1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I used to think disasters were mostly harmless and inconsequential

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Socrates99, May 14, 2019.

  1. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    707
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Two seperate games my early game has been completely wrecked by disasters.

    The first was an Incan game where I had disasters at 4 because they'd never been a problem before and I kinda enjoyed them. I spawned near 3 volcanoes and had so many eruptions I couldn't get my pop over 4 and constantly had to rebuild my terrace farms.

    After that experience I dropped the intensity back to 2 and had no trouble for a few games until I started on a large flood plain as Rome on deity. I was penned in by some mountains, Russia and Mongolia so I wasn't able to expand much. 5 cities on a huge map. No big deal, I have legions to take care of that problem right? I had 4 legions built in Rome with an encampment and barracks. I was staging my army in Rome and denounced Genghis to whittle him down before he got his UU. The next turn a 1000 year flood hit and Genghis hit me with a surprise war wiped out half my flood damaged units and took one of my cities. I fought back and recaptured my city plus one of his and had an emergency called on me. Russia swooped in on my other front, Genghis fought back and my short stint as glorious Ceasar wallowed in mediocrity. I still blame that flood although Genghis is a pain on a good day especially with difficulty bonuses added on.

    It's like everything else, disasters have less impact as the game progresses but the wrong ones in the early game can hurt bad.
     
    Kjimmet, narmox and glider1 like this.
  2. bbufa

    bbufa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    189
    Gender:
    Male
    Well, 3 volcanoes destroy surrounding tiles quicker than builder can be trained. At disaster lv4, I try not to place district next to volcanoes and on floodplain (until dam). Tall cities suffer more, in one game, a blizzard killed 11 citizens in my 2 tall cities. The AI seem get less serious damage (because RNG or they are too lazy to improve tiles?)
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  3. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    Kamikaze! :lol::lol::lol:
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  4. Leucarum

    Leucarum Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2018
    Messages:
    182
    Gender:
    Male
    I had a Mali game where my suguba and holy site cluster got wiped out by sandstorms 3 times, along with my iron twice. I ended up so far behind despite having an almost ideal looking start position.
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  5. S1AL

    S1AL Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2018
    Messages:
    93
    Gender:
    Male
    Disasters are really inconsistent. Volcanoes are mostly awesome to have. Floods are terrible. Dust Storms are fantastic. Hurricanes and Tornadoes are awful. And of course coastal flooding is a bad joke.
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  6. Pietato

    Pietato Warlord

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    1,264
    Location:
    New Zealand
    I saw a blizzard destroy 14 tiles, kill 5 units and 9 population.
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  7. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Yup and when you have to go coastal for your civ and get your capital hammered, once at T45 and once at T100 when you have invested time and thought it just sucks.
    I had 1 game where I was being attacked, got a builder out to chop in walls and a tornado whipped her away. Just poor luck but sucked. Lost a city due to a random event.
    Volcano settling is a choice you make, early flooding is needed to get flood plains flooding (like they never flooded before) but hurricanes are just crap and you cannot even turn them off.
    Hate it, hate it, hate it.
     
  8. Socrates99

    Socrates99 Bottoms up!

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2012
    Messages:
    707
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Michigan
    Well, with that Inca game I would have had to go nomad a good 8-10 turns just to get away from the volcanoes. Not much choice there. I will admit I was pretty drawn to the idea of volcanic soil fueled terrace farms. It just never panned out.
     
  9. Icicle

    Icicle Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2016
    Messages:
    251
    One of my first GS games, first as the the Ottomans, the Arabs built their capital right next to an active volcano. I decided to not raze it like I normally would just to see how badly it got hit (I was playing on max disasters I think). Over the course of the game that city never got past size 5 because everyone kept dying to eruptions - the holy district was being razed again before I could repair it. I think it lost like 30 population by the time the game was over. If it wasn't for their free settlers I don't think they would have ever got a second city out.
     
    Socrates99 likes this.
  10. Tuvok694

    Tuvok694 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2002
    Messages:
    210
    I only play with disaster level 2 but they are much much much too destructive, especially the sandstorms. It happened several times that my capital's infrastructure was completely destroyed within two rounds. That was five or six districts, each with three buildings in it, nothing more than a pile of ashes left. Took dozens of rounds to repair them all.
    Generally I like the concept of natural disasters in the game, but currently they tend to make the game almost unplayable sometimes.
     
    Victoria likes this.
  11. bbufa

    bbufa Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2016
    Messages:
    189
    Gender:
    Male
    Also, the increasing cost of builders also makes it much harder, many tiles to repair & rebuild =_=
     
  12. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    They are a setback and a challenge but the fact you have no avoidance strategy against them. Hurricanes are particularly devastating looking at the xml.
     
