I just realised what's missing....
- Thread starter Shockwave
- Start date
Wolfe Tone
Which Way Did He Go?
Oh yeah
Damn it we want random events!!
Damn it we want random events!!
Cerryl
Warlord
Well, the screen shakes like hell when you launch an ICBM 
Kev
Hired Goon
I've never played civ1, and I was always curious about those "nature" events. Sounds pretty interesting. I also heard that PIRATES could invade coastal towns at times as well. Strange.
Anyway, there was nothing of that sort at all in Civ2. The Civ3 jungle and flood plain disease is certainly a new feature, but being able to toggle natural disasters could be interesting. I know it was brought up quite a bit in the Civ3 suggestions forums. Guess we'll have to advocate it when the Civ4 forum begins.
I've always thought it would be nice to balance out these disasters with good things as well. Perhaps a bumper crop could boost the population in a few cities or add a shield to a regular grassland.
Ah well, it's a thought.
Anyway, there was nothing of that sort at all in Civ2. The Civ3 jungle and flood plain disease is certainly a new feature, but being able to toggle natural disasters could be interesting. I know it was brought up quite a bit in the Civ3 suggestions forums. Guess we'll have to advocate it when the Civ4 forum begins.
I've always thought it would be nice to balance out these disasters with good things as well. Perhaps a bumper crop could boost the population in a few cities or add a shield to a regular grassland.
Ah well, it's a thought.
shochwave, u should add this suggestion to qslack's addon/expansion ideas thread:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13538
i never played civ1 or 2, but i think it would be an excellent addition to the game.
Dan
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13538
i never played civ1 or 2, but i think it would be an excellent addition to the game.
Dan
Sodak
Paha Sapa Papa
When I play, I hear a low rumbling, my PC vibrates, the image shakes on the screen... O wait, it's just the hard drive struggling to run the game. 
Yes, we all definitely miss earthquakes and stuff. There is nothing I love more than having a random event destroying my newbuild, very expensive and very important city improvement just like that. And I am sure that those people who are complaining about loosing resources and occasional battles would be thrilled...
In fact, I remember reading somewhere that this was the reason why random events were left out. The designers thought it added nothing to gameplay except frustration. I completely agree with them.
In fact, I remember reading somewhere that this was the reason why random events were left out. The designers thought it added nothing to gameplay except frustration. I completely agree with them.
Patient English
Designer
Mr Spice,
Sounds like you want to control your universe down to the finest degree. It's a valid viewpoint for a gamer, of course.
It's just that I thought Civ was trying to simulate reality (just a bit) and in reality, bad stuff outside your control occasionally happens. I think a judicious level of random or near-random events would add flavour and challenge to the game.
(What I mean by "near-random" is what the Civ I designers meant. Pirates attack poorly-defended coastal cities, volcanoes strike where there are nearby mountains, famines strike cities without granaries, etc.)
Sounds like you want to control your universe down to the finest degree. It's a valid viewpoint for a gamer, of course.
It's just that I thought Civ was trying to simulate reality (just a bit) and in reality, bad stuff outside your control occasionally happens. I think a judicious level of random or near-random events would add flavour and challenge to the game.
(What I mean by "near-random" is what the Civ I designers meant. Pirates attack poorly-defended coastal cities, volcanoes strike where there are nearby mountains, famines strike cities without granaries, etc.)
Super Mutant
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2002
- Messages
- 75
and one of the worst disasters would be :skull:The Plauge :skull:
The Plauge killed 1/4 of Europas population at some time
The Plauge killed 1/4 of Europas population at some time
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
Actually, there's a lot of evidence that the Plague was not the Black Death that wiped out half of Europe. It is (apparently) more likely to have been something like Ebola (Plague is not contagious enough, and rats that carried it don't migrate fast enough to spread it).
But I digress.....
But I digress.....
cephyn
Kubo
Um, NO. It was definitely bubonic plague, compounded with pneumonic and septicaemic plague.
Plague is PLENTY contagious enough if the population doesn't have a natural resistance. In the decade leading up to the Black Death, Europe underwent a Little Ice Age and resulting famine. This lowered the nutrition and resistance of the populace even more. Remember, the strain of bubonic plague that caused the Black Death was NOT the strain that had been hanging around Europe since the Ancient Greeks and before. It was imported from China. The Europeans had no natural defense, what little they had was even more weakened by famine. This is easily evident as the plague hit in cycles -- it passed back through the populace three and sometimes four times in the following century as people who had escaped the earlier plague got older, and had even more weakened defenses.
It has been postulated that the rapid culling of "plague susceptible" Europeans during the Black Death gives their descendants an ever so slightly higher resistance to some modern disease, such as HIV/AIDS. While it is slight, new studies are showing statistically significant differences in the rates of transmission.
The rats didn't have to migrate fast enough. The rats DID NOT CARRY THE PLAGUE. It was the fleas ON the rats. When the rat died, the flea would jump to a human and infect the human. The human could much more easily transmit plague to other humans, ESPECIALLY if it got into the victim's lungs. Then it would turn to pneumonic plague, which is spread the exact same way as a cold or flu -- which as we all know, is highly contagious. Incubating humans who fled to other towns did a fine job of spreading plague, any rat migration is totally unnecessary.
Where did you learn this ebola stuff? Could you cite some sources? I can cite mine if you wish.
