"5 player limit also applies to a full game with all eras"

[Mr. Man!]

https://imgur.com/mZw0ygy

my sides

[Slaytherine]

What does it mean? We can only have 5 players in a game?

[Oaks]

Originally posted by Slaytherine:

What does it mean? We can only have 5 players in a game?

I guess in a game that starts in the first age. If we start in later ages, we can have more multiplayers. Apparently.

[PhamTrinli]

So you can't play a full mp "campaign" (as they are calling it now) with more than 5 players because you can't start in the first age with more than 5.

Seems weird. I wonder why 5?

[Oaks]

Originally posted by PhamTrinli:

So you can't play a full mp "campaign" (as they are calling it now) with more than 5 players because you can't start in the first age with more than 5.

Seems weird. I wonder why 5?

Apparently the world map "grows" with each new age. So the age 3 world map is bigger than age one. I suppose age 1 map can support few people because it's smaller.

I think in effect, it might be better to think of the game as 3 different campaigns in 3 time periods, with the option to do one huge campaign utilizing all three ages.

[ACS36]

Originally posted by Oaks:

Originally posted by PhamTrinli:

So you can't play a full mp "campaign" (as they are calling it now) with more than 5 players because you can't start in the first age with more than 5.

Seems weird. I wonder why 5?

Apparently the world map "grows" with each new age. So the age 3 world map is bigger than age one. I suppose age 1 map can support few people because it's smaller.

I think in effect, it might be better to think of the game as 3 different campaigns in 3 time periods, with the option to do one huge campaign utilizing all three ages.

that only works if you have win conditions for each era, currently the only win conditions are available in the modern era. so no, it doesn't make sense to think of it as 3 campaigns.

[Oaks]

Originally posted by ACS36:

Originally posted by Oaks:

Apparently the world map "grows" with each new age. So the age 3 world map is bigger than age one. I suppose age 1 map can support few people because it's smaller.

I think in effect, it might be better to think of the game as 3 different campaigns in 3 time periods, with the option to do one huge campaign utilizing all three ages.

that only works if you have win conditions for each era, currently the only win conditions are available in the modern era.

Aha, true, thanks for catching that.

[TyCobb]

It makes no sense why they decided to make the map different sizes between ages/eras/whatever-the-hell-its-called.

[magnumaniac]

So in 1991, with 640KB of RAM, you could have 8 players in a Civ game.

Now they can only manage 5?

Seriously, anyone that pays for this shovelware needs to seek help.

[Oaks]

Originally posted by TyCobb:

It makes no sense why they decided to make the map different sizes between ages/eras/whatever-the-hell-its-called.

I imagine at least for age 2 it's to encourage exploration (since it called the age of exploration), but I'm not sure why they didn't stick to the tried and true multiple continents which can't reach each other until the proper technology becomes available.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by magnumaniac:

So in 1991, with 640KB of RAM, you could have 8 players in a Civ game.

Now they can only manage 5?

Seriously, anyone that pays for this shovelware needs to seek help.

Sounds brutal and funny when you put it like that. But seemingly yes.

[PhamTrinli]

Originally posted by Oaks:

Originally posted by TyCobb:

It makes no sense why they decided to make the map different sizes between ages/eras/whatever-the-hell-its-called.

I imagine at least for age 2 it's to encourage exploration (since it called the age of exploration), but I'm not sure why they didn't stick to the tried and true multiple continents which can't reach each other until the proper technology becomes available.

It seems like there is a trend starting to show in this game's features of them solving problems that they themselves created.

First example:
In the official gameplay showcase video on youtube, at time stamp 16:18 they state that "having leaders stay the same across ages helps bring a sense of who you're playing against" but that didn't need to be established. It was already established with a civ being a single civ. They only had to emphasize this because they broke civ identities by having them change multiple times throughout the game.

Second example:
They wanted to create different ages that meant different things and one of those was to be "exploration" age. Well that would be hard to make a thing unless it had something uniquely to do with exploration as opposed to the other ages, so they made the map not fully explorable until that age comes around, in order to solve that problem. However, this also creates other problems of its own.. like only being able to have 5 players because the maps will be too small in the first age...

They are just changing things to fix problems that they themselves are creating with the formula, and then marketing those fixes as new features.

[ParabolaWaVe]

Originally posted by PhamTrinli:

It seems like there is a trend starting to show in this game's features of them solving problems that they themselves created.

But that's terrible, because it suggests that they aren't thinking things through.

[Shepard-Commander]

Originally posted by ParabolaWaVe:

Originally posted by PhamTrinli:

It seems like there is a trend starting to show in this game's features of them solving problems that they themselves created.

But that's terrible, because it suggests that they aren't thinking things through.

I've seen a grand total of two good ideas for this game.

1. Navigable rivers - pretty obvious, but they get points for finally adding them
2. Army commanders - I think these could fix two problems at once. First, it could help AI more easily traverse the map with their armies since they will travel together as one unit until it is time to engage. Second, for the player it will make wars move a bit more quickly since you won't have to move each unit individually to get to the battlefield.

Everything else new I've seen so far is garbage. Perhaps they'll show some other features that are good in the coming months. However, civ switching, city limits, map expansion, removal of barbarians, etc. are all just awful decisions. This isn't a Civilization game to me. This is something they maybe should have tried in a sequel to Alpha Centauri or something like that before they tried it with Civ. I think they would have seen that a lot of this really doesn't work with their audience

[bumbaclad]

Originally posted by Shepard-Commander:

I've seen a grand total of two good ideas for this game.

1. Navigable rivers - pretty obvious, but they get points for finally adding them
2. Army commanders - I think these could fix two problems at once. First, it could help AI more easily traverse the map with their armies since they will travel together as one unit until it is time to engage. Second, for the player it will make wars move a bit more quickly since you won't have to move each unit individually to get to the battlefield.

Everything else new I've seen so far is garbage. Perhaps they'll show some other features that are good in the coming months. However, civ switching, city limits, map expansion, removal of barbarians, etc. are all just awful decisions. This isn't a Civilization game to me. This is something they maybe should have tried in a sequel to Alpha Centauri or something like that before they tried it with Civ. I think they would have seen that a lot of this really doesn't work with their audience

I didn't really care for barbarians, one spot in fog of war, surrounded, has barbarians spawning in it; meh. The only thing nice about it was to be able to get some combat in early. Didn't dislike it as much as city states but I'd always turn them off anyway.

The whole ages thing with limited map and civilization switching just sounds downright bad.

The engagement system, if not just an artistic change, would be great because, in multiplayer it just comes down to your turn loading faster to rush bombardments, and the combat really needed some overhaul.

[PhamTrinli]

I kind of liked the civ 2 barbarians more - where they only spawned sometimes when you explored a village/hut (iirc)