Random Events in BtS

[TheMeInTeam]

(I've moved this BtS random events discussion here out of the BOTM 14 pre-game discussion, to avoid the BOTM 14 pre-game thread being hijacked And also so people can continue to post after they've started playing if they want. - DS)


Bah. "Win or lose a close competition by chance" was left on as usual. I hope I'm the one that gets lucky and gets a cover event or free march on all gunpowder or something while people who play better/more carefully get killed by the vedic aryans ca. 2900 BC and can't replay because it isn't allowed even then .

Although I personally would enjoy beating someone by 1-4 turns for a given VC, with them having 2 consecutive forest fires creating whip that costs them that much time at the start .

I'll probably settle in place. I usually like UN wins but if the AIs start spawning 345098237405987 colonies it'll probably be military for me out of anger .

 

[Yamps]

@TMIT

AFAIK, the events are rather nerfed in HoF. From the http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/mod.php page:

Spoiler :

# Events Disabled:

* Horseshoe - Gives free Flanking I to all mounted units
* Axe Haft - gives free Shock to all axes
* Tower - Shield gives free Cover to all melee units
* Toxcatl - anti-Aztec Event
* Dissident Priest - pro-Egypt Event
* Anti-Monarchists - pro-France Event
* Impeachment - anti-American Event

# Events Modified:

* Vedic Aryans - triggers with Priesthood/Archery instead of Polytheism/Archery
* Partisans - attempted to check civic (Emancipation)

Also, if you can't build archers Vedic Aryans won't appear. Personally, I don't find random events so significant. Annoying sth, but most problems can be handled with cash.

Btw, I really enjoyed your article on fast playing. I play rather slowly, so I rarely find the time to finish these games on time...

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Bah. "Win or lose a close competition by chance" was left on as usual.

FWIW I'm increasingly inclined to agree that random events detract from the game. However, random events were disabled in BOTM 13, and disabling them two months running seems a bit drastic, especially as the impression I get is that more people like them than dislike them.

 

[srad]

I don't like them

 

[TheMeInTeam]

FWIW I'm increasingly inclined to agree that random events detract from the game. However, random events were disabled in BOTM 13, and disabling them two months running seems a bit drastic, especially as the impression I get is that more people like them than dislike them.

I also get that impression. I actually have a to each their own mentality on this typically, but this is a competition.

Let's say, hypothetically, two top-notch players play the same start the same way. In such an extremely ridiculous scenario, an event such as forest fires or locust swarms can mean the 1-2 turn difference needed to win for these identical players.

I'm pleased that some of the stronger ones got nerfed out in HoF, however there's still too much chancy (not the pokemon though ) stuff in there. Granted, the battle/diplo RNG already provides an element of chance, but they have a lot more opportunities to even out across an individual game than events. People going for diplomatic could be *really* screwed by -diplo events slowing them down or a much-accelerated win due to donating some food stores .

I also see huts as a similar problem in competitive settings actually (probably nightmares or an early immortal game where I got an open borders request around 3300BC). However, if the vast majority of players want a monopoly or dice-roll type chance element in the game, my opinion on the matter is going to be a small voice. Still, events are vastly magnified in this format. Whereas they rarely result in a win or loss vs the AI...human opposition is far less forgiving . Only at the very highest difficulties are any of these games truly a contest between AIs!

Well, on a more constructive note, events do encourage "binary research", which is a good idea in general. Might as well get things like libraries up after writing before slamming away more commerce into research, right? This impact can be pretty profound if you get an academy too. Having gold might even let you keep your barracks! I definitely recommend it in all games, and especially games with events.

 

[vixafox]

I don't like them.

It may be me, but they seem very unbalanced towards negative effects.

 

[JerichoHill]

I *like* the random events, because it changes up plans and forces adaptations.

 

[Yamps]

Oh why did I say a good word for random events? : Oh well, they do spice up the game...

 

[Mundungu]

Thoughts on the random events : AIs ?

While replaying a total of 4 times BOTM 13 for the learning, I found out that various religions were found by different civs each time ... Leading Civs same ...

If a direct neighbour that you can take out early, founds a religion or a major wonder (e.g. Pyramis) that has a bigger impact on your potential success that to get the quest of the war chariots ...

From the moment you click "next turn" or hit enter for the first time at 4000BC, every part of the game which you cannot influence directly is dictated by pseudo random events : choices and actions of the AIs.

The only difference with random events (and goody huts to a higher degree) is that those impact the player directly.

But on the whole, IMHO random events have only a minimum impact compared to all what happens in the "fog of war" over the course of the game, and add a little spice to the game.

For a game without any randomisation , I would advise anyone the Simcity series with the disaster option switched off.

