How many players should civ3 support?

[Builder]

the more the better.

[Shadowstrike]

No more then 1000, but a couple hundred would be nice. Remember that in real life, civilizations didn't settle vast tracts of empty land. There were already people there....

[Caesar]

Remember, as realistic and engrossing we want it to be, too many civs would be hard to manage. Imagine rumagging through the Diplomacy window. I like the 32 civs or two-colours idea. 32 is a good number.
That was one of the things I couldn't understand about Civ2 - why there were still only 7 civs.

C.

[UltraSonix]

quote: No more then 1000, but a couple hundred would be nice.

Are you guys talking about how many civs should be available, or that how many civs should be on the map at a time (like the title suggests)? Because playing a game with 1000civs on the map is rather difficult for my computer to handle...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Stuff2]

I would really wan't to see more civs at the same time.

If you change the civ-flag to be two-colored you can get 36 different flags with 8 colors. So why not have the possibility to get atleast 32 players in one game?

Also, no pre-colored civs. When creating a new game any opponent can show up (unless you choose opponents).

Also I think that civ personality should be random.

[Dr.Oogkloot]

Yes, the more the better, but 32 would usually be enough.

[Empress]

hmmm.. for multiplayer capacity I would suggest no more than 8 multiplayers at at time b/c the game can get pretty laggy with 7 as it is now...

[Ralf]

Because anti-ICS and anti-BAB finally have been implemented i Civ-3, the expansion strategies cannot be nearly as aggressive as in Civ-2/SMAC.
Therefore one cannot expect to bumb into neighbors and share borders with them as quickly as in above games.

It isnt fun being surrounded by uninhabitad wasteland for to long however, so i suggest that the maps should generally be somewhat smaller and the number of civs that can participate in a game should rise from 7 to 8, or max 9 (human player included).

Not more then that - the AI cannot handle more effectively anyway.

[red_jon]

It depends how many there should be....

In CTP with 28 civs the game suffers MASSIVE slowdown as each civ has to take their turn (and I don't like waiting too long).

If they could get around this, perhaps they should introduce around 32, but not all at once, perhaps new civs could appear through the game.

Plus, civs should be able to merge (like how Germany was formed- from many samller states) and be more willing if they're small and weak.

[zyxpsilon]

32 civ's because of flags limits on coloring?
Hummm... interesting observation.
Balance and response time of AI's must also "stay" within realtime pace; IF it's turn-based!

There shouldn't be any limit on amount of adversaries, specially on GIGAmaps; weren't the Europeans unaware of the Aztecs, Mayas and Australians tribes flourishing on their own while the Atlantic ocean sailers went for a wild chase of India spices?

256 colors... hint-hint-hint!! TOT(64K)
Hummm... i wonder.

[DarkCloud]

Technically, you could run it with 8 or perhaps 10 colors.

All you would have to do is make the colors interchangable with civs... there would be no set colors per civ.

[Tim White]

I say at least 16 civs to play with at a time, and about 100 more to chooose from, I would like some civs like these:

-Irish
-Australians
-Canadians
-Mexicans
-Austrians
-Swedish
-Arabians
-Koreans
-Pawnee (indian tribe)
-Cherikee (indian tribe)
-Eskimos

and more.

Also, I want the maps larger!!! At least 10xs as large as the ones in civ 2.

[CornMaster]

I'd say 15 is about enough. And I mean 15 at a time with 40 or 50 predefined and colors can be changed but should also be standard to some civs. And 15 colors or "Patterns" at least with the customize button allowing you to change you titles, colors, country/leader names, flag, and civ color or pattern.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"The best meat is in the rump!"
I AM CANADIAN!
CornEmpire Index
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Irish -Australians -Canadians -Mexicans -Austrians -Swedish -Arabians -Koreans -Pawnee (indian tribe) -Cherikee (indian tribe) -Eskimos

This list of civs poses an interesting question - shold Firaxis have a few "true" (ie famous/sizable) civs, or should they start using civs that aren't really civs as such.
An example of what I mean is the "Australians" (yes, us!) - Australia was only setlled by white people in 1788, and before that, the indigenous people didn't have writing, cities, etc. So should that sort of "civ" be in the game?

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Ultra: Like I mentioned in another thread. I think part of the attraction of Civ, is the illusion of rewriting history. This is best done with 'real civs' that existed in ancient history.

However, since some people might like to play their real-life home countries, maybe the newer countries could be options for players, but not for AIs. This would keep the 'feel' f the game.

If we had too many newish countries (with the associated city names), IMO, the game would lose its feel.

[Nemo]

I agree with phoenixcager - this is best kept more histrorical. that is what make this game so much fun. i would not like to play against new countries becasue i, too, feel that it takes away from the game.

------------------
"Programming is like sex: one mistake and you have to support it for the rest of your life."
-Michael Sinz

[Tim White]

I agree too. I think that ancient civs would turn into the more modern civs once they reach that year. Like for example, in the beginning of the game, native americans only would inhabit america, so, at about the year 1500 AD, lets say a message pops up, saying that a group of English settlers settled eastern america, then. then a part of the English civ population would be taken away, and then a new American civ would be formed. This may be rather complicated, but I would still like it.

