Well, as somenone who lost several games of Civ I after popping my first goody hut - and "Whoops, you've encountered a horde of barbarians, your Civilization has been destroyed" I am used to stuff like that and consider it the genetic code of the franchise. Always kept you a bit on the edge and forced you to have some reserves and a backup plan - because things could and did go severely wrong when you least expected it. Actually the events in Civ IV were rather friendly and harmless compared to it's predecessors - and to make a difference and give you a challenge some of them could actually have been a bit more severe and have a bit more impact. Some of them could also have been implemeted a bit better, but in general I don't mind them - especially in single player mode. And as already has been mentioned: if you don't like them you can switch them off. Best solution imaginable to please everyone.
What were the random events of civ 4 like?
- Thread starter TheMightyRyon
- Start date
Well, as somenone who lost several games of Civ I after popping my first goody hut - and "Whoops, you've encountered a horde of barbarians, your Civilization has been destroyed" I am used to stuff like that and consider it the genetic code of the franchise. Always kept you a bit on the edge and forced you to have some reserves and a backup plan - because things could and did go severely wrong when you least expected it. Actually the events in Civ IV were rather friendly and harmless compared to it's predecessors - and to make a difference and give you a challenge some of them could actually have been a bit more severe and have a bit more impact. Some of them could also have been implemeted a bit better, but in general I don't mind them - especially in single player mode. And as already has been mentioned: if you don't like them you can switch them off. Best solution imaginable to please everyone.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Yes, and there were floods and volcanoes, too.
"Best solution imaginable" does jump out at me .
I'm wondering if events aren't yet another way to scale the difficulty without relying strictly on massive handicaps. Some of the more challenging events should have been reserved for higher levels.
Callonia
Deity
- Joined
- Jan 14, 2010
- Messages
- 2,180
Bermuda triangle, well for me it always triggered inside the ring of three islands. SO i don't know what you're talking about.
Cottages next to mountains, well I'll play my game the way I want to.
Vedic aryans so what? Except for the fact that they don't spawn on turn 0 so your argument is null and void. I recall having enough time to build like 2-5 warriors before they can spawn and attempt to kill me.
And for that bug about player getting no settler in civ 5, i've had that happen to me 5 times and it's nothing. I just restart. Last time was last week over 1k hours of playing civ 5. I don't know.. it seems like you have thin skin from not having random event enabled
But allt his is pointless because you hate random events in civ 4 thus its pointless to argue with you.
Not exactly sure about the random exents itself, but the result of goody huts is difficulty related. The higher the level, the more probable it is to pop some nasty barbarians.
For the events there are conditions like "[x] players need knowlege of [y] before event [z] strikes" - so you (should) always have a chance to be prepared and get away. Civ I and II were a bit more unforgiving in that regard. Also it's not like they can only have negative results for for the player(s) but for the AI as well - so if an events hits the AI hard that actually makes it easier for the player...
IIHAAETTEAAHII
Warlord
i had them once and i really try to optimize my playstyle even if i only play chieftain and i must say that i usually dont build that many warriors especially because you cant know if they spawn or not i say they should always spawn near india like in real life so you always know if youll get them or not i dont like gandhi anyway.
Rusty Edge
Deity
Yes. I forgot about that. Good example. Huts scale with difficulty. At the lowest levels you can pop a settler, worker , warrior , scout, tech, gold or barbs. If you use a scout/explorer, you don't pop barbs.
As difficulties increased, the settlers went away, and other things followed, increasing your chances of getting only barbs or gold.
Likewise, in Civ I the events were not of the limit occurrences per game or civ. The floods and volcanos repeated.
I think the random events did not scale.
True about the negative events, and since there are many more A.I. than the player, it's more likely to help the player, including hurricanes and slave revolts. But that also means that the opposite is true- Powerful positive events like Tower shields or inflation reduction are more likely to happen to one of the A.I and make them more competitive.
Thorburne
Centurion
In the end, it is about adapting and overcoming. That is a core of any true strategy. After all, the best plan ends after the order to execute it. Random events played into that. True strategy is not only dealing with the components of two elements, but also various factors that can have drastic effects on the outcome. Many of those factors are completely unknown. If you watch the movie Jurasic Park (the first one) Jeff Goldblum's character illustrates it by dropping a drop of water on another character's hand, when he does it again, it runs a different way. Randomness is what causes the world to evolve and revolve. If there is one thing in Civ V that I do have a problem with, it is the mundaneness of it all. How many turns am I just hitting next turn to the point where I have to go out and start a war just to change things up? Too many!
Random events cause people to plan better. Those that can't are not true strategists. The world does not work on rails.
Random events cause people to plan better. Those that can't are not true strategists. The world does not work on rails.
LOL, yeah, it's like Star Trek: "We have 3 hours, 47 minutes and 25 seconds until reactor core breach!!!"
Radom events were poorly implemented and just irritating. After a few games, I turned them off. I like strategy games because they are all about the quality of your decision making and planning. With random events, you could spend time and effort nurturing diplomatic relations with your neighbour and then suddenly there's an incident at a wedding that was totally beyond your control and you get a diplomatic penalty that lasts hundreds of years. Lame.
If they had been designed with the skill of other parts of the game, they could have been interesting. If parts of the map were designated geographic fault lines and so prone to earthquakes/volcanos, so you could avoid cities there or maybe pay an extra cost to earthquake proof buildings, or build different types of flood defences in coastal or river cities, or once you researched chemistry, you could spend some beakers researching pesticides to avoid your farms suffering plagues of locusts. As it is, random events are just a roll of a virtual dice. If I wanted that, I'd play roulette.
If they had been designed with the skill of other parts of the game, they could have been interesting. If parts of the map were designated geographic fault lines and so prone to earthquakes/volcanos, so you could avoid cities there or maybe pay an extra cost to earthquake proof buildings, or build different types of flood defences in coastal or river cities, or once you researched chemistry, you could spend some beakers researching pesticides to avoid your farms suffering plagues of locusts. As it is, random events are just a roll of a virtual dice. If I wanted that, I'd play roulette.
