Let's make Civ 5

Swedishguy said:
What's not realistic at all is that population stops if there is not enough food. Some starvation won't hinder people from having intercourse.
Click to expand...

Sure, but then famine would set in, along with disease and unrest. Funny that the game does not allow for epidemics when you allow disease in your cities. It ought to wipe out some of the excess population (aka the Black Plague). Unrest could cause revolts too.
 
Swedishguy said:
Some considerable epidemics would be... I don't know.
Click to expand...

What are you saying? Your post isn't clear.

The Black Plague removed about half of western European population in the middle ages. That would be an extreme, of course, but then again, pretty much everyone would be vulnerable to some extent. Perhaps some defenses might include better health level in the cities, higher scientific achievements, the actual civic chosen, etc. Mercantilism, for example, would help stop plagues coming from foreign civs, etc. Lack of roads and ports would have the same effect.
 
Swedishguy said:
Don't you think I know what Black Death is? My post meant that I don't know if it would be good or bad.
Click to expand...

That wasn't what I implied.

It would be bad, of course, but then it potentially can affect everyone in the game. It makes the game tougher indeed, especially for those players who are developping a lot of big cities in close proximity to each other. Actually, this could become a balancing factor in favor of the weaker or isolated civs. When medicine and hospitals come about, forget about plagues altogether. But then again, if this is something you can switch off entirely or tone down (like toning down raging barbs to just restless or less), then it's not an issue.
 
Swedishguy said:
Black Death suddenly stopped! How d'ye balance that?
Click to expand...

What do you mean by "Black Death suddenly stops"?

The balancing factor is that much larger, higher populated civs are more likely than smaller, sparsely populated, or isolated ones to get hit with a plague. It gives some time, depending on what I just talked about in my previous posts, for neighboring civs to take some measures to protect themselves from a spreading plague (pop rushing production for example to reduce crowding). The result is that the larger civ would be likely to lose more population to the plague than its immediate neighbors or certainly those less likely to get hurt by the epidemic. As a side effect, it would make a neighbor think twice before invading a civ affected by a raging plague! :)
 
Swedishguy said:
It is not known why Black Death disappeared before pencilline.
Click to expand...

It hasn't actually disappeared. There are still places where people die from the plague (although it's not the huge pandemic it used to be). The plague of olden days is not the only possible epidemic that could be represented in the game -- look at the Spanish Flu of WWI. Killed millions of people. Although it wasn't half of the entire population affected, it still made a mark on civilian and infected troops as well. Today we're talking about the avian flu... obviously there are plenty of possible cases where pandemics could cull some of the population. No doubt in a medieval setting (more than any other), civs would be most vulnerable to the worst epidemics.

The reason why the ancient plague has been kept under control is not a secret by any means. It involves better hygiene, city planning, and health care (vaccinations and other treatments essentially).
 
I am actually for epidemics too. I know that people don't like them and that is why there isn't random uncontrollable events (hurricanes, earthquakes, etc.)

What about if your cities are unhealthy (more green faces than yellow) you have a chance of a plague breaking out in that city. The more green faces the more of a chance. Once a plague breaks out it can only spread to another unhealthy city (but with a greater chance since the plague is already alive).
 
Oh, and I love CIV4. Not a waste of $50. Yeah it has bugs (I still can't get it to work on my laptop. It won't read the cd. grrrr...) but I am very glad I bought it and would do it again.

I agree with OP about the 3D. I thought it was a useless addition. It hurt the game more than helped it. This is a strategy game and doesn't need falling bananas and roaming elephants. (Just my two cents)
 
KabukiJo said:
What about if your cities are unhealthy (more green faces than yellow) you have a chance of a plague breaking out in that city. The more green faces the more of a chance. Once a plague breaks out it can only spread to another unhealthy city (but with a greater chance since the plague is already alive).
Click to expand...

Once a plague has taken hold someplace, there always is a chance of a healthy city being affected to a point. You can't stop someone who is infected to walk into a city and spread bubonic plague. Healthy cities make it harder for a plague to appear there initially. But once it is declared, the plague tends to spread along roads, rivers, and ports first just the same. The effect on healthy cities or remote, isolated places, may be lessened. It would of course ravage unhealthy cities exposed to the epidemic. Again, your choices of civics and other circumstances ought to have an impact on the level of damage on population and troops.
 
Heck, even your towns and villages outside big cities might get reduced or disappear entirely! Yikes.

It's not un-historical, as many villages and hamlets in XIVth century France were abandonned as the result of the plague, leaving forests to reclaim previously developped farmland. With the corresponding catastrophic effect on the economy, local bands of thugs would appear and add to the unrest (argh, more barbs!)
 
Ambreville said:
Heck, even your towns and villages outside big cities might get reduced or disappear entirely! Yikes.

It's not un-historical, as many villages and hamlets in XIVth century France were abandonned as the result of the plague, leaving forests to reclaim previously developped farmland. With the corresponding catastrophic effect on the economy, local bands of thugs would appear and add to the unrest (argh, more barbs!)
Click to expand...
That sounds like the old opposite of Golden Age, who appeared when you entered the Medieval Age! It just wouldn't be fun.
 
CIV4 Is a great game. I mean, if it wasent, not many people would consider it the best game of last year.

Anyway some ideas of you are not bad! I didnt like the montains to be forbidden, what about the civilizations and people who lived(lives) in montains?
 
Ambreville said:
The reason why the ancient plague has been kept under control is not a secret by any means. It involves better hygiene, city planning, and health care (vaccinations and other treatments essentially).
Click to expand...

There's actually a pretty simple reason as to why the plague stopped being so wide spread. The disease was carried by fleas or some other sort of parasite on rats. Around the time of the plague, the bishops of Europe and maybe even the pope declared that cats were minions of the devil and ordered them killed. Suddenly the rat population increased, and thus so did the flea population. Some wise religious figure overturned the catocost and the disease started to turn around in direct disproportion to the number of cats that were around.

Of course, the better hygiene, city planning, and health care did a lot, as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Z
Dear Devs! Make civilization more sophisticated again, please.
Replies
1
Views
614
MutilationWave
MutilationWave
U
Romanian civilization path ideas (Civ VII)
Replies
1
Views
589
ibnu
I
Naokaukodem
Memo : finding new fun ways to build one's empire
Replies
0
Views
325
Naokaukodem
Naokaukodem
SupremacyKing2
Where does civ go after civ7?
Replies
17
Views
1K
ehecatzin
ehecatzin
evonannoredars
Teotihuacan - Antiquity Era Civ Concept
Replies
19
Views
1K
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
Back
Top Bottom