Random event disasters please with animation.

[maddictator]

I think having these in the game is a crucial part of having a civilization. I mean through out history several civilizations have been either extinguished or severley damaged by mother nature. I think there should be volcano, tornado, plauge, tsunami, earthquake, fires, floods, and hurricanes all included with a random generator that has different severity levels for each disaster. Say maybe like average, strong, catastrophic, and biblical. With each higher level with a greater chance of not triggering. I suck at mods and all that stuff, but for you talented people out there maybe this is something you could include with an already idea for a mod. thanks.

 

[xmen510]

Could be very interesting. As long as it is balanced properly.

 

[DalekDavros]

Sid Meier discussed this idea in his GDC 2010 keynote (link is to a video). Basically, he says that he likes it in theory but that it doesn't work in practice because most players tend to just reload an old save instead. With the Civ V mantra of building up and things getting better over time, I definitely wouldn't expect something like this in vanilla.

That said, done right it could make an interesting mod. I'd like it to be a bit less random (since it'd be annoying to turn on the mod only to have it do nothing the whole game one time and wipe you out with a series of plagues of biblical proportions the next time) and I think it'd work best to focus on global-ish (or at least, large regions) disasters like plagues and tsunamis so that it doesn't end up totally crippling one player.

 

[Schuesseled]

I'm more prone to reload, if randomness kills my unit or gives me a dodgy goody hut.

 

[Kimuyama]

What if the game "prepared" the catastrophe 10-20 turns before the event occurs, so that if he reloads (assuming he saved within the period) he'd still be hit by the catastrophe?

 

[Pembroke]

he likes it in theory but that it doesn't work in practice because most players tend to just reload an old save instead.

It's a game so it's primary purpose is to entertain. Random major disasters can be game killers and not allowing reloads would suck big time. However, there's a way: don't have separate good and bad events but make them each a mixed blessing so that, yes, it's a major disaster but such that it *also* gives you some kind of benefit.

If you make this balance right then the player doesn't want to reload after the disaster strikes because he would also lose the benefits gained from it. A volcano erupts and wreaks major havoc in a city and its surroundings, ouch, but if from that wreckage "arises a great prophet leading some of the people to safety" most people would think twice before reloading. If a random event consisted of "some good and some bad" then it would be just the thing: an interesting event that creates a challenge and a possibly dangerous situation but in a such way that you don't really want to avoid it.

 

[V. Soma]

It's a game so it's primary purpose is to entertain. Random major disasters can be game killers and not allowing reloads would suck big time. However, there's a way: don't have separate good and bad events but make them each a mixed blessing so that, yes, it's a major disaster but such that it *also* gives you some kind of benefit.

If you make this balance right then the player doesn't want to reload after the disaster strikes because he would also lose the benefits gained from it. A volcano erupts and wreaks major havoc in a city and its surroundings, ouch, but if from that wreckage "arises a great prophet leading some of the people to safety" most people would think twice before reloading. If a random event consisted of "some good and some bad" then it would be just the thing: an interesting event that creates a challenge and a possibly dangerous situation but in a such way that you don't really want to avoid it.

 

[Windsor]

One of the first things I did in BTS was turning off random events.

I don't like it even in theory. I want to play a game where my success/failure rely on my decisions, not some random dice roll.

I have no problem with loosing a battle at 95% odds, that's a calculated risk. Same with goody huts, you decide if you want to risk entering it with a warrior and you know it might pop hostiles.

Random events on the other hand isn't something you can do anything about. You just have to live with a possibility that the game will be decided by luck and not skill.

 

[Johnny Be]

One of the first things I did in BTS was turning off random events.

I don't like it even in theory. I want to play a game where my success/failure rely on my decisions, not some random dice roll.

I have no problem with loosing a battle at 95% odds, that's a calculated risk. Same with goody huts, you decide if you want to risk entering it with a warrior and you know it might pop hostiles.

Random events on the other hand isn't something you can do anything about. You just have to live with a possibility that the game will be decided by luck and not skill.

