Now if you ask me, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have 7 truly unique and interesting civs to play than 64 so-called civs whose only differences are player color and AI aggressiveness. One of the great things about SMAC, of course, was the difference in each faction. We can debate just how well that was done, but it was a step in the right direction if you ask me.

So, this is not a matter of "The computer can't handle more than 7 civs." We all know it can, especially if they are not different from each other. However, 7 honestly, truly unique civs would put a TREMENDOUS drain on the programmers, artists, sounds guys and play testers to make sure it all works, looks, sounds and plays well. And yes, if this is what they are really doing, then adding even 1 more civ would translate to a hell of a lot more work.

This looks like Sid once again making the right decision to go for quality over quantity. If you want a game with at least the mental image of lots of civs to play against, play Europa Universalis. Just keep in mind, though, those civs are hard coded on a pre-determined map and have no real difference from each other besides starting location and starting resources (oh, and diplomatic stance). Not only that, but EU only spans 300 years and is therefore much more limited in terms of what could unbalance the game.

If this 7 civs detail is really true, AND if it indicates what I hope it does, Civ3 will be MUCH better than I had imagined!

Anyway not everyone wants unique Civs. One of the basic ideas of Civ is that you start off from very basic origins so it makes sense that the Civs are similar at the begining. They become different later by choice of strategy. I personally think the right way to unbalance the game is through the Wonders that players choose to build and the strategic choices the players make rather than initial attributes.

16 civs total = 4 art sets (Far Eastern, European, South American, Middle Eastern...or something like that). This way you can have Japan, China, and Korea all share the same art etc. Better to have 4 really good art sets shared by 16 civs than 16 civs using 16 uniquely crappy art.

7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power. More like programming time. With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

Kautilya:

I actually have the game unopened here while I finish Baldur's Gate 2 (GREAT game!). So I'll know more then I suppose, but thanks for the feedback.

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 03:59 AM 7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power.

Well, you know what I think about the latter. Anyway...

quote: With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

My underlining. Good point! This should be the MAIN issue here. We can all draw conclusions from the CTP-2 failure. All the hailed features (hailed by many, not all) turned out to be very quickly forgotten, once it became apparent that the AI-civs where sitting ducks (well, more or less).

A very big slice of attention should instead evolve around: How can each AI-civ be more responsive and competitive! How can the game-mechanics and the rules be designed to achieve that goal? How can the built-in limitations in Artificial Intelligence be cleverly worked-around as much as possible? How can they add "AI-friendly" rules and features, thus enabling as "straight roads" for the AI-civs as reasonably possible? How can we make the text tweak-files more extensive and more accessible, letting the know-it-all civ-veteran "spoonfeed" the strategic AI-civ priorities and build-choices much better then ever before (in this latter respect the CTP-2 game where actually very tweakable, the way I heard it).

quote: Originally posted by yin26 on 04-29-2001 03:59 AM 7 civs in a game = Play balance. Nothing to do with computing power. More like programming time. With a limited set of civs, they can really work hard on making a competitive game, since they well know that there are lots of expert civ players out there who will be VERY disappointed if the comp can't put up a good fight.

Aha, so they could well come up with a modpack tested for playing with, say, 12 civs at a time. This Modpack could come something like a year after the original release, if they need programing time. I'd be happy with that.

But I'm afraid they won't do it. Instead, they'll come with the "seven civs are hard-coded" crap, and they'll move along to a new game, a new job, or whatever...

But now that the 7 civs limit seems to be confirmed, the "how are you going to patch/extend the game after the original release" comeas as a very good question for the "Ask the civ team" section.

But I seem to recall that you (yin) were very concerned with how Firaxis were going to release a buggy Civ3, and then not bother to fix those bugs in upcoming patches...

It's a fair question. My attitude began to really turn around the moment Sid took control over Civ3. Up to that point, he was on the fringes doing his own stuff. Assuming he got REALLY involved with Civ3, I have much less to worry about. Also as far as a modpack, it's a money for them.

