I think it simulates a plague better than a crop blight. Overcrowded populations are especially vulnerable to disease, which is why a huge city can suffer catastrophic casualties while a medium city suffers only minor losses. That would also explain why Aqueducts and Infirmaries are doubly advantageous in reducing the damage from Blight. Starvation would probably not be alleviated by either one. Perhaps calling it "Blight" is misleading.
Ok, that makes sense. Perhaps we can view the event as a plague/blight/etc.
I'm not sure it's realistic to condemn a mechanic because it requires the player to plan ahead. Many strategies are dependent upon the foreknowledge of the player for success. For example, the first player to research certain techs founds the associated religion - and each religion lends itself to certain strategies. If a religion fits the style of game you're planning on playing then you should try to research the associated tech before anyone else... but how do you know that researching that tech will cause you to found a religion? And how do you know that the religion you found is going to be one that suits your plans for the game? For that matter, how are you able to form a plan for the game, at all, without a great deal of foreknowledge about what is possible and what is likely to happen?
I don't mean to derail this thread with a philosophical discussion about the nature of the player's role as guide of a civilization. If someone chooses not to brace themselves for blight for the sake of greater realism, I respect that decision. However, I believe that it is reasonable to make balance and design decisions based on the fact that the player is capable of planning ahead.
Im not against a rule or effect that takes planning. I guess my take on this thread and similar threads is that they have two or three purposes:
First, a simple question is it a bug or not? That is, is the effect that we are seeing in the game intended by the designers? If so, then I think many of us would feel better about the effect, but at this point we arent sure. Monkeyfingers post indicates that it is indeed a bug. My earlier post said I wasn't sure.
Second, if the answer to the above question is no, are there unintended consequences of the rule that are acting in a way that also alter the game in unintended ways?
We can probably add a third purpose, which is a simple view that we do or do not like the mechanic and wish to report this.
My understanding of the AC and its impacts, especially at lower AC levels, is that it is a rubber band mechanic; it is intended to rebalance the game against the player who is strongest. So, horsemen are largely set against the leader. But we have other threads about whether the horsemen are powerful enough, and there is a lot of divided opinion. But to handle the horsemen, the best response (as well as planning) is to endure some of your army is home,
and to be as strong as possible militarily.
Here, if the idea is that the blight is intended to strike the person who is winning the most, by hitting those with the most powerful and largest cities, I can understand it. But we still have to question if this is a good rule. Maybe it is supposed to hit the Ljosalfar with their huge happiness bonuses and large cities hardest.
I want to say I dont like the mechanic, even if I can plan through it. For blight,
I just dont like the game mechanic that you intentionally weaken yourself to handle the event. Thats my opinion.
If the rule works as Monekeyfinger said it is supposed to work, then it would be in my mind even better, it wouldnt be non-linear at all. You wouldnt have a rule that intentional weakening is part of the optimal planning process.
I also think that both the horsemen and the blight would be more effective if there was more variability in their appearance. I would prefer if there was a probability of appearance slightly before the AC trigger and then rising. In that case, I couldnt do what I do now, which is figure out when and where the horsemen comes, and then take him down; and those of us who do that often felt he horsemen arent very strong because they are easy to counter and become a nice sourceof magical weapons. Of course, we can make the same arguemtn for other mechanics - we probably shouldn't know for certainty when a great man will be born or when a ritual will be completed; but I think the impact of a horsemen coming is more decisive.
However, if Kael or any of the other main designers would come out and say that they did indeed, think of all of this, they intentionally want people to learn to build smaller cities, that they intentionally want smaller cities to have more people in them through the blight than larger cities, intentionally think the Ljosalfar and their huge cities are too powerful and the mechanic was created for this purpose, I would feel better about it. My instincts are that this isnt happening as Monkeyfinger pointed out above, blight is a tricky mechanic that they have been tinkering with for a long time, and my view is that it isnt working properly and that the intended result was more like Monkeyfinger said.
Best wishes,
Breunor
from time to time for quite a while. Since before the new bug thread began, since before I started playing, and probably back much much further.
cap is asking to be smacked down hard by blight. There's no reason you have to allow your cities to grow so large that you have no spare 
