Why only 18 civs?

[Dolemitetornado]

I'm just wondering why there's so few civs in the new one, besides the obvious, "more money from expansion packs" reasons. Does it really require alot of memory to create a civ and put it in the game? (Sorry, I don't know the first damn thing about computers except that its where I play Civ)
Isn't a civ just a leader animation, a unit, and some variable characteristics?
I know lots of people don't care, "you can just mod in whatever civ you want"
But I LIKE having Berserkers and Gallic swordsmen and Ottoman leaderheads to play around with. Is it really a sacrifice to put its alot of civs, say 45 or something? Anyway, here's some civs I'd like to see show up in expansion packs...

Babylon/Sumeria
Carthage
Ethiopia
Celts
Norse
Poles
Assyrians
Hittites
Khamers
Thais/Siam
Israelites/Hebrews
Turks
Koreans
Tibetans

etc, etc. Dammit Firaxis, you'd better include a whack of new civs in the expansion pack...

 

[vbraun]

I'm just wondering why there's so few civs in the new one, besides the obvious, "more money from expansion packs" reasons. Does it really require alot of memory to create a civ and put it in the game? (Sorry, I don't know the first damn thing about computers except that its where I play Civ)

There was only 16 civs in civ3. And it doesn't take all that much time to add a new civ. It helps Firaxis get the new users (ie haven't played any civ game) to buy the xpacks, therfore increasing profit.

They won't include 45 civs becasue thats 45 less civs you can add into an xpack.

 

[Dearmad]

18 civs is enough for me. it's a lot!

 

[Plexus]

Why eighteen? So they can gouge us with expansion packs, silly.

 

[Doc Tsiolkovski]

AFAIK, the PtW extras folders were not included in C3C due to lack of space on the CD. Maybe that limits the Civs in CIV as well? Leaderheads are huge files...

 

[Brain]

It may seem like it's not much, but making animations for all possible reactions of leaders in the diplomacy screen, in the victory screen, and wherever else they appear, unique unit animations for movement, battles, promotions, icons for the Civilopedia, and reasearching all the info for the Civiliopedia, all this 18 times over is a lot of work. Remember that there's a lot more graphics stuff this time. I'm sure the graphics artists have a ton of work as it is.

On another note, I'm glad someone finally mentioned Poles. At least i'm not alone.

 

[TrailblazingScot]

We don't need many civs before we get into the funny-farm choices of civs.

As long as we get:

Anglo-Saxons (English)
Germans
Romans
Spanish
Greeks
Egyptians
Babylonians
Indians
Chinese
Japanese
Aztecs
Incans
Russians
French
Persians
Turks
Mongols
Carthaginians

I'd be happy enough. Oh and throw in the Zulus for a laugh

So 19

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

18 isn't nearly enough. There were 31 in C3C, and even that was far too limited. I mean, the game even included a civ that wouldn't fit in the regular game. And even including Austria, there were plenty of gaps. Where were the Khmers, or the Ethiopians, or the Polish, or the Danish, or the Phoenicians, or the Songhai, or the Assyrians, or the Malians, or the Huns, or the Fulani, or the Polynesians, or the Brazilians, or the Scythians, or the Swedish, or the Tibetans, or the Cherokee, or the Etruscans, or the Finnish, or the Ashanti, or the Thai, or the Malay, or the Lithuanians, or the Sioux, or the Swiss, or the Sea Peoples, or the Dacians, or the Maori, or the Serbians, or the Hawaiians, or the Afghanis, or the Croatians, or the Armenians, or the Colombians? The list could go on and on. Eighteen measly Civs hardly does the Earth justice.

 

[Meleager]

I fell sorry for the Firaxians. No matter who they choose they will always have critics.
Why not the Australians? The Aborigionals afterall have been around forever, far longer than babylon or egypt.

 

[rbis4rbb]

I fell sorry for the Firaxians. No matter who they choose they will always have critics.
Why not the Australians? The Aborigionals afterall have been around forever, far longer than babylon or egypt.

