[NEWCIV] My new take at the (my own) "I want more civs in-game" idea.

[Somebody613]

Based on what I keep reading in this context everywhere.
I guess it's a good incentive for MODDERS to quicken up the total conversion from "Countries as specific Civs" to "Continents as generic Civs", lol.
Also, where does it define what Native Culture a civ gets?
With that in mind, I could "standardize" the pack quickly enough - just copy-paste a Blank Civ and give it a Name and a Continent Culture, lol.
This would definitely work for players (like me) who play Complex (and zero-at-start) Traits to begin with.
So a civ would only need:
1. A name / color / whatever else makes it a separate civ in general.
2. A continental culture based on the name's geography.
3. A preferred religion (mostly) and maybe a preferred religious civic.
4. Maybe (a big maybe) some more preferred civics (but this would only apply to very narrowly defined civs, since most aren't limited to ONE civic choice historically).
5. Some more obscure preferences I'm not aware of (mostly moot with in-depth Traits anyways).
This would allow a pretty much infinite amount of more-or-less generic civs for anyone's taste, which would be easily editable AND easily created from scratch.
Is this a good idea?
***I'm asking EVERYONE here - both MODDERS and PLAYERS: Would you like to have a bunch of mostly-generic civs that can be LATER edited more in-depth?***
I really think it'd be a fun way to play the game - since it's much more VARIED to have *HUNDREDS* of potentially emerging civs, than just around 50.
In fact, if you'd be playing a very long-term game with Revolutions and a full map of civs - it's way better to have a much bigger pool OF civs as well.
No?
So, what do ***YOU*** say about it?

 

[raxo2222]

Thunderbrd planned something like that.
Be patient lol.

 

[Somebody613]

Thunderbrd planned something like that.
Be patient lol.

Not exactly what I remember.
The way I recall (and suggested, lol) was about making only a few continental civs that would be later shaped by in-game cultures.
The approach here is to still have country-based civs, but to shape them AS IF they are continental.
The major difference is that this way you can have tons (hundreds) of separate PLAYERS - and you can have more or less national preferences still be pre-chosen.
I kinda like it this way more.
But I wouldn't mind ANY of the two, indeed.
Question:
What's stopping TB from actually going through with this?
It's hardly a huge load of work (just copy-paste most of stuff and edit the continent appropriately) - as opposed to reforging the existing package to fit the standards.

 

[raxo2222]

You can't have hundreds of individual players - game engine is 20 years old!
Even new games can't have hundreds of individual AIs/players.
Maybe in Nanotech era that could be possible without huge costs.

Also we can have only 39 players at max.
Try playing Pits scenario (or just Generate Pangea Gigantic map with 39 players) - it has 39 civs, you will quickly get 5 - 10 minute long turn processing times.

 

[Somebody613]

You can't have hundreds of individual players - game engine is 20 years old!
Even new games can't have hundreds of individual AIs/players.
Maybe in Nanotech era that could be possible without huge costs.

Also we can have only 39 players at max.
Try playing Pits scenario (or just Generate Pangea Gigantic map with 39 players) - it has 39 civs, you will quickly get 5 - 10 minute long turn processing times.

I think you didn't read my post properly.
I did refer to Pit's map in the first place (and not the first time).
What I meant is that you can kill off half the map, and then let (or HELP, lol) the other civs split to add MORE civs to the list of "CIVS YOU MET", lol.
This includes DEAD civs, and the limit only applies to those ALIVE - so in the end you CAN have cities that used to belong to MORE than just 39 civs.
This is actually my current goal (one of them) - to clean up the Old World for myself, but keep messing with the New World in a way that creates more NEW CIVS.
Which is why I so much want there to be more NAMES on the ROSTER, lol - not to play all of them simultaneously, obviously, but to get CITIES from them.
And the pattern for this is rather easy (but I'm yet to test it factually):
Wait until other civs have lots of cities, build a lot of Bandits (or whatnot) that convert captured cities into Barbs, capture some cities (and make them Barbs), wait until they turn into actual civs, capture THOSE cities, rinse-repeat.
But with the current roster of barely 50 civs, this is quite pointless, since most of those civs are already present on the starting map.
Now, if there was a roster of, say, 150 civs - theeen...
Again, this is MY approach to the game (for now) - you obviously don't have to like it, but you can't tell me that I can't do it either.
No?

 

[JosEPh_II]

***I'm asking EVERYONE here - both MODDERS and PLAYERS: Would you like to have a bunch of mostly-generic civs that can be LATER edited more in-depth?***
I really think it'd be a fun way to play the game - since it's much more VARIED to have *HUNDREDS* of potentially emerging civs, than just around 50.
In fact, if you'd be playing a very long-term game with Revolutions and a full map of civs - it's way better to have a much bigger pool OF civs as well.
No?
So, what do ***YOU*** say about it?

Sorry not my cup o tea. Been to the 50 Civ plateau before on a huge map. No thanks. Been to Rev long ago when it 1st came out. again No Thanks.
I like 7-12 strong AI opponents on a standard or large map and not with a bunch of tiny weak ones.

Wait until other civs have lots of cities, build a lot of Bandits (or whatnot) that convert captured cities into Barbs, capture some cities (and make them Barbs), wait until they turn into actual civs, capture THOSE cities, rinse-repeat.

For Me, I would find this repetitive and not conducive to quality play. Just sayin'.

But even so You can Make Any Modmod you want and post it for others to play! Not a problem with that at all. In fact doing a series of small modmods got me on the Team. And I'm only an xml hacker. But I've played C2C sooo much over the past 11years + and before that Rise of Mankind and then AND and AND2. I was also on the AND2 team for a time. I retired in the summer of '12 so my time is mine to spend how I feel like.

 

[Yudishtira]

This includes DEAD civs, and the limit only applies to those ALIVE - so in the end you CAN have cities that used to belong to MORE than just 39 civs.

I think the limit includes dead civs, especially with Rev where any dead civ can come back to life.

 

[Somebody613]

I think the limit includes dead civs, especially with Rev where any dead civ can come back to life.

Definitely can't, if you keep them on the Score (I guess, but not so sure; I keep it clean from DEAD civs).
But in the "met rivals" tab statistics it definitely shows both dead and alive civs, which in the end exceeds the limit (I guess, since I haven't been there yet).
I definitely remember seeing a new civ emerging on Pit's map (heck, that's my current goal) - and it was properly added to the list of "met rivals" (or however it's named).
Plus, and that's a fact, cities retain their "initial owner name tag" anyways, so I CAN have *CITIES* from more than the limit of civs.
It's just a name tag, so it has no limit (or shouldn't, again, untested yet) - but it does SHOW HISTORY, lol.

 

[Thunderbrd]

I think the limit includes dead civs, especially with Rev where any dead civ can come back to life.

Yeah the end game sequence requires they be remembered in their limited slots the whole game, even after death.