Random disasters: THE VOTE.

[Pariah]

Time to find out whether the majority of concerned forumites want to allow such events in Civilization 4, or not.

 

[Bibor]

Better change your poll, because real deal would be to include "beneficial events" also. It was implemented in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and was called "Random events".

There were:
- some global disasters
- some local beneficial events affecting one city's food, shield or gold production.
- some local negative events affecting one city's food, shield or gold production
- a Prometheus virus that spread several tiles from the city it struck.

 

[Pariah]

Beneficial events are a different matter. I don't think anyone would object to those. Besides, any local random disaster which affected an opponent would be indirectly beneficial to you...

 

[Bluetooth]

I voted for “small local events” because I like it the way it is in Civ III . I like games were the decisions you make is vital to the development of your nation, not random disasters or events.

 

[warpstorm]

None of the above

I think if there are disasters or bonuses allowed the players have to set the level and frequency they prefer, In an MP or GOTM game I would hate to lose just because I had a major catastrophy.

The same goes for beneficial events. I would hate to lose because my opponent got a major benny.

In a non-competitive SP, I'd probably turn it on high and take my chances.

 

[Pembroke]

First of all, if disasters as events are to be there they definitely have to be optional so that people who don't like them can turn them off.

That said I think disasters would spice up the game, but they shouldn't be completely random either. A random volcano you didn't know anything about bursting and destroying a city of yours might be realistic but not much fun, just annoying and possibly a game killer. However if disaster events were designed as "risk gambits" then it would be a nice strategic part of the game.

For example, consider the current "flood plains" and "disease" combination. It's something in the right direction (e.g. you get extra food but with a disease risk) but not quite there. The effect is too minor to be called a disaster. Of course, the food bonus isn't much of a temptation either. So, how about raising the stakes?

There could be a somewhat rare tile that's extremely rich in food (a special resource maybe) but which also carries a risk of a _major_ disease. Say, working the tile produces 20 food allowing a very rapid growth or supporting a heavy industry. The catch is there's a 4% chance per turn that a major plague breaks out: each citizen has a 50% chance of dying AND there's a chance of the plague spreading to nearby cities and then again to nearby cities etc. If you were really unlucky you could have your very own version of the black death wiping out half of your population. 4% / turn means about one plague in every 25 turns but 20 food / turn would also mean an industry powerhouse pumping out settlers... Now, how tempted would you be to put a worker on that tile for 10 turns?

And likewise for the other disasters: high payoff to tempt you with a nasty penalty for losing.

 

[Bibor]

Disasters don't need to be logical. After all, the word itself:

Dis aster means (lat.) malevolent influence of a star (planet).

In translation: bad luck.

If you can't beat off bad luck, you are not a good strategist. (Napoleon said that, not me...).

-kirby

P.s.

 

[MSTK]

Beneficial events are a different matter. I don't think anyone would object to those.

I object to them.

Randomness me no likely

 

[sir_schwick]

First of all, if disasters as events are to be there they definitely have to be optional so that people who don't like them can turn them off.

That said I think disasters would spice up the game, but they shouldn't be completely random either. A random volcano you didn't know anything about bursting and destroying a city of yours might be realistic but not much fun, just annoying and possibly a game killer. However if disaster events were designed as "risk gambits" then it would be a nice strategic part of the game.

For example, consider the current "flood plains" and "disease" combination. It's something in the right direction (e.g. you get extra food but with a disease risk) but not quite there. The effect is too minor to be called a disaster. Of course, the food bonus isn't much of a temptation either. So, how about raising the stakes?

There could be a somewhat rare tile that's extremely rich in food (a special resource maybe) but which also carries a risk of a _major_ disease. Say, working the tile produces 20 food allowing a very rapid growth or supporting a heavy industry. The catch is there's a 4% chance per turn that a major plague breaks out: each citizen has a 50% chance of dying AND there's a chance of the plague spreading to nearby cities and then again to nearby cities etc. If you were really unlucky you could have your very own version of the black death wiping out half of your population. 4% / turn means about one plague in every 25 turns but 20 food / turn would also mean an industry powerhouse pumping out settlers... Now, how tempted would you be to put a worker on that tile for 10 turns?

And likewise for the other disasters: high payoff to tempt you with a nasty penalty for losing.

