31-10-2000 03:32									#1
	12th POLL: How many civs in a game? Increase the size of your Attachments

it's a "rerun", but with a bit different choices...

results below
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited November 22, 2000).]

	31-10-2000 05:25									#2
	Inflate your Upload Space

Interesting comment from Monk in the list of comments

Anyway, I note that some people actually want more than 64 civs... What I want to know is: WHY???

Is a game with that many civs enjoyable to play, or, for that matter, playable at all? I have some serious doubts about this

	31-10-2000 07:44									#4
	Got spare money?

Good to see MarkG's finally got rid of the old poll that I started...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

	31-10-2000 11:21									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

We want as many civs as possible to be able to create accurate historical scenarios. You don't have to play with all these civs in the ordinary game. After all if you don't like so many civs, you can simply select fewer, but if the option of having many civs is lacking, people who like making scenarios, or playing long games will be most unhappy.
For me personally having more civs in the game at the same time is the no. 1 priority.

	31-10-2000 11:52									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

Exactly Roman, you can't go wrong with allowing unlimited civilizations.

1, computers will get better all the time, in 2 years, I could still play Civ3 and have 100 civ's playing at once.

2, it makes scenarios better.

3, you can choose whatever number of civs you want!

4, it applies to everyones wants!

5...6..7..

List goes on and on, to vote for anything else is closing windows on the game. Now, if there was only a way to unvote and revote. ;]

	31-10-2000 12:01									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

With more than 64 civs (or even 100+, like somebody suggested), we will play finallly a REAL TIME CIV: one turn will last one year, both for our civ and for us!

	31-10-2000 12:04									#9
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Good to see more people voting for 16 civs... see my comment!

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

	31-10-2000 12:37									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Now that I see so many people voting 64+ civs, I almost feel sorry that I didn't vote 16 instead of 32.

Though, I understand this question "How many civs in a game?" a little different: "What should be the MAXIMUM number of civs from which I choose the civs I play with when I start a game?". So, if the max. number is 32 or 64, I still want to have the possibility to choose only 16, when I start a game.

And there is another issue that was many, many times discussed: the number of civs in a game MUST change dinamically, as new civs emerge and large empires collapse. RISE AND FALL OF EMPIRES!!!

	31-10-2000 16:40									#12
	Suffering from ads?

Personally I think 16 would enough. Over twenty it would get to wierd, as you tried to keep track of things.

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

	31-10-2000 20:06									#14
	Remove this text

*cough* 32

32 is easily enough for any scenario, I mean 100 civs...there is no way you'd be able to have relations with that many civs and not come out of it with a headache.

I understand what everyone is saying about be able to choose etc., but 100 is just way to many.

	01-11-2000 10:20									#15
	Tired of ads?

I'm supposing that because of Minor Civs presence (already announced by Firaxis times ago) we can throw away village huts (trade and diplomacy with a minor civs, no more hut quest for treasury) and, perhaps, barbarians (troops that have a Minor Civ as origin).

Of course we will have less huts, but minor civ will add benefit (or trouble, if enemy) for more than one shoot!

Adding some special to minor civ (to balance their presence in game, making less useful to simply crush and conquer their cities), we can realistically manage as many as a grand total of 32 (main+minor civs).

Main civs must be no more of 16 because of playability reasons, while minor civ can easily appears during game by empire split, refugee founding a new city, etc. as long there is enough room on the map).
I don't want to dispute about PC resources and AI ability to manage so many Civ as more than 64.
I simply think that few human players can manage and enjoy more than 64 diplomatic relations, trade, global (UN) council, front of war.

While at the beginning you probably know as few civ to keep things under control, very quickly the number of units and different borders on the map will bog down you, IMO.


------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

	01-11-2000 01:05									#16
	Got spare money?

well civs are made up of cities, each city needs a certain amount of space to be viable...so if we have 100+ civs at twenty cities a piece, that would only be about 2000 cities...and for there to be between 1000 and 2000 normal sized cities on a map we'd need one huge map, on a mpa that big we'd need to have different rules for movement (otherwise it's going to take decades for armor units to move across europe) and you'd have to change rules for wonders...(talk about unbalancing), also we'd need to change the find city option, and the goto city option...even 32 civs is going to be maybe too much for civ's rules to handle unless they are changed

i just don't think it would be possible on a 300 mghz pII machine with 64 MBs of ram...which is what i think that civ3 should be able to run on

what does everyone else think civ3's minimum requirments should be?

korn469

	01-11-2000 02:42									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

To all you people who are arguing for 8-32 civs: what's wrong with having the OPTION to play with more than 64 civs? Why do you want to deny other people the chance to play a game with lots of civs, just because you don't want to play that way yourself?

