Only 7 civilizations per game

[Kautilya]

"Maybe you are right, but do you actually have any other statistic on what te people want in the game?"
No but the business types at Firaxis probably have a better idea of what the market as a whole wants than either you or me. If they have decided not to implement this feature it's probably because they figure that the overall demand for it isn't worth the cost.

Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.

[Roman]

Ok, I think the point has now been made - after all this thread has reached 4 pages in just 3 days. Hence, I will now quieten down on this issue, but I would still like to hear from Firaxis whether the 7 civilization limit will be tweakable through text-files and if not what programming challenge stood in the way of that.

In the meantime there are plenty of other news to discuss about Civ 3 and in all other respects (other than this accursed limit) the game seems to be heading in the right direction and I am very excited about it.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.

BTW: This poll had one of the highest participation ratios I have ever seen on Apolyton with way more than 700 respondents, which indicates that people are really interested in this issue.
I agree that a better poll would be the one you propose, but this is poll was the best we have and it is also the most overwhelming response (92% in favour of more civs ) I have ever seen in a poll.

[Roman]

Perhaps we could e-mail Firaxis to get an answer to whether the limit will be tweakable in the text files.

Someone willing to undertake this?

[Chronus]

MARKG QUOTE: "7 + you = 8"

Um ... when I fire up Civ2 and then select "7 Civilizations" (the option with the highest number of civs as far as I can see) then I get my own civ competing against 6 other civs. This final total comes up to 7 ... not 8 ... no? :-p

[Phalanx_TS]

Is the 7 civs confirmed, i thought this would have been something they would let the public choose for themselves. You know, when you start a new game and select how many civs, a max of 7 is just to small.
I'm a scenario man, for civ2 i created a ww1-ww2 mod which had alot of basically everything. Every graphic and tweak possible was implemented into the mod, new sounds, new units, new animations, new cities, new terrain, new wonders. The *only* problem i had was that in didn't truly capture a war like atmosphere, not enough civilizations.
A rather annoying aspect of civ2, to change governments a civilization had to go through a process of anarchy before forming a new government. In this period of anarchy a city can be bought dirt cheap, 50 gold on occasion. I use to give enemy civs government techs, watch them go into anarchy, then buy half their cities. Will civ3 have this same annoying aspect?

[St Leo]

I have been designing scenarios for years now with two critical successes (Fictional Americas, Roman Riots) and the seven civ limit disgusts me. For example, I have been planning a sequel to Fictional Americas for some time now and it requires fifteen civs for it to be any fun.

I will make up a hypothetical scenario on the fly to illustrate my point:

The Gandalf Wars - Gandalf succumbs to the temptation of the Ring, builds a mighty kingdom in the Shire, and prepares to wage war across Middle-Earth.

To make it fun and balanced I would need the following civs:
-Shire (Gandalf)
-Isengard (Saruman)
-Mordor (Sauron)
-Rhun (Pallando)
-Harad (Alatar)
-Gondor (Denethor)
-Rohan (Theoden)
-Dwarves (Dain II)
-Orcs (Azog?)
-Imladris (Elrond)
-Laurelindorenan (Galadriel)
-Grey Havens (some shipwright)
-Arnor (Elessar)
-Carrock (Beorn)

This adds up to fourteen civs and there are probably others that would be a good addition.

---

Basically, what makes [Europa Universalis] interesting is the large number of nations. That's it, period. I don't recall any other game of this type with more than 8 or so nations. Imagine if EU had only 8 nations - the game would just totally suck. Really, I don't think the game engine has much going for it other than the interaction between 70+ nations. -Roberto Ullfig

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

[St Leo]

I know I have just posted a good argument, but there's nothing wrong with backing it up with a bad one:

-The Civ2 AI was excellent except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't. All of its fallacies could be fixed by giving it free units with events.
-The Civ2 map size limits are fine by me (the Gigamap could easily fit 128 perfectionist civs and I though that 10000 square maps were large enough).
-The Civ2 improvement model was fine, although custom wonders would have been great.
-8-bit graphics are fine by me.

