Poland

[Jon Shafer]

I don't see how limiting the civs makes the game better for anyone except lazy programmers and developers.

Because it sucks resources from other things, like, say, the AI.

That is the point. With only the 4 items I listed above, civs are very easy to create, and people will like playing with their favourite civ. The game would be better for me if it came with Canadians. dh epic would like the game better if it had the Poles.

So make them yourselves then, if it's so easy. Why should the developers be burdened with the task of doing that when the fans can easily do so?

Not everyone plays their "favorite" civ. There are a great many people who play only the "best" civs like the Celts and the Mayans (like me), and for very good reason. How many MP games do you think have players involved who pick their "favorite" civs? The answer is ZERO.

Civs need to have both an A) Interest factor and B) a gameplay factor. I don't want Serbs and Croats and Macedonians and Dacians and Thracians and Istrians and Wallachians and "scattered Anatolian tribes" in my games unless they're there for a reason. There will be all of 2 people who will play them unless they're good, in which case 90% of players will.

Again, my point. Balance interest and playability.

I do agree with you about expanding the differences though. They could give each civ a unique improvement* and give each civ a negative trait. If balanced with a bit of care, it would add a lot of subtle differences to the teams.

If there is a way to differentiate them all and make them all TRULY unique then I have NO PROBLEMS with many times more civs being included than in the past. My CONCERN is that there's 6 traits and a UU for every civ and the all have 3 traits and they're all basically the same and the same 4 civs get played every game like in Civ 3.

If that's the case, then Firaxis has wasted their time on 60 out of 64 civs included. That is what needs to be avoided. That is my point.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

MORE CIVS, MORE DIFFERENCES, MORE UNITS MORE SCENARIOS

it should not drag the resources from other stuff. i can wait 3-4 month more if there MORE CIVS MORE DIFFERENCES MORE UNITS MORE SCENARIOS.

i think nearly ALL units a civ should be different.
ridiculous to watch Maya knights in the game with the same shape as european knights.
anyway, every civ should have at least one unique unit for EACH age.
Let the graphicians work a bit more!!!!!!!!

 

[plastiqe]

You have a lot of points. As far as interest and playability you can't argue that people from Canada wouldn't want Canada in the main game. And while I don't have exact figures, I'm sure Atari sells enough copies in Canada to justify interest in the civ.

If there is a way to differentiate them all and make them all TRULY unique then I have NO PROBLEMS with many times more civs being included than in the past. My CONCERN is that there's 6 traits and a UU for every civ and the all have 3 traits and they're all basically the same and the same 4 civs get played every game like in Civ 3.

Truly unique civs is kind of breaking away from the series. In original civilization the only difference was the colour. If you want 16 truly unique civs, then many, many more factors would have to be added, which in turn would unbalance the civs and you'd end up playing something like Age of Empires. While that was a great game, it isn't what civilization is. I would much rather have 32 slightly different civs and get to play my home country.

I think the core difference is that you are talking about the multiplayer game and I am talking about the single player (correct me if I'm wrong).

K.F. Huszár, it would be awesome if there were different graphics for the units of each culture group, but I doubt that level of detail will be in the game.

 

[dh_epic]

I just hardly think it takes that much effort to package standardized, Firaxis Seal of Approval quality Civs with the game. Pump out a leaderhead, and copy / change some values, and there you go.

Personally, I think it could only increase its replayability. Not to mention it opens the game up to the possibility of Civs being added in dynamically. (Britain goes through a Civil War and up pops Canada. A bunch of barbarians occupy a city and thus arrives the Thai.)

Oh, and don't forget poland.

 

[Jon Shafer]

You have a lot of points. As far as interest and playability you can't argue that people from Canada wouldn't want Canada in the main game. And while I don't have exact figures, I'm sure Atari sells enough copies in Canada to justify interest in the civ.

Interest, yes, playability, no. There's almost no difference between playing an Expansionist-Industrial Canada with the Mountie as its UU as in playing Expansionist-Industrial Russia with the Cossack as its UU. The differences in the game are very small, and that is what I have a problem with.

Truly unique civs is kind of breaking away from the series. In original civilization the only difference was the colour. If you want 16 truly unique civs, then many, many more factors would have to be added, which in turn would unbalance the civs and you'd end up playing something like Age of Empires. While that was a great game, it isn't what civilization is. I would much rather have 32 slightly different civs and get to play my home country.

I think the core difference is that you are talking about the multiplayer game and I am talking about the single player (correct me if I'm wrong).

I am talking all games. I play civs that interest me occasionally (Germany, France, etc.) but most of the time I'll play the Mayans, the Celts, the Egyptians, the Chinese, simply because they're the best.

