INCAKOLA Peru
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2010
- Messages
- 23
Just say yes or no if you think there should be as many as 50 civ or more in civ 5.
There should be a total of 50 civs(or more) including the expansions for civ 5
- Thread starter INCAKOLA Peru
- Start date
Ahriman
Tyrant
Once you start adding too many civs, your random AI opponents start becoming increasingly likely to be the relatively less important civs. I would much rather play against China, India, Russia and Persia than I would Polynesia, Poland, Ethiopia and Switzerland.
And I don't want to have to manually select the AI players whenever I start a game to avoid playing against minor-league opopnents.
And I don't want to have to manually select the AI players whenever I start a game to avoid playing against minor-league opopnents.
cf_nz
Prince
I do believe there is such a thing as too many civilizations. I'd rather a small number of reasonably unique civilizations than a large number of re-skins.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
They obviously would add more civs if they had more budget, so I don't see a point begging for it now. Also, if they invest in 50+ leaderheads, they have to save money on something else! Some features or the overall quality would suffer.
Or do you think they limit it to 18 because they are lazy?
Or do you think they limit it to 18 because they are lazy?
Disgustipated
Deity
even BTS started getting too many civs. Most of the minor ones I have no interest in playing, and rarely do they even come up with random opponents.
Shiggs713
Immortal
I wouldn't mind having 50 civs or so. Of course if it meant taking something else away I wouldn't want that, but still, the more the merrier in my opinion. I rarely play some random game anyways, I prefer at least a more realistic start, usually preferring to play scenario's , like earth 18, though that one is pathetic compared to some of the user created ones.
To me the random game is lame anyways, I would prefer if civ came with about 10 real world maps, like whole world, then all the continents, and maybe some with multiple continents, like a Mesopotamia map or something like that, with the proper civs in the proper starting locations. I crank up the difficultly too, to offset the fact I know the map. Civ4 only came with 1 or 2 such maps and like I said, they were pathetic.
I do understand the lure of the random game though so no flame please.
To me the random game is lame anyways, I would prefer if civ came with about 10 real world maps, like whole world, then all the continents, and maybe some with multiple continents, like a Mesopotamia map or something like that, with the proper civs in the proper starting locations. I crank up the difficultly too, to offset the fact I know the map. Civ4 only came with 1 or 2 such maps and like I said, they were pathetic.
I do understand the lure of the random game though so no flame please.
KrugerPritz
King
Yeahhhh!!!!They should be more like Europa Universallis, with 130+ countries to play as
bonafide11
Worker
They should be more like Europa Universallis, with 130+ countries to play as
The problem with this is in Civ it's hard to give all the civilizations unique and balanced bonuses if there's too many of them. I'd rather have less civilizations and have them be unique than have them just add tons of civilizations but several of them are basically the same civilization with different city names. Each civilization should feel unique while playing with them, and it's pretty difficult to come up with 130+ civilizations that each feel unique, so it'll never happen.
DroopyTofu
Double Bass Double Bass
I think the best example here is the Civ Gold mod for Civ IV. It adds around 90 (I think, definetly more than 50) civs and many new leaders on top of that. It's fun for about a month, then all the civs you've never heard of and the repetitiveness of the games makes it more and more boring. I'm all for having more than 18, or even 36, but I think you need a limit somewhere.
the343danny
Emperor
Over 50 would be nice, but I chose below 50 because I want unique civs, which Firaxis promised to do this time
The Kingmaker
Alexander
- Joined
- Jan 18, 2004
- Messages
- 1,975
Honestly, I think 50 itself is the perfect place to stop. It's a good maximum number for Civs.
Gliese 581
Your average civ junkie
No, for the reasons already mentioned.
Waste of resources better spent elsewhere.
Preference to play against random important civs than smaller ones.
The difficulty in providing balanced yet unique flavours for so many civs.
20-25 is a good number with expansions I think.
Waste of resources better spent elsewhere.
Preference to play against random important civs than smaller ones.
The difficulty in providing balanced yet unique flavours for so many civs.
20-25 is a good number with expansions I think.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I think having more than 50 would dramatically reduce the likelihood of unique civilizations or it would run the risk of the newer ones being poorly balanced. I'd argue that 40 or so should be the limit after all is said and done and the rest can be handled by modders. My big concern is over ease of graphic modibility rather than what Firaxis will include. There's a lot to choose from, but I feel that, as long as they have the opportunity to have expansions, they'll hit the major ones. The other cool ones can be hit by others.
King Kalmah
Magyar Madness
I don't get you sometimes.....
Anyway we all know making "unique" attitudes is gonna be what CIV5 is all about.So what is the problem with 50 leaders if each leaders attitude WILL be different from the next?
Sounds like you can't handle more then 17 oppenents....
Also it will NOT be reskinning.Alot of you are still thinking in CIV4 terms....
Also CIV5 needs to step up to Europa Universailis....
bonafide11
Worker
So tired of hearing people try to compare Civilization to Europa Universailis! They're two completely different games. The only thing the two series have in common is that they're both historical based games. Other than that, they couldn't be further apart, so stop comparing the two games. Civilization doesn't need to "step up" to any games; in terms of turn-based strategy games, they're second to none.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
It isn't just unique attitudes. There are also unique advantages. They mentioned that they considered having one civ use jungles as roads (probably the Aztecs), but rejected that one as too powerful. But that gives you an idea of the kinds of things they're thinking. Can you think of 50 separate, but relatively balanced, advantages to offer that reflect something historical about the civ and would be fun to play. These can't be relatively minor. It's not like you'll say "I want to play as the Hittites because they get a 2% discount in upkeep cost for cities." You'd rather play either as the Civ with the more interesting bonus or the established Civ (the Egyptians, the Romans, etc).
