posted May 11, 2001 14:02

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-11-2001 01:10 PM If they aren't in the game then well I guess the brand new computer I bought last summer to handle Civ III was not needed. Oh well, Black and White was worth it...

ROFLMAO, you bought a new computer just to play Civ III ? That's what I call dedication to Civ.

	posted May 11, 2001 17:00

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-11-2001 02:02 PM ROFLMAO, you bought a new computer just to play Civ III ? That's what I call dedication to Civ.

Well, I wanted a new computer. And I wanted to find out how to build one on my own. Being able to play Civ III was the final icing on the cake.

	posted May 11, 2001 17:27

I think that Firaxis should include more civs, but allow you to choose how many you want, regarding to the speed of your computer. If you had a P4 1.5 Ghz. with more than 256 RAM, then you would want to play with as many civs as you can. Now if you have a P2 200 Mhz. with 32 RAM, then you would play with less civs!

	posted May 11, 2001 17:56

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

	posted May 11, 2001 20:58

Roman did you ever consider working for world peace?

Your dedication to your cause of having multiple civs is awesome my friend

	posted May 11, 2001 21:14

quote: Originally posted by paiktis22 on 05-11-2001 08:58 PM Roman did you ever consider working for world peace? Your dedication to your cause of having multiple civs is awesome my friend

LOL - Maybe in Civ 3 .....

	posted May 12, 2001 07:29

quote: Originally posted by Mahdimael on 05-12-2001 03:45 AM The whole "more than 7 civs" thing never really interested me, actually. Play a game with 7 civs on a normal sized map in civ 2. In general, you can usually make about 10-15 cities (not using ICS). I just think that a bunch of civs in a game, while it may be interesting, would really limit how much fun you could have. You would have 3 cities and be boxed in by opponents. I would say that the option should be available to include more, but a standard 7 is a good way to go.

Well, I think you are missing the point. More than 7 civs is not so important for a standard single player game - it is important for scenario making.

	posted May 12, 2001 22:57

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-12-2001 04:09 PM Thanks for your continuing support, java4me! Together we make a good anti-7-civ-limit team.

Lets just hope that Firaxis listens to us!!!

	posted May 12, 2001 23:18

One more thing: will this thread stay on until the release of Civ3? I think Roman needs this thread for some sort of therapy or anger management.

	posted May 13, 2001 01:34

Actually, 7 is the traditional limit on the boardgame, even tho you have 9 sets of player tokens.
Lirath

	posted May 13, 2001 13:48

Congrats for your behemoth thread, Roman

	posted May 13, 2001 14:26

Just adding my 2 cents @@ to my disapproval of a 7 civ limit. I don't need 30, but 10-15 would be nice.

	posted May 13, 2001 18:09

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 05-13-2001 01:48 PM However, I would like to see at least the option of increasing the max. number of civs past the customary 7. What does it take? A swift juggle of the code?

The problem isnt so much about implementing such an option.

Its about the blatant discrepancy between what civ-players imagine the AI can handle effectively, and what what AI-programmers realize the AI can handle effectively.

If anything; the CTP-2 flopp should learn Firaxis how all-important and crucial the question of a good enough AI-response is, and how quickly even the most loyal civ-enthusiast turns 180 degrees and rants furiously about "that crappy AI". Then this happens, then the fact that "we at least have 16+ simultaneously playing civs to play around with" suddenly feels like a very, very weak and unimportant compensation for most civers. Now, admittedly a limited number of AI-civs didnt help in Activisions case - but allowing 16, or even 32+ AI-civs on the same map would definitely NOT be a good thing, thats for sure.

By the way, click on THIS LINK. Perhaps you guys can learn something from it.

Anyway; im all in for the max 7 (or 8) civ-limit. I have nothing against unofficial backdoors though. If Civ-3 comes with some undocumented text-file tweaking methods what enables 16 simultaneous civs - then so be it.

	posted May 13, 2001 18:55

quote: Originally posted by Mathphysto on 05-12-2001 11:18 PM I think Roman needs this thread for some sort of therapy or anger management.

ROFLMAO, If they do keep the limit I will probably need therapy.

	posted May 13, 2001 18:55

If you want a good game you should be willing for the AI to take as long as needed. I would hope that Firaxis can do better with the AI then Activision even if it does take forever. And yes I agree you need at least 32 civs for a good world scenario. I was going to make one for CTP2 but I started getting bored with CTP2 and gave up. Hopefully if civ3 lets me I'll make it for that. When I was dividing the world up into 32 civs I really had to cut corners for example I had to put all the Former Soviet countries to the south in one nation. There should be an option of having as many civs as you want up to around 100. So what if this would take 10 minutes a turn on a P4 1.5 Y?ou could start off as a tiny African country and work your way up to control a country the size of the US. All right I'd be the first to admit that I'm dreaming for that type of game you'd need a whole new Shadow President type system.

BTW I never make sense when I write long posts so dont worry even I dont understand it.

------------------
" Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few "

	posted May 13, 2001 18:56

quote: Originally posted by Lirath on 05-13-2001 01:34 AM Actually, 7 is the traditional limit on the boardgame, even tho you have 9 sets of player tokens. Lirath

No reason to limit it in the computer game.

	posted May 13, 2001 19:00

quote: Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave on 05-13-2001 05:13 PM The very fact that Jeff still didn't answer this HOT question (with an easy answer - YES otr NO) might mean: They have decided to keep 7 civs hardcoded and don't want to dissappoint us before E3 show. 2. They haven't decided yet?!? (if they already decided to support more than 7 civ's I would think they would have showed some mercy and told us already) Out the first two I hope it is the second!

