12th POLL: How many civs in a game?

[JESSVG01]

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 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.

100 countries on a 1000x1000 grid would be a blast. If the gmae options allowed players to come into a game in progress then it could last for years ... what's wrong with that as an option?

[Ralf]

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.

It can be a practical problem to gather 32 (or more) people and keep them interested, but thats another problem.

[Drakenred]

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!

5) and lets hope you dont abruptly find yourself in the middle of WW II level unstopable Megawar between all 64 Civs (due to interlinking aliances) just for taking out a lil 4 city "kingdom", that was alied to a 2 city kingdom, that was alied to a 5 city kingdom, that was alied to a 3 city kindom, that was alied to a 12 city kingdom, that was alied to a 4 city kingdom, that is alied to that big 27 city kingdom that is Rulled By Skippy, your evile AI twin,that abruptly cut off all diplomatic ties with you and is now atacking YOU with everthing it can throw at you the turn after you atacked the little 4 city kindgom!

If all of you would read "Pyaray" (Activison) comments in the CTP 2 thread, you see why they are staying with 8 civs. Sid or someone at Firaxis said a few months ago that they are go to support slower machines with Civ 3. Activision said today the requirements for CTP 2 will be P-I 166 w/64 megs of ram. I believe if we see 16 civs., that is all we will see.

------------------

[UltraSonix]

I saw this from Ralf's link (which I think is in the news drop down combo), and I'll quote the bloody thing for lazy people. It's about how they can't have 32 civs in CTP2:

quote: Originally posted by Pyaray on 11-04-2000 06:14 PM quote: Originally posted by Monkey on 11-04-2000 02:04 PM Ok time to put my computer science knowledge to practice here. Because the diplomacy of CTP2 has been enchanced, each civ might have to take into account the current state of every other civ in the playing field. Clearly this problem has the complexity of O(N^2) meaning the amount of total processing time is proportional to the squared of the number of civs present in the game. Anyone who knows anything about programming will know that as N increases the amount of processing time will be increasing at a much faster rate. So for a 32 civ game to happen we could be looking at the kind of computational power that current generations of computers just dont have. So for anyone saying it is just a simple #define problem... errr.. nuff said. You stick with that CS thing, cause you nailed it. Also, it's really not cool to make a game where the minimum spec system can't play the "full game". And I'll add on to it what you said to explain the problem in even further detail. There is a concern with the AI comparing the other civs, and that is exponential. With 8 civs, each AI has to evaluate 7 other civs, so it's 7^2=49, with 9 civs it's 8^2=64, and 10 civs it's 9^2=81. So you can see, by increasing the number of civs by 2 we have nearly doubled the amount of work that needs to be done. Just for the record, 32 civs would be 961 comparison's each turn. Almost 20 times that of 8 civs. Now consider units, and how the AI's look at each unit they can see. Let's assume later in the game where you can see nearly the whole map (if not the whole thing). And let's say each civ has 100 units. In this case, the AI must evaluate it's own units as well. So for each AI player they have to evaluate 8*100=800 units. Now do that for each AI and we have 6400 units being evaluated for a complete turn. Let's increase that to 10 civs, 10*100=1000, for each AI is 10,000 units to be evaluated each turn. Once again, nearly doubling for only 2 more civs. I do understand your points of "well if we want to go ahead and let it take a long time, then we should have that choice". But, we can't release a game that we haven't tested everything in. If we were to increase the number of civs by 2, it would nearly double our testing time, and that's something we can't afford to do. There are already a ton of people (whom I fundamentally disagree with) that say we don't test enough. This would just add to the problem. Would you all really want us to add a completely untested feature? On the other hand, that setting is still stored in an TXT file. But if you're looking for some kind of official sanction that we support that, you're not going to get it. We didn't test the game for every possible combination of things that users can set by modifying the settings files. Nor would we, or could we, there are just too many variables. /soapbox Pyaray P.S. I wasn't really going to address this anymore, but this does appear to be one of the topics that just won't die. I hope this is an acceptable answer to everyone as to why we didn't do it.

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

[CivilizationCanuck]

64 or more.

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.

This game has so much potential, and I think it should have as many as possible civs with the option of the player to choose which ones he wants, and how many he wants. Now wouldn't that please everyone?

[Tiberius]

CivilizationCanuck,

Did you at least read the post which is just above yours ??! The AI can't handle 64+ civs! For multiplayer, with only human players, it can be done, but who wants to wait one week for his next turn?

[Adm.Naismith]

To be fair, the fault is of MARKG (sorry Mark )

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!

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

[Tiberius]

Adm.Naismith,


[This message has been edited by Tiberius (edited November 08, 2000).]