1) Make early-game conflict realistic and relevant.
2) Minimise micromanagement by giving each player fewer cities to bother with.
3) Eliminate ICS by eliminating empty space.

quote: Now if you ask me, I'd MUCH MUCH MUCH rather have 7 truly unique and interesting civs to play than 64 so-called civs whose only differences are player color and AI aggressiveness.

Oh, I see Yin. You'd rather have the game source code determine the individuality of your Civ instead of you controlling it. Well, some of us like to play a game where we have some control over our own civs. You sound just lazy to me!

"flexibility!!!" (that spartan chick in SMAC)

there should only be 7 big ones, but those should change status during the game, through wars, revolutions, economic collapse etc, making them into minor civs and other minors would become majors. i know that it will be he*l to code, but it would be worth it.

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 03:39 AM Of course, Yin, there might not be 7 civs at all in the game. Going back to Europa Universalis, the 7 might be the number of MAJOR Civs, which are unique... however, there may be a vast quantity of MINOR Civs, allowing for perhaps 16 Civs in a game, but only 7 being of the MAJOR variety. But no one has explained to us about minor civs, only that they will be in there.

Isn't anyone concerned about about these minor civs? Granted, from a realism perspective, this idea sounds very good, but from a playabilility standpoint, these civs sound like cannon fodder for a warmongering human player.

This is where the diplomatic aspect of the game really needs to be developed, because the whole game will fall on its face if these minor civs end up being easy targets. A possible solution would be to have regard drop to the point that all other civs will gang up on the civ that attacks the minors. But this would actually prevent the AI from picking on the minor civs within the game, because then the AI would end up weakening a potentially strong human opponent, making the game easier for the human player.

I personally hope for unique civ's, like SMAC. I never useed the faction editor, but if the game comes with 16 we should be able to create own, even with grafics. (Like SMAC)

A game 7 majors and some minors would sound OK to me, just as long as I don't know the majors in advance. Best would be that in the beginning there are n minors as game begins. Then you are allowed to become a major. The other major's could then be chosen acording to for example speed, first four to reach the minor max size become major's. The best reasercer at the time that fourth minor (from speed) becomes major is made a major and the last major is randomly chosen from rest.

Also the civ's must be able to adjust to the game.
Ex. Let's say a game of SMAC were Spartans are alone on a continent. They are not threatened for the first 150 years => Maybe they shouln't be as aggressive if you compare to a game were Spartans spent first 150 years between Yang and Deidre.

quote: Originally posted by Jeje2 on 05-04-2001 09:16 AM A game 7 majors and some minors would sound OK to me, just as long as I don't know the majors in advance. Best would be that in the beginning there are n minors as game begins. Then you are allowed to become a major. The other major's could then be chosen acording to for example speed, first four to reach the minor max size become major's. The best reasercer at the time that fourth minor (from speed) becomes major is made a major and the last major is randomly chosen from rest.

But you will know very quickly who is the minor civs are by monitoring the power graph...then polish your swords and go hunting!

quote: Originally posted by hexagonian on 05-04-2001 11:06 AM But you will know very quickly who is the minor civs are by monitoring the power graph...then polish your swords and go hunting!

This is a concern. I think, overall, diplomatic penalties, etc. will have to be the safeguard against overpowering such civilization. In addition, the "culture factor" Firaxis has been hinting about could be a minor civ's most potent weapon, as even a small civ with high culture could be very hard to keep control of.

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-04-2001 01:29 AM I cannot understand what all the debate is about, especially since nobody knows what the maximum allowable number of Civ's is going to be. We don't even know what a "minor civ" is, but yet everyone is either for it or against it, that really bafles me? How can you have an opinion of something in which the facts are not known? General arguments can be made, but it seems that these are arguments based upon someone else's deciphering of the infomation that Firaxis has provided and then turned that information into what they consider fact.

