Why 7 Civs could be a GREAT indicator...

[hexagonian]

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!

If anything, it's the mid-game I am more concerned about - I'd rather have a set of strong civs during that time frame, rather than a few strong and a few weaker civs.

[Grumbold]

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.

[Ubersandwich]

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.

I can hardly wait.

[Cyclotron]

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.

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

[Phalanx_TS]

the reason why there is a debate over this is because of the chance that it could enter the game. The possibility that there will be a max of 7 civs in a game really would take away from the game. By posting debates like this hopefully other people who have influence over the course of the making of civ 3 will see the communities point of view and thus change it accordingly.

Unique civs are not a great thing for multiplayers. We create unique civs through our playing style.

------------------
Founder, Dear Leader and Great Helmsman of PROT -the People's Republic Off Topic www.delphi.com/prot1

[Kc7mxo]

I hated the Unique differences in SMAC, it was one of the main reason i didin't like that game. I do not think that civs should have special features, their strengths and weaknesses should be dictated by their terrain, their situation, and their technology not someone's ideas of the various weaknesses of certain cultures throughout history.

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.

MORE CIVS MORE CIVS MORE CIVS

[Zakalwe]

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

[Roman]

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.

Anyway, I think by far the majority of players haven't read any of those authors' works and even if they have the civilizations in the game are completely different than the ones they presented (eg. Huntington says there is only one western civilization encompasing Europe, US and possibly Latin America). Civilizations in Civ are more like nations, so this wouldn't be a reason for restricting their number in the game.

[lord of the mark]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-06-2001 07:33 PM If I remember correctly Toynbee had aprox. 40 civilizations and Spengler only a few. Huntington had only 7 or 8, though. Anyway, I think by far the majority of players haven't read any of those authors' works and even if they have the civilizations in the game are completely different than the ones they presented (eg. Huntington says there is only one western civilization encompasing Europe, US and possibly Latin America). Civilizations in Civ are more like nations, so this wouldn't be a reason for restricting their number in the game.

Agreed. Absolutely.

LOTM

[lord of the mark]

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.

LOTM

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-06-2001 07:33 PM If I remember correctly Toynbee had aprox. 40 civilizations and Spengler only a few. Huntington had only 7 or 8, though. Civilizations in Civ are more like nations, so this wouldn't be a reason for restricting their number in the game.

I agree. I used to mix nations and proper civ, but changed my mind months ago.

I'll love to have at least the option to start with realistic early Civ, then have the opportunity to rename them at main history events, as conquer of another civ (e.g. Kingdom of Austria becoming Empire of Austria-Hungaria), collapse and split of large empire (Byzantin Empire born from former Roman Empire), long term pact (European Community as commercial, political and militar fusion of France, German, Italy).
What a great opportunity for history simulation, with very limited developers efforts!

I understand that, with some effort, we could make a MOD to change available Civ, but I praise Firaxis to add also this ability to rename "on the fly" Civ name, Leader title, etc. as we like (or related to some trigger event, defined in base game or at least for scenario developers).

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

[Steve Clark]

Geez, I go away for awhile and then you get an issue that brings out all of the over-reactionary, whining cry-babies.

Remember the List and the previous polls? What were the most important features? AI and Customization. If 7 civs on a map mean that each has its own uniqueness and offer a competitive AI opponent, as well as the ability to customize them in any way or form, then what's the issue? Those that are screaming for more have not thought through this very well, imo. Let's say you start with 32, 24 of them will be minor or too small to last on a finite map. So you end up with 6-7 majors anyways. 7 competitive, customizable AI civs, along with cultural/religious attributes and different modes of winning, will be a substantial improvement over Civ2.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Steve Clark on 05-07-2001 01:27 PM Geez, I go away for awhile and then you get an issue that brings out all of the over-reactionary, whining cry-babies. Let's say you start with 32, 24 of them will be minor or too small to last on a finite map. So you end up with 6-7 majors anyways. 7 competitive, customizable AI civs, along with cultural/religious attributes and different modes of winning, will be a substantial improvement over Civ2.

It's not as everyone is whining
You and others feel good with some game limits, others not. It's not a matter of "substantial improvement over Civ 2": it could be (still to be proven testing the real game, of course ) or not.

Take a european city car, five seat place, 140Km/h max speed, 20Km for litre of gasoline.
Ask for a model with faster speed, seven seat place, less fuel consume, better confort.
Get a Ferrari, 2+2 seat place, 280Km/h max speed, don't mention fuel consume

Is it a great improvement? It depends.
Can you have a dream car fullfilling every request? No.
Some of the feature are out of technical availability? Nope.

Are a reasonable number of simultaneous playing Civ (e.g. from 12 to 16) out of reality? No. Ask to MarkG
Does such number of Civ improve the game? We haven't tested, so we don't know for sure, but we can't deny that for the same reason.

But that's not my last post (may be you are replying to me, too, I don't know). Mine is:

quote: Are realistic Civ name included in available starting list any bad for Civ?

May be for marketing opportunity (look: there are "Eskimo" like me, let's buy the game :rolleyes .
Is there any bad leaving Civ split and merge during game, hence needing a "rename" opportunity?
Please explain me why.

[Deathwalker]

Personally I would like more civs and less uniquness. Like Civ 2 but with more players.

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