 |
| |
|
|
|
Ok, listen up folks! The reason why I think Civ3 should support more than 100 Civs for a single game is not for casual gameplay, but for scenario creation. I mean think about it, realistically, in today's world there are well over 100 nations! And don't you think it would be wise to have the ability to simulate the existence of these nations--to simulate the part that they took in a modern-day, or industrial revolution, historical scenario? It WILL make such scenarios quite historically accurate! Even in the times of renaissance here on earth there were lots of civs around. And in this way, just as in Civ2, you can tweak each civ so that nothing happens in the scenario that you don't want to happen. Period.
And secondly, there should be probably several hundred if not thousands of civs to choose from so that there will be ancient, renaissance, industrial, modern civs, as well as civs that have been around since the dawn of human civilization until today. Also, the variables can be programmed to cause older civs to more likely be destroyed early in the game and be replaced by more modern civs.
------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 27, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
System resources shouldn't be a problem. My computer is only a 500Mhz Celeron, with 384MB of RAM, and a 13.8GB 7200 RPM hard disk drive, and it can handle almost anything using barely the resources available. Similiarly, a high-end Pentium III with 128MB of RAM and at least a 7200 RPM hard disk drive (for faster virtual memory) should be able to handle things just as well, if not better.
Having 100+ civs would not be hard to implement on a computer as long the total number of civs is divisible by 8. Take 128 for example. 128 bits divided by 8=16 bytes.
------------------
JRH
|
|
| |
|
|
Shogun Gunner
|
 |
Potomac Falls, Virginia
Oct 2000
time: 00:12
|
|
That's not the system resources I was talking about.
When programming, there are memory register and routines. Routines are the programming that run the logic and memory register record the results. The more complexity you add does not advance the resources required in linear fashion. It is an exponential factoring.
Think of it this way. With eight civs, your civ must relate to 7 other civs. You will feel differently about each civ. This is true for all eight players. That can be expressed as 2 to the 7 power. The "2" is the civ a as it relates to civ b. The "7" relates to how many civs in play other than yourself. (You will relate to yourself just fine ) When you want 100 civs that is 2 to the 100 power. That's a big difference!
Also, and this is especially true of Microsoft products, there are limitations within the OS code itself for certain operations. I think most CIV players are familiar with the graphical problems near the end of a game (2010..2020 AD) when you play the largest map. Your system can crash or misbehave. That is not because Civ was programmed poorly or your system is inadequate. Sometimes this is a function of the preset memory "set asides" that Microsoft programs in their OS for GDI (for graphics) and other memory registers for other system operations.
When these guys program games, they have to take all of that into consideration. Great concepts are lousy concepts if too many people have trouble with the feature. It can ruin a good game.
Reading through these posts, you can see the same request over and over again: playability, playability, playability. People are willing to sacrifice "reality" or really cool features to have an easy to play, balanced game.
The unbalanced AI feature with only eight civs is a constant source of irritants for CIVers. I can only imagine how much more of a problem that would be with 100 civs.
Don't get me wrong. I wish they could develop a game with 100 civs. It would be more realistic and more of a challenge. It's just not a function of the end user's RAM and processor.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
chrispie
|
 |
Manchester UK
Oct 2000
time: 05:12
|
|
Well, I guess what jrhughes98 is saying is the possibility to have up to 100 or so civs, most of whom who don't do much?
I guess, in the wonderful land of theory that could be possible, if they were stripped down a lot..maybe in scenario's, you could have up to 32 'active' civs, who move units and plans strategies and stuff, and the rest 'inactive', only doing basic city management. After all, the thing that takes up the majority of AI time is moving units, as appose to basic city management and maybe even some diplomacy.
Maybe, in scenario's, we could even set a date for a civ to become 'active' and another to become 'inactive'. Just a thought of a bored chrispie. 
But, just think if 128 civs were in play, just to hold who had discovered which tiles on a 200*100 map would need (200*100)*16 or 320k, imagine each of the 127 AI players reading through that each turn
|
|
| |
|
|
|
I have sent an e-mail to Firaxis myself to see what they have to say about this. This will certainly settle the debate.
------------------
JRH
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
 |
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Shogun Gunner on 10-28-2000 11:33 AM
Once again, a great idea, just not workable.
I'm telling you it's not a function of RAM, disk space, disk speed, processor of YOUR computer. It's a programming issue. Take my word for it, it would be incredibly difficult and I'm absolutely sure it would outstrip anything you could put together from computer equipment on the open market.
Unless you purchase 20+ risc workstation and network them together in your home. Of course the game would need to programmed to take advantage of this configuration. You think people complained about system requirements before!!!
|
Programming lots of nations and their diplomatic relations is not difficult at all. It has been done several years ago in "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance". The real question is: will it add anything at all to the gameplay? I have my doubts. Chances are, having many more civs will merely increase the luck factor, unless it would be much, much harder to conquer a city. But then we would have a totally different game.
------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Builder
|
|
Stefu is right.
long long long long long turns...
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Ribannah
|
|
The Netherlands, Embassy of the Iroquois Confederacy
Aug 2000
time: 06:12
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 10-29-2000 02:05 PM
Ribannah quote: "Programming lots of nations and their diplomatic relations is not difficult at all. It has been done several years ago in "Birthright: The Gorgon's Alliance".
Not difficult at all, huh?
Somehove i believe that making comparisons with a several year older and a lot less complex DOS-game is rather irrelevant.
|
BtGA is in many ways more complex than Civ2, especially the diplomacy part. It's just not as good. The version I have is playable over the Internet btw.
There have been pen & paper games more complex than Civ2, which is in fact not a complex game at all. It's trying to play the game WELL that creates the complexity, that is what makes it so great.
Ralf, you simply have no idea what you're talking about. It is hardly any extra work to allow for 100 civs. On the contrary, with fewer civs the artificial intelligence needs MORE work to make it a challenge.
Speed and memory are not an issue with a mere 10,000 relationships. The expansion is only quadratic btw, not exponential.
------------------
If you have no feet, don't walk on fire
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Still waiting for a response from Firaxis. . .
------------------
JRH
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ralf on 10-29-2000 02:05 PM
- The looong, looong turns that Stefu talks about is a second BIG problem.
- The fact that Firaxis *must* release a game that is playable also on at least 2 year old machines to ensure the maximal of potential customers is the final nail in the coffin.
[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited October 29, 2000).]
|
I can see someone hasn't been doing their homework.
quote:
Originally posted by jrhughes98 on 10-27-2000 11:50 PM
Again, a simple solution: Allow a maximum of about 10 human players and about 90 AI's on a HUGE map (with units that can move around much faster than in Civ2). In the game setup you can choose the maximum number of human players you want, and the minimum and maximum number of AI's you want (for when tribes split apart, form federations, etc.).
Now of course we all know that human players are slower than the computer. Humans have to think; computers just "get up and go!" But some people have very slow computers, so to compromise an extra utility should come with the game that takes into account such things as the speed of your processor, the amount of system RAM you have, how much video memory you have, the speed/size of your hard disk, etc., and calculates the maximum number of tribes that your computer is capable of handling without having any problems.
|
------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 29, 2000).]
|
|
| |
|
|
|
SWPIGWANG The Second
|
|
I'd say processing power is not a big problem. The number of cities and units will not exceed a late Civ 2 game as small civ gets eaten up FAST. The number of diplomatic connections for each civ will not be huge as they quickly kill each other and block each other's exploration attempts.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12.
Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
28-10-2000 05:21
|