That seemed a bit harsh and ridiculous, but I was supporting an idea like it. My idea was that certain areas would have a known seasonal disaster. These disasters wouldn't do major damage to you, but would make life harder over time rather than immediately. To make settling there tempting at all, maybe good resources and bonus squares would always be accompanied by bad weather. Oil would always be in areas swept by bad Sand. High Food areas would be accompanied by bad deseases.

Better change your poll, because real deal would be to include "beneficial events" also. It was implemented in Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri, and was called "Random events".

The Prometheus virus was usually just random(although a probe team could introduce a retro-virus). The others were usually affected by your eco-damage and planet rating. So in effect they were influenced by your strategy.

 

[Gogf]

Woops, I meant to vote for the third one down. Also, Ice Age seems okay, but not alien invasion.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do see the UFO disaster is getting a bit out of hand. But then you could set up little Firefighter units on the map.

 

[Bibor]

I bet it was an example of a major disaster. Yeah aliens...
Minor wonder: X-Com. Effects: greatly reduces the appearance of aliens

LMAO

 

[Warman17]

I object to them.

Randomness me no likely

lol this is coming from a LUEser

Anyway, i like the idea of disasters big and small. it adds an element into the game that we can't control, much like in real life. People want to have bars and the like to create realism, you want realism, put in disasters.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Although I DID vote, I kinda agree with WS that none of the options really suited me! The thing I like about plagues and volcanoes is that you can adjust the settings, and I think WS is right to suggest that this apply to any and all 'random events'-good or bad!
Also, as I have said here repeatedly, any small 'random element' in events should also be increased/decreased according to what the players/AI's do. So, for instance, though a plague might have a random chance x% of occuring in a city, that % chance will be increased if you don't allocate enough money to health, have a city size of 12+, no aqueduct/sewer systems, are on a flood plain/jungle, have a city wall and have trade contacts with cities that have the plague as well. The fact is that the original x% might be quite small (set by the player, but probably no greater than 10-20%), with the rest determined by in-game actions!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[rcoutme]

I vote the Aussie_Lurker disaster one. I also voted, but for the one that seemed closest to Aussie's diatribe.

 

[masterofdragons]

All of these ideas should be incorporated into Civ. But with such rarity that they are neither game-killers nor less fun. It's called flay-va people! These can, but typically will not shift the balance of the game, but they can add a boost or hinder someone a bit. Maybe even the whole world. I like the idea of incorporating so-called events into it too, like market crashes, exceptional growing season, drought, etc... Great idea. Some can be region-specific, possibly risking strategy over possible benefits. But they are rare.

"Yeah, nothing makes me happier then helping these retards." - Something About Mary

***the above quote is nothing to be said about anyone here; I just love that quote***

 

[eg577]

Disasters would just be annoying in my opinion. This isn't Sim City where you play largely by reacting to what goes on. With Civ you don't react, you dictate.

 

[sir_schwick]

Disasters would just be annoying in my opinion. This isn't Sim City where you play largely by reacting to what goes on. With Civ you don't react, you dictate.

Good point, random disasters are a reactionary event. Most of what occurs in Civ needs to be cause-and-effect. You build near jungles-cause. Lots of disease occurs in the city-effect. You build a ton of industrial functions on the flat plains near the irrigation-cause. Industrial run-off goes into the water supply and reduces crop yields - effect. Anything disaster related would have to be able to planned for(regional weather effects) or related to player strategy(pollution, disease, etc.).

This is one of the places where we must sacrifice realism for playability. Sid Mier's Civlization is a commercial computer game, not a anthropologic simulation. This means we have to try to model reality, but without sacrificing fun or strategic command.

 

[Mewtarthio]

The fact is that the original x% might be quite small (set by the player, but probably no greater than 10-20%), with the rest determined by in-game actions!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Ten to twenty percent!? In a five-hundred-plus-turn game, that comes out to over fifty to a hundred occurences (respectively) of the plague in an average game! Even with a one-percent chance, that's five or six plagues.

 

[sir_schwick]

That would not be such a bad thing, would limit what seems like unitnerrupted growth in Civ. It would be better if afflications were common in early history and reduced themselves over time, till modern afflictions are rare. Lets use this model:

Ancient Era - 5 -6 major epidemics
Middle AGes - 4-5 Major epidemics
Industrial Revolution - 2-3 major epidemics
Modern Age - 1 Major epidemic

This means that civs will be quite small until they overcome diseas(a major probem with urbanization in the middle ages).