Hi there.
I always have been a fan of GalCivI and II, but one thing always slightly itched me; the dichotomy between "Major" and "Minor" races. Usually, among the major races, some end up being pretty minor in themselves, some others are mid-range. If we'd done away with Minor races, I don't think there would be much of a difference. Over the course of the game, some would survive, some wouldn't. Some would expand, some would loose ground.
If we end up with an economy like what Brad is describing for Elemental, then minor nations holding key ressource could very well survive and thrive.
I always have been a fan of Europa Universalis III. This game is... HUGE. You can play a little nation coming out of nothing, or one of the great giants of the time. But the number of players on the same map is... staggering. If I remember right, it can go up to nearly 150 different opponents, playing against each other in Real-Time turned-based Grand Strategy (yes, real-time turned-based. I know how it sounds).
I've been wondering exactly how many players there could be in Elementals. If the map is really 4 times as big as the biggest maps of Civ4, then I am confortable to say that there is ennough room for more than 50 different starting players.
As long as the AI progress as the same pace than the player (like, if you are the best of the game in term of conquest, there is one other AI that is doing almost as well, a proper "rival"), it would be interesting. Also, more minor nations (the players unlucky ennough to haven't managed to be "important", but lucky ennough to have survived) in mid/end-game could have more influence in the final uber-conflict between the major players, while in GalCiv2, minor species are... well, a scrap.
Yes, with Elemental having such massive size maps hopefully we'll have a large list of optional opponents.
The last time I checked the little Elemental info scrap on Impulse, it said up to 8 players, but I'm thinking that is probably about how many folks can share one MP game.
With 12 canon factions, it seems like a singleplayer game could have up to 11 AI factions, but GC2 has more major factions than it does slots for them in a given game. I've never been sure whether that limit is more about keeping down the burdens of AI processing or about keeping the UI from getting too crowded.
Good question, Cikomyr. I guess I'd had it in the back of my mind that there could be 12 nations on any given map (since there will be 12 factions), but there's really no reason to assume that. As GW Swicord pointed out, GalCiv 2 only had 10 slots for 12 (major) races, so who knows for sure? I would dearly love to be able to have dozens of nations on a single map, but that may not be possible (or at least practical).
I will say if SD is able to resolve the typical boring TBS steamrolling issue, by individual Victory condition and Global quests (refering the thread https://forums.elementalgame.com/348593), 50 players should be about right. Considered EWOM has 4X map size of CIV4, I'll even say 100 opponents. 24 civs is quite fun in CIV4.
There is not much point to have a huge map (or many many opponents) & you've to kill them all to get a win if well designed victory condition is no implemented.
Ideally, ideally, if we can play EWOM online with 100 human players, this will be a classic game of all time. Of course, that will means the game has to be well designed. It'll be simultaneous turns, individual VC, diplomacy, trading, AI replacing dropped player automatically,Tactical combat very streamlined tactical combat, time limited turns, etc all well designed.
If these maps are to be as big as stardock boasts, then 24 opponents would almost be a must (at least 12)
I personally always liked my number of opponents to be indirectly related to the size of my map (usually played many opponents on a small map, and sometimes not maxing the number of opponents on big maps)
Actually... I think I'm going to go play Civ on a huge map right now!
There are only 12 factions, but I would hope that nobody would be limited by that (like I hope it is ok to have more than 1 player of any particular faction and that two AI players of the same race won't act pretty much exactly alike)
One mod for Civ 4 that I absolutely love is Revolutions. You may start out with two or three factions in the game, but between barbarians settling down and rebellions/civil wars you can quickly have as many as 48. It also makes it difficult to keep a large disparate empire together and adds a significant amount of replayability to the game. Some kind of dynamic political "growth" of new nations would be fantastic.
Wait, 12 opponents? This must be a hoax! The only reason I play with less than the maximum passable civilizations in civ is that my computer can't handle it. Even thus, I never start a game with less than a dozen civilizations or so. A list of reasons why you *need* a lot of opponents for an interesting single-player experience:
In conclusion, I ask for an absurdly large number of factions. This should be costumized to the player's preferance of course. Ideally, when asked 'how many factions I would like to have in my game?', I want to answer with "LOTS!"
Note: I derive this knowladge from 'too many to count' hours on civ4, on the hardest setting.
1-8 players according to impulse
Personally, I think there should be channeler style opponents and non-playable style opponents. There could be 8-10 channeler style opponents but many dozens of non-playable style opponents that could come in multiple forms such as the following:
1. Armed City States: Cities that form around some kind of defensive feature, but with no channeler. They are capable of expanding and, with some luck, create proto nations. They can be negotiated with, conquered, or integrated if relations remain good. Sometimes, a channeler might arise in well-to-do city states and become a channeler style opponent.
2. Dragon Clutches: A group of dragons that live together, typically a group of males or a female and her offspring. They can either be noble benefactors that fight evil empires or wicked manipulators that shake down other opponents for tribute. Sometimes, human worshippers or followers can start settlements at the base of their dens. Either way, they can be negotiated with in a fashion that is limited (while you couldn't make a formal trade treaty, you could forge alliances, or call on them for mercenaries, etc.)
3. Bandit Lords and Robber Barons: Small opponents that spring up around cities that do not guard their commerce well. They can be the subjects of limited diplomacy (bribing to leave you alone or, in a more pricey case, hire them to go fight other opponents on their own innitiative.)
4. Hordes: There can be numerous villages of barbaric humans or other humanoids like orcs that on occassion band together briefly to invade and pillage civilized lands. While they are in scattered village form, you cannot negotiate with them, but can conquer / destroy their villages (be careful, you might incite them into a horde to fight you!) When they turn into hordes, they become temporary opponents that would generally be hostile to everyone but you can use diplomacy to "deflect" them toward other opponents or convince them to return home to their lands. Sometimes, they can become hordes in order to flee from their former land and will damage the economy of any land they pass through as they forage to survive (you could invite a horde to settle in your territory if they are simply looking for a place to live, which would put pressure on your arable land but give you the option of assimilating them later.)
5. Monstrous Tribes: Tribes of large monstrous creatures, like trolls or ogres. They can field raiders against other opponents, be they other monstrous tribes or civilized ones. They even grow in strength and generally when they get to a large size, they splinter, preventing them from ever becoming a formidable empire. Typically what would happen when a region becomes too overpopulated with such tribes is that many tribes would be driven out and in some cases end up in a civilized opponent's land. They are generally a nuissance and must be slain, but if you were to, say, feed them on a regular basis it could open up diplomacy options which would allow you to maintain tenuous relations and, in some cases, you could bring them to war with you as unreliable, but formidable allies, and even hire some of them on as mercenary units.
In the end, channeler style opponents are your long term, permanent rivals, which expand rapidly. Non-playable opponents can be powerful, but typically don't became rivals to world domination because they are unable to organize effectively (though a growing dragon clutch might be an interesting game long ally or arch nemesis.) Minor opponents in this fashion would give the game a lot of spice--- having to only contend with the same old empire building foe time and again can just get tedious...
I just might make a fresh thread out of this post
Totaly agree with Demiansky on this. Unique features like those he mentioned gives a lot of replay value to games.
There are many great features available to you once you register, including:
Sign in or Create Account
