Only 7 civilizations per game

[Henrik]

I want atleast one or two more civs, is it such an unreasonable demand?

[Ralf]

It all comes down to what most civers prioritize 2-4 weeks after the game have been released. Fortunately for Firaxis, they can look at the CTP-2 experiment as a chilling reminder how quick even the most supportive civ-fan can turn-the-tables, and instead rant furiously about "the crappy AI", as THE biggest problem.

You guys have to remember that the AI in Civ-2 & SMAC wasnt that great to begin with. Even with only 6 AI-civs, only 3-4 was resonably active, while the other ones more acted as filling stopgaps in the game. It happend to
me again and again in Civ-2 that I, in late-games encounted AI-civs that have been living alone on a big fertile islands, but still only occupied and utilized perhaps half of it. Also, halfway through SMAC; all the AI-bases had only half as many base-improvements as I had, but twice as many resource-draining, but still more mediocre mil-units than I had.

Now, the PC-requirements for SMAC stayed around P166 Mhz, if I remember it correctly. And the recommended requirements for Civ-3 will perhaps stay around P3-500 Mhz tops (yes, they have to maximize their potential customer-base, so any gigahertz top-of-the-line requiremements is commercially stupid and obviously out of the question). Anyway, this means that they in realty only have little more then 3-4 the processing power to play around with then they already had in SMAC. Add to this that much of this added CPU-power is already gobbled up in advance by the increasing demands for updated/animated graphics and nice added game-features.

I take it for granted that most of you civ-fans want Firaxis to trim/upgrade the old AI-weaknesses connected to the already existing 6 AI-civs, before they add any new additional extra AI-civs? Am I wrong in this assumption?

Maybe they could add a "added civs" -backdoor for the scenaro-designers, but even then, most - if not all civs above 6-7 would be "sitting ducks". They would in reality only act as lame and passive sparring-stopgaps in some remote part of the map, in that particular scenario.
A stronger AI isnt something modular that any developing-team are free to slap-on in the later stage of the game - especially not in a strategy-game like Civ. Instead they must design the whole game from the very ground-up with as "AI-friendly" game-design solutions and in-game features as possible. Scrapping the "above 6 AI-civs" idea is a design-decision that goes along with a "quality before quantity" approach. Keep it on Firaxis - you guys are on the right track. At least in this issue.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 28, 2001).]

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Henrik on 04-28-2001 01:58 AM I want atleast one or two more civs, is it such an unreasonable demand?

Henrik, since computing deals with binary numbers, adding one or two more civs is the same as as adding eight in this case, so why not ask for 15 straight away.

[Roman]

I am sorry to keep on whining, but I just cannot get over this terrible 7 civilizations limit decision.

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-28-2001 05:55 AM the CTP-2 experiment as a chilling reminder how quick even the most supportive civ-fan can turn-the-tables, and instead rant furiously about "the crappy AI", as THE biggest problem.

the problems of ctp2's ai, are "logical" problems. it just doesnt think right
it's hasnt a lot to do with the number of civs, since it show the same problems with 8 civs or 16.

quote: Maybe they could add a "added civs" -backdoor for the scenaro-designers, but even then, most - if not all civs above 6-7 would be "sitting ducks". They would in reality only act as lame and passive sparring-stopgaps in some remote part of the map, in that particular scenario.

fine. so be it.
the idea of more civs is not to have a tougher game, but for the more realistic feeling.


in the very end, give me the darn choice!

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 05:57 AM Henrik, since computing deals with binary numbers, adding one or two more civs is the same as as adding eight in this case, so why not ask for 15 straight away.

oh, they could have "room" for 15 civs, but eventually put a limit at 12, cause that where they find there is ai is decent with the computing time that they allow it...

on the other hand, they could have such things in text files....

[Roman]

Mark, how about a new poll about this issue?

[Admiral PJ]

It would be really crap if the Civ3 civ limit ISN'T increased, but I expect it would mean recoding most of the SMAC code (i'm a programmer)
but it could be as simple as changing 1 or 2 variable constants for the civ array sizes.
but maybe these minor tribes will make up for it, if they have some intelligence.

They should at least bring out a patch to allow more civs at once..
I think 24 would be good..

Turn speed shouldn't be a problem.. most of say 24 civs would be dead or tiny. If its coded well it should be very fast, or they could calculate some AI routines in the time the player is doing his turn.. or maybe this is too advanced for them.

People with ancient computers can just turn down the number of civs.

Hey FIRAXIS give me a job, i'll show you what coding is all about ;>

in My game I'm putting in about 24 civs to start with , should be interesting..

[Admiral PJ]

I think memory may also be an issue, If they are indeed having lot of special different graphics for each civ, it will take more memory the more they have.
If they are keepign things like those leaders animations in memory and all those unique units like MIGS and Samurai etc it will add up..

But on the point of not having much more power than SMAC had , that depends opon how they are changing the graphics..
if they drop the SMAC voxel system (which would be a shame, but they are hard to edit so it might be for the best) or the polygon rounded terrain then they could get more proccessing time for other things, but seeing as its turn based Processor calculations aren't as relevant as in Real time.