I tend to agree with that statement, though it is quite fun to read over everone's interpretations and ideas. In fact, I have seen quite a few brilliant ideas so far. The main point being, there is still very little known about how the game is actually going to play, but I do believe it is going to be superb and a lot better then the standard faire or game that is being produced now-a-days.

quote: Originally posted by Grumbold on 05-04-2001 02:06 PM In EU there are different cultural groups with their own unit mixes. As tech upgraded the army icons change to reflect the new armament. That much will certainly appear in Civ III. Now for the killer: Every army flies its national flag. Every minor nation state. And they ripple in the "wind". Ultimately I am hoping Civ III will support the potential for dedicated modders to create unique unit graphics for every single country but I do not expect that variety "out of the box". Something better than differing base colours to spot who the unit belongs to is a must. Race customistion is something I have expounded about before. If too much is predefined by the name you pick at 4000 BC I will be very disappointed. No nation that has survived for an extended period of time has had the same strong characteristics throughout its existence. They need to shift and flow as circumstances and the player decide. Ensuring that there are viable choices to make throughout history, not just one optimum path, is the key to bringing the game alive.

\

agreed. German "expertise" in armor (for example) basically lasted from 1939 to 1943 by which point the soviets had superior tanks, and had pretty much caught up in tactics. It is absurd to build this sort of thing into the civ.

and look at the term that inevitably comes in "race" customization. Germans, english, romans, etc are not races. But the notion of superior charecteristics built in at 4000 BC is inherently one tied to race.

Now I know Yin is not concerned about the historical implications of this,since he does not think this is a historical game anyway - battleships take decades to go around the world, yadda, yadda.

Well then - why not just drop the pretext of "history"? lets drop the real world maps included with the game, lets add CTP style future techs. Its just as historical to build in that the Romans are superior at building space cities, as to build in that Germans have a propensity for armour tactics built in at 4000 BC.

The argument that civ uniqueness will make a more interesting game can be(and has been) strongly made. Very well. Give the Carthaginians the Panzer tanks, give the Romans the F15's, and give the Americans the superior Phalanxes.

IF, OTOH, it is necessary to give F15s to the Americans, panzers to the germans, and phalanxes to the greeks, than this is going to be seen as an "historical" feature. As such it will represent a falling off in the civ franchise, unfortunate given the many improvements that are going to be in civ3.

If Unique Units dominate civ3 (im still hoping they will be only a minor aspect of gameplay) I might still buy the game, but it will not be on the top of my list.

seven civs? SEVEN CIVS? what the heck are they thinking here. If iwant to play against seven civs i'll play civ 2. Its awfully boring to conquer

Keep minor civs out. Every civ should have the same chance to grow and florish. If i want minor civs i'll play either of the origninals, its implemented. Just about any restarted civ becomes a "minor" civ and never does anything with itself.

I haven't been keeping up with Civ 3 information lately, but I think that this seems to be an awful turn. Civ is supposed to give that feeling of Massivness, or at least how i feel. Seven civs did that on my 386 with the original, but in civ 2 it got lost. I hope they put it back in.

IIRC, the idea of seven or eight civilisations was one of the cornerstones of Toynbee's History of the World, and if I'm not mistaken, Spengler had somewhat similar ideas in his 'Untergang des Abendlandes'. It's been years since I read them, so I maybe confusing them with some other ones (maybe Nehru's History of the World?). So, perhaps this is a deliberate decision by Sid Meier to create a certain feel for the game?

quote: Originally posted by Zakalwe on 05-06-2001 03:09 PM I'm not sure if this has been previously discussed (I'm an infrequent lurker), but has anyone considered that the limit of seven (major) civilisations might be based on factors totally unrelated to programming or AI? IIRC, the idea of seven or eight civilisations was one of the cornerstones of Toynbee's History of the World, and if I'm not mistaken, Spengler had somewhat similar ideas in his 'Untergang des Abendlandes'. It's been years since I read them, so I maybe confusing them with some other ones (maybe Nehru's History of the World?). So, perhaps this is a deliberate decision by Sid Meier to create a certain feel for the game? Z

If I remember correctly Toynbee had aprox. 40 civilizations and Spengler only a few. Huntington had only 7 or 8, though.