Natural Disasters

[AtlantisAuthor]

Hi everyone, I'm new here and I realize the odds of any of what I'm about to suggest actually happening are likely slim to none, but I figured there's no harm in throwing them out there. Here is an idea I have for Civ VI (or possibly future Civ titles) going forward; I apologize in advance if this may have already been mentioned here on the forums.

My idea involves Natural Disasters and "Disaster-prone" areas. One thing that has shaped human history and civilization and yet has never really been implemented in the Civ games so far are natural disasters. The Black Death killed over a third of Europe during the Dark Ages, and a massive volcanic eruption at Santorini may have been responsible for the demise of an entire seafaring civilization at that time, for examples. But how to implement such a component into Civilization would be a challenge in itself, so here are my suggestions.

First and foremost this feature would probably need to be A) completely optional (especially for multiplayer games; having a random setback in the middle of a heated game would probably be the opposite of fun) and B) such in-game events, just as is the case across actual history, should be rare enough that you may or may not even see them happen during a game even when enabled.

Who and what should disasters affect? Given how frustrating it might be to lose buildings (or Wonders), I don't know if I'd go so far as to allow them to be destroyed, unless they could be repaired in the same way pillaged tiles can be. The single biggest way disasters would affect a city would be by reducing its population.

Got a city near the coast and/or an active fault line? Researching engineering and architecture might provide bonuses such as structural reinforcement or sea walls that help protect your citizens when a tsunami hits. Is your city near a jungle where unknown diseases may lurk? Researching food and medicine-based technologies could help you cure and stave off such plagues. Floodplains, coastlines, and flatter terrain could be especially vulnerable to flooding and damage from storms such as hurricanes or tornadoes, and researching meteorology could help reduce civilian casualties. Volcanoes could provide tourism bonuses with the caveat that you never know if or when they'll have a costly eruption.

How could natural disasters affect things like trade and diplomacy? For one, you could gain "humanitarian bonuses" for sending relief (gold, food, etc.) to affected civs or city-states. You could also gain similar bonuses for voluntarily sharing such research with other civs to help them better survive disasters. But of course there's a flip side to this. Say that a civ you're trading with has had a plague break out within their city (keeping such events localized with the ability to spread via trade is how the Bubonic Plague was brought into Europe, presumably from as far away as Mongolia). Do you risk your own citizens to maintain trade or do you cut them off and trade elsewhere? Or if the shoe is on the other foot, how do you maintain trade when other civs are afraid they'll catch what your people have?

Of course such incidents must A) be rare enough not to become infuriating and B) have effects that only last a set number of turns (even a single turn in the case of storms, tsunamis, etc.). But incorporating them could have a big impact on how a player approaches their research tree, their diplomacy, and even trade based upon the situation.

Anyway, that's all for now on this idea. Thanks for hearing me out.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It doesn't fit the time scale of the unmodded game, at all. You could have the "plague" cut population of most civs in half in a single turn then go away (the plague IRL happened across the amount of time a typical turn or two would take until late-game), but having that kind of event would *completely warp* the need for food/growth scaling in the game.

Very few disasters ever came close to touching the relative population toll of that. To integrate this into gameplay you'd have to alter the cost of units, buildings, cities, and population while creating enough contingency planning/agency for them to make sense.

It's a concept that doesn't work too well on a 6000 year time scale, but could be better in a more focused game.

 

[tetley]

I loved these events in Civ 4 and Galciv both. I want them back. It just has to be an optional game setting, as mentioned.

And yes, a flood plain should be naturally more prone to floods.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I loved these events in Civ 4 and Galciv both. I want them back. It just has to be an optional game setting, as mentioned.

And yes, a flood plain should be naturally more prone to floods.

Most of the civ iv events were poorly designed and worked against base mechanics. Unless they are properly integrated they have no place in the game.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

I disagree with TheMeInTeam on several levels. Plague and maladies lasted hundreds of years - centuries really. When Cristobal Colon brought over malaria it's impact was felt well into the industrial age. Malaria impacted the history of settlement, trade and war more so than any man. To ignore it would be unjustified and could very easily be worked into a game mechanic.

As for events....well simply put...history is often a series of random events. As much as you would desire an orderly 'game mechanic' that you can manipulate, control and exploit to your goals sufficiently, sometimes random events just happen and throw off the best laid plans and ambitions. For better or worse- the world maladies and random events help shape history more so than any leader, civilization or cause.

 

[tetley]

Most of the civ iv events were poorly designed and worked against base mechanics. Unless they are properly integrated they have no place in the game.

That's an implementation issue.

 

[Atwork]

I played C4 with mods that added positive and negative random events, including events like floods, tsunamis, eruptions, earthquakes, etc. And, while I appreciated the added realism and challenge, I think the majority of players would rage quit the game if the mechanic were a locked feature (even if all civs would eventually get hit by something to somewhat balance things out).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That's an implementation issue.

