Should Civilization have natural disasters?

I

Iannewton80

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 9, 2014
Messages
26
Earthquakes: Would occur in cities within five spaces of a mountain, would lower population and even destroy a building or two.

Floods: Would occur in cities by rivers, it would lower the population.

Tsunami: Would occur in cities by oceans, it would lower the population.

Drought: Would occur in farm; it would destroy them.

Tornado/Hurricane: Could occur on any space, would destroy buildings and lower population.

Please note: Most of these ideas are not original...

I think that if natural disasters occurred to much they would ruin the flow of the game so I think one should only occur once per age for a Civilization.

What do you guys think?
 
In the same way that some love the variability of huts, some would hate it. I think it would be interesting, but something that could be turned on or off in game setup
 
Most of those were in Civ 4 Beyond the Sword. And were unpopular when the bad event struck the human. The positive events were much more popular.

As I recall, SMAC events were pretty popular because they included a check for X building against the city chosen. (If you had the building then you got a bonus, but if not you got a penalty)
 
I liked random events a lot in Civ IV. I think it would be cool if random events were tied to faith. I.e. less negative ones and more positive ones, the more faith you have. Problem is, Firaxis tried to make religions neutral, and to tie acts of god to faith would offend the atheists.
 
Honestly I would love them but I don't want them in because I know everybody on this forum would cry & scream aboy how unfair, unbalanced, & game-breaking they are, & and I for one don't want to here them.
 
Natural Disasters introduce more randomness into the game. This tends to slow down many strategies. So as fun as it would be, I think more randomness would not be beneficial to game balance.
 
So...

Adding random events would make the game more realistic but reduce strategy...

It would be fun for some but others would despise it (maybe even become paranoid and think the game is against them?)

So then, to resolve the first problem these natural disasters need to be at least somewhat preventable; for example you would avoid founding cities on certain spots because you know there would be a risk of flooding or an earthquake. Later on you would be able to build dams and earthquake shelters that would prevent your population from shrinking. And so in this way the natural disaster feature would be part of the overall strategy.

And to resolve the second, we have an "on" and "off" switch for natural disasters like we have with barbarians.
 
Iannewton80 said:
So...

Adding random events would make the game more realistic but reduce strategy...

It would be fun for some but others would despise it (maybe even become paranoid and think the game is against them?)

So then, to resolve the first problem these natural disasters need to be at least somewhat preventable; for example you would avoid founding cities on certain spots because you know there would be a risk of flooding or an earthquake. Later on you would be able to build dams and earthquake shelters that would prevent your population from shrinking. And so in this way the natural disaster feature would be part of the overall strategy.

And to resolve the second, we have an "on" and "off" switch for natural disasters like we have with barbarians.
Click to expand...

You know, I could get behind Natural Disasters as a mechanic if I were allowed to transfer population to the point of completely Moving my Cities to less dangerous areas. Or more intriguingly, allow me to build various Shelters (or something similar) to limit the negative impact of Natural Disasters. Of course, this would need a Toggle to keep some players from storming the Forum Gates in protest :)
 
Should Civilization have natural disasters?
Click to expand...

No.

It's just another 'luck-factor'. Welcome to even more rage-quits and QQ threads. Would be fun for masochists though, I guess. The game's about competing with rivals on a (mostly) level playing field. If it's not that, it's in the wrong game, generally speaking. I'm sure you know what I mean, even if there are pedantic holes in the already existing mild variances in 'level playing field'.
 
I've said it before, but I consider some leaders a natural disaster whenever they appear in my games.
 
"Should Civilisation have random Aliens come from another planet and exterminate or kidnap a large percentage of your population?"

Answer:

"There should at least be a toggle for it"
 
Silverman6083 said:
Honestly I would love them but I don't want them in because I know everybody on this forum would cry & scream aboy how unfair, unbalanced, & game-breaking they are, & and I for one don't want to here them.
Click to expand...

Well, maybe it would be unbalanced, unfair, and game-breaking. That doesn't mean people would be criers and screamers. Since it's not in the game, you don't know how fair or balanced it would be.

With that being said, like the others, if it was option, I would like to try it.
 
All these people clammering for something bad and horrible to possibly happen to their civ? Because it would be fun?

Where's that gin?

*hic* schhhhaaaay, how's abowt wheeze like av I dunno like rabid plagues in the early eraz and then likech maybe a powtential for schupernova sun in the Modern eraz, like total wipe out, man *hic* I'm up, whosch wiv me *burp*
 
I agree with many of the above commenters, in that there should definitely be a toggle option so that the people who don't want to play with natural disasters don't have to. Perhaps it should even be off by default. I do, however, think that Civ should have the option of including natural disasters, because I think some people, myself included, would find it suspenseful and interesting.
 
I think that if they were to ever include natural disasters, it would be a nightmare.

I mean, if there's the possiblility of hurricanes, then the player in question should have the option to build regular buildlings, or buildings that could withstand hurricanes. Same thing for tornadoes.

And then what category hurricane? Would the player have to choose the a level 1, level 2, level 10 or whatever? Same thing with earthquakes.

It would be a nightmare to have to play that way. And it would not be fair to just have a random castrophe if the player can't prepare for it.

And that would be realistic. Many countries have buildilng codes in place for withstanding hurricanes and earthquakes.

I think it would be a nightmare to code, and a PITA to even play the game with stuff like that.
 
I think they would be fine as long as they'd only create a minor setback for the afflicted civilizations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

King Phaedron
Evolving Civs and Leaders - Aztec to Mexico, Cherokee to America
2 3
Replies
44
Views
2K
Alexander's Hetaroi
Alexander's Hetaroi
K
[BNW] How many cities is best for Immortal and large maps?
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
consentient
consentient
rahorvat
DOS Civilization 1991 Bug(s) discussion - What should be fixed in OpenCiv1?
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
rahorvat
rahorvat
Boris Gudenuf
Visions of the Seventh Civilization
2 3
Replies
59
Views
6K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
rsc2a
(7a) VP Events Overhaul (Expansion Pack system)
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
APLion
A
Top Bottom