Could random events make end game less boring?

[marioflag]

Do you think that random events could make end game less boring?
For example adding diseases, terrorist attacks, revolts can give you a lesser control over your civilization but at the same time can make the end game in which there is no exploration, there is a few content and the game is already decided more flexible.
So do you think it would be a good idea for the next xp?

 

[Uncle_Joe]

I only find the end game 'boring' when I'm playing a difficulty level below my ability. With the 'Better AI' mod and playing at a respectable level, its usually touch and go until the very end. Its only 'boring' when I'm comfortably ahead and just cruising to victory secure in the knowledge that none of the AIs has the slightest chance of stopping me.

If you are experiencing this often, I would recommend the 'Better AI' and/or simply moving up in difficulty level.

 

[Powerslave]

Do you think that random events could make end game less boring?

SMAC had random events, and they made the game more fun; however, the end game was still boring. Random events, by themselves, can not save a boring end game. Better AI is a good idea, and Blake is working on that, but there are still some issues, namely the fact that the entire world has been explored and settled. To some people, I think this limits the game, in their mind, to just diplomacy and war, two aspects of the game that they find less compelling than exploring and expanding. One way to change this would be to have lunar colonies. Another way would be to colonize the sea, with underwater cities.

Both would be within the scope of a near-future reality, but, not having thought through the ramifications of these changes, I'm not sure how they would affect the game. For example, if the AI could settle anywhere in the ocean, it probably would -- making the ocean just one huge urban sprawl. That's no good.

I've often thought that the game becomes less and less compelling as you advance through the ages. The modern age, while theoretically very exciting, turns out to be bland and boring, thanks to the game's poor modelling of our present. Television, radio, highways, lunar missions, computers, multi-national corporations -- these are all exciting things. But not in Civ.

 

[KMadCandy]

SMAC had random events, and they made the game more fun; however, the end game was still boring. Random events, by themselves, can not save a boring end game. Better AI is a good idea, and Blake is working on that, but there are still some issues, namely the fact that the entire world has been explored and settled. To some people, I think this limits the game, in their mind, to just diplomacy and war, two aspects of the game that they find less compelling than exploring and expanding

Another way would be to colonize the sea, with underwater cities.

Television, radio, highways, lunar missions, computers, multi-national corporations -- these are all exciting things. But not in Civ.

note that i did delete part of Powerslave's post.

true about SMAC. the random events were sometimes 'yay' and sometimes 'awwwwwww man!' but i don't think that they really added tons of interest to the game. i did find the part about making sea colonies interesting, altho i never used them much and neither did the other civs. there was some improvement that would protect your coastal cities in case the tile they were on went ocean i think, that was kinda cool, particularly added to the global warming changes in that game. the whole mind worm thing i liked and added to the challenge when i was in the mood.

i hadn't ever thought about it, but yes the once i've explored the globe, and settled the locations that i want, that does take away a bit of the interesting part for me. i like the 'open up the black space, find out what's out there' bit a lot. a certain aspect of that stays for me, since when possible i spread whichever religion i'm using and have the holy city for to have spies to watch enemy territory that's far from me, i really like that aspect. and it's spooky fun if i change to another temporarily to appease someone and suddenly the lights go out all over!

alas, highways /sigh. i miss Mass Transit System from an older civ that would get rid of pollution caused by population in your cities. i like big big cities, and seeing that ugly green cloud of pollution over a city makes me pout, even when they have enough food to handle it.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

One way to change this would be to have lunar colonies. Another way would be to colonize the sea, with underwater cities.

Civ:Call to Power did this. Well space cities instead of lunar. Anyways, it worked ok but definately slowed the game it both time and lag. Space cities were cool in that you could bombard from orbit, but if you didnt have anything in space you just got pounded. Ocean cities were ok but usually I built them to block the ai from settling the territory.

Obviously Firaxis would handle it different, but my general impression is that in the late game when people complain about turns taking too long and micromanagement of huge empires...this would only increase the problems. Plus there would be no natural resources in earth orbit, they would have to write in resources in water not off the coast. Plus with Ocean cities they would only be off your coast...by the end game there is almost 100% coast coverage of culture, sometimes by several squares.

Then we could take history and civilization into the idea. Considering where the techs stop, I dont see space cities. Maybe a space colony. It might be cool to have a International Space Station national wonder. But we are at least 20 years off of a lunar base, similar to the ISS. Lunar cities wont happen this century. Ocean cities I dont see happening either...the cost of making a safe city with our current materials would designate it as a tourist spot, but not a pratical repeatable city.

