(Dynamic) natural disasters

[EgonSpengler]

Also Jordan, where an entire country is on the verge of running out of water, or the countries of Micronesia, who are being slowly drowned by Too Much Water.

Much of that is Climate Change, which is a separate mechanic, I think: is the game going to try to represent 'natural' or Man-Made Changes in the terrain or climate and their effects? This is not just a modern phenomena, since the eruption of Thera in the 16th century BCE may have disrupted the climate of the entire eastern Mediterranean, and 'cyclic' climate change affected Europe in the late Middle Ages and earlier, may have contributed to the Germanic/Gothic migrations into the Roman Empire and the Viking explosion' of the 9th century CE.

Global, long term, multi-country Disasters are, I think, a lot more problematic to include in the game: who wants to play a game in which the conditions may change for the worse almost everywhere in the game and there is Nothing You Can Do to prevent it, just 'muddle through' until it's over? I confess, I'm a confirmed Historian by vocation and avocation, and even I wouldn't be happy playing that kind of a game!

The game's not about just preventing things, though. It's also about managing things, preparing for things, and reacting to things. Anyway, this game badly needs changing conditions - like, really badly - because the final 1/3rd to 1/2 of every game is tedious and predictable. Until R&F came out, I hadn't finished a game of Civ VI in a year. I recently played a game through to the end, just to see if R&F had improved the dynamism of the back half of the game (it didn't seem to, but it was just one game). I'm also a historian, by avocation only, and I'd love it if this game asked me to actually do something past the Medieval Era. Most of the current problem is with the AI, but I'm sure programming an AI that can keep pace with a human is pretty tough. Throwing curveballs at the player would improve both historical accuracy and gameplay. Anyway, there's no reason some sort of "disasters" or "events" system couldn't be an option you can turn on or off when you start a new game.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The game's not about just preventing things, though. It's also about managing things, preparing for things, and reacting to things. Anyway, this game badly needs changing conditions - like, really badly - because the final 1/3rd to 1/2 of every game is tedious and predictable. Until R&F came out, I hadn't finished a game of Civ VI in a year. I recently played a game through to the end, just to see if R&F had improved the dynamism of the back half of the game (it didn't seem to, but it was just one game). I'm also a historian, by avocation only, and I'd love it if this game asked me to actually do something past the Medieval Era. Most of the current problem is with the AI, but I'm sure programming an AI that can keep pace with a human is pretty tough. Throwing curveballs at the player would improve both historical accuracy and gameplay. Anyway, there's no reason some sort of "disasters" or "events" system couldn't be an option you can turn on or off when you start a new game.

The 'Late Game' in Civ VI is probably the weakest part of the entire game, and it will take some Major Changes to fix it. When people can 'brag' about achieving a Science Victory in 200 turns - that is, finishing the entire Tech Tree in 40% of the time the game is supposed to take on standard speed - there is something fundamentally flawed in the application of the game design.

And the irony is, a lot of the Assets put into the game went into the Late Game, and are effectively wasted. There are 53 pre-R&F generic military units (land, sea, air) in the game: 26 of them are Modern, Atomic or Information Era units (11 from the Information Era alone!) and all the graphics and programming that went into those units are, in I would estimate over 90% of the games played, never used. In over 600 hours of playing, I still have never built an aircraft Carrier, Jet Aircraft of any kind, or any Information Era land unit.
Of course, the other side of that coin is that out of 51 Civics (pre-R&F), the Atomic and Information Eras have 8, which is only 1 more than the Ancient, Classical, and Medieval Eras have Each. The game is 'Front Loaded' in Policies, Civics, and Tech, 'Back Loaded' in Units, and has a Tech Tree that is simply not designed for the length of the game.

Until those problems are addressed, all the 'additions' in R&F and the DLCs are just Gilding a Fish: no matter how it shines, it still stinks.

 

[gokinmen]

I think the option to turn on Natural disasters would be epic!

 

[isau]

If we must have natural disasters I would prefer they be basically similar to Barbarian units that roam the map, that you can see, and somehow prepare for. Although it is entirely ridiculous for a hurricane to exist for thousands of years, having them wander the oceans and drift towards land, for example, would at least approximate the experience of preparing for and reacting to them. Then you could have projects or buildings that help you deal with them. I could see Plagues or other kinds of disasters working in similar ways. Maybe even a Monster Attack like we used to have in Sim City.

I am much much much less a fan of completely random events like earthquakes, volcanoes, etc implemented via a pop-up system. Civ 4 had that. Drove me crazy. It's "realistic" down to a level of minutia that Civ games are not.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

If we must have natural disasters I would prefer they be basically similar to Barbarian units that roam the map, that you can see, and somehow prepare for. Although it is entirely ridiculous for a hurricane to exist for thousands of years, having them wander the oceans and drift towards land, for example, would at least approximate the experience of preparing for and reacting to them. Then you could have projects or buildings that help you deal with them. I could see Plagues or other kinds of disasters working in similar ways. Maybe even a Monster Attack like we used to have in Sim City.