I suppose path finding routines could take up most of the Computers AI time.. calculating routes across a big map could take a while for 50 units.

Admiral Pete
Emperor of the potatoe

[our_man]

This is extremely disappointing news about the Civ Limit not being increased. Personally I would be willing to sacrifice some of the new, more exotic options in favour for just a few more Civs to play against. Hopefully Firaxis are taking note of what's being said here, and haven't done anything permanent about the Civ Limit yet.

[Roman]

I think they have dropped the polygon graphics system from SMAC. Look at the screenshots. I don't care if they drop even all animation - I always turn those things off anyway. I just want them to increase the civilization limit.

[our_man]

This is extremely disappointing news about the Civ Limit not being increased. Personally I would be willing to sacrifice some of the new, more exotic options in favour for just a few more Civs to play against. Hopefully Firaxis are taking note of what's being said here, and haven't done anything permanent about the Civ Limit yet.

[Chris 62]

If the release is this year as planned, then the number won't be changed, no matter how much we complain about it. We can only hope that the advance information is incorrect, but I think it is correct, unfortunatly. From a programming standpoint, using a tried and true engine (the SMAC one) solves a lot of problems, and saves both money and R&D time. Expanding such an engine has to measured against cost effectiveness of designing a whole new engine that changes design parameters. I think that the chances are small that they took the hard way, no matter how much we all wanted this change. I also think that if it's 7, it will be hard coded to the CD, so forget about changing that. This is not about a lack of tech, it's about cutting cost in R&D.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.

[Roman]

Cpoulos, I really hope you are wrong, but unfortunately it is very probable that you are correct and we will be stuck with 7 civilizations in Civ 3.

[The Kaiser]

I know this is little comfort to those wanting more than 7 Civs in the game (including myself), but reading the magazine it appears that the Barbarians will behave much more like a Civ in their own right, rather than as in previous games. This includes establishing their own cities in the unexplored regions of the map, which spawn out barbarians to attack you. When a barbarian city is destroyed, another one will appear in some other unexplored region. This requires you to continually push them back into the wilderness (ala North American Indians).

So from a certain point of view we do have 1 extra Civ, even though its not quite a proper one.

[ChrisShaffer]

quote: 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).....

I, for one, want at least 7 civs to have fun -- because I want to play games where the other 6 civs are human controlled, eh?

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by me_irate on 04-27-2001 10:48 PM 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.

It appears that the desire for more civs is partly based on this assumption that since a few civs will be conquered pretty early, we need more starting civs to balance this out. Perhaps, this assumption is false. Looking at the new resource model that will put an emphasis on trade and the culture model that will make pacifying conquered cities harder, it seems to me that Firaxis is aiming for all 7 civs to be as strong and active and long-lived as possible. If so, doesn't this change our debate? Do we need more civs if all 7 civs are going to be much stronger and active than before. What if all 7 civs will typically last through much of the game and be very active?

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

[BeBro]

I´ve just seen that in the SLeague, I can only agree with all posts that say 7 civs are not enough!!! Fireaxis has said the scenario making options are fine in Civ3. But good scenarios require often more civs, so please, Fireaxis, GIVE us more of them!

[Henrik]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:06 AM What if all 7 civs will typically last through much of the game and be very active?

Actually while it is good the more active they are, it wont remove the limitations for scenario creators

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 07:36 AM Mark, how about a new poll about this issue?

like this one http://www.apolyton.net/cgi-bin/poll/civ3f/results.pl


Number of Civs in a game?
---------------------------
More than 32 385 / 43%
Up to 32 237 / 26%
Up to 16 184 / 20%
8 is enough... 70 / 7%
No opinion 12 / 1%
---------------------------

[DarthVeda]

God, what a bunch of whiney babies--who seem to think programming is a democracy.

Frankly I don't care if there are 7 civs or 4,000,000. I got along just fine with 7 in Civ, Civ2, and Call to Power 2 (even though it had the capacity for more).

The argument that fewer civs hinder mod development is bunk. There are at least 500 scenarios for Civ2. I have made at least 8 secnarios and each one had 7-8 civs (barbarians included obviously).

You guys are acting like Firaxis just took a pee in your corn flakes. So what if there are 7 civs? Are you trying to tell me you won't buy Civ3? Bully!

Sure, there are times when I'd like to have 9 or so, but is it a major roadblock to scenario development? Hell no. I'd rather Firaxis concentrate on more important issues like Graphics importation, Events, and other modification abilities in the game to make it as easily modifiable as Civ2.

Having no macro language and difficultly importing new units is a MUCH MORE important road block to scenario development than not having fourty billion civs. Do you have any idea what kind of system you need to run a game with 20 civ AI? That's going to seriously hinder your audience and serious mod developers know/should know better than to eliminate their audience.

