Only 7 civilizations per game

[Roman]

Right, the first piece of truly negative news about Civ 3 is here. We will, yet again, only be able to play with a maximum of 7 civilizations per game. This is a terrible crime against the mod making community, as the 7 civilizations limit is the single most limiting factor for making scenarios. I hope Firaxis reconsiders this decision.

On the positive side, all the other news about the game is excellent , but this 7 civilization limit has the potential to be trully ruinous.

[The diplomat]

you have to look at how the number of civs in a game will affect the AI and the computer requirements. I am sure that Firaxis would have increased the max civs if they could have but I don't think it is possible.
The burden on the AI would be too much!

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

[Fintilgin]

To say I'm severely disaponted by this news would be an understatement on par with saying the ocean is `slightly damp' or space is `kinda big'.

I beg Firaxis to at least not hard-code this so that fans can tweak it in the config files or something. Silly as it may be, this was one of the /main/ things I wanted improved over the earlier versions. The world always seems more empty then I'd like. My preference would be, ideally, to on a map of Earth have at least two or three Civs per continent.

I'm sorry, I just don't buy that adding a couple more Civs on top of the `base' seven is going to suddenly swamp our computers to a crawl. Maybe running 32 or 64 would be a little rough, but how `bout 10 or 12? You're telling me that my nifty new computer which can run Black & White at lighting speeds and NINTY odd nations in Europa Universalis is going to choke and die trying to run 14 CivIII nations at once?!

Maybe I'm totally off base, but my suspicion is that there's a limit of seven Civs at once because seven is the traditional number from Civ,CivII, and SMAC. Not because of any intense gameplay issue or computer slowdown.

I really hope that Firaxis allows us to, if we choose, mod our game in such a way as to be able to play with 20-30 or so Civilization, even if we have to add all the extra art and such ourselves. I'm hopefull that they'll leave the CivNum flag open.

Nothing could make me happier then hearing that was so.

Er... nothing computer game related that is.

Joe

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-27-2001 02:16 PM The burden on the AI would be too much!

I certainly agree to that.

On the other hand: remember that those tweakable text-files will most probably be even more extensive and player-tweakable then ever before. The same goes for all the in-game preferences and options. Perhaps they leave a unofficial backdoor open for added AI-civs in some text-file.

[Fintilgin]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-27-2001 02:40 PM Perhaps they leave a unofficial backdoor open for added AI-civs in some text-file.

I bloody well hope so.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Fintilgin on 04-27-2001 02:37 PM You're telling me that my nifty new computer which can run Black & White at lighting speeds and NINTY odd nations in Europa Universalis is going to choke and die trying to run 14 CivIII nations at once?!

In EU the whole game plays on one and the same default and pre-analysed map, again and again. Not only that: the locations of ALL provinces (= cities) are also pre-defined and known in advance by the AI-programmers. Also, the rules how to move around; what you are allowed to do; how the diplomatic start-out conditions are layed out, and finally how all the basic game events are going to appear - are all things that are much more known in advance, by the EU developing team, then similar variables in the Civ-3 game. Just consider the armies (euqvivalent to units) in EU: How many units and armies (per city and per empire) is there in Civ-3 for the AI to keep track of? Compare with EU: The last time I played as England I had between 4-8 of them only (including fleets).

One last thing: There are perhaps upto 90 nations. But most of them only acts like minor and rather passive support-nations. All the active AI-action only happends between the 13 big ones.
PS: EU is a great game by the way - but, its not Civ-3. Its just a rather different game.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 27, 2001).]

[airdrik]

How about this, leave the origonal game to 7 players with no .txt tweaking, BUT come out with modpacks that allow more civs to be added. This way you can have the superiority of a 7 civ AI in the main game, but eventually allow up to about 15 other civs through modpacks.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-27-2001 03:31 PM How about this, leave the origonal game to 7 players with no .txt tweaking, BUT come out with modpacks that allow more civs to be added. This way you can have the superiority of a 7 civ AI in the main game, but eventually allow up to about 15 other civs through modpacks.

Hmmm - im not sure if I understand what you mean here. According to Firaxis, the player can choose upto 7 AI-civs (or is it including the human player) from a total palette of 16 available civs. I am a little surprised that they only allowed 16 civs here, but I suspect this is a result of their decision on implementing the AOK-feature "Unique (dis/)Advantages for each civ". Anyway; these 16 default civs can of course be replaced in scenarios by other tailor-cut designed ones.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Fintilgin]

Well, yes, I suspect the AI in EU does have a little less work to do. But so much that we're still limited to seven civs? Honestly I find that hard to believe. Surely 14 or so would run fine on most computers.

Joe

Look, don't read too much into it. Let me quote the magazine: (Unlike every other quote this is the journalist writing and not a transcript of Jeff Briggs) "Playing as one of 16 different civilizations, you pit your wits against up to six other computer-controlled nations as you strive to conquer the globe." It might be a journalists' fault or an implication that you get to play against 16 civs and six, er, "nations" (forget that, stupid theory), but you read into it what you like.