ANYWAYS, about random events, I would like them in the game like smac. Would they make the end game less boring? No. What would make the end game less boring? Make the ai aware of the situation and play like a human. Example: the ai sees that one civ is nearing three cultural cities, or finishing the spaceship...he attacks. He sees youve built the the un...the ai makes demands from you, tries to consolidate some allies of its own, starts a war between one of your allies...putting you in a hard spot. The ai sees youre collecting vassals or territory by military conquests...he forms a coalition (or goes it alone) and counterattacks you.

When Im trying to win and I see the ai ahead of me in the ship, I'll go try to raze his cities. If I saw he had some culutral cities appraoching legendary, I would try to raze those too. I have gone to war in the few times Ive seen the ai pick up several vassals.

The main problem in the end game is that the game is more or less over...you know the ai wont finish the ship before you finish your victory. Usually I find myself playing against the clock trying to reach certain time goals...win in the 1800s, 1900s. The only time I find the end game really fun is when I am racing against the ai in a space race, or if I didnt finish my military/culutre game and Im trying to win before he wins space race.

Change the ai to challenge us in the end, and to go for different victory types earlier in the game. Then the end game is less boring.

 

[binhthuy71]

Civ has never been big on historicity, preferring "historyness" in the interest of gameplay.

But, I just finished Fernand Braudel's; The Structures of Everyday Life: Civilization and Capitalism 15th-18th Century and random events, war, plague and famine were much more frequent than I thought they were. They occaisionally had a huge effect on the afflicted societies.

So, yes, I'd be in favor of random events to make the game more like the actual march of civilization - but only if they affected the other players in the game

 

[lipstickSS]

YES YES O GOD YES

If you have played galactic civ 2 or birth of the fed it makes the AI and event occurs of civ 4 looks silly (I prefer civ 4 still) they are much more dramatic fun games to play.
In this game nothing seems to happen unless you make it happen
when the computer declare war on you it’s always for 2 reasons resources or religion, nothing to do with ideology communist are friends with fascist democracy don't defend smaller states. Some random events someone assassinations of leader, rogue states a bunch of cities breaking away forming a new nation or maybe better spies could spice the game up a lot. The funny thing is they had a lot of this stuff in Civ II but they took it out.
I liked the way in galactic civ if you move a lot of units towards an enemy they send you message like could you make it more obvious you are going to attack fine but this will not be forgiven etc etc
. this game you can put 50 units outside a city demand all there techs (not that they ever let you or would give it to you) cancel all your deals and they still would not see the imminent threat.

What is this Better AI mod you speak of?
I play on high levels of difficulty and it doesn’t make the game harder they still attack me with knights when I have tanks and i don’t like the very high difficulties because the computer cheat which just annoys me.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

I would very much like to see random events like plagues, earthquakes, riots/revolts, volcanic eruptions, religious schisms, oil spills, etc. The only "random" event I know of is the potential meltdown from a nuclear power plant, and I have never seen this happen in Civ 4. I don't think they would really cure the endgame blues, though it would make the rest of the game interesting.

 

[paperchase417]

The problem with Civ 4 having random events, is that natural disasters, and terrorist attacks typically only last a a day or so and even in the late game a single turn represents and entire year.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

The only "random" event I know of is the potential meltdown from a nuclear power plant, and I have never seen this happen in Civ 4.

Dont forget jungles or forrest growing.

 

[Elandal]

The first time I built a nuclear powerplant in cIV, it went kaboom ten turns later. I've never built one again.

 

[KMadCandy]

The first time I built a nuclear powerplant in cIV, it went kaboom ten turns later. I've never built one again.

hubby captured one of gandhi's cities late in one of his first civ4 games. he hadn't built any nuke plants of his own, seemed like a bad idea. well that city had a nuke plant and it had a meltdown while the city was in revolt. hubby now he had to deal with the downside of gandhi's choice. very sneaky of gandhi, a way to nuke your opponent with no political downside and without the bother of building an ICBM. who'd suspect him of all people? a plan so cunning you could brush your teeth with it.

hubby was all kinds of . not only did he never finish that game, he didn't play civ4 again for at least a month.

 

[Spitefire]

Number 1 reason the ability to get rid of a building in your city should have stayed in the game Nuclear plants never fail to meltdown at the most inconveniant times also a good reason the player should be the one to decide when a building is removed from the buildable list.


Heres one for you all to consider as has been considered im sure but have random events related to extream weather go off more often when you start getting into heavy pollution levels, you know the whole global warming thing.

 

[Naismith]

Random events would not be a plus for me. I think people either like the idea or hate it. If they ever implement random events, I sure hope they make it optional.