[CivilizationCanuck]

Nope didn't read it. For the mean time you will have to excuse my computer ignorance. From a general standpoint I was merely stating that I would like as many civs as possible, not exactly from an AI perspective.

Either that or have accessiblity, faction editors, customizing options.

[Tiberius]

No problem, CivCanuck.

Actually, it's a good thing to have dreamers around here, not only realists like me

Maybe in Civ4 or 5, with 50 or 100 GHz computers, it will be possible to play with 64+ civs. Still, I'm not convinced that such a huge amount of countries would be good for playability...

[N35t0r]

of course, tn order for more than 64 civs being enjoyable, the diplomacy and AI would have to be bettered, and worlds be made much larger...

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 11-05-2000 02:09 AM I saw this from Ralf's link (which I think is in the news drop down combo), and I'll quote the bloody thing for lazy people. It's about how they can't have 32 civs in CTP2:

... and the answer I gave there still applies:

quote: If the map is of the same size or even say 4x as large, the number of unit interactions will not grow quadractically. There will be more civs, but they will be small. Or a lot will have perished already by the time the entire world is covered. If we modify map-exchanging to exclude unit locations, growth in this respect will in fact be non-existant since the civs will only know about units in the proximity of their own towns and units. Diplomacy options may grow quadratically - in the extreme case that all the civs are still in the game and all have contact - but that doesn't take much computer time even for 100 civs.

In another thread I already mentioned the fact that Sierra's "Birthright: the Gorgon's Alliance" (1997) has a large number of civilizations, which all have diplomatic relations with each other right from the start. "Imperialism" has quite a few nations as well, and has no problem at all handling a much more intricate diplomacy system than Civilization.

The essential question remains, however: does increasing the number of civs add anything to the game?

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[DarkCloud]

16 at most in one game; but only if the maximum map size is doubled.
If not-
10 Major Civs
6 Minor Civs (Will not found more than 5-10 cities)

[Lodi]

I agree totally with you Ribannah. I have played Imperialism II and there were many nations (most were minor though.) This means that there is a possibility of having around 30 civs in a perceptively fluid game. So why is it a notion that Civ 3 can't have the possibility of even 20+ civs? Sure there could be like 15 major civs, but all the rest could be minor ones. Why isn't this taken into account?

But one thing I would like to have cleared up is the meaning of civ in the game. Does it imply an entire civilization like Greco-Roman or Mesopatamian? Or does it apply to nation-states, cultures, or tribes? Anybody know the developers' answer to these questions?

------------------
I am the Roman Emperor, and am above grammar.
-Emperor Sigismund

[DarkCloud]

quote: But one thing I would like to have cleared up is the meaning of civ in the game. Does it imply an entire civilization like Greco-Roman or Mesopatamian? Or does it apply to nation-states, cultures, or tribes? Anybody know the developers' answer to these questions?

I would believe it applies to nation-states ate the very least; the developers most likely considered the Sioux as a nation-state tribe, though the Iroquis would be better suited for this.

[Ubersandwich]

I belive that MoO III (Master of Orion III) is planning on enabling up to 32 empires, but of course it is due out in early 2002. This # includes the "minor" empires, which QuickSilver hasn't said how they will impliment the difference between the major and minor empires... Why am i bringing up MoO III? Well, just to say that one company is planning a TBS game what can feature 32 civs, including empires.

The major difference, tho, is in MoO III (sci-fi genre) expansion is limited by technology, thus giving each empire a chance to build a "base" for the empire. In Civ III, if a few civs start on the same continent, finding the most goodie huts the earliest will give you (or the AI) a good chance to knock off a coupla enemies before they know what a wheel is.

But, it think it'd be fun for civ III.

[Urban Ranger]

The reason why Civ 3 can have less major civs than Imperialism II is mechanics. The former is just a lot more complicated than the latter.

Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger on 11-14-2000 05:12 AM The reason why Civ 3 can have less major civs than Imperialism II is mechanics. The former is just a lot more complicated than the latter. Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

You forget that chess computers don't have a Deity advantage!! Also, a simple $100 chess computer beats 99,9% of all chess players, even though humans, too, have only these "limited interactions and options" to consider. (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.)

Why do you say that Civilization is more complicated than Imperialism? I don't think it is. Not that the Imperialism AI is so tough ....

Also, there is no law that says a game becomes more difficult just because there are more parties. Some games do, but other games become easier (Magic) or have an optimal value somewhat higher than the minimum (Mah-Jong).

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[Tical_2000]

[quote]Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-14-2000 02:30 PM
(Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.)