I want more CIVS!

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

[MrFun]

Wow -- I am impressed by how quickly so many people have taken up on this important issue, either for or against more than seven civilizations in each game.

I truly hope that Firaxis will take notice in their customers' concern over this. Of course, in my opinion, that means considering the customers' opinion that seven is enough, then rejecting their opinion and increase it to 12 civilizations in every game.

------------------
"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

[Kautilya]

"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.;"
*Sigh* How many times do we have to repeat this? The poll is meaningless like all the polls here because it is a self-selected and not representative sample. Only the people most interested in the issue (who usually want more civs) bother to answer. In any case 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.

And let me say that if this feature is relatively easy to incorporate then I am all for it. But if , as a bunch of people here seem to think, it will take a lot of work then I personally don't want it to divert resources from things like AI. Different people will have different value judgements and it's really hard to say what the potential Civ3 community which is much larger than Apolyton thinks about this.

[BeBro]

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

Many posts say, they want more than seven. I for example would be happy with 16.

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

Who says that? And does that mean that more civs aren´t a problem of ressources anymore? What comes next?

quote: DUMB!

Wow, great argument!




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

[Roman]

I suggest petitioning the Firaxis team at this e-mail to at least allow tweaking the limit through text-files.

[Roman]

Here is the address:

askthecivteam@firaxis.com

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 12:03 PM And let me say that if this feature is relatively easy to incorporate then I am all for it.

Excellent.

quote: But if , as a bunch of people here seem to think, it will take a lot of work then I personally don't want it to divert resources from things like AI. Different people will have different value judgements and it's really hard to say what the potential Civ3 community which is much larger than Apolyton thinks about this.

It shouldn't be too difficult to incorporate, as they can reuse the code from the previous seven civs for the next. Unless, of course, they are basing the game on an old engine (SMAC).

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by St Leo on 04-29-2001 09:40 PM -The Civ2 AI was excellent except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.

What a sad and pityful statement that is. It also rather revealing. Do you honestly not feel the slightest need for...

- a more effective & smarter AI-empire defence & attack capability?
- a better AI-diplomacy (= smarter cooperation between civs/AI-civs)?
- a more effective AI city-improvement & city-area development strategy?
- a better use of economical excess (no more dust-collecting AI-wealth)?
- a more effective AI-unit upgrade development (quality before quantity)?
- a better AI-exchange (avoid AI-disadvantageous tech-exchanges vs HP)?
- a more effective AI-land area exploitation within AI-borders?

The AI in Civ-2/SMAC reminds me of a computer car-racing game, where each AI-car drives more secure but always slower, by default. The human player always starts as jumbo-position - but he have always the fastest car, by default. If he is new to the game, he keeps bumbing into fences and slides of the track at first. Its however only a question of time before he learns to master his car, and after that, he keep on overtaking one AI-car after the other. Simply because he drive the fastest car, by default. Its more or less a question of 100% mathematical certainty.

The same can be said about overcoming the AI in present civ-games. For a casual player unfamiliar to civ-series the AI can appear strong at first. And sure: the early stages have some risky & uncertain moments also for seasoned civ-gamers. But as soon as the basic layout of cities had been made, and the consolidating stage have moved on a bit; the question of surviving and actual winning the game, becomes more or less a matter of foreseeing predictability: It becomes a question of 100% mathematical certainty - on way or the other. Just as in above racing-game. The challenge is gone, and one stuck only with some limited curiosity on in which order & how exactly that certain victory is going to establish itself.

I think its time for an upgrade in Civ-3 - dont you guys? I want to feel uncertain as long as possible. I only want to win every second or every third completed game on the higher levels. And when I win, I want to feel that I achieved something difficult. It that to much to ask for?

quote: ...except for its tendency to gang up on the most powerful player even when it shouldn't.