[airdrik]

To expund on the Idea, the main game allows 7 civs chosen between 16 different civilizations. Later they release a modpack which adds say 4 civs to choose from and allows 8 civs in a game. Another modpack increases the number in a game by 2. Another modpack adds 4 more civs to choose from, etc. Kind of like they did in AoE with the conquerors expansion pack (added 4 civs, one style, and a number of various terrain features).

[JamesJKirk]

I dunno, the idea of having to buy endless modpacks to get something that was pretty much expected doesn't appeal to me for some reason...

[Fintilgin]

I don't have to read into that. It's clear they intend out of the box support for seven playing nations at once.

My only hope now (if they don't change their mind) is a backdoor in the .txt files for those of us who want more.

:: prays and begs to Firaxis not to make this poor CIVer cry this Christmis. ::

Joe
[This message has been edited by Fintilgin (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Roman]

Fintilgin, for me this was also one of the most important things to be changed from Civ 2. Sure, if they allowed us to edit the number through text files, I would be more than satisfied, but I am sceptical on this issue.

[Ilkuul]

Well, I really hope that 'minor civs' are included, and that they amount to something! (Not just different incarnations of the same old barbarians...) I wouldn't mind carrying on with 7 major civs, if there are now a lot of minor ones continually popping up to add interest to the game. Which means that it would be necessary to be able to negotiate to some extent with them - limited, obviously, otherwise they'd be major civs. But this could add a lot more variety to the game.

What do you think from the scenario/mod point of view, Roman - would minor civs help offset the 7-civ handicap?

[Cyberbugs]

You're right, Inkuul.
You should have some limited diplomatic contact with the "barbarians", of which one of the most advanced diplomatic features would be to bribe them to leave your area or pay them to attack an other civ.

[Roman]

Yes, minor civs could certainly help, but I am very sceptical about their inclusion. I think that the new barbarian model where barbarians have cities is what they mean by minor civs and that certainly isn't enough to offset the disadvantage of only being allowed 7 civilizations per game.

Please, Firaxis, if you don't change your mind, at least make the limit editable in text files and alow the limit to be blown up to 15 civilizations through text file tweaking!

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-27-2001 05:16 PM I think that the new barbarian model where barbarians have cities is what they mean by minor civs...

I certainly hope not! It's obviously far from definite at this stage, and I can understand your cautiousness, Roman, but the talk of minor civs taken in conjunction with the statement that revolts and secessions will occur, leads me at least to hope that when cities revolt they will be able to become a new minor civ, opening up all sorts of possibilities for diplomacy, reprisals, etc. etc. However the quoted statement in Snapcase's thread about the PCG article that cities can "revolt and rejoin their former civ." is a little discouraging, as it might mean that's the only option: i.e. no minor civs...

As always, we'll have to wait and see!

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-27-2001 02:16 PM you have to look at how the number of civs in a game will affect the AI and the computer requirements. I am sure that Firaxis would have increased the max civs if they could have but I don't think it is possible. The burden on the AI would be too much!

i'm sorry, but this argument is geting ridicullous. we are talking about a game that will be released in 2002, not 1996!

so please, explain me: forget 32. forget 16. not even 12? 10? 8??
can we get one (1) more civ in the game 10 years after civ1???

[Roman]

Exactly, MarkG!

Whilst I understand that the processing requirements increase almost exponentially with each civilization added, so does computer power. Therefore, this reason for not including more than 7 civilizations per game is pathetic. Moreover, nobody is forcing anyone to play with more than 7 civs anyway, so people who don't want to wait for the computer to make its turn can simply play with fewer civs.

I am still hoping for this limit to be rectified by the possibility of editing the text files, but I by no means certain Firaxis will allow this.

To someone from Firaxis - Is it going to be possible to modify the text files to allow more than 7 civilizations per game?

[Nemo]

quote: so please, explain me: forget 32. forget 16. not even 12? 10? 8?? can we get one (1) more civ in the game 10 years after civ1???

I SECOND THAT!!!!
it is rediculous, i am NOT playing on a 486dx any longer!!!
damnit, i thought they were listening to us. boy, what i fool i have been!

[The diplomat]

The other possibility is that the game will allow you to play with more than 7, it's just that 7 is the total in a standard game.

Maybe, Firaxis feels that 7 is the perfect number of civs for a standard game. they are looking at the gameplay effects too. Remember that they have a new ressource model where ressources are more bunched together and where they are requirements to build things. if you had 32 civs, then you would have 4 or 5 that have good ressources and everybody else with nothing. So you can't have too many if you want every civ to have fun. Just speculation on my part.



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

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-27-2001 07:40 PM if you had 32 civs, then you would have 4 or 5 that have good ressources and everybody else with nothing. So you can't have too many if you want every civ to have fun.

actually, you want ONE civ to have fun: the player's!
if the resources or the map is to small for more civs, then some of them will be conquered sooner or later! it so simple(and fun)....

