Disasters in civ5

[Loppan Torkel]

It could be done in various ways. Would you like to see this feature included in civ5?

 

[Louis XXIV]

Generally, things like this have been ill-received. They were going to have the plague in C3C, but it pissed people off so much, they left it as a mod instead. People like to be in control of their game as much as possible and leave as little as possible to chance.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

...but it would be a teeny bit of fun to have built nuclear bomb shelters in a few cities just as a safety measure, when the huge comet strikes and then try to rebuild to win what's left to win. It could be interesting if it happened once every hundred game or so. ..but it could be annoying too...

 

[moscaverde]

Disasters could be incredibly frustrating.
The way it is now (some events) is the equilibrium, I believe.

 

[Danielos]

It could be done in various ways. Would you like to see this feature included in civ5?

Of course!

Since random events (both good/bad) have been an important factor in the shaping of our history (humans would probably not even exist if it weren´t for a huge disaster 65 mya) they should definietly be a part of Civilization.

I like the world in Civ to be nasty and unpredictable, where you always have to adapt and evolve to sudden, unexpected changes...

 

[Berba]

Disasters? Do you mean like events?

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Disasters? Do you mean like events?

Events like WC 2010? I mean disasters.

 

[Berba]

You mean like in Civ IV with these little events like floods and earthquakes?

 

[Chazcon]

Of course!

...

I like the world in Civ to be nasty and unpredictable, where you always have to adapt and evolve to sudden, unexpected changes...

Totally agree. Plague, comet, asteroid, droughts, global warming, ice age, electromagnetic flux from a solar flare that destroys all electronic technologies.

Think of it!

But... EXTREMELY rare. You might see only one such asteroid impact event in 100 Marathon games.

Plagues would happen 1 or 2 times per (Marathon) game.

Droughts, floods more often.

rambling now... I'm out.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

BtS had it's events and civ3 had volcanoes. I mean all kinds of disasters, minor or major, in whatever form. I guess the unifying aspects are that they're at least somewhat random in time and space and they're negative in the most acute faze. Is it a good idea to implement such a feature?

 

[Willowmound]

No one can object to optional disasters. That's the important thing, that people can turn them off.

I'd love me some disasters, myself.

 

[Willowmound]

EDIT: Double post. I blame you, internets!

 

[CornPlanter]

There's nothing more annoying. Basically, I'd load every time Just imagine in Civ4 half of your population suddenly disappearing, along with trade routes for 10 turns - that's my rough idea of bubonic plague implementation in Civ 4... yeah, disaster, realistic to some extent... but since its a game I'd like to see outcome decided mostly by my own actions, not by some random... disasters.

Another one I would "like" very much would be storms in the sea, sinking your flotillas As in "Invincible" Armada or Mongol invasion to Home islands... it would be really realistic and really annoying and 99% players would load immediately.

It could be interesting if it happened once every hundred game or so. ..but it could be annoying too...

When the probability of some disaster of such a scale is 1/100, you can bet that 99,99999% of the sane players will never take any measures to prevent/comeback from it - it would be plain silly to waste resources on something that happens in one game out of 100. Also, you can safely bet that once it happens, every player will load the game.

It's just waste of time to implement something which 99% customers will ignore or turn off.

 

[Camikaze]

So...you think it would be fun if the civilization you had spent hours and hours building up was wiped out by a random comet strike?

Well, most people don't.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

So...you think it would be fun if the civilization you had spent hours and hours building up was wiped out by a random comet strike?

Well, most people don't.

Well, two thirds are voting for disasters in the poll, so maybe they do... In the example with the comet, I'd probably get a bit excited to see such an event with so low probability and try to continue. Perhaps there could be some new post-apocalyptic victory conditions coupled with it.

When the probability of some disaster of such a scale is 1/100, you can bet that 99,99999% of the sane players will never take any measures to prevent/comeback from it - it would be plain silly to waste resources on something that happens in one game out of 100. Also, you can safely bet that once it happens, every player will load the game.

You'd probably not waste too much resources to counter an impact from a comet, but perhaps against a nuclear war.

I can't say I care that much either way, but I didn't mind the volcanoes in civ3 and if implemented right I think disasters could be fun. I agree they're easy to get annoying though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I said *yes*, but with this proviso-most disaster events should allow you to take either preventative measures to avoid/lessen the extent of disasters &/or the ability to expend significant resources to lessen the extent of the disaster *after* the fact (like evacuating your people from a city hit by a volcano. City & associated improvements might get destroyed, but you get to move your city to a safe location beyond the reach of the volcano).
Another proviso-however rare they are, disasters must *not* be game-breaking. Disasters shouldn't hit until you're relatively well established, & no single disaster should ever be enough to completely eliminate a city/empire. Also, I think a Dark Age should be a potential disaster, but only in situations created by in-game actions (running a very low science slider, religious policies etc etc).

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I don't think people would really enjoy it in a game. It's like "The Vedic Aryans are invading, would you like to a) reload b) start a new game ?"

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Oh dear, when I was faced with the Vedic Aryans, I chose option (c) batten down & put up a huge fight. Sure I came out battered & bruised, but it rarely cost me the game (unless I was playing really badly already). To quote a famous comedian here in Australia, I think you need to "Toughen up, Princess"

 

[Camikaze]

Well, two thirds are voting for disasters in the poll, so maybe they do... In the example with the comet, I'd probably get a bit excited to see such an event with so low probability and try to continue. Perhaps there could be some new post-apocalyptic victory conditions coupled with it.

Well I agree that there should be some natural disasters as feature of terrain and random events, also. It adds flavour. But they certainly shouldn't have a large effect on the outcome or direction of the game. That should be based upon skill.

 

[GoodSarmatian]

I can repel the other invasions, but the Aryan usually come so early that I noly have one or two warriors and perparing for them would slow down my expansion too much.