nunor
King
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 786
I think Civilization hardly qualifies as a historical based game...
There should be a total of 50 civs(or more) including the expansions for civ 5
- Thread starter INCAKOLA Peru
- Start date
I think Civilization hardly qualifies as a historical based game...
bonafide11
Worker
Yeah, what's historical about a game that starts in 4000BC and goes until 2050AD, where you research historical technologies, build historical units, buildings, and wonders, and features well known leaders from history, such as Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Gandhi?
nunor
King
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 786
Yeah, what's historical about a game that starts in 4000BC and goes until 2050AD, where you research historical technologies, build historical units, buildings, and wonders, and features well known leaders from history, such as Julius Caesar, Genghis Khan, and Gandhi?
...where Jewish Arabs fight Confucionist Aztecs and the Chinese build Christ the Redeemer...
Anyway, on-topic:
50 civs = too much. In any game.
Huayna Capac357
Deity
Yes? Why would you want fewer civs? Less work for the modders...
EDIT: And I could easily name 50 worthy civs.
That is way more than 50, and that's off the top of my head. And I'd play as any of those.
EDIT: And I could easily name 50 worthy civs.
Spoiler :
That is way more than 50, and that's off the top of my head. And I'd play as any of those.
bonafide11
Worker
Hence why I said the game is BASED on history, not that the game replicates history. Those are all historical civilizations and historical religions, further proving that the game is based on history.
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
They should be more like Europa Universallis, with 130+ countries to play as
Except in EUIII, there needed to be a 130 countries to make the game make sense.
You don't need that in Civilization since everybody starts off on the same leg anyway and the game isn't a history simulator. It's based on history, sure. But it isn't billed as a turn-base, EUIII stretching from the dawn of time into the future.
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
They should be more like Europa Universallis, with 130+ countries to play as
Man, ya beat me to it, but I think your right, because then that way, there's gonna be a lot more fun with at least 200 civs. Then maybe civ could start turning into EU.
I know the title for that- CIV VI- EU3 style!
bestrfcplayer
Steppin' up!
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Man, ya beat me to it, but I think your right, because then that way, there's gonna be a lot more fun with at least 200 civs. Then maybe civ could start turning into EU.
I know the title for that- CIV VI- EU3 style!
.....which wouldn't work. If Paradox wants to make a game with 200 generic civs, then they can.
Not only would such a game not work under the CivV system, it would be a huge waste of cash. 200 leaderheads at least and 200 "unique" civilizations (i.e., generic ones at this point).
Of course, this isn't EU (thank God).
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 14,928
Not in ANY game. EU3 has at least 200+ nations, and that's just FINE.
Because it makes sense in game since the whole game revolves around reflecting a small period of history accurately.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
How would it be a waste of cash if everyone got what they wanted?
Better diplomacy
more civs
good graphics
fun battles
you guys are being closed minded....
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Do you know how much time and energy goes into making a leaderhead? It was expensive in the Civ3 days. Full-bodied leaders that speak their own language has to be far worse.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
MOAR != better
nunor
King
- Joined
- Feb 28, 2010
- Messages
- 786
I disagree. In my opinion, 50+ nations is too much in any game. And that's probably one of the reasons I don't like EU3.
The more nations/civs/factions, the less unique they are bound to be, and the more boring the game will probably be.
Ahovking
Cyber Nations
Do you what Civ to be more realty or fanatic baced game
When the game ends theres only 3 to 5 nation left thats sad
When the game ends theres only 3 to 5 nation left thats sad
agent.grey
Chieftain
I prefer fewer civs, each to have its own unique advantages and disadvantages. I suppose if those who like the idea of hundreds of civs don't mind the lack of unique-ness then there could be an option that turns off all unique civ features and allows the player to name all the AI civs and leaders as well as there own.
As for the end-game with only 3-5 civs left, i don't see that as too much different from the current state of the world;
America and China in the running, Russia lagging but not totally out, EU without a guiding strategy to make it a real contender.
Sure that leaves out many important countries but those seem like the real power-blocks too me (EU perhaps stretching the point too far)
As for the end-game with only 3-5 civs left, i don't see that as too much different from the current state of the world;
America and China in the running, Russia lagging but not totally out, EU without a guiding strategy to make it a real contender.
Sure that leaves out many important countries but those seem like the real power-blocks too me (EU perhaps stretching the point too far)
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
Ever since the very first game of Civ I've played...(Civ3) I have found that to be the most annoying thing about the end game.You have these three or four huge civs left.Sure they are technically superpowers,but there should be atleast a few little guys around or something just for the hell of it....
Either revolution should break up gaint countries/econimic crisis....then there'd be more compitition in the end game....
bonafide11
Worker
First, if you play a larger map and don't try conquering and eliminating everyone, there will be more than 3-5 civilizations left. But I don't get how it's "sad" that there's only a few civs left either, but whatever.
Second, how exactly is increasing the amount of available civilizations in the game going to change this? They could make 50 different civilizations, or they could make 130 like some people asked for, but that will only make more civilizations possible to be played in the game, it's not going to increase the amount of civilizations that are actually on the map or how many make it to the end game. So if there's 18 or 50 different available civilizations, either way you're going to end up with the same amount of civilizations at the end game. If you want to play a game that has 50 different civilizations on a single map, well, then go play EU because that isn't and never will be Civilization.
Charles Martel
Warlord
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2007
- Messages
- 244
What I find tiresome is how some people dismiss gameplay comparisons between Civ and EU on the grounds that "they're completely different games". In fact, there are probably more similarities between Civ and EU than there are between Civ and Panzer General. Despite the obvious differences, there are lot of good and interesting ideas that Civ could take from EU, so I think it's best to keep an open mind when comparing the two games.
As to increasing the number of civs: I vote yes, but it's not just a matter of quantity. It would be great to play huge worlds with hundreds of nations, but that increase in number of playable civs should come with new gameplay concepts that allow for a more complex and dynamic EU-style system: nations that rise and fall as a consequence of rebellions, barbarian invasions (like in EU:Rome), dynastic wars, civil wars, breakaway colonies, etc.
Civ's strategy depth + EU's simulation complexity = the best of both worlds.
what he said