    Jkchart likes this.
  13. kaspergm

    kaspergm Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2012
    Messages:
    4,325
    Sounds like a job for Liang.

    I don't mind disasters being devastating, as long as they hit approximately with even probability on everybody. Dust storms have been nerfed a bit, which is good, because they were really OP. Hurricanes are really bad, which would be a great balance counter for coastal cities having other advantages over inland cities ... only they have not, quite the opposite, as discussed at length elsewhere. I have yet to be subject to frequent blizzards, but I had one game where I was in a tornado belt and kept having my district razed every time I had them rebuild, while my neighbors had nothing, which was pretty annoying.
     
    Socrates99, CPWimmer and Victoria like this.
  14. Jkchart

    Jkchart Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2016
    Messages:
    570
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Texas
    On the one hand, hurricanes make sense with how devastating they are. But on the other, they really need to be tweaked because there are few coastal cities that can ever recover from them.

    Although that can make sense applying to real life (example: Galveston was the most prominent seaport in Texas, and one of the biggest in the U.S. until 1900, when a hurricane razed the city and Galveston never regained it's prominence that it once had), this is a game, a game needs balance, and city-razing hurricanes should be rare enough that you aren't given a heart attack every time you think about settling near the coast.

    So once in a game or two when a hurricane wipes out a city or two? Sure. But it shouldn't be super common either. Either there needs to be some limit on the amount of apocalyptic hurricanes, or there needs to be a damage adjustment since hurricanes are so devastating. Or make a way for cities to recover more easily from damage from disasters. I always get frustrated when it takes 50 turns to REPAIR a district seemingly out of nowhere.
     
    Victoria likes this.
  15. Jaybe

    Jaybe civus fanaticus Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,506
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Las Vegas, Nevada
    Firaxis has stated that some weather systems will frequent some paths over others.
    If there is a city location that gets repeatedly hit by a hurricane, it implies that area has a high probability of weather-related problems.

    So conclude that isn’t a good place to invest a lot of resources into a city! Duhh!
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    24,457
    Even probability for each civ does not result in fair outcomes unless the frequency is very high across the board. To illustrate why this is, consider a disaster that has a 10% chance to end the game outright for each nation. That's still even probability for each civ.

    Disasters in Civ 6 are not that extreme, but for anything that deals game-altering damage without realistic gameplay agency it's a lesser version of the same concept. A negative that detracts from strategy influencing the outcome, rather than adding to it. It's annoying that some people claim that a reduction in strategy increases strategy, but so it goes.

    At least they're not as bad as Civ 4 events were initially.

    Galveston was very damage. Hurricanes doing that in the scale of Civ turns (which are 5+ years for much of the game) is silly. It implies every hurricane is worse than Galveston. Considering that coastal cities are already neutered in Civ 6 introducing an event stronger than its historical counterpart to punish an already weak option so severely is awkward.
     
  17. Browd

    Browd Dilettante Administrator

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2012
    Messages:
    11,418
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Washington, DC
    If the game does not permit a player to determine in advance what will make a proposed city site more vulnerable to destructive hurricanes, then the game is just trolling the player (Ha, ha, you guessed wrong! Sucks to be you!). The game does provide that sort of information about sea level impacts, which allows a player to make a reasonably informed decision about where to place a city, and which tiles to invest in, and whether and when to monitor atmospheric CO2 levels and when to beeline Computers. As near as I can tell, no similar information is available for hurricanes, which makes those storms a particular source of frustration for players and leads rational players, at the margin, to avoid settling coastal cities and, therefore, significantly reduces their interest in playing civs with sea-oriented bonuses. Telling a player that "once your city has been hammered by one hurricane, you should assume that same city will get hammered again and again, so you're well advised to cut your losses and write-off that city" is not helpful in a strategy game. Nor is implicitly telling players "if you don't like excessive randomness when playing Civ A, just play another Civ".
     
    Pietato, TheMeInTeam and Victoria like this.
  18. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    Well said
    Exactly, or another game.
     
    Jkchart and TheMeInTeam like this.
  19. cvb

    cvb Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 12, 2017
    Messages:
    249
    So just give the option, to turn hurricanes OFF or let adjust intensity, severity in a range.

    Don't force players to like what other players (presumed majority) like.

    (I wanted disasters to be in the game, but when in the end the outcome of ALL "disasters" will be good, very good or great, then I'll have no problem to switch them off. Completely.)

    .
     
  20. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    8,759
    I will presume the majority have not been hit by a hurricane.
    Look, uit is OK to lose a builder at a key time, a bit annoying but hey
    But to lose every district in your capital and it will take 50+ turns to recover, they can shove their game.
     

Share This Page