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by MarkG on 04-27-2001 06:48 PM Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-27-2001 02:16 PM you have to look at how the number of civs in a game will affect the AI and the computer requirements. I am sure that Firaxis would have increased the max civs if they could have but I don't think it is possible. The burden on the AI would be too much! i'm sorry, but this argument is geting ridicullous. we are talking about a game that will be released in 2002, not 1996! so please, explain me: forget 32. forget 16. not even 12? 10? 8?? can we get one (1) more civ in the game 10 years after civ1???

I also agree with Mark's point, with todays technology, there should be the option for more "major" civilizations in play. But let's not forget about what roll the "minor" civs will play in the game. Actually, I would like to know what the maximum number of "minor" civs will be. If the minor civs can be up to, say 10-14, then 7 major civs would be enough for a VERY interesting game. Or how about the multiplayer side of the house? What if you can have up to 7 Human (major) civs and still play with 10 AI (minor) civs - that would actually equate to 17 nations in the game!

However, what we actually need is more insight into this situation - How about it "Dan from Firaxis"? Or even Jeffrey Morris from Firaxis?


[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited April 27, 2001).]

[- Groucho -]

How is this for a depressing line of reasoning:

Fact: SMAC had seven civs.

Fact: When asked why the SMAC expansion - which added more civs - didn't allow those to be played in a game with more civs the response was that "seven" was hard-coded into the engine.

Fact: Civ-III only allows seven civs.

Assumption: After knowing we've wanted more civs for years, if they were going to rebuild the engine for CivIII they probably would have added more civs.

Inference: They didn't significantly retool the SMAC engine that governs the interaction of civs and are using it again.

Guess: There won't be a marked improvement in the AI because that would require a retooling of the engine and if they did that they would have added more civs.

[The diplomat]

I have an honest question for all you who want more than 7 civs in the game at once: why is it such a high priority? I am not trying to bash anyone, it is an honest question. I understand those who want it for scenarios. I also understand those who simply want more civs to interact with during the game. But why such a high priority? It seems to me that there are higher priorities, like the trade model, diplomacy model etc... I think that having more civs would be nice but it is more important to focus on the gameplay.
Is it really such a tragedy if there are only 7 civs in the game, especially if the rest of the game is really great? From my experience with civ2 and SMAC, 7 civs/factions provides a very satisfying game.
Please do not take my question the wrong way. I honestly wonder.

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

[me_irate]

The main reason i want more civs is this, in a regular game 100 turns in and you have 5 civs. When i play ctp2 with 14 civs, 100 turns in i have 8 civs. While more have died, you are still ahead and have more civs. The only prob with ctp2 it takes to long, so by mid game comp turns took a couple minutes. Just depends on ones patience, at least id like the option for more civs.

[Wittlich]

The Diplomat - Touche' you arn't called the Diplomat for nothing eh? Your post was - how shall I put it - very diplomatic. But you do have a valid question. I'm with you, the 7 civ limit is a minor issue as far as I'm concerned.

[MrFun]

Why is it that when people like me, Markos, or others suggest or demand a more reasonably higher number of civilizations, the others against it get in an apoloclyptic mood, shouting, "No, no, no!!! The computer technology is still stuck in the 1980's!!!!! You cannot have more than eight civilizations, otherwise your computer will explode!!!!"

Ok, I'm exaggerating their counter-arguments, so sue me.

Seriously though, as others have pointed out already, we should have a game that takes into consideration the medium ranged computers of today, not the medium ranged computers that existed in 1994.

Most people's computers will be able to run today very well with a maximum civilization number of 12 in every game. If anyone from Firaxis is reading in on this, please reconsider this.

------------------
"I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle, making exceptions to it -- where will it stop? If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why does not another say it does not mean some other man?"
-- Abraham Lincoln's quote, and his anti-racist ideals

[Kull]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-27-2001 10:31 PM But why such a high priority? It seems to me that there are higher priorities, like the trade model, diplomacy model etc... I think that having more civs would be nice but it is more important to focus on the gameplay.

I'll give you that: In the big scheme of things, number of civs doesn't sound like such a big deal. But ask yourself this. How hard would it be to add two or three civs compared to creating a whole new diplomacy model? I'm no coder, but it seems like all that's necessary is just more of the identical code that applies to the existing seven, plus the additional linkages. We're talking about a game that's been on the drawing board for YEARS and they couldn't set aside a week or two of Level One programmer time for that task? C'mon! That's why so many of are absolutely OUTRAGED by such an obvious omission.

Sad as it is to contemplate, I'm afraid that Echinda's line of reasoning sounds all too logical. Why didn't Firaxis add more civs? Because the number "7" is hardcoded into the SMAC game engine, and that's what we're getting for Civ3. I keep praying that somehow this is all a misunderstanding, and the Firaxis reps will shortly appear to set the story straight.....Civ3 will REALLY have room for more civs than a scenario designer could hope for. But just to be on the safe side, I won't hold my breath.