Random Events in Civ5?

[Chief of Staff]

Have anyone heard about whether random events will be also implemented in Civilization V similar to those in Civ4 BTS? I was wondering if they are adding it or dropping it this time. I really love those Random Events feature. It's possible they may include it later in expansion packs, though (just like original Civ4 didn't have them, only to be added later in BTS).

 

[cybrxkhan]

I'd love for random events, and, if they are included, for them to happen more regularly. Sometimes there were barely any events in some of my games, and they do add in a lot of fun.

 

[Chief of Staff]

I'd love for random events, and, if they are included, for them to happen more regularly. Sometimes there were barely any events in some of my games, and they do add in a lot of fun.

I'll be honest with you, there weren't enough random events in most of my games in Civ4 as far as it goes for myself (other than for AI players; I don't play multi-player). I really need to figure out how to increase odds of random events occurring across the board for all players including myself in single player games. :/

 

[r_rolo1]

If they put events in Civ V ( I would actually like that ), I sincerily hope they put more though in them than they did in BtS. 80 gold to get +3 attitude, events that in certain options means a war dec without choice, events that eat all the units in one tile, no matter how many, events that spread religions in civs with civics that suposedely forbid external non-state religion spread, events that think that the owner of the city is the guy with more culture there, and, last ,but definitely not least, the infamous barbarian uprisings, that even when they start against another civ might decide that your empire is tastier, besides the basic unbalanceness of the possibility that a horde bigger that the whole of the civ's army combined might appear in map... not again , please

 

[Malkaviel]

I like random event story-lines that may update every few turns over a period of 10-20 turns in which player decisions yield varied net effect.

 

[cybrxkhan]

I like random event story-lines that may update every few turns over a period of 10-20 turns in which player decisions yield varied net effect.

I totally agree. This would make the game feel so much more like history, when you can basically see things like the French Revolution play out in your neighborhood.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

The front page does have a quote from Meier basically saying he's not a fan of too much randomness in games.

I wonder if the new system of city states, which can give you missions to fulfill, may partially (or fully) replace random events? Now instead of a random pop-up telling you to build 7 shipyards for some unknown bonus, the leader of a city you want to have as an ally will be giving you quests.

 

[SJSerio]

Well, I have not heard that they are in, but there has been no mention of them being "removed", either. Hopefully, they will include them and increase the chance (or give the option for turning them off, or having low, standard, or many events). I, too, felt that they did not occur often enough. I am sure there is a way to modify the XML to increase how often they happen... but I won't get into how I feel about XML.

Oh... and add a way for the player to create their own (in an editor) and maybe even share them.

 

[Thormodr]

The front page does have a quote from Meier basically saying he's not a fan of too much randomness in games.

I wonder if the new system of city states, which can give you missions to fulfill, may partially (or fully) replace random events? Now instead of a random pop-up telling you to build 7 shipyards for some unknown bonus, the leader of a city you want to have as an ally will be giving you quests.

The quote from Sid Meir is kind of disappointing. One of the great things about the Civ franchise is its replayability. I like the fact that every game is different and random events are a nice part of that.

As long as they can be modded in then it's ok though.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

My hope is either (a) they've left them in, but as an option (as with in BtS), in which case I do hope the events are more varied & better thought out or (b) not in the game until an expansion, but with the "architecture" in there now so that modders can easily add events into the existing game.

Aussie.

 

[Cashew]

The quote from Sid Meir is kind of disappointing. One of the great things about the Civ franchise is its replayability. I like the fact that every game is different and random events are a nice part of that.

As long as they can be modded in then it's ok though.

I think your point on re-playability is a good one, but randomness is bad in the sense that it gives unfair advantages in a way that can't be controlled without completely turning the feature off.

To address the re-playability, it might make sense for them to create things that are sort of like mini-campaigns which you can choose to include in a "normal" game. They would be like random events but they're determined at the beginning of the game so all players have a chance to choose how they will deal with the event.


Purely random events like a pasture getting destroyed or a road washing out are just dumb and I always hated that stuff. They do not significantly affect replayability but they aggravate you unnecessarily.

 

[SJSerio]

I think your point on re-playability is a good one, but randomness is bad in the sense that it gives unfair advantages in a way that can't be controlled without completely turning the feature off.

To address the re-playability, it might make sense for them to create things that are sort of like mini-campaigns which you can choose to include in a "normal" game. They would be like random events but they're determined at the beginning of the game so all players have a chance to choose how they will deal with the event.


Purely random events like a pasture getting destroyed or a road washing out are just dumb and I always hated that stuff. They do not significantly affect replayability but they aggravate you unnecessarily.