I am much much much less a fan of completely random events like earthquakes, volcanoes, etc implemented via a pop-up system. Civ 4 had that. Drove me crazy. It's "realistic" down to a level of minutia that Civ games are not.

I lean more toward the Provide Both Advantages And Disadvantages to 'Natural Disasters', but there is something to be said for providing a 'warning' for disasters that are Not marked by anything on the map, like Hurricanes/Typhoons, Tsunamis, etc.

And since the time scale for events in the game is already Barfed beyond belief (when it takes 200 - 300 years to form a unit of slingers in the Ancient Era, 'Time Scale' has no sensible meaning in the game), a 1 - 2 turn 'warning' would not be totally inappropriate. It could even be part of the Notifications:
"Sailors and fishermen have noticed a disturbance in the waves off the coast near Neapolis" - warning of a Tsunami, or
"There has been shaking in the earth recently near Birmingham" - warning of an earthquake.

Of course, with all the warning in the world, even in the most modern Eras there is only so much you can do to alleviate some disasters: witness the Tsunamis in Japan and Indonesia, the Hurricanes in the USA in the past several years, and earthquakes almost anywhere.
One possibility is that in the earlier Eras, when any damage to your cities and infrastructure may be much more important in game terms ("My Only Encampment just got flooded out and I'm at war with Tomyris, Genghis Khan and Montezuma! - &^%$#@&!") we might throw a little (more) fantasy into the game: have some possible Pantheon Beliefs that reduce the effects of Natural Disasters - a God of the Earth against earthquakes, or God of the Sea Horses against Tsunamis. If you happen to have your first 3 cities all on the same stretch of coast, and therefore all vulnerable to the same Tsunami Event, it would be a worthwhile investment!

 

[dunkleosteus]

There's something to be said about natural disasters in a historical context as well, though right? @Boris Gudenuf could corroborate this, but cities and communities in the ancient world were much less reliant on the infrastructure that we've built than we are today. Today, we rely on the internet extensively and so much on electricity that power outages cause many deaths. Without our transportation infrastructure, the huge cities we've built wouldn't be able to feed themselves. However in the past, we didn't have combustion engines or electricity or anything like that.

During an earthquake, buildings collapse and thousands may die. If most of your society lives in single or two story wooden buildings, they aren't as vulnerable as in 10-, 20-, or 30-story apartment buildings.

I think your inability to deal with some natural disasters in earlier eras may be offset by your resilience to them.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

There's something to be said about natural disasters in a historical context as well, though right? @Boris Gudenuf could corroborate this, but cities and communities in the ancient world were much less reliant on the infrastructure that we've built than we are today. Today, we rely on the internet extensively and so much on electricity that power outages cause many deaths. Without our transportation infrastructure, the huge cities we've built wouldn't be able to feed themselves. However in the past, we didn't have combustion engines or electricity or anything like that.

During an earthquake, buildings collapse and thousands may die. If most of your society lives in single or two story wooden buildings, they aren't as vulnerable as in 10-, 20-, or 30-story apartment buildings.

I think your inability to deal with some natural disasters in earlier eras may be offset by your resilience to them.

A very good point. In fact, although the eastern Mediterranean and central Italy are both in 'earthquake zones', in all my studies (I did work on a Master's degree in Classical Studies) I don't ever remember a Major Earthquake causing a 'disaster' in Classical Athens or Rome. Fires, plagues, yes to both. In fact, in the early Imperial centuries ( roughly, 1 AD to about 300 AD) Rome averaged a major plague outbreak every 25 - 30 years, because 'all roads led there' so disease from almost anywhere else in the world could be easily Exported to Rome, and was.
But except in Rome (concrete!) no one had the technology to build multi-story structures: 2 - 3 floors was about as high as anyone could go, so death was not a certainty unless the entire building collapsed onto you. Rebuilding in brick and stone reduced fire danger. In fact, most Classical and Medieval European towns and cities did not allow thatched roofs of any kind within the city walls, because of the fire danger: all roofing had to be tile, slate, or some other 'fire-proof' substance.

Which means, for at least the first 3 - 4 Eras of the game, the 'City Destroying' Disaster does not have to be modeled: it was too rare. Later, when cities are more vulnerable, they also have professional 'disaster relief' organizations: fire departments, mobile repair teams from other parts of the country, Search and Rescue, city Hospitals with Trauma Care Centers, etc. Some of that could be included in the game, as 'Disaster Averting' or 'coping' mechanisms for the Gamer. We already have Sewers (Plague Relief!), we could add Fire Departments in the Industrial Era (I know, there were 'fire departments' before that, but the machine pumps and city-wide pressurized water supplies date from the Industrial Era) and, in progression, a Disaster Relief Agency or Civil Disaster Control center of some kind in the Atomic Era. These three: Sewer (renamed more accurately Municipal Waterworks?), Fire Department, Disaster Relief Agency, would alleviate Plagues, Fires, and Earthquakes, respectively, giving the Gamer some 'relief' from the threat of Natural Disaster in the game.