[DrFell]

I reckon that ancient civs should have a chance 2 surivive into the modern era, eg romans in 2000 ad, should they be lucky, but the early civs in the game should be much less likely to survive for a huge amount of time, 6000 years is a bit long for the average empire dont you think? Civs should be able to revolt and produce independent cities, part of a new civilization... maybe civilization names could be related to the current game year.

As for number of civs, i think no more than 32. Personally i like the idea of 15 normal civs + barbarians, and maybe 32 or so 'minor' civs, ie single city civs or possibly even nomads, who would act as natives, etc. generally small civilizations with no interest in expansion. Thisd give a larger number of civs without a huge amount of processing power, and the 'minor' civs could use simpler ai, cutting down processing time.

Thinking about these minor civs... the indians in colonization is what i have in mind... they dont expand but they attack, trade, etc.

[Matthew]

I don't think that 32 civs would necessarily be a problem for a computer. If your system is slow, just don't use that many.

Something that would give the game a feal of a lot more civs would be to have independant cities. These would be all of the same flag color, but being at war with one of them would not mean being at war with all of them. They would be something like Barbarian cities, except they wouldn't be at war with everyone automatically at all times.

This would also add realism to expansion models. Rome, even in it's early history, didn't expand by sending out settlers. It expanded by conquering, and then allying with, one forign people at a time, until she controlled most of modern Italy.

[DrFell]

Yeah thats roughly my idea with the minor civs.. read the post above

Civ3 should be able to support not more than 32 human players and not more than 100 AI players on the map at any given time. There should be hundreds or possibly thousands of civs to choose from.

------------------
JRH

[UltraSonix]

quote: 32 human players and not more than 100 AI players

*Sigh*

I do have a P166, you know... and even though I won't have it when civ3 comes out, the point stands that 100AI players would just cripple most of the lower end computers of the time, methinks.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

Don't criticize my intelligence. If you have a slower machine, then don't put a lot of civs on the map at one time.


------------------
JRH

[UltraSonix]

quote: If you have a slower machine, then don't put a lot of civs on the map at one time

That brings up an interesting point - do you think the player would have a choice in the number of civ2 on the map in civ3? In Civ2 you did, but in SMAc you had to have 7.

edit: post made no sense.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited October 23, 2000).]

well, the post did make sense. if they don't make civ3 where you can choose the number of civs you want, then the game will simply suck. tell microprose to get to it!

------------------
JRH

[Antonios]

Civilization had always been a pioneer.It's now the time to justify it's characterism.It's time to make one step forward and put everyone behind!It's the right time to put new standars in strategy games.It should increase the number of tribes significantly.That's the only way to attract peoples' attention worldwide and make new civ fans.Civ 3 MUST support no less than 32 and no more than 100 tribes.I think that the number of tribes is maybe the most serious subject and great efforts must be done in order to make an new wonderful,UNIQUE game.

[Roman]

I couldn't care less about the number of preset civs, since you can change their names anyway, but I want to be able to fight as many civs as possible at the same time. People with slower machines can just choose a smaller number of civs. Oh, bigger maps are also a must, to accomodate these extra civs.

[UltraSonix]

quote: I couldn't care less about the number of preset civs, since you can change their names anyway

You're assuming the civs would all be the same aka civ2, not factions aka SMAC. I'd personally prefer the SMAc way - and yes, I know about making your own history - but having different preset bonuses for each civ would be fun... and it increases replay value.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Adm.Naismith]

Antonios and Roman, I still prefer better civ than more civ.
Assumed that the old 7 civ +1 (the barbarian) of CIV1, CIV2 and SMAC (planet life instead of barbarian) had its technical reason (8 is a power of 2), may be we can ask for 15+1 (or full 16 if barbarian will be eliminated by minor civ), maybe we can stretch it to 32, but at least 16 will (must) be minor CIV.

Any larger number and we will start to ask for federation of country!
Think about trade screen lenght (32 civ to accomodate!), the diplomatic screen, the global reports, the lenght of turn while 31 other civs move units, fight battles, begin wonders building, etc.

If the Turn concept will be kept without correction think about a war is declared against you by half of the forces just after your turn end: after 16 different player turn of beating your units, still the better defence will fall horribly.

We will need lot of automatic reinforce/counterattack order (as plane scramble in SMAC), or some "interrupt defense action" that left you gain back control of your troop on alert (movement left from previus turn) before the enemy turns are completed, or the Simultaneous turn model (sorry, it's my old obsession again ).

I'm ready to bet Firaxis will opt for 8 main civ and 8 or 16 minor civ. Probably minor civ will take the place of the "hut" (involving more diplomacy or military operation then luck) and barbarians in the same time (raids suffered by military units of minor civ).

Minor civ will probably appear here and there and restart if destroyed or fully assimilated by main civ (as barbarian in Civ 2 or planet life in SMAC).

Disclaimer: I have no inside info from Firaxis, just my guess

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

If we are going to start to ask for Federation of country, then so be it! Nations combining into one? That would be a great feature for Civ3! That could be the next step up from a permanent strategic alliance w/embassy. The only thing is you will only be able to combine with AI civs, unless a human player wants to give up his/her seat and turn over their civilization to you.
Again, I say, if you don't want the game to last too long and/or your computer to run too slowly, then just don't put too many civs on the map at once. That's all there is to it. :-)

------------------
JRH