The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game. As soon as the winning player are just as superior or even more superior then all the other players combined - the losing ones start to form multi-member contain-the-aggression pacts. They temporarily accept that it is in their common interest to "gang-up" as much as possible against that superior bully-boy.

Why should it be different then playing against losing AI-civs? If any single AI-civ instead was the strongest one, and you as a human player + all the remaining weaker AI-civs was soon destined to be crushed - one by one; wouldnt you then want to be able to form pacts with the other soon-to-be-conquered civs? A last desperate effort to "gang-up" and retaliate?

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

[jdlessl]

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM Even apart from the sample-bias issue it's not clear how much the 100 odd respondents in this poll want this feature. Suppose having this comes at the cost of AI or graphics, lots of those respondents might decide that this is less important. A better poll would ask people to rank the features in descending order of importance: ai, graphics, more civs etc. This would give us an idea of how much of a priority this is.

AI
As many civs as I want. And I want this very, very, very much.
Eye candy

quote: Originally posted by Kautilya on 04-29-2001 03:13 PM The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game

Hmmm, partly true. With human players, some of us might look at the situation and say, "Wow, even the 4 of us together don't stand a chance in hell of winning, so rather than attack the big guy, I'll ally with him, and thus have a chance of surviving, even as his lowly vassal". We wouldn't always and without fail attack anyone who crosses a 'power threshold', breaking alliances, treaties, pacts, and friendships in doing so.
--
Jared Lessl

[Greg_was_here]

I'll reserve my verdict until I actually see how Firaxis handles the minor civs. Without the minor civs, I would definitely oppose the decision made by Firaxis for limiting the number of civs to 7. I don't believe anything like that AI can't cope more than 7 civs or few more civs will make the AI
cripples. If Firaxis made a decision to limit the number of civs to 7, there must be good convincing reason for it.

I'd like to know how many slots will be given to the minor civs.

[St Leo]

The AI-civs in this respect, should behave as they were 3-4 losing human players against one single winning human player in a multiplayer game.

No, they should not. AI should behave like real leaders, not ones that are trying to win a game with fixed rules. If I want my opponents to behave that way, I'll play multiplayer.

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

[Roman]

Has anybody e-mailed Firaxis about the modification of the civilization limit through the text files yet?

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 04-30-2001 10:42 AM "Wow, even the 4 of us together don't stand a chance in hell of winning, so rather than attack the big guy, I'll ally with him, and thus have a chance of surviving, even as his lowly vassal". We wouldn't always and without fail attack anyone who crosses a 'power threshold', breaking alliances, treaties, pacts, and friendships in doing so.

It all depends on what type of player the superior one is. Does he appear to be in a conquer-the-world mood, or is it space-travel thats on the agenda? Is his culture wastly superior, and did he initiated the war to begin with? Does he spend time on re-establish happiness in conquered cities? All these things matters.
If he instead is the ruthless Hitler-type in a bloodlust conquer-the-world-mood, with his goal set on "pick on at the time until they all mercilessly crushed" - well, then it would be rather naive to think that one could survive - even if he temporaily offer you to be is so called "ally", or "lowly wassal". The AI must be smart enough to see through these cheap temporary peace-offerings. Compare with Hitler - Appeasement is then not an option.

I say fight to the death!
Join multi-civ pacts and share everything - and fight to the death against the aggressor.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 30, 2001).]

[jdlessl]

quote: Originally posted by Ralf on 04-30-2001 12:14 PM It all depends on what type of player the conquer is.

They key phrase there is "It all depends". I could be friggin Ghandi with a reputation pure as arctic snow and the AI would still not hesitate to terminate centuries or even millennia of good relations because his civ sucked in comparison to mine. Sure, most of the time when I'd just throw in the towel and try to take the big guy down, but not always.

I am very much aware that this is not a failing on Sid's part but rather the extreme difficulty in writing good AI's. Which is why I think that multiplayer is really the only decent way to play civ. Everything else is just practice.