I agree!

IMO I think Civilization should be a thinking man game, like chess!
It might have Trillions of different combinations/plays/movements, but very few chance events.

I understand that they can't eliminate all randomness in the game (maps with resources and starting positions, leader personalities, etc) but the game mechanics should be as "pure" has possible.

There's a reason why chess is THE strategy game by excellence!

 

[Rusty Edge]

One of the first things I did in BTS was turning off random events.

I don't like it even in theory. I want to play a game where my success/failure rely on my decisions, not some random dice roll.

I have no problem with loosing a battle at 95% odds, that's a calculated risk. Same with goody huts, you decide if you want to risk entering it with a warrior and you know it might pop hostiles.

Random events on the other hand isn't something you can do anything about. You just have to live with a possibility that the game will be decided by luck and not skill.

I appreciate the fact that many great players do not like random events. I don't expect to see anything like this implemented.

Personally, I enjoy random events. I think they can make the game more realistic, more epic, more unpredictable, and therefore increase both the replayability of the game as well as the one... more.. turn.. factor.

Life experience has given me a bias. There's no shame in being subject to random forces beyond your control. What matters in the long run is how well you plan, prepare, and re-act. Your aggregate decisions.

In the game, random events are less of a problem when I maintain cash and military reserves. It gives me options. It grants me opportunities. It's up to me to make the most of the things that happen to me and others, both good and bad.

 

[BobDole]

There were already enough people that disliked the random events in BTS and turned them off (I personally didn't mind them, but it is irritating when all of a sudden you're at war because of some random marriage event that trashes your relations with another civ). Putting in something even more impacting than the BTS random events would probably just result in people reloading earlier saves and hoping it doesn't happen or just turning them off/modding them out of the game. It's one thing to have an event put you or an enemy at a slight disadvantage. It's another to have half of your civilization wiped out because of a volcanic eruption, or have your army drown in a flood.

 

[TCB]

Random disasters, whilst more realistic, only make the game more frustrating for the player since they are beyond its control. It doesn't add to the game to randomly lose a few population due to disease or have ten barbarians pop up out of no-where and just makes the player reload or restart. The aim of civilization has never been to be a historical reality simulator but to be a fun strategic game that puts a lot of power in the player's hands, as expressed by Sid Meier himself.

 

[GigaNerd]

Expanding on Pembroke's idea: a disaster can cause one or two of the following...

-A Great Person
-Population Movement to Unaffected Cities
-A Tourist City (city is mostly destroyed, but it gains a large trade and/or culture bonus)
-Lore and Literature (a sizeable culture bonus for the empire)
-A Large Health Increase for the Empire (as a result of curing a plague)
-Relief Efforts from Ally Civs (in the form of gold, food, production, etc.)
-Discover of a New Resource (e.g. "The tsunami brought forth clams!")
-Improved Relations with "Cautious" Civs (out of sympathy)

 

[Nekkerbee]

To each his own. I love the random events in Civ IV and hope they reappear in Civ V; if not, I eagerly await the day they are modded in. They should never make or break a game, and a player should have the option of turning them off, but the element of chance adds flavor. One of the most interesting aspects of life is how we handle the curveballs that get thrown our way.

 

[Shiggs713]

as long as random events are optional, nobody has anything to gripe about. I personally like them, most of them are good anyways, so take the good with the bad. Seeing them animated would of course, be better.

 

[Rusty Edge]

I think having these in the game is a crucial part of having a civilization. I mean through out history several civilizations have been either extinguished or severley damaged by mother nature. I think there should be volcano, tornado, plauge, tsunami, earthquake, fires, floods, and hurricanes all included with a random generator that has different severity levels for each disaster. Say maybe like average, strong, catastrophic, and biblical. With each higher level with a greater chance of not triggering. I suck at mods and all that stuff, but for you talented people out there maybe this is something you could include with an already idea for a mod. thanks.

