Give Me Weather!

[PlutonianEmpire]

I have an idea: how about weather? I don't mean just weather setting in the custom world screen, but I mean ACTUAL WEATHER! Tornadoes, hail, lightning, hurricanes, and how about "space weather" such as asteroid strikes, meteor storms, etc, and "underground weather," such as earthquakes, volcanoes, explosive upwellings (huge volcanos that can create continents in one shot) There is some weather and geological activity in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri game.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I like weather in order to add something new to Civ. Some people may say "every turn's a year" and that sort of thing, but the game is above all else about fun, and real kings had to worry about the weather, so it's not unrealistic either.

 

[Daftpanzer]

Weather would be cool, maybe areas near the poles could become snowy from time to time, making them harder to cross and more defensible. Areas could get flooded by heavy rain etc to become like marshes for a few turns.

Hey trip, if you see this:
Do you remember the old secret forum? Did you ever finish the napoleonic war scenario? I though the C3C one was not interesting at all.

 

[Jon Shafer]

I stopped working on it a while ago back when I found out that Firaxis-BreakAway was doing a Nappy scenario. Since then I've reformatted my hard drive, so all of my past work on it is now gone, sorry.

 

[MSTK]

Yeah, but now there is a little but too much of a "luck" factor involved. Unless, of course, if weather occured in patterns and was completely predictable (not by technology, but by common sense), then there might not be as much.
In some terrains, maybe weather can have more effect. Like, on tundra, any unit that is not in a city during the "winter" climate will slowly loose health. In desert, same thing with "summer". And, on the southern hemisphere, everything is reversed.

I think that the most influential time these days when weather played such an important part was during Napolean's "almost"-conquest of Russia. I think a winter-type climate could be successfully depicted in relation to that event.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

Of course, there could also be "major natural events," such as a hailstorm that destroys crops/irrigation, or tornado and/or hurricane strikes (depending on wether your city is close enough to the coast for a hurricane to get it) that can destroy terrain improvements--including cities and units. Same thing with earthquakes. These type of events would notify the player in a dialog/text box.

 

[Lennon]

Russia have always been able to benefit from weather. Karl XII and his Swedish armies suffered badly in the Russian winter and eventually lost the battle at Poltava. In WW2, the iniative constantly shifted in favour of the Soviets as soon as winter came about.

I totally agree that weather would make a nice feature, but the turns representing so much longer time than mere seasons obviously makes it a bit complicated. If I attack my neighbour, I'd obviously do it in the summertime if I had to choose any part of the year, and every turn in Civ is at least a year long...

 

[thestonesfan]

I think their should be a "climate" factor in each region. For example, a square in a far northern area would have a "frigid" climate, and certain "luck rolls" could come up and say "Freezing weather hinders attack" and your attack value would be halved. Or something like that. It wouldn't happen all the time, but enough to make a difference.

I don't think there is any good way to represent seasons, so it would have to be kind of a random thing.

Using this climate factor system, you could also implement droughts and floods, but I don't know if that would really be welcome. It would be like the plague, and i hate the plague.

 

[MSTK]

Climate is defined as the weather over a long period of time.

IIRC, climate has changed in regions. How hard is it to have a climate change every 5 turns? In reality, that is. Climate changing over 250 years (or 50 years) makes sense.

But, as I said, if it is not completely predictable by common sense, then there is too much of a randomness flavor in Civ, and you can now blame losses not on your skill, but on your luck.

That is how chess became so popular - there is no luck, only strategy.

The luck implemented in Civ3 right now is not enough to become a gamebreaker.

 

[PlutonianEmpire]

The luck implemented in Civ3 right now is not enough to become a gamebreaker.

How so?

 

[thestonesfan]

Climate is defined as the weather over a long period of time.

IIRC, climate has changed in regions. How hard is it to have a climate change every 5 turns? In reality, that is. Climate changing over 250 years (or 50 years) makes sense.

But, as I said, if it is not completely predictable by common sense, then there is too much of a randomness flavor in Civ, and you can now blame losses not on your skill, but on your luck.

That is how chess became so popular - there is no luck, only strategy.

The luck implemented in Civ3 right now is not enough to become a gamebreaker.

It would be predictable to an extent. If you go on extended military excursions in northern regions, you are bound to run into bad weather. You could still overcome it.

The degree of randomness would still fit in with other things affected by luck throughout the game, some of which can be game-breakers. You can lose that last defending unit even if the stats say you shouldn't, you won't get that vital resource, you get that all-powerful Great Leader.

