI Primary civs on the specified mapsizes in anthing ofical, after all the last thing they want is bad press for people playing a game on a "Minimum playable specifications" Rig with 128 cives on 50kX50k map, or when people sudenly realise that keeping track of more than 8 civs at a time is hellishly hard, especialy when you also have to keep track of their individual aliances!

Why you ask? Simple.

1) The more the merrier, from Canada, Mexico, Switzerland, etc etc. It makes it more historical and allows better reprepsentation for more campaigns and the people who buy the game.

2) I hear people complaining about games being longer. Please, this is Sid, and im sure he will have options to have 1-7 civiliaztion playing (like Civ2) or anywhere above 7 to play in a massive game.

3) I don't see why everyone has a problem with more civilizations? Its not like you will have to play all 64 all the time! Look at it this way, if you had more coloured pencils in that 64 kit, it would make the job a lot easier, and look nicer, and more accessible than the regular package of 7 or 8.

If he thinked twice, he must put online a poll with only three moderated choices:
"do you want eight, ten or twelve CIV?"

Think of this poll as someone asking "Do you want to pay, next year:"
1) same tax than this year
2) half than last year
3) no tax at all

I bet wich will be the most popular answer, while in fact none will consider the consequence on national finance!