One with practical constraints that has manifested in previous titles at that. As I said, if it's not fully integrated with other game mechanics it tends to (and has consistently in the past) undermine the value of choice in the game's core mechanics.

I disagree with TheMeInTeam on several levels. Plague and maladies lasted hundreds of years - centuries really. When Cristobal Colon brought over malaria it's impact was felt well into the industrial age. Malaria impacted the history of settlement, trade and war more so than any man. To ignore it would be unjustified and could very easily be worked into a game mechanic.

As for events....well simply put...history is often a series of random events. As much as you would desire an orderly 'game mechanic' that you can manipulate, control and exploit to your goals sufficiently, sometimes random events just happen and throw off the best laid plans and ambitions. For better or worse- the world maladies and random events help shape history more so than any leader, civilization or cause.

Unforeseen =/= "random". I hope you're not going to suggest that unforeseen events violated causality, and will assume for now you're not. Implementing historically unforeseen events without historically available agency has negative value in a strategy title. Nations could be more or less prepared for disasters, but on the game's scale that didn't interact well and in many cases despite being more than capable of creating contingencies for some things, for others you just lost crap at random.

Malaria and small pox were among several serious diseases, yes. I challenge the notion that these were necessarily more impactful than other historic events caused by rulers. Just as importantly, however, their interaction in the framework of a "everyone is in contact and starts existing at exactly 4000 BC" position doesn't make sense. Permanent day 0 malaria until industrial revolution? Have it crop up out of nowhere at some arbitrary post-1000AD timeframe? Depend on tech? Same incidence on Pangaea and archipelago?

Given the game's core decision making it's a lot of effort to make something like that integrate into the game plausibly and give it some form of agency, even if limited.

I played C4 with mods that added positive and negative random events, including events like floods, tsunamis, eruptions, earthquakes, etc. And, while I appreciated the added realism and challenge, I think the majority of players would rage quit the game if the mechanic were a locked feature (even if all civs would eventually get hit by something to somewhat balance things out).

The notion of "events balance out", given net-present-value consideration of in-game resources, is farcical. To achieve that balancing outcome without significant agency by the players they would have to have either enormous frequency or minimal impact.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

...Malaria and small pox were among several serious diseases, yes. I challenge the notion that these were necessarily more impactful than other historic events caused by rulers.

Without malaria in the states you most likely do not have slavery (replaced by the cheaper, more efficient, indentured servant) as African slaves were resistant to the strain and proved cheaper in the long run. And why the labor issue to begin with? Because of disease. And why could the white man settle in the new world to begin with? Disease removed much of the indigenous population. Diseases and malady forced decisions, and had such impact on trade, wars and settlement and labor that kings were ruined and made by it. As a simple mechanic...on a basic level... an army would lose strength and cohesion over time due to illness. The US lost more men from disease(malaria) in the Civil War than from shots fired.

 

[tetley]

I wanted natural events to be integrated with religion. It makes religion matter more, and enhances the strategic element around something highly random. I would just fear it would offend people who might think it means endorsing God as real (even though it's supposed to be only a game).

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

There is a health mod out there that is not that bad however an approach I would take with disease would be to have it run as a separate 4x4 type game in the background whereas each continent would get it's own unique disease that would have civilizations on that continent being immune to it. It could run something like this:

Europe: Smallpox
Africa: Malaria
South America: Syphilis
Asian: Influenza

Diseases would begin somewhere random on each continent and would progressively spread via contact, trade routes, war and pillaging. Yet they would harm the population.

Diseases could be spread via trade routes (or military actions) between continents however. Think Age of discovery or colonization.

Military units that pillage improvements or conquer cities on other continents would have a chance to be infected and in turn lose strength, cohesion, movement, whatever the effects etc. Units could bring back disease and infect the home land as well. Think the spread of religion but on a involuntary basis. Homeland would lose worker units first then population last. All losses would be capped at a percentage. growth could and would be paused.

Medic units or medical buildings could be the off setter.
Civs when at peace could also have agreements to share medical tech to assist in combating ill health.
There could be world congress/UN proposals that also combat or eliminate said diseases.
GP scientists could provide medical breakthroughs and provide cures and eradication of diseases.

 

[Atwork]

The notion of "events balance out", given net-present-value consideration of in-game resources, is farcical. To achieve that balancing outcome without significant agency by the players they would have to have either enormous frequency or minimal impact.

My point was that the average player will rage quit a game if cataclysmic random events are a feature of the core game, even if things could be balanced out -- whether or not such a balancing could be achieved. The event itself is so intense that most players would simply quit.

 

[MisterBoomBoom]

I played C4 with mods that added positive and negative random events, including events like floods, tsunamis, eruptions, earthquakes, etc. And, while I appreciated the added realism and challenge, I think the majority of players would rage quit the game if the mechanic were a locked feature (even if all civs would eventually get hit by something to somewhat balance things out).