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

That is how chess became so popular

So go play chess (btw my first move will be 1.b4!)

The skill in Civ is precisely in coping with the unexpected and the slightly uncontrollable. The whole point of simulating the progress of civilization is to relive the kind of problems that really happen. It's all about flexibility and contingency. It would be utterly boring if it was wholly calculable and since the calculations have to be so detailed, I can't imagine anyone plaing it.

Obviously it is absurd to introduce weather, but climatic variation over time is another matter. But what kind of world are we living in if you can predict changes to climate over the next hundred years never mind five thousand? So climate is at least feasible. But would it add to the game or just be another detail?

By the way poorer conditions close to polar regions is already modelled in the prevalence of tundra and near the equator with deserts. In both cases it is a handicap to the civ because it limits expansion and reduces options.


Cheers

Algy

 

[thestonesfan]

By the way poorer conditions close to polar regions is already modelled in the prevalence of tundra and near the equator with deserts. In both cases it is a handicap to the civ because it limits expansion and reduces options.

Yes, I don't think there should be further penalties for having cities there, just that the weather should affect the fighting.

A random element like this would favor the defenders, which would be fairly true to life.

 

[Colonel]

in the begining of the game u would have 20 year storms lolololololol i would hate that

 

[Bibor]

don't mention weather!
... i hate it from the times of Panzer General I...



-kirby

 

[mac224]

In order to add to the game it would have to be significant enough to force players (or encourage them) to make decisions based on it's effects. For example, a warming period that turned plains into deserts, and caused starvation in your cites, would force an offensive/colonization spree IF there were detrimental effects for having people die (which I don't think there are?) Sidebar: nukes should have a chance of triggering an ice age (cooling trend), not just global warming.

Seeing deserts expand and contract, tundra and forests expand and contract over time, would be simply awesome. It would force you to stay on your toes. A nice warming trend turning tudra into plains, fueled a Norse expansion and "golden age". An equally dramatic cooling trend turned them into violent raiders.

Climatic shift could coincide with "dark ages" and barbarian rages. AI civs could collapse and new ones rise.

A more fluid, dynamic system altogether is possible. Instead of a civ that is strong, stolid and stable being the best, one that was flexible and dynamic would outlast the rest.

mac

So go play chess (btw my first move will be 1.b4!)

The skill in Civ is precisely in coping with the unexpected and the slightly uncontrollable. The whole point of simulating the progress of civilization is to relive the kind of problems that really happen. It's all about flexibility and contingency. It would be utterly boring if it was wholly calculable and since the calculations have to be so detailed, I can't imagine anyone plaing it.

Obviously it is absurd to introduce weather, but climatic variation over time is another matter. But what kind of world are we living in if you can predict changes to climate over the next hundred years never mind five thousand? So climate is at least feasible. But would it add to the game or just be another detail?

By the way poorer conditions close to polar regions is already modelled in the prevalence of tundra and near the equator with deserts. In both cases it is a handicap to the civ because it limits expansion and reduces options.


Cheers

Algy

 

[Bibor]

Well, now that you mention it, a whole PLANETARY WEATHER SYSTEM would be nice. Like you can sail faster to west south of equator, faster to east north of equator (passat winds), tornadoes, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanoes (wow, it's already in), global warming and cooling, floods etc.

... just don't give me "its raining" so my fighters cannot take off ...

-kirby

 

[Quasar1011]

Obviously it is absurd to introduce weather, but climatic variation over time is another matter.

Algy

Civ 1 had weather. If you built a city near a river, and did not build city walls, a flood could hit your city. The flood could destroy an improvement, or take a population point. Temples prevented earthquakes and volcanic eruptions. I think granaries prevented pestilence. Aqueducts prevented diseases. I am not sure about the last 2, because it's been so long since I've played Civ 1. But it definitely had weather and other random events! So much so, that you had to build one improvement (walls) so that a flood could not take out your other improvements! Et cetera...

 

[Bibor]

The only thing i definitely remember about CIV1 is that it looked much better on Amiga than on PC (until the 256 color version got out of course)

-kirby

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

floods in civ 1 were a disaster event. Weather or climate change would be a systematic attribute of the game. Entirely different thing. Volcanos may affect weaher patterns but they are not even a weather feature and, agian, in the game they are a disaster event. So I repeat weather is absurd in the timescale involved, but climate is possible to model into the game.

Why stop playing civ 1. It is still a better game in some respects (for example it is not overloaded with unit types or other glossy detritus).