 

[Psyringe]

Do you think that random events could make end game less boring?
For example adding diseases, terrorist attacks, revolts can give you a lesser control over your civilization but at the same time can make the end game in which there is no exploration, there is a few content and the game is already decided more flexible.
So do you think it would be a good idea for the next xp?

I don't find the endgame boring. However, I do like random events. The problem with them is that many players don't like it when a random event destroys part of their plans.

 

[icemanjsg]

I don't find the endgame boring. However, I do like random events. The problem with them is that many players don't like it when a random event destroys part of their plans.

Well like botf have a button that turns random events on OR off?

 

[Psyringe]

Well like botf have a button that turns random events on OR off?

Yup, obviously. Random event optionalization can be carried even further - in Space Empires IV and V, you can fine-tune the frequency and the severity of random events with four settings each. I usually set them to "very frequent" and "catastrophic". But there are also players who prefer them turned off, whicxh is why I threw this detail in.

Personally, I think that it's realistic to be confronted with catastrophes and unforeseeable events when building a civilization. It's part of the challenge to be prepared for catastrophic events. I also like it when the balance of power, which has formed in the course of the game, gets mixed up a little.

 

[gettingfat]

Random events don't have to be all negative. In fact, you can consider in the current game the discovery of additional resources in your mines a random event. I think this idea can be further expanded. For example if you do not chop your forests or jungles you might have a marginal chance of getting forest based (e.g. deer) or jungle based (e.g. dye) resources popped up.

In addition, they may include certain positive random events that occur only if you manage your civ right. For example, if your citizens are very happy (no unhappy citizen), feeling secure (high power ranking), and doing good research for an extended period of time, you may have a small probability of eliciting a bonus golden age. Or if you successfully converting all the neighbours in the same continent to your a religion discovered by you, and you have built the Holy shrine, maybe you can have a chance in getting some sort of a Holy festival, with your Holy city making double gold for a few turns.

In the same token, certain disasters may be related to your poor management. For example, if your certain city is very very unhealthy, maybe you might get an epidemic outbreak and lose a quarter of population. This may be prevented by building hospitals and aqueducts. The consequences of certain natural disasters, while not preventable, can be made less punishing, like fewer life and building loss in an earthquake if you have good enough infrastructure (e.g. court, jail, hospital) with plenty of city defenders. Some events are related to the use of "negative" civics for too long, such as more riots from staying in slavery for 5000 years.

The key is to make these random effects not game deciding but providing palpable impacts. This will also encourage players to use the builder style a bit more, instead of going war and more war in every game. I know many people here like warmongering, which is OK. But to me Civs are never pure war games. I can go play an Age of Empire game if I really want to war all the time.

 

[Naismith]

Random events don't have to be all negative. In fact, you can consider in the current game the discovery of additional resources in your mines a random event. I think this idea can be further expanded. For example if you do not chop your forests or jungles you might have a marginal chance of getting forest based (e.g. deer) or jungle based (e.g. dye) resources popped up.

In addition, they may include certain positive random events that occur only if you manage your civ right. For example, if your citizens are very happy (no unhappy citizen), feeling secure (high power ranking), and doing good research for an extended period of time, you may have a small probability of eliciting a bonus golden age. Or if you successfully converting all the neighbours in the same continent to your a religion discovered by you, and you have built the Holy shrine, maybe you can have a chance in getting some sort of a Holy festival, with your Holy city making double gold for a few turns.

In the same token, certain disasters may be related to your poor management. For example, if your certain city is very very unhealthy, maybe you might get an epidemic outbreak and lose a quarter of population. This may be prevented by building hospitals and aqueducts. The consequences of certain natural disasters, while not preventable, can be made less punishing, like fewer life and building loss in an earthquake if you have good enough infrastructure (e.g. court, jail, hospital) with plenty of city defenders. Some events are related to the use of "negative" civics for too long, such as more riots from staying in slavery for 5000 years.

The key is to make these random effects not game deciding but providing palpable impacts. This will also encourage players to use the builder style a bit more, instead of going war and more war in every game. I know many people here like warmongering, which is OK. But to me Civs are never pure war games. I can go play an Age of Empire game if I really want to war all the time.

Mostly I don't want to be the victim of negative random events that are completely beyond my control. The above ideas are much better in that you do have some control. They actually fit in pretty well with the kind of random events that occur in the game now. For instance, you don't have complete control over whether your neighbor Monty will declare war on you, but you can keep your power rating up, adopt his religion, give him tribute, bribe him to attack someone else, etc. (Although some people would claim an attack from Monty is a 100% certainty. )

 

[largedarryl]

I agree that the suggested random events would fit in nicely, but unfortunately none of the suggestions would make the end game anymore exciting. I have never made it to the end game phase, and had forseen any of these random events change the face of the game.