Then we start to talk about the Unit Limit. There is going to be one--that's how programming works--whether it is hard coded or simply a stack overflow or another kind of system limiter. What it is--do we know yet? I do not. The more civs you have, the more units that have to be on the map. And unless you like max unit errors, you're going to want fewer civs.

You honestly have to ask yourself though, and let's take the prolific ww2 scenario as an example, if the Serbians are actually important to put in so that your scenario has 27 civilizations? I think not. Most scenarios can easily slip away with 7 civs, and possibly less. Hell, you could get away with two or three in a worst case scenario.

It's all about your own end of the design process. Are you so absolutely miserable at design that you can't work within restrictions? Or do you plan things out ahead of time to work within the constraints you are given?

However, while a seven civ limit is just fine, it would be nice to have the ability to change it to something higher. But is it the end of the world as you portray it?

NO

[Rasputin]

This once again shows the lack of Multiplayer input into Civ 3 and means there is less and less chance of me buying it...

I can see a lot of reason for keeping the AI controlled civs to a mximum to allow a stronger AI. But what about MP when htere may be no AI's or jsut a few... Why not in MP allow more civs to allow more humans to play, of course this may make an already slow game slower, but me thinks it would open up a few interesting battles...

[Roman]

quote: Number of Civs in a game? --------------------------- More than 32 - 385 / 43% Up to 32 - 237 / 26% Up to 16 - 184 / 20% 8 is enough... - 70 / 7% No opinion - 12 / 1% ---------------------------

Thanks for bringing this up MarkG. This poll clearly shows that the vast bulk of Civ fans want more than 7 civilizations per game.

[Stefu]

Glancing upon poll, it would indeed seem that majority of civers want more than seven. Heck, even the option "keep it at eight" only got seven percent.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Stefu on 04-28-2001 02:15 PM Glancing upon poll, it would indeed seem that majority of civers want more than seven. Heck, even the option "keep it at eight" only got seven percent.

There is in fact further evidence for people wanting more than 7 civilizations per game. For example, almost everyone plays Civ 2 with all seven civilizations rather than using the options of having fewer civs in a game. This strongly suggests that people are comfortable with and in fact want more civilizations in each game they play.

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 04-28-2001 01:37 PM This poll clearly shows that the vast bulk of Civ fans want more than 7 civilizations per game.

That particular poll is only meaningful if each voter fully understands the AI/gameplay consequences of each alternative. And they dont.

------------ Edited:
At least those who limit themselves to max 16 simultaneously playing civs at least took gameplay complications and hardware limitations into account then they did that choice. They perhaps didnt understood the programming/AI/hardware side with above 7-8 civs in a random-map turnbased strategy-game like Civ-3 - but, hell: thats no crime.
-------------

Those however, who voted for 32, or even more (64, even "hundreds"). Frankly, I just cannot take those 26+43 = 69% seriously at all. It is just to much "off the roof" to even comment.

Also; why not read (and respond to) Darthvedas post? Pretty solid arguments if you ask me.

About scenario-designing: Dan Mahaga specifically asked us all what was important to add then creating/playing scenarios. Check out this link Civ3 editing tools: what do *you* want to see. Not much talk about the drop-dead importance of 32+ AI-civs in that thread.

------------ edited:

quote: For example, almost everyone plays Civ 2 with all seven civilizations rather than using the options of having fewer civs in a game.

Well, I usually played Civ-2 with only 3-5 AI-civs depending on the mapsize. Sorry Roman, I couldnt resist that. It is the truth - honest!

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

quote: Originally posted by BeBro on 04-28-2001 10:09 AM I´ve just seen that in the SLeague, I can only agree with all posts that say 7 civs are not enough!!! Fireaxis has said the scenario making options are fine in Civ3. But good scenarios require often more civs, so please, Fireaxis, GIVE us more of them!

I completly agree.

------------------
"The Rumanians are really the most reliable people in the world when it comes to depending upon their breaking any promises they make." - General Harry Hill Bandholtz, US Army, 22 NOV 1919. General Bandholtz was the one who saved the Crown Jewels from the Rumanians. His statue sits in front of the American Embassy in Budapest.
Truth

MC: Azért nem muszály annyira utálni a Románokat. Bisztos van valahot eggy vagy kettô Román aki egeszen rendes... (Például ebbe a forumba is van eggy, Victor Gallis.)

[jadlakha]

HERE IS WHAT I GOTS TO SAY, Just let the gosh dog players choose how many AI's they want. Allow them to choose from 2-(at least)15 other ai's or even 32. If the player has a slow computer or experiences alot of slow down make sure to note in the game that they should play with less AI's for better performance.

[Kautilya]

Personally it doesn't make much of a difference to me. Seven is enough to provide an interesting game. Perhaps it might make a difference in scenarios but as Darth Veda said there are tons of scenarios which have managed to work within those constraints. In any event I am much more interested in the main game than scenarios.


I think that things like the quality of the AI are much more important for a good gaming experience than the no. of civs. That's what we should be shouting for. Not that Firaxis listens to us anyway.
[This message has been edited by Kautilya (edited April 28, 2001).]