Yes, this is what I am thinking and it worries me.

	posted May 13, 2001 19:02

quote: Originally posted by JosefGiven on 05-13-2001 01:48 PM I would like to see at least the option of increasing the max. number of civs past the customary 7. What does it take? A swift juggle of the code? Congrats for your behemoth thread, Roman

Thanks.

	posted May 13, 2001 19:06

quote: Originally posted by java4me on 05-13-2001 05:23 PM I bet that we will find out at the E3 this year. So keep your fingers crossed that they decided to allow more than 7 civs!!!

Unfortunately, the exams at my university end on the 17th, which is when I am leaving home. I don't have internet at home and hence I will have no clue as to what is revealed at E3 for 3 months until I come back to uni. I will only be able to see what is revealed on the first day (17th), so I hope Civ will have its turn at this time, but I am sceptical.

	posted May 13, 2001 19:30

quote: Originally posted by java4me on 05-13-2001 07:18 PM Man that sucks!!! That means that you won't be posting anything online for three months, let alone find out what is happening with Civ3. Maybe someone could send you letters or something!!! Or get internet connection at your house. I don't know if I could last that long without an internet connection!!!

Tell me about it!

Unfortunately, an internet connection is expensive...

And, as you correctly point out, what will happen to my thread over those three months?

	posted May 13, 2001 19:54

My other idea was that you could have someone mail you weekly or monthly updates of what is happening with Civ3.

Otherwise I don't know what to say!!!

I will probably continue writing on other peoples ideas while you are gone, and continue this topic as long as possible!!!

That is the best that I can do!!!

	posted May 14, 2001 06:42

quote: Originally posted by java4me on 05-13-2001 07:54 PM My other idea was that you could have someone mail you weekly or monthly updates of what is happening with Civ3. Otherwise I don't know what to say!!! I will probably continue writing on other peoples ideas while you are gone, and continue this topic as long as possible!!! That is the best that I can do!!! Lets see how long this forum gets, let alone how long it lasts!!!

I think the updates will have to pass. I will be moving around quite a lot over the holidays... Anyway, there will be few people looking forward so much to return to university as I.

Thank you, for offering not to abandon the topic. It would be best, though, if Firaxis allowed me to rest in peace over the holidays by making a firm statement on the issue.

	posted May 14, 2001 06:45

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 05-13-2001 06:09 PM The problem isnt so much about implementing such an option. Its about the blatant discrepancy between what civ-players imagine the AI can handle effectively, and what what AI-programmers realize the AI can handle effectively. If anything; the CTP-2 flopp should learn Firaxis how all-important and crucial the question of a good enough AI-response is, and how quickly even the most loyal civ-enthusiast turns 180 degrees and rants furiously about "that crappy AI". Then this happens, then the fact that "we at least have 16+ simultaneously playing civs to play around with" suddenly feels like a very, very weak and unimportant compensation for most civers. Now, admittedly a limited number of AI-civs didnt help in Activisions case - but allowing 16, or even 32+ AI-civs on the same map would definitely NOT be a good thing, thats for sure. Anyway; im all in for the max 7 (or 8) civ-limit. I have nothing against unofficial backdoors though. If Civ-3 comes with some undocumented text-file tweaking methods what enables 16 simultaneous civs - then so be it.

Once again, I must reiterate that having more than 7 civs per game is an issue of customizability for scenario-makers rather than an issue for playing an ordinary single player game. BUT since you agree on tweaking through text files AND that is what we are asking for anyway, we are not actually in disagreement.

	posted May 14, 2001 06:50

quote: Originally posted by Darkknight on 05-13-2001 06:55 PM If you want a good game you should be willing for the AI to take as long as needed. I would hope that Firaxis can do better with the AI then Activision even if it does take forever. And yes I agree you need at least 32 civs for a good world scenario. I was going to make one for CTP2 but I started getting bored with CTP2 and gave up. Hopefully if civ3 lets me I'll make it for that. When I was dividing the world up into 32 civs I really had to cut corners for example I had to put all the Former Soviet countries to the south in one nation. There should be an option of having as many civs as you want up to around 100. So what if this would take 10 minutes a turn on a P4 1.5 Y?ou could start off as a tiny African country and work your way up to control a country the size of the US. All right I'd be the first to admit that I'm dreaming for that type of game you'd need a whole new Shadow President type system. BTW I never make sense when I write long posts so dont worry even I dont understand it.

Don't worry, we understand you. You want more civs just like the rest of us.

	posted May 14, 2001 06:56

quote: Originally posted by Deathwalker on 05-14-2001 03:51 AM So is Sid going to tell us how many players they will be in a game. Or are we going to have to wait until the game is released?

You see, this is worrying me too. I am afraid that the question did not get answered, yet, because Firaxis does not want to dissapoint us. After all there has been sufficient interest in the issue and our posts were not inflamatory, calling for a boycott or anything of the sort. They were polite arguments. Hence, the most plausible explanation probably is that they just do not want to dissapoint us, so they are not answering.