More is better!

	01-11-2000 03:27									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

***E-MAIL RESPONSE FROM FIRAXIS***

Subject: RE: Question about Civilization III
Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2000 10:55:47 -0500
From: "Kelley Gilmore" kgilmore@firaxis.com
To: jason-hughes@home.com

Hi Jason.

Well, in our minds the question is not whether or not it's technologically possible for Civ III to support 100+ civs in a single game, but what will make the gameplay most fun. In this case, more is not necessarily better, so the number of civs will be determined by what the development team feels will be best for the game.

Thanks for your note.


Kelley Gilmore
Communications Manager
FIRAXIS Games
(410) 891-3001 x131
Email: kgilmore@firaxis.com www.firaxis.com

-----Original Message-----
From: Mr. Jason R. Hughes [mailto:jason-hughes@home.com]
Sent: Saturday, October 28, 2000 11:57 AM
To: pr@firaxis.com
Subject: Question about Civilization III


Dear Kelley Gilmore,

What are the chances that Civilization III could support up to 100+ civs in a single game? Is it technologically possible? Is this in Firaxis's plans for Civ3? If not, is Firaxis even considering such a thing?

Cordially,

Jason Hughes
Civilization Fan
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 31, 2000).]

	01-11-2000 04:19									#21
	Put an end to popups!

Hmmm, reading the FAQ page and that email...I'm starting to see a pattern...summed up well in the phrase "we want to be sure the game is fun before we commit to a specific set of features".

Has anyone seen any solid info about the game yet? Anything???

	01-11-2000 06:02									#23
	Support Apolyton

Firaxis: That is a pile of rhino poo, and you know it.

"Opens txt file, changes civ limit from 24 to 100 as he pleases".

	01-11-2000 08:25									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

half a year after playing civ2, I found out I could edit the *.gifs, shortly after I found out I could edit the txt files. Its nice and easy. They can do it, they can programme it so that it is customizable to your wants.

You can say, I want the computer to generate 50,000 by 50,000 and if your computer is powerful enough to handle that and 50 civilizations at once, then do it. You know in 2 years we're gonna have 5ghz computers. Ram won't be a problem either. They should be allowing the possibilities instead of limiting the games capabilities.

They will be making a mistake if they don't allow this, unless the games engine is going to be completely different.

Don't think that they can't do it. And if they can't, then they need to keep up with the times.
[This message has been edited by ContradictioN (edited November 01, 2000).]

	01-11-2000 11:34									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Depending on how the "server" is implemented support for 100's of players is possible - can't do any of this one player at a time crap though.

100 player turns, each player with 1000 orders should take a 500mhz machine with 64 megs of ram about ten minutes to proccess ... giving ample time for ICQ wheeling and dealing.

	02-11-2000 03:06									#29
	Tired of ads?

I echo the call for a CHOICE above the recommended limit on civs. Some of us can handle a higher limit, and it would be more fun and realistic to boot. What is wrong with that?

Another recurring theme here is the long turns argument. The only plausible way this could effect Civers like me is if we do play a MULTIplayer Civ III game with well over 16 players. Obviously this would be slow, but who would drag themselves into this? If you play multiplayer you are obviously gonna have a choice of how many civs in the game. So if you wanna stay out of long games you have the logical choice of keeping the game short by choosing a low civ limit. I don't wish to see a low limit of major civs (8 or 16 in my opinion) just because some shortsighted people have a momentary lapse of reason when it comes to imagining future multiplayer games.

Choices is what this should come down to. Please just try to imagine a choice on the number of civs. If you understand my argument then the compromise on number of civs can placate many different civers. The number of civs should not be predecided at a low limit where the game is planned for you like you were living in a communist state. It is bad enough we have to be warmongers in a "civilization" game, but we should not be limited in the numbers of civs to war against.



------------------
I am the Roman Emperor, and am above grammar.
-Emperor Sigismund

	02-11-2000 19:36									#30
	Increase Your PM Length

Even if the game starts with more civilisations (say 32+), it should reduce this number during play time, and not only trough conquest . A more than 10-15 turn alliance between two AI civ can result in a new, united civ. Usually, a big civ would disolve a small civ. Altough this model is not 100% historically accurate, it would be easier to play. In the beggining you will have to deal with more small civs, latter will have to deal with several (10-15) civs left.