 

[kcd_swede]

FWIW I'm increasingly inclined to agree that random events detract from the game. However, random events were disabled in BOTM 13, and disabling them two months running seems a bit drastic, especially as the impression I get is that more people like them than dislike them.

I like them - not the grossly distorting ones that have been removed in HOF mod, but the rest are fine. If you don't like them, there is Warlords and Vanilla. BtS is a different flavor, and it wouldn't be the same without the chunky bits.

 

[Niklas]

FWIW I'm increasingly inclined to agree that random events detract from the game.

Now if only we could get a staff member to say the same about barbarians.

I hate both barbarians and random events, and they certainly make me less inclined to play XOTMs. BOTM13 was an absolute blast though - and lookie there, no REs and no barbies!

 

[azzaman333]

With random events, I find that they penalise people who don't have any gold in the treasury. Almost every bad event is managable with 10-100 in the bank. The only event that drives me insane is the hurricane, that wipes out 2 buildings in the city. Nothing can be done to stop it....

 

[Deckhand]

With random events, I find that they penalise people who don't have any gold in the treasury. Almost every bad event is managable with 10-100 in the bank. ...

Right. So, getting huts with gold (or generating cash with science < 100%) is even more important. Random events makes cash huts more important. Maybe this balances tech huts; but other huts aren't as useful.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Right. So, getting huts with gold (or generating cash with science < 100%) is even more important. Random events makes cash huts more important. Maybe this balances tech huts; but other huts aren't as useful.

Cash with < 100% science is frequently optimal, but in the very early goings its too damaging to slow down key worker techs to bank gold. Once you have writing, binary research becomes much more appealing. There's a window for some serious hurting there, though.

As for when to build a settler, DaveMCW's rule of thumb is to grow until you're working your last 5 yield tile. However, this is very frequently map/difficulty dependent. For example, if you're being pushed to settle a really good city site early, an early settler will give you a much better return than delaying it and watching the AI settle there.

 

[Adonias]

Update at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7639372&postcount=13

I now hate random events.... I'd expect to just win the game or something when I completed the quest for the holy mountain... instead, after building 27 (I overshot) religious buildings, waged war to clear a path halfway across the world (played world map), increased my city maintenance by serveral percentages for settling so far away, all I get is 1... yes 1 in every city... ah, and an OH YEAH explanation for why they are ...

oh well...

 

[kcd_swede]

Update at http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=7639372&postcount=13

I now hate random events.... I'd expect to just win the game or something when I completed the quest for the holy mountain... instead, after building 27 (I overshot) religious buildings, waged war to clear a path halfway across the world (played world map), increased my city maintenance by serveral percentages for settling so far away, all I get is 1... yes 1 in every city... ah, and an OH YEAH explanation for why they are ...

oh well...

A quest and a random event are NOT the same thing. With a quest, you can always choose to ignore it, and there are no negative consequences (other than missing out on the usually dubious benefits that completion would give). The only time a quest is game-breaking is when, as you have done, the human player breaks his/her game pursuing some silly insignificant reward.

You don't need to actually complete the quests to see what the "suprise" rewards are... just follow the link at the bottom of this post. As you will see, about the only time you should ever try to complete a quest is when it is something you would do normally in pursuing whatever strategy you are already engaged in.

BTW, the following link will also tell you all the possible random events which may have negative consequences you cannot avoid sometimes. It also contains a list of random events and their rewards/penalties, and maybe even a discussion about which are not active when using HOF mod.


http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236727

 

[Adonias]

A quest and a random event are NOT the same thing. With a quest, you can always choose to ignore it, and there are no negative consequences (other than missing out on the usually dubious benefits that completion would give). The only time a quest is game-breaking is when, as you have done, the human player breaks his/her game pursuing some silly insignificant reward.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=236727

True... but they are random and getting an easy quest can be very (unfairly?) beneficial

Anyway, @ previous post, I still love re and Quest

And thanks for the link!

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Now if only we could get a staff member to say the same about barbarians.

I hate both barbarians and random events, and they certainly make me less inclined to play XOTMs. BOTM13 was an absolute blast though - and lookie there, no REs and no barbies!

I think there is a difference between barbarians and events. With barbarians, there is a considerable element of skill in dealing with them. You can allocate resources to fogbusting and so reduce or eliminate the threat. Or you can use the barbarians to 'train' your units to give them promotions. That element of skill doesn't seem to be there with (most) random events.

 

[Niklas]

Sure, I agree with what you say there. But I still find the randomness of them to be very deterring. I understand that people like them, and I know I'm probably a minority, but nevertheless I can't stand them.

 

[KingMorgan]

In my experience Random Events seem to be more negative than positive, it is very frustrating to be hit by a couple in quick sucession.