Only 7 civilizations per game

[Dr. Nick]

NO!

Let's boycott Civ 3 unless this is changed!

[Chronus]

Additional civs would be nice but, quite frankly, I don't see why everyone is giving birth to a cow over this.

I agree with Cyclotron7's theory: more civs only mean more bite sized empires. I think this will, consequently, make them too easy to conquer.

By the way, MarkG, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but . . .
. . . your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7 civs is enough" (just out of spite). The "No opinion" option DOES NOT reflect what I want. ;-)

[Chris 62]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-28-2001 10:23 PM I am sorry folks but I still don't get it: why is more civs better?

From the scenario perspective, this is a major problem. Many scenarios are forced to distort the historical situation they represent because there are only seven slots for civs. To show history in a more accurate light, as well as increase the enjoyment of the palyers, more civs are needed. This is a major problem.

quote: if the game is fun, challenging, addictive, complex, realistic with 7 civs, isn't that good enough?

From a gaming standpoint, I would agree with you, but there are larger issues at work here. More civs could mean higher sales (more people interested in MP, scenarios, ect.), a better gaming experience, and as this is the twentyfirst century, an improved game engine, not a rehash of a previous system.

quote: I also think we need to think about the fact that the game will have unique civs. So, Firaxis needs to play balance each civ and make sure that they are well balanced against each other in the game. The more civs in the game at once, the harder it will be to play balance them all. Already, people complained that the 7 factions in SMAX were unbalanced. I am sure that Firaxis is sticking with the safe number of 7 civs so that they can make sure that all the factions are well balanced in terms of gameplay. They don't want a civ that is overpowered or underpowered.

I disagree, for the reasons stated in my previous post, that is a cost cutting move, not an effort to improve play balence. If you follow this logic, then only two civs are needed with identical attributes on an identical map, then play balence would be assured.

quote: If the game is fun and challenging with 7, why have more?

Civ-1 and Civ-2 were fun and challenging, but why do we want Civ-3? We want more and better. If this whole thing is true, Firaxis has ignored a very large and active group of potential customers, and killed possible expansion games, because of the ill-will generated by such a decision.

------------------
All knowledge begins with the phrase: I don't know.
[This message has been edited by cpoulos (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Sabre2th]

I think people are complaining about this a bit too much. While it would be nice to play with more occasionally, it isn't necessary and the game will not be RUINED without it. Stop crying and move on.

------------------
"We don't know a millionth of one percent about anything."
-Thomas A. Edison

[Kautilya]

. "your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7
civs is enough"
Yeah and in addition to that there is the basic point that there is an opportunity cost in that providing this feature will mean less work in some other area. There might be lots of people who want more civs when looking at the issue in isolation but might be less keen if that came at the cost of AI or graphics.

A better poll would ask people to rank various features in descending order of importance.

In any case self-selected Internet polls are close to meaningless since the sample is usually biased.

[DarthVeda]

Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

There are physical limitations on the technology folks, you have to have some give.

quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda on 04-29-2001 01:37 AM Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

what the hell are you talking about? we are talking about the simultaneous civs, not the total availiable ones!

quote: Originally posted by Chronus on 04-29-2001 12:56 AM By the way, MarkG, I don't mean to sound like a broken record but . . . . . . your poll is skewed! It automatically assumes additional civs are wanted. I want to vote for "7 civs is enough" (just out of spite). The "No opinion" option DOES NOT reflect what I want. ;-)

7 + you = 8

btw, i should not that we had a poll on this not long ago

quote: Civ3: How many civs in a game? --------------------------- 8 22 / 8% 16 64 / 25% 24 28 / 11% 32 50 / 19% 64 14 / 5% More than 64! 74 / 29%

http://apolyton.net/cgi-bin/ubb-poll...owResults&id=9

which means that this discussion has been made on "big" level, at least twice, and the result is more or less: people want more civs

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-28-2001 10:52 PM To deny extra playability [by adding more civs] for all time is just nasty.

Oh, come on Jdlessl! Do you really think above is the very reason why Firaxis decided to have the official max 7 civs-limit? For some sadistic and grudging reason? Or perhaps from some economical shortcut rush-developing reason? I sure as heck dont believe so - not for one second. This title has been voted "best game of all times" (not just the best strategy-game, mind you). I think it safe to presume that the team does virtually everything reasonably possible, givin their not-limitless resources, to ensure yet another smash hit evergreen game-success. After all; its their developing-money and the team + Sid very reputation thats at stake here, not ours. They even canceled the Dinosaurs-project, in order to relocate resources to Civ-3. I say, give them a rest, and lets move on to more relevant and important stuff!