A couple points to make:

1) I think that it is possible that Sid was not referring specifically to random events, but the general use (or overuse) of randomness. I just think that everybody is just over reading that statement (or Nuking it, as we used to say in the Navy). Personally, I think that Randomness is an essential part of any game, otherwise, all you get is a basic scripted, linear story with no real interaction (remember Dragon's Lair?). I would rather just watch a movie if I wanted that!

2) Some random events could be frustrating, but, to me, it added a sense of urgency and realism to the game. Yeah, it could suck to have something negative happen, but, guess what... that is how the world works sometimes and oftentimes it swayed the course of history (which, correct me if I am wrong, isn't that the core of Civilization). Case in point (something that hits me a little close to home), shortly after the British sacked DC during the war of 1812, a hurricane hit the area (remember, they didn't have doppler radars back then, so would not have known that it was coming). The storm caused a lot of devestation to the British army. When they returned to their ships, they turned north and attacked Baltimore. Baltimore, after a strong fight, defeated them and turned them around (and killed the General of the British army in the process). Now, Baltimore could have fought them off, still, if the storm hadn't hit... but there is a good possibility that if the British would not have had the losses caused by the storm, they could have won the battle, and history would likely have played out very differently.

 

[Grawss]

Barbarian Uprisings were the only random events I didn't like. The volcano eruptions were terrible as well, but they made a lot more sense and wouldn't ruin a game.

My favorites are the tiny bonuses and losses that just plain make the game more interesting.

+2 copper in the plot.

 

[UKScud]

I have no problems with random events, with one proviso. They should always present me with a choice. Whilst I love it when the computer gives me some kind of gift...who likes receiving any kind of random penalty. At least with a decision to make I can have some kind of influence over whatever event happens. Granted that might be the best of two bad situations, but at least I retain control over my Civ.

 

[Cashew]

A couple points to make:

1) I think that it is possible that Sid was not referring specifically to random events, but the general use (or overuse) of randomness. I just think that everybody is just over reading that statement (or Nuking it, as we used to say in the Navy). Personally, I think that Randomness is an essential part of any game, otherwise, all you get is a basic scripted, linear story with no real interaction (remember Dragon's Lair?). I would rather just watch a movie if I wanted that!

I'm not saying that Sid was referring to anything, I was just agreeing with the notion that random events are bad.

And I disagree that randomness is an essential part of a game. But this is strictly my opinion so I won't bother arguing it.

2) Some random events could be frustrating, but, to me, it added a sense of urgency and realism to the game. Yeah, it could suck to have something negative happen, but, guess what... that is how the world works sometimes and oftentimes it swayed the course of history (which, correct me if I am wrong, isn't that the core of Civilization). Case in point (something that hits me a little close to home), shortly after the British sacked DC during the war of 1812, a hurricane hit the area (remember, they didn't have doppler radars back then, so would not have known that it was coming). The storm caused a lot of devestation to the British army. When they returned to their ships, they turned north and attacked Baltimore. Baltimore, after a strong fight, defeated them and turned them around (and killed the General of the British army in the process). Now, Baltimore could have fought them off, still, if the storm hadn't hit... but there is a good possibility that if the British would not have had the losses caused by the storm, they could have won the battle, and history would likely have played out very differently.

Well, I'm playing a game to escape reality, not re-introduce it to my life

Again, it's different from person to person. I just feel that the better player should not have to worry about something entirely out of his control screwing with his game. It's like tripping in Super Smash Bros Brawl. It's really just something that makes it easier for people who are bad at the game to play at the same level as people who are good.

 

[Seventh Child]

I'd prefer to not have random events.

I like the events, but I don't like the randomness. I liked the quests more. I think little events/bonuses would be a nice middle ground. Like getting a small bonus for building the first library or something. Things that could change quite often from game to game, but aren't entirely random.

 

[trickofthehand]

More significant random events at any rate. Invasion of Georgia by Russian forces anyone?

 

[__jack__]

Hope they will keep random events in Civ V, although I wish for more tiny events (+2H in a plot...) and dimished a bit the frequency of strong too favorable events (Shock/Cover promotion in ancient era...).

They are pretty useful as well from a modding stand point... You can almost script a whole scenario with them !

 

[Danielos]

The front page does have a quote from Meier basically saying he's not a fan of too much randomness in games.

That´s silly. Life is game of chance. Just look at how a fertilized egg is created with the billions of possible genetic combinations possible. You ended up as you, but you might as well have been like your sister or brother.

 

[Magma]

I would like more decisions or investments. Say - instead of suddenly discovering tower shields - why not invest in them for a bit of your economy? That way it makes it a strategic choice and less of a random advantage. Do you want to use your money on this or go for the current research?