I agree that Events in 4 were not realized fully or to the always to best result. I personally loved that that shady looking mountain blew it's top every once in a while and could wipe out some improvements. These random things happen but could/should be the rare occurrence. I like the events system in the mod I have seen and played with. I would however make each civs events tailored toward it's own history (much like those found in Europa Univeralis) and perhaps have them more of this or that choice system. That provides more depth and flavor I think.

 

[tetley]

I like that random events are kind of like Easter eggs.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Without malaria in the states you most likely do not have slavery (replaced by the cheaper, more efficient, indentured servant) as African slaves were resistant to the strain and proved cheaper in the long run. And why the labor issue to begin with? Because of disease. And why could the white man settle in the new world to begin with? Disease removed much of the indigenous population. Diseases and malady forced decisions, and had such impact on trade, wars and settlement and labor that kings were ruined and made by it. As a simple mechanic...on a basic level... an army would lose strength and cohesion over time due to illness. The US lost more men from disease(malaria) in the Civil War than from shots fired.

I don't disagree with you that these were major historical considerations. I disagree with the hindsight bias of concluding one thing was more impactful than another while having no idea whatsoever what it would look like with significant alternate history in play (and being in a position where even the greatest experts can't possibly).

A disease model like that when you have all nations in contact from the start of the game would be nuts too, an active degradation of causality in the historical sense.

My point was that the average player will rage quit a game if cataclysmic random events are a feature of the core game, even if things could be balanced out -- whether or not such a balancing could be achieved. The event itself is so intense that most players would simply quit.

Truly cataclysmic events that are also random are a system you can't balance out. You are right that a chunk of players would quit outright, save scum it, or turn them off. Game altering stuff happening at random without agency runs directly counter to the "strategy" in "turn-based strategy game". It *necessarily* undermines the utility of the game systems where the player makes meaningful choices.

EU 4 events are exactly the kind that the civ series should never, ever touch. Let's not make the game worse on purpose with random pop-up crap that is often insignificant and even more often offers no alteration to strategy or choice priority whatsoever.

 

[Atwork]

I like that random events are kind of like Easter eggs.

Yes, my buddy modded a C4 mod so that only positive random events would occur. No bad stuff, but all the good stuff. I played his mod too and I liked it because it added spontaneity and unexpected perks along with a bit of immersion value. And, the positive events happened with enough frequency for all the players that it never seemed unbalanced or unfair. I believe there was a similar mod for C5 that I played for a bit, perhaps part of the Communitas project.

 

[tetley]

A negative can be a positive. If you have more faith than your enemy, odds are better a tsunami hits them.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

A negative can be a positive. If you have more faith than your enemy, odds are better a tsunami hits them.

There are multiple reasons such a route is unlikely to be taken by the developers . Civ does tend to limit downright fantasy concepts though so we're unlikely to see it for that reason, except in mods.

 

[Loaf Warden]

I personally want random events in the game (I play Civ V with the Events & Decisions mod because to me it adds immersion to have such things happen suddenly), but I disagree strongly with the idea that any random event should be "cataclysmic". I'm not normally a huge proponent of "gameplay trumps realism", nor do I have much sympathy for the crowd that plays Civ as a mathematical formula and complains about anything that forces alterations to their pre-set strategy. But there still needs to be some perspective. It is a strategy game, and I don't think it would be fun to have your entire strategy thrown out the window because a plague came along and killed off two thirds of your population.

In EUIV, some of the events are positive and some are negative, but none of them are major enough to be game-breaking. (Well, aside from the possibility of having a long regency because your ruler died while the heir was just a small child, but that's only as bad as it is because of their nonsensical decision to forbid regency councils from declaring war.) Sometimes you'll randomly lose stability, or some money, and that can affect your strategy if you have to spend monarch points you had been planning on using for something else to recover stability, or take out a loan to make up for the cash loss. But unless you're nearly at the end of the game anyway, there will be time to recover. You're not going to go from mighty empire to sitting duck because of these random events.

I would favor random events in Civ VI, but they would need to be minor enough to not suddenly make a previously viable game unwinnable. Things like "disease has struck and this city loses 1 population" or "a tsunami has hit and this district on the coast needs repair" would be decently immersive and, in my view, manageable enough to still work. Plagues that span entire eras and leave your population and military at a small fraction of what you had before would be realistic, but too game-breaking to be fun.

 

[Zaarin]

Malaria and small pox were among several serious diseases, yes. I challenge the notion that these were necessarily more impactful than other historic events caused by rulers.

Two-thirds of the population of the New World would beg to differ. (I do wish there were some mechanic to represent how the Columbian Exchange radically transformed the entire world when encountering new continents in Civ6.)

I, too, would love to see random events return, and though it has been a very long time I thought Civ4 actually handled them quite well--better than many other strategy games like Birth of the Federation.