Read below quote from MidKnight Lament one more time - It makes sence doesnt it?

quote: If they thought they could increase the number of civs to make it a better game, they would. They know it inside out, and know perfectly well what it would do the the AI, minimum specs etc... They've no doubt play-tested with more and decided it wasn't worth the hit. I would be highly surprised if there isn't an option in the text files to tweak it yourself. I can't believe there's so many people on here who think they know more about what Civ 3 can do than the developers themselves. (No disrespect to those who ran their copy of Civ 2 to the ground.)

[jdlessl]

quote: Originally posted by DarthVeda on 04-29-2001 01:37 AM Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is).

Fine. So make the max 16. There are, after all, 16 civs to choose from, so using that as a max involves no extra work.

Technology has limits? Ok, so maybe I can't play Civ3 with 100 civs on my system right now. As I pointed out earlier, people still play Civ2 on machines many times more powerful than were available back then. It's just stupid to set an arbitrary limit like that. Especially when there are systems out there today that could easily run more than 8 civs.

Ralf: Didn't mean it was malicious, but it's not very intelligent. I have yet to hear a good reason why Civ2 had the limit.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Kull]

Let's try and put this in perspective. If Civ3 has support for no more than 7 simultaneous civs, will I buy it? Yes. Will just about everyone else here at Apolyton get it too? Yes. Will this single factor cause the game to "suck" beyond all redeeming? Almost certainly not.

But just for one minute, think about all your hopes for Civ3. All the things you dearly wanted included in this game. Improved AI, better diplomacy, gee-whiz graphics.....just take a look at the Civ3 wish list! It's full of far out concepts and ingenious new ideas. If some of these aren't implemented, at least you can console yourself with the thought, "Well it must have been too difficult to program" or "maybe it failed in gameplay". But extra civs? Come on! This is an improvement so obvious, so basic, so RUDIMENTARY, that I still can't believe it hasn't been implemented!

As a scenario designer, I'm left with the faint hope that the alleged minor civs will somehow resolve the problem. Yes, Darth, we've found plenty of ways to "finagle" the issue. When all else fails, the tried and true "minor powers" can always be used. But wouldn't it be nice to play a WWII scenario in which an attack on Thailand doesn't automatically put me at war with Switzerland and most of South America? Is that REALLY too much to ask for?
[This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]

[Stefu]

BTW, would I be terribly wrong if I speculated that if original Civ had ben released with only six civs, and Civ2 would also have had only six civs, and AC only 6 factions, then all these "quality-over-quantity" people like DarthVeda would be arguing that six civs is the optimal number and having seven civs would hinder the AI too much to be worthy?

[Roman]

I think Firaxis is just reusing the SMAC engine for Civ 3, which had a 7 civilization limit, so Civ 3 will have a 7 civilization limit. That would also mean no tweaking if the limit in text files. What a pity.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kull on 04-29-2001 05:52 AM As a scenario designer, I'm left with the faint hope that the alleged minor civs will somehow resolve the problem. Yes, Darth, we've found plenty of ways to "finagle" the issue. When all else fails, the tried and true "minor powers" can always be used. But wouldn't it be nice to play a WWII scenario in which an attack on Thailand doesn't automatically put me at war with Switzerland and most of South America? Is that REALLY too much to ask for? [This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]

This is exactly my problem and I don't see why it should remain that way. I couldn't care for the normal SP game, I almost exclusively play scenarios and there this is the most major issue.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Stefu on 04-29-2001 06:12 AM BTW, would I be terribly wrong if I speculated that if original Civ had ben released with only six civs, and Civ2 would also have had only six civs, and AC only 6 factions, then all these "quality-over-quantity" people like DarthVeda would be arguing that six civs is the optimal number and having seven civs would hinder the AI too much to be worthy?

IMO you wouldn't be wrong in your speculation. Computer technology has advanced at a lightning pace over the last few years, so I am sure it could handle more than 7 civs perfectly well.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kull on 04-29-2001 05:52 AM But just for one minute, think about all your hopes for Civ3. All the things you dearly wanted included in this game. Improved AI, better diplomacy, gee-whiz graphics.....just take a look at the Civ3 wish list! It's full of far out concepts and ingenious new ideas. If some of these aren't implemented, at least you can console yourself with the thought, "Well it must have been too difficult to program" or "maybe it failed in gameplay". But extra civs? Come on! This is an improvement so obvious, so basic, so RUDIMENTARY, that I still can't believe it hasn't been implemented! [This message has been edited by Kull (edited April 29, 2001).]

