quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-27-2001 10:48 PM The main reason i want more civs is this, in a regular game 100 turns in and you have 5 civs. When i play ctp2 with 14 civs, 100 turns in i have 8 civs. While more have died, you are still ahead and have more civs. The only prob with ctp2 it takes to long, so by mid game comp turns took a couple minutes. Just depends on ones patience, at least id like the option for more civs.

It appears that the desire for more civs is partly based on this assumption that since a few civs will be conquered pretty early, we need more starting civs to balance this out. Perhaps, this assumption is false. Looking at the new resource model that will put an emphasis on trade and the culture model that will make pacifying conquered cities harder, it seems to me that Firaxis is aiming for all 7 civs to be as strong and active and long-lived as possible. If so, doesn't this change our debate? Do we need more civs if all 7 civs are going to be much stronger and active than before. What if all 7 civs will typically last through much of the game and be very active?

Frankly I don't care if there are 7 civs or 4,000,000. I got along just fine with 7 in Civ, Civ2, and Call to Power 2 (even though it had the capacity for more).

The argument that fewer civs hinder mod development is bunk. There are at least 500 scenarios for Civ2. I have made at least 8 secnarios and each one had 7-8 civs (barbarians included obviously).

You guys are acting like Firaxis just took a pee in your corn flakes. So what if there are 7 civs? Are you trying to tell me you won't buy Civ3? Bully!

Sure, there are times when I'd like to have 9 or so, but is it a major roadblock to scenario development? Hell no. I'd rather Firaxis concentrate on more important issues like Graphics importation, Events, and other modification abilities in the game to make it as easily modifiable as Civ2.

Having no macro language and difficultly importing new units is a MUCH MORE important road block to scenario development than not having fourty billion civs. Do you have any idea what kind of system you need to run a game with 20 civ AI? That's going to seriously hinder your audience and serious mod developers know/should know better than to eliminate their audience.

Then we start to talk about the Unit Limit. There is going to be one--that's how programming works--whether it is hard coded or simply a stack overflow or another kind of system limiter. What it is--do we know yet? I do not. The more civs you have, the more units that have to be on the map. And unless you like max unit errors, you're going to want fewer civs.

You honestly have to ask yourself though, and let's take the prolific ww2 scenario as an example, if the Serbians are actually important to put in so that your scenario has 27 civilizations? I think not. Most scenarios can easily slip away with 7 civs, and possibly less. Hell, you could get away with two or three in a worst case scenario.

It's all about your own end of the design process. Are you so absolutely miserable at design that you can't work within restrictions? Or do you plan things out ahead of time to work within the constraints you are given?

However, while a seven civ limit is just fine, it would be nice to have the ability to change it to something higher. But is it the end of the world as you portray it?

I can see a lot of reason for keeping the AI controlled civs to a mximum to allow a stronger AI. But what about MP when htere may be no AI's or jsut a few... Why not in MP allow more civs to allow more humans to play, of course this may make an already slow game slower, but me thinks it would open up a few interesting battles...

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 01:37 PM This poll clearly shows that the vast bulk of Civ fans want more than 7 civilizations per game.

That particular poll is only meaningful if each voter fully understands the AI/gameplay consequences of each alternative. And they dont.

------------ Edited:
At least those who limit themselves to max 16 simultaneously playing civs at least took gameplay complications and hardware limitations into account then they did that choice. They perhaps didnt understood the programming/AI/hardware side with above 7-8 civs in a random-map turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3 - but, hell: thats no crime.
-------------

Those however, who voted for 32, or even more (64, even "hundreds"). Frankly, I just cannot take those 26+43 = 69% seriously at all. It is just to much "off the roof" to even comment.

Also; why not read (and respond to) Darthvedas post? Pretty solid arguments if you ask me.

About scenario-designing: Dan Mahaga specifically asked us all what was important to add then creating/playing scenarios. Check out this link Civ3 editing tools: what do *you* want to see. Not much talk about the drop-dead importance of 32+ AI-civs in that thread.