--
Jared Lessl

[Eternal]

No doubt about it, this is just business as usual in your local computer game company. Take something, make it look prettier than it was before and change a bunch of things without making any substantial changes, advertise it as the game Jesus will play when he returns, sell it to the gauranteed number of suckers who will buy anything.

I really can't say I actually expected the jerks to have any more than 7 civs. And forget them releasing any patches so you could tweak it. If they wanted to spend the extra money making a patch they would have made it an option from the get-go.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Minor Civs, Minor Civs, Minor ****ING Civs

JESUS! I can't believe I wasted my time reading all this crap. Except for a few posts, this thread is an utter waste. Why? Because almost all of you neglect that Firaxis has confirmed that there WILL be minor civs. NO ONE knows how these minor civs will be implimented, so any talk of outrage over 'only' 7 civs is foolish at this point in time.

[aCa]

I just have to say it's strange that so many ppl complaint about how important it is to have more then 7 civs. You argue like this is the most important thing in the game. I can promise you that it's NOT that important. I have my thrust in Sid and the FIRIFAX team effords to make this game balanced, and I'll bet there is a (or many) reason why they only allow 7 civs in the game.

As many ppl have mantioned is that there will be minor civs, that will be interesting hearing more about. Maybe that will calm the mob down. A other thing that have been mentioned before is that is that in CIV2 2-3 civs got eliminated in the beginning of the game. Now that a settler need 2 pop, there is a BIG chance the problem with civs getting eliminated in the beginning have been removed. Now they have the time to build units before they can build a settler. So the 7 civs in civ3 would be like 9-10 civs in civ2.......... yeah and we also have minor civs on top of that.

If you say your not going to buy this game becouse of only 7 civs, then you are no REAL civ addivt. The thing thats REALLY important to improve is the AI. So we don't get bored after whooping the AI 2 times on deity level. The AI should really put up a fight, THATS THE REALLY IMPORTANT THING.

aCa (a Civilization addict)

aCa

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui on 05-01-2001 03:33 AM Minor Civs, Minor Civs, Minor ****ING Civs JESUS! I can't believe I wasted my time reading all this crap. Except for a few posts, this thread is an utter waste. Why? Because almost all of you neglect that Firaxis has confirmed that there WILL be minor civs. NO ONE knows how these minor civs will be implimented, so any talk of outrage over 'only' 7 civs is foolish at this point in time.

Well Imran, guess I will have to say this again: Despite the extensive previews that have emerged, there has been no mention of minor civs whatsoever. However, there has been mention of barbarians having encampements. This is what the minor civs are, Imran. Of course, if it turned out that I was wrong and there are in fact proper minor civs that can be used as separate nations for scenarios, I would take back all my complaints about the 7 civilization limit , since minor civs would solve the problem. As things stand now, though, I am rather certain I am correct on the subject of minor civs and so the 7 civilization limit is hurting...

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by aCa on 05-01-2001 05:52 AM I have my thrust in Sid and the FIRIFAX team

Please, lets not use cult of personality as an argument.

[yin26]

Ummm, try Sid's track record then. As for Sid as a person, he's rather reclusive and seemingly control-freakish when its HIS project (and not just his name on the box). But the results speak for themselves over the years.

[Roman]

Despite what many of you would believe, Sid is only human and can make mistakes. An example of such a mistake is the 7 civilization limit.

[jdlessl]

quote: Originally posted by Roman on 05-01-2001 06:34 AM Despite what many of you would believe, Sid is only human and can make mistakes. An example of such a mistake is the 7 civilization limit.

Sure, but we're up to 4 pages of posts now detailing how unhappy fans of his games are with this limit. Mistakes are one thing, ignoring your customers on an important topic quite another.

--
Jared Lessl

[aCa]

I don't belive you Roman...... no way his human..... HE IS GOD ..... j/k

------------------
aCa (a Civilization addict)