In the original civilization, as you said, the only difference between the civs was cosmetic. But now there IS differentiation between them besides that, the BEST civs will be played more than others. Why add Korea? Why play Korea? Even the English, a "popular" civ to play, don't get played much because their in-game stats stink. That is the problem. Unless the Poles are either A) truly unique or B) overpowered compared to the rest of the civs, they will not get played except by a small handful of people. Why spend days working on a leaderhead, a UU, specialized graphics, etc. when all a couple thousand people will play them out of the millions who buy the game?

Again, let me reiterate. They will only be played by a majority of the people if they are UNIQUE (GOOD!) or OVERPOWERED! (BAD!)

 

[dh_epic]

A couple of days of work for the art team for a couple more thousand users... we're talking about paying 2 artists for 2 days to build a leaderhead and unit (which I think is a gross overestimation) for 30 dollars an hour (also a gross over estimation). 2X2X8X30=$960. Let's say it costs $1000 in development for a new Civ.

They'd only need to sell 20 additional copies to make up the damage.

I think the sum of the parts doesn't add up to the whole. Maybe some people would buy for Poland. Maybe some people would buy for Canada. But a lot of people would get into the idea of 40 Civs, instead of the flat 16. This is one of those things you can do without ANY change in gameplay complexity or micromamagement, and yet still satisfy the basic desire of fans to say "more, more, more".

 

[Jon Shafer]

And meanwhile those same artists could/should be working on other parts of the game.

 

[plastiqe]

First of all, I don't see you presenting any solutions, only shooting down anything anyone else offers. Since you are so opposed to my idea, we'll say your idea is to have 16 civs like in original Civ III which would allow for unique and playable civs. There is dh's point that more civs are better from a selling perspective. Most people would rather the game have more civs than less civs. Why else to they keep adding civs in expansion packs? If the game was better with less civs they'd just keep the original 16. I'd love to hear your solution as how you'd make the civs "unique and playable" and reasoning for not adding new civs in expansion packs.

Not everyone plays their "favorite" civ. There are a great many people who play only the "best" civs like the Celts and the Mayans (like me), and for very good reason.

Again, let me reiterate. They will only be played by a majority of the people if they are UNIQUE (GOOD!) or OVERPOWERED! (BAD!)

So you pick the Celts and Mayans for the very good reason that they are overpowered, which is bad.. unless you think those two civs are unique and the rest aren't..

I think I can safely say that almost everyone will pick their favourite civ the first time they play the game. If that civ isn't there then they don't get to pick their favourite. This doesn't make sense since it is so easy to make extra civs, there is no reason no to have them in the game. I was disapointed with the limited selection in the original game. Lets take you for example, who will never play the Koreans(who have an awesome UU). That is your choice, but just because you don't want to play them doesn't mean they shouldn't be made for the millions of gamers in Korea that will play as their home country.

Interest, yes, playability, no. There's almost no difference between playing an Expansionist-Industrial Canada with the Mountie as its UU as in playing Expansionist-Industrial Russia with the Cossack as its UU. The differences in the game are very small, and that is what I have a problem with.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Who says Canada has to be expansionist industrial? Canada could easly have the agricultural, scientific or commercial stat. Whichever stat it was, even when there are only two traits there are still 28 combinations for different civs so they wouldn't overlap until it was necissary.

While I agree the mountie would probably be our best UU, there is no reason it can't be different from the other cossack UU's. And I guarantee that Canada would be played differently by the AI, something like India in terms of our peaceful attitude. If you can give me a reason why they wouldn't be interesting and playable, other that because you say so, then maybe you have a point here.

And meanwhile those same artists could/should be working on other parts of the game.

Not that I have ever animated anything before, but based on the number of animated units I've seen on this site, I would guess that it wouldn't take a professional team of artists very long to design a leader head and unique unit. And you don't say anthing positive here. At least tell us which other parts of the game you'd have the artisits work on.

 

[dh_epic]

Could work on so many other parts of the game with 2 days of work, probably less? Come on, get serious.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Could work on so many other parts of the game with 2 days of work, probably less? Come on, get serious.

40 civs with 2 days of work each is 80 days of work. Divide that by your standard work week and you get almost 18 weeks, or approximately 4.5 months. I don't believe spending 4.5 months on specific civ art is a good use of time.

But those are my preferences, and I don't speak for anyone but myself.

 

[plastiqe]

40 civs with 2 days of work each is 80 days of work. Divide that by your standard work week and you get almost 18 weeks, or approximately 4.5 months. I don't believe spending 4.5 months on specific civ art is a good use of time.

But those are my preferences, and I don't speak for anyone but myself.

Where does 2 days/civ come from? I don't think dh knows for sure how long it would take, and my estimate would be a lot less than two days once you knew which civs you were making.

And feel free to respond to my other post or tell us what the artists should be doing instead, eh.