It's a game so it's primary purpose is to entertain. Random major disasters can be game killers and not allowing reloads would suck big time. However, there's a way: don't have separate good and bad events but make them each a mixed blessing so that, yes, it's a major disaster but such that it *also* gives you some kind of benefit.

If you make this balance right then the player doesn't want to reload after the disaster strikes because he would also lose the benefits gained from it. A volcano erupts and wreaks major havoc in a city and its surroundings, ouch, but if from that wreckage "arises a great prophet leading some of the people to safety" most people would think twice before reloading. If a random event consisted of "some good and some bad" then it would be just the thing: an interesting event that creates a challenge and a possibly dangerous situation but in a such way that you don't really want to avoid it.

Expanding on Pembroke's idea: a disaster can cause one or two of the following...

-A Great Person
-Population Movement to Unaffected Cities
-A Tourist City (city is mostly destroyed, but it gains a large trade and/or culture bonus)
-Lore and Literature (a sizeable culture bonus for the empire)
-A Large Health Increase for the Empire (as a result of curing a plague)
-Relief Efforts from Ally Civs (in the form of gold, food, production, etc.)
-Discover of a New Resource (e.g. "The tsunami brought forth clams!")
-Improved Relations with "Cautious" Civs (out of sympathy)

I like these ideas. If they were to offer us a random event maker as a modding tool ...

Anyway as for severity levels- Biblical disaster - once per game. Has a big benefit.

Catastrophic disater- once per game per civ. The benefit is that you are immune from any further disasters in that game once it happens, so if you reload you can expect them to continue.

Strong disasters. Can re-occur . Small benefit.

average disasters- events as we know them.

 

[paradigmx]

I would personally love the idea, I would make it an option though, and also add equivalently powerful positive events.

Give 2 options in a game's setup, "Random events" and "Great events" with "Random events" flagged on as default and "Great events" flagged off as default so that the majority of players can play without fear of randomly being hit with a disaster, but more adventurous players can have the chance of something great happening(ie. a natural wonder develops near a city).

It's still a calculated risk, but it's one you make before you even settle your first city really.

 

[Earthling]

It's an unpopular idea because so many players would not want to deal with disasters, and of course many just shun the randomness in general. Anyway, I too was very much annoyed and disappointed with the event system in BtS - it was just poorly designed and balanced from the get-go.

So, if such a thing were implemented, a few major principles I think should stand:
-random benefits are definitely better as default, but shouldn't have overwhelming impact
-players should still have the option to enable/disable what they want, and a multi-tiered system would be even better.
-the more significant the effect, the more control the player should have over the event or its outcomes. Slave revolts if they stood alone, would be great in BtS. Similarly, various events that depend on the players' choices could be more acceptable. Generally right out would be events that affect diplomacy and warfare with other players (cough AI) or give too great of benefits. Also, tying events to gold/development of cities/other things is quite useful - and that's the thing BtS almost grasped but ultimately failed at. Random events that frequently just gave a chance to spend money for minor benefits could be cool as part of a greater focus on gold.

Also, I would welcome a working, global constellation system, makes me giddy to think about it. Praise Agares!

 

[Johnny Be]

I think the only solution to prevent random event to unbalance the game is to make them affect everyone... they would be "Global random Events".

Like:
Great Plagues - Halves all city populations
New religious Leader is born - Tension causes 3 unhappiness is all world cities for a few Years
Economical crisis - All manufacturing is halved
etc...

This way all civilizations would be affected, and It would open up different ways of exploring the game without being something that was only bad for the player.

 

[AlpsStranger]

For some extra fun, here are a few ideas (mostly in Civ4 terms)

It would be funny in a sort of screwed up way if great prophets and the Oracle interacted with a sort of disaster-layer mini game. The Oracle would allow you to get warnings 3~4 turns ahead of a major disaster. A prophet could divert a disaster to another civilization or exacerbate a disaster that was already imminent.

Not sure if it would be good for gameplay though. Just a stray thought really.