Exactly! Actually this for me (along with making resources useful) was the most important thing to change (the most important thing I didn't want added was future techs). I desperately wanted a higher civilization limit as I play almost exclusively scenarios.

[BeBro]

quote: Civ-1 and Civ-2 were fun and challenging, but why do we want Civ-3? We want more and better. If this whole thing is true, Firaxis has ignored a very large and active group of potential customers, and killed possible expansion games, because of the ill-will generated by such a decision.

Couldn´t agree more.
Of course seven civs can be fun and challenging still today, and of course I´ll buy Civ3 also if it offers only that, but where is the improvement here?

quote: Another point that these million-civ advocators fail to note is that the Firaxis programmers would have to create personalities, animations, and pics for more civs (stuffing a CD fuller than it already is). There are physical limitations on the technology folks, you have to have some give.

How can you know that "physical limitations" of Fireaxis exactly? And do we know today how full the Game CD is? And there are also games that have more CDs without driving the producing game company into bankruptcy...


------------------
Civ2000 hosted by CivII Universum

[Cyberbugs]

I just can't believe this it true!!
Is the single most important thing for some people here the amount of civs that can be played simultaneously?! I am very excited about this game, and yes I think more than seven simoultaneous civs would be good, but not THAT good; not good enough to sacrifice work put down on other vital parts of the game!

I am sure the broad majority of game buyers doesn't regard the issue about the amount of civs their top priority.

Don't get me wrong though. I have respect for your people that really want alot of civs to play with at the same time, but please: arn't there more important features in Civilization 3?

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-29-2001 05:07 AM They even canceled the Dinosaurs-project, in order to relocate resources to Civ-3.

actually, as Sid said, they cancelled it cause they just couldnt make the idea work as they would like.

quote: I would be highly surprised if there isn't an option in the text files to tweak it yourself.

do you want to bet on it?

it would be acceptable for me if they went the ctp1/2 way: allow more civs without officially supporting it. but somehow i have the feeling it wont happen

[Roman]

Yes, tweaking the limit in the Ctp way through the text files would be just fine with me too, but I am afraid they are reusing the SMAC engine and have therefore hardcoded the max. no. of civs at 7.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Cyberbugs on 04-29-2001 07:48 AM Is the single most important thing for some people here the amount of civs that can be played simultaneously?! I am very excited about this game, and yes I think more than seven simoultaneous civs would be good, but not THAT good;

For many scenario makers it is indeed the most important thing, as it is the most restrictive limit.

quote: I am sure the broad majority of game buyers doesn't regard the issue about the amount of civs their top priority.

Look at the poll. 92% seem to consider having more than 7 civilizations important. 7% think 8 civilizations (including barbs) is enough and 1% doesn't care.;

quote: Don't get me wrong though. I have respect for your people that really want alot of civs to play with at the same time

Thank you.

[Admiral PJ]

Maybe we should have another poll, now we know a bit more about the civ limit issue.. and have options for: will still be happy with civ3 if it has just 7 civs,
and :Will put up with the 7 civ limit if minor tribes are independant and can simulate the rest of the world's populations

at least another poll might make firaxis try harder to put in 16 civ simultaneous play..
I don't care about different graphics and hardness levels, i just want the novelty of having lots of civs, to interact with, to make strategies and alliances more important . It will help the longevity of each game, making it interesting to have to conquer someone else with a different strategy, rather than just having to fight the ONE big bad Zulu empire or somthing dull and old.

I don't know if 7 has been confirmed anyway.. but if it is they better make civs much better Quality to counter the lack of their quantity (of civs)

Of course it may also come down to a screen GUI/ window presentation issue.. having a diplomacy window with 16 players could get a bit cramped, so I doubt they'd change all the graphics and presentation to fit in mroe civs now

Still my game will have tonnes of civs or polises as i call them

peter@artpac.demon.co.uk

[DarthVeda]

Hello markos?

You guys want 32+ civs playable in one game...

from what I read they only plan on having... what? 16 civs available total.

Would you like duplicate incarnations of the same civs in one game or something?

"Yes, that was a tough game, especially when the Aztecs, Aztecs, and Aztecs ganged up on me... but the Tri-zulu aliance saved me!"

DUMB!

[Fintilgin]

Well, Firaxis has already said they'll be leaving the option open to add more Civilization artwork, much like SMAC. So if I wanted to play with 32 Civ's, yes I'd have to add the art for 16 or so.