 

[Jon Shafer]

First of all, I don't see you presenting any solutions, only shooting down anything anyone else offers. Since you are so opposed to my idea, we'll say your idea is to have 16 civs like in original Civ III which would allow for unique and playable civs. There is dh's point that more civs are better from a selling perspective. Most people would rather the game have more civs than less civs. Why else to they keep adding civs in expansion packs? If the game was better with less civs they'd just keep the original 16. I'd love to hear your solution as how you'd make the civs "unique and playable" and reasoning for not adding new civs in expansion packs.

New civs are selling points. That's already been said.

Just because the game sells better doesn't mean it's a better game, and certainly doesn't make me enjoy playing it any more.

So you pick the Celts and Mayans for the very good reason that they are overpowered, which is bad.. unless you think those two civs are unique and the rest aren't..

Which is my point. The civs aren't varied enough as it is, so I play which ones give me the best chance to win.

I think I can safely say that almost everyone will pick their favourite civ the first time they play the game. If that civ isn't there then they don't get to pick their favourite. This doesn't make sense since it is so easy to make extra civs, there is no reason no to have them in the game. I was disapointed with the limited selection in the original game. Lets take you for example, who will never play the Koreans(who have an awesome UU). That is your choice, but just because you don't want to play them doesn't mean they shouldn't be made for the millions of gamers in Korea that will play as their home country.

The Civ games only sell a few million copies. I don't think 95% of them are Koreans.

Again, if it's so easy to make civs, why not make your own?

And whether their UU is good or not is a matter for each person to decide. I'll take a Rider or a Gallic Sword over a Hwacha any day.

Your making a lot of assumptions here. Who says Canada has to be expansionist industrial? Canada could easly have the agricultural, scientific or commercial stat. Whichever stat it was, even when there are only two traits there are still 28 combinations for different civs so they wouldn't overlap until it was necissary.

While I agree the mountie would probably be our best UU, there is no reason it can't be different from the other cossack UU's. And I guarantee that Canada would be played differently by the AI, something like India in terms of our peaceful attitude. If you can give me a reason why they wouldn't be interesting and playable, other that because you say so, then maybe you have a point here.

The EXP IND was just me throwing labels out. It doesn't really matter what they are. The point is that the traits are still rather similar and the differences between a civ LIKE Cananda and a civ LIKE Russia is not very big. As things currently stand.

I've already explained why I don't think it's a great idea. The differences between civs is not great enough to keep my interest.

Compare civs in Civ 3 with Starcraft and the differences between the 3 races. There are 3 different races which are BALANCED, require different PLAY STYLES and are very DIFFERENT all around. If Civ 3 civs were more like Starcraft races, then I would be all for new and different civs being included. As of now, the differences between civs is not great enough to warrant 40, 50, 60+ civs.

Not that I have ever animated anything before, but based on the number of animated units I've seen on this site, I would guess that it wouldn't take a professional team of artists very long to design a leader head and unique unit. And you don't say anthing positive here. At least tell us which other parts of the game you'd have the artisits work on.

How about these things: the interface, the terrain and the general units. The things players spend 90% of the game staring at.

If I could get DOOM III-eqsque unit and terrain graphics and have to put up with stick figure leaderheads and photographs of cardboard boxes for wonders, I would do it in a heartbeat.

 

[Jon Shafer]

Where does 2 days/civ come from? I don't think dh knows for sure how long it would take, and my estimate would be a lot less than two days once you knew which civs you were making.

2 days is highly conservative.

I have heard numbers much larger than that for official work on Civ games. In the range of multiple weeks. And yes, that is official word, not me guessing or making up numbers, before you start questioning what I've said.

 

[dh_epic]

2 days is an overexaggeration. The art team at the company where I work, one artist could bang more like 2 per day, even 4 would be an ambitious but feasible estimate -- and that's assuming only one artist is working on it. You also assume that the art team is the bottle neck, it's not. The art team is often waiting for the programmers to finish their work off.

Trust me, doing the additional 24 Civs could probably be done in less than a week of work by their art team.

Seriously, scuplting one unique unit and one leader head with a few expressions. Do you think it really takes that long?

 

[Jon Shafer]

I am assuming nothing. My data is official, whether you wish to believe me or them.

 

[dh_epic]

I have a hard time believing that. If that data is official, they should hire a new art team. One artist on our team could bang out an entire 3D Level geometry in 2 days (minus tweaks and details).

 

[Jon Shafer]

I assure you I'm not making it up. Whatever issues they have, are their own, I'm no artist, I'm a programmer.

 

[dh_epic]

I guess it's your word against mine. I'm a programmer myself, so maybe I'm underestimating the amount of time and energy that goes into creating a face with a few expressions.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I don't think it's anyone's word against anyone else's... it's official info from Firaxis. I guess it's their word against yours, but since they're making the games I'm more inclined to believe them in whatever they say about them.

 

[dh_epic]

I think you may have misheard or misrepresented the facts, if you in fact heard from Firaxis.