I think ainwood was correct in saying that it probably wasn't the bubonic plague that caused the massive deaths in Europe. Records at the time say that victims of "the plague" usually took 2 weeks to die (the bubonic plague, especially in conditions such as those in Medieval Europe, takes only 3-4 days to kill). Moreover, very few people experienced the "black bump" effect of the bubonic plague. Even though black bumps don't appear on everyone who has the plague, they usually appear on the majority of the victims. In Europe this was not the case, suggesting that another disease was killing people off.
Furry Spatula
...
ok who cares what it was. Having outbreaks might be a cool idea. And then we could have things like quarantines of civs or cities. Like if wine was in a contaminated city, that luxury cant be traded.
Or to add a different twist. You can continue to trade without quarantining but your other cities may become infected, however you could infect other civs. heh heh, nice and dirty. and add in a little fail safe like allowing quarantined cities to accept goods as this would prevent someone from quarantining most of their cities to protect them.
I dont think we want other natural disasters. I frankly would hate the idea of a capital being hit and then having it go into dissorder b/c it lost its cathedral and temple. And then it starving b/c you had to pull ppl off of land to build things. Sure it may be realistic, but how realistic is living for 6000 years? and the main reason it shouldn't be in is because it would just be frustrating, Or atleast let us have the option to turn it off or on.
Or to add a different twist. You can continue to trade without quarantining but your other cities may become infected, however you could infect other civs. heh heh, nice and dirty. and add in a little fail safe like allowing quarantined cities to accept goods as this would prevent someone from quarantining most of their cities to protect them.
I dont think we want other natural disasters. I frankly would hate the idea of a capital being hit and then having it go into dissorder b/c it lost its cathedral and temple. And then it starving b/c you had to pull ppl off of land to build things. Sure it may be realistic, but how realistic is living for 6000 years? and the main reason it shouldn't be in is because it would just be frustrating, Or atleast let us have the option to turn it off or on.
black_adder2
M.C. 900ft. Jesus
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 69
NICE WAY TO HIJACK A THREAD!!!
Now this is a USEFULL post.
This is not a medical science history class forum. Got it????
My opinion: Random events good idea, keep the ideas coming.
Thread hijackers: Should have their nails pulled.
cephyn
Kubo
BUZZ wrong! Bubonic plague does NOT cause any BLACK bumps. It is NOT the "BLACK PLAGUE" it is the "BLACK DEATH" which was never ever coined in the contemporary period. It was called the "Blue Sickness" by the French, or contemporary synonyms for plague. It was a known disease, just never with the mortality rate shown during the Black Death. The 'buboe' caused by swollen lymph nodes is often reddish, or if quite large, bruises. It is NOT black, at least no blacker than any bruise -- and most buboes would never get this large.
Septicaemic Plague, if the yersinia pestis bacillus enters the bloodstream and multiplies, will cause rapid death in 4 days or LESS. Bubonic Plague will kill slower, about 2 weeks. Pneumonic Plague will kill in 5-7 days. So you see, it all matters on where your infection is concentrated.
In addition, the Black Death does NOT show signs of being ebola. Ebola does not liquify your insides. Ebola would have a VERY VERY difficult time surviving in Northern Europe during and just after aLittle Ice Age -- it is a tropical disease! It could not be endemic to the area. Septicaemic plague can mirror some symptoms (such as internal hemmoraging and ebola/lhasa fever/marburg like splotches under the skin) -- massive cases of septicaemic plague would be virtually indistinguishable from ebola or some other hemorragic fever, so this evidence is not conclusive at all, it barely raises the question. All other evidence clearly points to Yersinia Pestis.
Dang Cephyn! Well that shuts me up. =) Wherever you go someone will always know a bit more than you on some subjects I suppose. 
Anyway, back to the main theme of this post...
Natural disasters would probably be a pain. I would hate to lose a city from a Volcano eruption or loose my temple in one of my high corruption towns. Best off not having natural disasters at all in my opinion. Although the pirate idea does sound interesting...
Anyway, back to the main theme of this post...Natural disasters would probably be a pain. I would hate to lose a city from a Volcano eruption or loose my temple in one of my high corruption towns. Best off not having natural disasters at all in my opinion. Although the pirate idea does sound interesting...
cephyn
Kubo
Originally posted by Galitus
Dang Cephyn! Well that shuts me up. =) Wherever you go someone will always know a bit more than you on some subjects I suppose.
Natural disasters would probably be a pain. I would hate to lose a city from a Volcano eruption or loose my temple in one of my high corruption towns. Best off not having natural disasters at all in my opinion. Although the pirate idea does sound interesting...
8)
As for nat disasters, or at least some sort of increased random events, I think thatd be cool as long as there's the option to turn them off. As long as they weren't scripted too much --- that was my main complain about SMAC -- the "random" events weren't so random.
My favorite random event was civil wars when CPU civs would split into 2. I wish that was in Civ3. 8(
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2001
- Messages
- 30,080
A bit late on the reply.....
My source was from a recent article in New Scientist (sometime in november or december 2000). Tried to give you a hyperlink to it, but you need to be a subscriber.
The arguement went something along the lines of the proportion of the population that was infected, the mortality rate of those infected, the incubation period vs the transmission rate etc etc. Can't remember the exact details, but one thing they cited was that recent (20th century) outbreaks in India took months just to travel across one village.
Similar threads