But with all the talented fans we have in this community, does anyone belive that we won't have flood of interesting and well done fan civilizations once the game is made?

They might not have unanimated diplomacy faces, but that's not a big deal.

Anyway, I'm curious why they wouldn't at least allow the option to tweek it in the text files. (And for all we know they will). Seeing as it's an unsupported modification (which only us fanatics will use) they don't have to worry too much about balance and turn length. A limit between 64-128 would be ideal I think. Would I play with that many in a normal game? Probably not, unless we had astoundingly huge maps, and was willing to wait for long turns to go by. But it would open up some interesting possibilities for scenario designers.

My point is that by leaving the option open, they allow the game that much more life, flexibility, and future expandability at a relative minimum of effort. But by locking it off they gain nothing. Seems odd to me.

I'm probably being too optimistic in hoping they've been planing on leaving it as an option in the .txt files all along... But they might...

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

[The diplomat]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-28-2001 10:52 PM Ok, Diplomat, you don't see the extra fun inherent in having more civs. Fine. You are a member of the 8% that wants to keep it the same. But there's the other 92% who wants more, and to keep you happy at the expense of everyone else just plain sucks. Especially when having >8 civs allowable allows us to play how we want and you to play how you want. -- Jared Lessl [This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 29, 2001).]

I am sorry if I offended anybody. That was not my intention. I am not against more civs as an option for those who want it. I just don't think a 7 civ limit is the end of the world.
And, I am not a member of the 8% that want to keep the game the same. What are you suggesting, that anyone who wants to keep the limit to 7 wants to hold the game back? Are you suggesting that more civs is more important than the diplomacy or trade models in the game?
I don't want the same old game. I want a radically better diplomacy, better economic model, better ressource and trade model. I hardly want the same old same old.

Who are we to tell Firaxis that we know better than them about their own game? They probably tried to implement more civs PRECISELY TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU, and found out it does not work for whatever reasons.
If they are staying with 7 civs, they probably have very good reasons.

I say, calm down. It is not the end of world. I understand that it is dissapointing to many, but it is not the end of the word by any means.
The important thing is that the game itself is as good as possible with great diplomacy, trade, armies, etc...



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

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 12:03 PM we can't even say that Apolyton is representative of all Civ players let alone the tens of thousands of non-regular gamers who will likely buy the game.

Maybe you are right, but do you actually have any other statistic on what te people want in the game? I am sure you don't and therefore we have to go along with samples that we have and that is the polls on Apolyton, which show that 92% of respondents want more than 7 civilizations per game.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-29-2001 02:13 PM Who are we to tell Firaxis that we know better than them about their own game?

Well we are the customers and we can tell them what we want to see in the game and what we don't want to see included. They can ignore us, of course, but it is wise to listen to customers' demands.

quote: They probably tried to implement more civs PRECISELY TO PLEASE ALL OF YOU, and found out it does not work for whatever reasons.

I sincerely doubt it. They are most likely simply reusing the old SMAC engine, which has the 7 civilization limit hardcoded in it.

quote: If they are staying with 7 civs, they probably have very good reasons.

Yes, reusing the SMAC engine...

[ajbera]

While we are customers, we (the insane, drooling fanatics) represent a minority of purchasers. The vast majority of those who will buy this game are those who do not peruse these forums, do not get bent out of shape over 7-civ maximum and civ-specific units, and do not threaten to not buy the game if feature X ain't implemented.

I also am saddened by the 7-civ limit (one reason why the modified CtP will remain on my hard drive), but from a business standpoint (and let us remember that the primary reason Firaxis is making this game is to MAKE MONEY; being a labor of love comes second) reusing the SMAC engine makes good sense.

The perfect Civ game? 1) It will have to be a labor of love, without any economic considerations, 2) Each creator will have to dictate what is perfect and what isn't, so each person should make their own game and include the features they consider indispensible, or it should be so customizable and with so many optional features that everyone can fine-tune it to their specifications.

In other words, if you want a Civ game to be exactly what you want it to be, you will have to make it yourself.

Sad, but true.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by The diplomat on 04-29-2001 02:13 PM I say, calm down. It is not the end of world. I understand that it is dissapointing to many, but it is not the end of the word by any means. The important thing is that the game itself is as good as possible with great diplomacy, trade, armies, etc...

No it is not the end of the world and I will in all likelihood still buy the game. However, I don't care much for the SP game, I almost exclusively play scenarios and here the 7 civilization limit is a very significant problem (unless it can be edited in the text file - which I doubt).