disasters?has this been discussed already?

[rizone]

Hi fellows,

I am dead excited about the realease of CIV IV,thats for sure,maybe its too late,but what I want to see in the new CIV IV is disasters,ya know,typhoon,floods,tsunamis.....disease...i think it easy to be implemented rite?without graphics and stuff,just sporadic random disasters...it can be used to simulate the wiping of entire island nation just because of a volcanic eruption,for example.By the way,Im thinking of getting the CIV III command and conquer( the complete packeage)do you think Its wise or shud i just wait for CIV 4?what is CIV III series anyway?

Newbie
Rizone

 

[ainwood]

Firstly, one 'problem' with game balance in Civ3 is the Big Dice Rolls (TM) - random events that can have a big impact on the final result. This was things like settlers from huts in 3900 BC - huge advantage if one player got one and another didn't (in MP or same-map tournaments). I fear that disasters that have a major effect could result in the same. If they were nicely balanced somehow (eg effects were minor, or could be mitigated), then its a good idea. However, the question is then whether it adds depth to the game, or just makes it more complicated.

 

[dh_epic]

It might neither add more depth nor make it more complicated. It just might make winning the game about dumb luck.

 

[Bluemofia]

Well, luck is in the game already with the RNG, so the disasters should be very rare, as not to be able to decimate entire civs early on.

 

[Abaddon]

I am sick of people wanting to make the game more and more linear!

All these extras add a bit of spice to the game and mean your strategy might actually have to change from the one you made on turn 1. Currently if you start a game and set out on a certain winning target, not much is going to happen to stop that final outcome. Sure you get good luck as much as bad.. sometimes you will lose out, sometimes other civs will.. wouldnt it be a million times more entertaining if this game had a little more uncertainty about it?

 

[dh_epic]

I don't want uncertainty, I want CHOICE.

It's not enough to have random blind luck make the game more unpredictable. I'd like to see the game become more unpredictable because I don't know what units my opponent is building -- rather than assuming that he's building as many of the single best attacker as possible. I'd rather see the game become more unpredictable because I don't know if I don't know exactly how patriotic and strong my enemy's culture is, and hence don't know if I'll be able to hold his conquered territory. I'd rather see the game become more unpredictable because I don't know what path my opponent will take down the tech tree -- rather than knowing we're all following the same path.

The key is empowering the player with a real variety of choices. That's much much better than mere "randomness".

 

[Abaddon]

i agree... i wish there had been an option to turn plague "on" or "off" rather than it only being implemented in scenarios.

 

[Vael]

There is a way - you can turn it on for regular games in the Editor.

 

[Abaddon]

aha.. an interesting option.. BUT

1, I dont like the fact i will no longer get scores entered into the tables
2, Would A.I ever get effected?

 

[Vael]

I don't know exactly how the high scores screen works. Personally, I play my games to have fun rather than have some silly list tell me how good I am.

The AI would be affected by plague as much as any other civ would (human or otherwise). Of course, how it would react to it...

 

[Abaddon]

Well i have fun.. i jus like to know what the computer thinks about what i did.. certainly i never bother to "milk" the score.

 

[aaronpark]

i like the idea butit would take a while to tune it right. Maybe in civ5

 

[Avayaman]

hmm.. disasters would be ok for me. and they could add it as an option for those who don't want it...

 

[TruePurple]

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=120519

 

[bradius caesar]

I think minor disasters that could be fixed through either city improvements or worker type actions could be neat. Minor flooding, forest fires, or avalanches destroying roads in mountainy terrain perhaps?

What about something like snow in northern terrain slowing road movement unless you had a snow plow type improvement in the city? It could also slow approaching attackers to give very northern (or southern) cities a bit of defense.

So, yeah, in conclusion: I think minor disasters could be neat.