------------ edited:

quote: For example, almost everyone plays Civ 2 with all seven civilizations rather than using the options of having fewer civs in a game.

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 04-28-2001 10:09 AM I´ve just seen that in the SLeague, I can only agree with all posts that say 7 civs are not enough!!! Fireaxis has said the scenario making options are fine in Civ3. But good scenarios require often more civs, so please, Fireaxis, GIVE us more of them!

I completly agree.

ALLOW AN EVEN TEN CIVS AT A TIME, PLEASE!!!
It's not that radical a change from seven, but would still be a huge improvement.

Even eight would be an improvement, just make it a LITTLE bigger, please

It boils down to quality vs quantity. You are asking for quantity. Firaxis is focusing on quality. There will "only" be 7 civs but each one will be great!

Personally, I prefer quality over quantity.

Another argument made by Darth is isn't it more important to have something like a better AI or an events language? This is silly, cos there's no good reason why you can't have a great AI, an event language, AND more than 7 civs. I hope Firaxis takes its time to make a great game, rather than cut corners and rush something out for the holiday season.

Then there is the argument that Firaxis, in their genius, actually want a max of 7, for really excellent gameplay - quality over quantity. Highly dubious. I compare the situation to how computers have some limitations in them still, based on the limits of DOS back in the early 1980s. For instance, having file names be no longer than 8 characters long, which can still be a problem today. In the same way, this 7 limit is no doubt because earlier games (esp. SMAC) had that limit, and so we're inheriting limitations based on the state of computing power from years back. There's no genius in that, just inertia.

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 hope someone from Firaxis could elaborate on those, and/or otherwise mollify concerns about this 7 civ problem. Its the worst problem of what sounds like an otherwise great game.

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 04:34 PM It boils down to quality vs quantity. You are asking for quantity. Firaxis is focusing on quality. There will "only" be 7 civs but each one will be great!

Above pretty much sums it up. If I thought that each AI-civ would be just as lame as they where in Civ-2 & SMAC (mainly in overal strategical & logistical areas) I also would complain loudly.

I want a significant AI-improvement above SMAC, God dammit!

It just that its so totally misguided to think that shreding the available computing-time into smaller slices, and also by that creating even more opportunities for AI-civs to fight amongst each other, is going to be the heureka-solution for a stronger challenge/ better game.
Have you guys ever heard about "divide and rule"? It was what the british did in colonial India, and it is what the clever civ-veteran will do with too many mediocre sitting duck AI-civs in the game.

quote: Originally posted by Harlan on 04-28-2001 05:41 PM 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 hope someone from Firaxis could elaborate on those, and/or otherwise mollify concerns about this 7 civ problem. Its the worst problem of what sounds like an otherwise great game.

Touche' Harlan! My thoughts EXACTLY. Before everyone gets "wrapped around the axle" concerning the 7 (major) civs in play, we FIRST need to find out the "inside poop" concerning the mysterious MINOR civs which will be in play.

Here's just to few questions concerning the minor civs off the top of my head:

1. How many will there be?
2. What is the minimum number of minor civs which can be in play?
3. What's the maximum number of minor civs which can be in play?
4. Can we choose the minor civs?
5. What are the limitations of the Minor civs over the Major civs?

quote: Originally posted by El hidalgo on 04-28-2001 06:52 PM I hope for the best and no matter what I will still buy the game, though maybe I shouldn't say that in case Firaxis is reading.... ;-)

El hidalgo, I think it is safe to say that everyone here in Apolyton WILL buy CIV3 when it's eventually released - no matter what the limitations the game may have. After all, we all (to some extent or another) live, breathe and think this stuff!

Do I need a civ "fix" or what?!

In a perfect world maybe. But in reality Firaxis has limited resources and can't do everything. Given a choice between Firaxis working to make a better AI and adding more civs I know which I would prefer.

"They know pretty well that most civers want more then just 7
civs in the game."
Well if by that you mean that most civers consider more than 7 civs a high priority , I think that would be debatable. I don't think the polls on this site or this thread mean much since only those who feel passsionately about the issue bother to respond.

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.

Without hope, what else is there?