Why 7 Civs could be a GREAT indicator...

[yin26]

(Some of) You guys are missing something VERY important here. If there are to be "only" 7 civs (has that even been made clear?), then we must logically conclude that they are doing a great deal about the UNIQUENESS of each of those civs! That would take a GREAT DEAL of play testing if each civ is truly unique. Not to mention art sets, sounds, the whole thing.

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!

Of course, I still think you should be able to put 2 or 3 of each AI under a different name, etc., and setup games with MORE civs with the warning that the game "Was not playtested that way and could lead to imbalances." And rather than make us hack a .txt file, please just make it a option from the get go for people who want to play against more opponents at once despite the lack of playtesting.

[Kautilya]

Hmm I think 7 is the no. you can play in a particular game not the total no. of Civs you can choose from which is much larger. So it's like Civ2 where you have lots of Civs to choose from but you can choose only 7 at a time.

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.


BTW the countries in EU are very different. They have different religions, different military capabilities, different access to colonies, different initial technologies,different monarch capablities etc. In fact they are more different than the factions in SMAC.

[yin26]

By different I'm also talking about art sets, etc. I don't just mean what civ has been enabled to have such and such tech, although that's part of it. Do the civs in EU all have different art for each unit, different sounds, etc? That's what I'm talking about in terms of what would take so long to do.

Now you may well be right that you choose from more than 7 civs to play, although I still very much hope for the 7 unique civs idea TOTAL, though I am in the minority on that one.

[belusa]

I believe there will be 16 civs in total, from which you'll be able to pick a maximum of 7 civs to play in a game.

[belusa]

quote: Number of Civilizations: Cut down to 16. Number of Civilizations in one game: Still seven.

Quote from Snapcase

[yin26]

I see. I wonder, then, if all those civs will be unique? I also wonder if there will be "minor civs" in a 7 civ game? Hmmmm

[Kautilya]

"Do the civs in EU all have different art for each unit,
different sounds, etc?"
I think there are some visual distinctions between the units of different civs (of course there are only three kinds of land units so it's not much work). No distinction between the sounds AFAIK.(anyway the sound in EU is crap). You are probably right that there is much more scope for differentiation in Civ since there are a lot more units,infrastructure etc.


[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited April 29, 2001).]

[yin26]

I'll need to revise my statements a bit:

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.

[Ralf]

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).

The AI:s ability to put up a good fight both in terms of defending its cities on an tactical level, but also achieving a substantially better overal strategical strength and producing-power (without to much give-away cheating) is absolutely vital and far, far more important then moaning about the limited civs issue, as if that where the very end of any hopes for an enjoyable game-experience.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 29, 2001).]

[ASHBERY76]

7 civs is no way enough considering that 2 or more civs get destroyed early in the game your left with hardly any it sucks.

I think it is definately an indicator of that sort of direction, yes. Apparently firaxis is putting a lot of work into leader personalities, and with the unique units and different generals it will be even more apparent.

[The diplomat]

I completely agree with Yin's original post. Finally, some sense in all this madness!

------------------
No permanent enemies, no permanent friends.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Ive never had a problem with 7 civs, which are later reduced to five or four. This allows you to get a more intimate feel of how each of the leaders react to each other. The 16 civs which you can choose from are obviously going to be very spiffed up and unique (like what Yin said.) Iim sure that in CivII, we are going to see a lot more wars between the AI (so that they can gain control of special resorces) and a lot more trading going on. This will lead to more complex diplomacy, which CivIII has provided. There will be more 'regional alliances' of civs which all share the same resorces (like a sort of OPEC) So, i think that 7 civs in one game is good, as long as the gameplay is a lot more intense and more thinking is needed. Already with the new way how nukes work, you will have to think twice about starting a nuclear war, unless you want your screen to become one bright, white, light.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Fiera]

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...



If the seven civs are hard-coded in the game, tell me, whose fault is it? Mine?

[yin26]

Yes, if we are talking about time and resources, the modpack would be a great place for adding in more civs. Don't you think they will?

[Fiera]

No, I really don't think they will.

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...

So why should this (that seems a most complicated matter) be different?

[yin26]

Fiera:

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.

Keep in mind, though, I still very much worry about their playtesting system over there, so I'm still watching that end of things.

[To_Serve_Man]

Think of how advanced the game would be. In Civ2, with 8 civs (including you), you would have Gunpowder by 1100.... i always did, and the computer AI was always like that too, because with 32 civs, technology would trave lso quickly, there would be no point in investing any money in it, since you could trade something for it within turns of the first person learning it. Its like this because there are more chances for a certian tech to be learnt (is that a word? i think i'm pulling a George DoubleYa)... 7 civs can be limiting for advanced Scenario designers. But what can ya do?

[St Leo]

I design scenarios and I can honestly say that the only things I wanted out of CivIII are more civs and diplomatically-friendly AIs. Additionally, in the random game starting with 64 civs would:

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.

------------------
Leons Petrazickis (St. Leo)
http://aventine.cf-developer.net/minizigg/
petrazi@sprint.ca

[Cyclotron]

Quote by Yin:

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!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"
[This message has been edited by cyclotron7 (edited April 30, 2001).]

[Lawrence of Arabia]

i dont think yin means that Cyclotron. I think he means the leader personalities of the AI controlled civs.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Chronus]

I think To_Serve_Man brought up a good point. The technology charts will need a lot more techs to compensate for all that trading that will be going on. Or, perhaps it can simply take a lot longer to discover something. Whatever the case, I have to agree: more civs will mean zipping thru the tech tree a lot faster.

[yin26]

cyclotron7: As pointed out, I mean the AI civs. Afterall, this is a game basically against the computer. And in order for it to be of ANY challenge to veteran players, the comp needs its task to be more defined and (if done well) more tools to help it be a better challenge.

This is why I think fewer but more unique civs could be a very good think for gameplay and for the overall personality of Civ3.

[Imran Siddiqui]

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.

[LzPrst]

i think its vital that small civs should be part of the game.
i mean look at the political world map how it has changed over the last 2000 years. there must be possibilites for new civs to emerge and for minor civs to become major civs.
for example holland. tiny nation completely unimportant in the major european theater then BOOOM! a global trading empire taking in more cash than britain or france. or the USA, originally british colonies suddenly tearing themselves from the motherland and becoming a new nation.
the duchy of moscow, the mongols, the roman empire, france, italy and germany, japan, the friggin changes of powerbalance in the 20th century alone, from european colonial powers being the big boys to the division into east-west shows that there must be minor civs present that can change!

"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.


LzPrst

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.

If Firaxis does go for the "Faction" type set-up as in SMAC (Alien Crossfire), I hope they are all equal in a way that attributes are counterbalanced. In SMAC, they were not absolutely balanced. IMHO there was a clear order in which the "Factions" could be listed. They were not properly balanced. I haven't played it in over a year, but I think it was "University" that was heavily favored. Correct me if I'm wrong; better yet give me a list in which you would rank all the "Factions."

[Deathwalker]

I'm sorry but I want more than seven civs, personally though I think 16 should be the limit.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[STING]

What I loved of Civ1, were the differences between the civs in the diplomacy screen (graphics, music). In Civ2 those differences already disappeared

[hexagonian]

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 would rather see the development of a solid set of 7 civs that will give the human player all he can handle.

[Jeje2]

EU
- there are max 8 majors and a lot of minors.
- There are a few basic set of units, that then have small colour changes for nations.
- In EU chosing a country also affects to how easy/hard starting you have.

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.


Right now we just have to wait for more information