If you can give 2 leaders, a UU, and good history about them,as well as Civ traits, then by all means thney should be in

 

[imagod284]

As long as they give us 18 good ones i'll be happy. Civ 3 included the Iriqouis over the Spanish for goodness sakes! The Spanish controlled one of history's largest empires and the Iriqouis were never even a civilization!

 

[Meleager]

Leaders: John Howard and Paul Keating or Authur Phillip (captian of the 1st fleet)
UU: ANZAC troopers or Light Horse or maybe the modern SAS (their suppose to be the best in the world)
Civ traits: Economic, Agricultural using the current civ3 usage

 

[Meleager]

Maybe they should split the worlds into the continents and then have say 3 or 4 people per continent plus 3 or 4 extra ones to make up for europe having heaps. At the moment south america has only the incas i think and australia and antartica have no one. (Ha try finding 3 or 4 civs for antartica)

 

[rbis4rbb]

Leaders: John Howard and Paul Keating or Authur Phillip (captian of the 1st fleet)
UU: ANZAC troopers or Light Horse or maybe the modern SAS (their suppose to be the best in the world)
Civ traits: Economic, Agricultural using the current civ3 usage

Ok I thought you meant strictly the aboriginals

 

[imagod284]

Maybe they should split the worlds into the continents and then have say 3 or 4 people per continent plus 3 or 4 extra ones to make up for europe having heaps. At the moment south america has only the incas i think and australia and antartica have no one. (Ha try finding 3 or 4 civs for antartica)

I hate that idea. They should use the 18 most important Civs. There's no way that N. America, Africa and S. America deserve as many civs as Europe and Asia. North America should only get the Aztecs (though i'm sure they'll include America too b/c most people who buy the game are American) and South America should be the Maya and Inca only. Africa should get Mali, Carthage and Egypt. Carthage and Egypt are more Mediterranian civs but that's just how it is. No sub-saharran culture has been nearly as important as the Portuguese, Spanish, French, Dutch, English, Germans, Italians, Ottomans, Russians, Vikings, Byzantines, Chinese, Japanese, Indians, Persians, Greeks, Syrians, Arabs, etc. Including Ethiopia over France would be just plain silly, nothing but a politically correct pander. But i wouldn't be all that surprised, I mean, Civ 3 included the Zulu and Iriqouis over the Spanish and Ottomans, just ridiculus. (BTW, I would love to see Thailand as a Civ, but there's no way they're one of world history's 18 most important.)

 

[CrazyMrLeo]

(BTW, I would love to see Thailand as a Civ, but there's no way they're one of world history's 18 most important.)

That's precisely the reason that the limit of 18 is so stupid. Many interesting civs that could potentially be more fun to play with get left behind for the sake of having the most important civs in the history of the world. Naturally, the game would be incomplete without a certain amount of important civs. But if you limit yourself to only those civs, you lose a lot of the cool factor that having more exotic and lesser-known civs would bring.

And if space is really an issue, they could make room for eight more civs if they simply removed the alternate leaderhead feature. Don't get me wrong, choosing between Napoleon and Louis XIV is cool, but choosing between France and Thailand would be so much cooler.

 

[imagod284]

I agree Leo, but when we're given 18 civs, I hope that they give us the 18 most important ones.

 

[Meleager]

And how do you determine the 18 most important civs? What makes a civ important?

 

[imagod284]

You look at their impact on world history. I'm saying certain civilizations have had more importance and impact than others, not are better. Look at Spain and England, both established world-wide empires. Both spread their influence over many people and places. Both would have been considered 'the most powerful civilization in the world' at one point. Hence i'm saying both Spain and England have been very important civilizations in world history. Can you say that about Ethiopia or Thailand?

 

[Meleager]

You look at their impact on world history. I'm saying certain civilizations have had more importance and impact than others, not are better. Look at Spain and England, both established world-wide empires. Both spread their influence over many people and places. Both would have been considered 'the most powerful civilization in the world' at one point. Hence i'm saying both Spain and England have been very important civilizations in world history. Can you say that about Ethiopia or Thailand?

Are we having the conversation on 2 threads?

No, but I could say the byzantines or the isrealites are as important in world history. But neither is in. Also the isrealites never had a world empire but their ideas have effected alot of nations legal systems and the like.