Thats quite impossible since the total number of atoms in the universe are utterly immeasureable due to the fact that the universe is expanding on nothingness every second. Not to mention that at the theoretical 'borders' of this universe do not have laws of physics making atoms and other matter a concept that cannot be fully understood by the human mind. Trust me, I'm a physics teacher. That's your lesson for today class. Read page 100-120 then write a report and have it on my desk by eight sharp tomorrow.

[Shogun Gunner]

Wow. I think I need an extra credit assignment!

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Consider chess for a moment. It is highly abstract with clean rules. It has a small "map" with two "civs," each with 16 units. Even with such limited interactions and options it took a supercomputer to really play a good game. So you people want good AI? Cut down on the number of civs!

Good point Urban Ranger. Of course we must consider that Chess is a more "deterministic" game, while Civ has some more "random" elements:
- starting points are different (chess is specular) and some are better than others
- some battle results are a bit uncertain (same unit fighting, you can't see who will win), while chess ones are clearly predefined (an attacking piece will ever win over the defender)

Well, to make it short, random elements loose the rules a bit, so a balanced number of Civs can make things more interesting, as far as AI can manage it. In fact Minor Civ (as many interesting suggestion already posted, as predefined "city place") is probably a way to help AI to keep the mid-late game interesting.

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

[Ribannah]

quote: Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 11-14-2000 08:07 PM [quote]Originally posted by Ribannah on 11-14-2000 02:30 PM (Btw there are more different chess positions than there are atoms in the universe.) Thats quite impossible since the total number of atoms in the universe are utterly immeasureable due to the fact that the universe is expanding on nothingness every second.

By the time enough atoms have been generated the universe will have returned to a mere singularity.
The game of chess will probably need some adjustment by then

quote: Not to mention that at the theoretical 'borders' of this universe do not have laws of physics making atoms and other matter a concept that cannot be fully understood by the human mind.

As far as I know the boundary of the universe is out of reach. It is not a part of the universe, just a mathematical concept, and therefore has no real physical laws at all.

------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire

[airdrik]

Could we, somehow, get back to what was supposed to be discussed on this thread? Namely the number of civs in a game. I think it got lost in the workings.

[Roman]

Sorry to be prolonging this conversation, but I want to clarify a few points. Physicists estimate there are 10^80 atoms in the universe (not photons or elementary particles or some other conceptual stuff, just plain atoms). While this may seem like a huge number, I think that it is completely feasible that there are more possible combinations in chess, though I cannot be bothered to make an actual calculation how many.
Moreover, even though the fact that the universe is expanding is pretty much proven, it is not yet certain that it is creating new matter/energy in the process (although there is some compelling evidence for this). Even if new matter is being created, it is done at a relatively low rate and who says it actually creates atoms and not say leptons, or something else.

In conclusion, I contend that the proposition that there are more combinations than there are atoms (and atoms only) inn the universe may well be valid.

[Roman]

Ok, I went to the trouble of doing some calculations on this. It is quite painstaking, since you have to take into account combinations which are forbidden by the rules.
Due to this I am nowhere near completion of the calculation, which means there are far more possibilities than the number at which I have arrived. So far I got 1.0330862157900398743460630790859*10^99 combinations, which is several orders of magnitude greater than the estimated number of atoms in the universe. Hence, I will not continue with my calculation, as it would only increase the number of possibilities which is already greater than 10^80.

It is apparent that if the physicists' estimate is correct (or even if it is an underestimate by several orders of magnitude), there are far more possible chess combinations than there are atoms (I stress again, atoms only) in the known universe).

[airdrik]

Are you done?
Yay, everyone celebrate. We've figured out that there are more possible chess combinations than atoms in the universe

Now back to how this ties into the number of civs in a game.

[Calorman King]

64+ units sounds like an awful lot but perhaps we're looking at it from too much of a Civ2 scale perspective. That many civilisations would require much much larger maps and this of course would have consequences on the game engine as a whole (movement factors, number of units etc).

Personally I'd favour a smaller number, say 16 or so.

final results

Civ3: How many civs in a game? Option Votes / Percentage 8 22 / 9% 16 64 / 26% 24 26 / 10% 32 47 / 19% 64 14 / 5% More than 64! 69 / 28% Total Votes: 242

| View Comments Forums Main Page

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 22, 2000).]

[DarkCloud]

More than 64 had that many votes?
How does anyone think that a game on Earth can reasonably support that many civs unless maps are significantly enlarged (which I am for)
64 Choices and 14 civs in a game is a far more reasonable estimate for: the Game could have alternating half/colors or be like Alpha Centauri with all of its shades of colors.

I can pretty much build 220 cities on the Earth with 7 civs now. So a much larger city cap and map size is needed for the 14 civs or the game will become crowded.

But 64, come on- do you really want the req's to be a 2 gig 1gps 264 megabytes processor?