Should there be more random events in Civ?

[Westwall]

Things like protests or riots to manage, or even terrorism and natural disasters that can have effects on your growth and economy ranging from mild to severe depending on how quickly you respond to them and allocate resources. I feel like occupied cities especially should always have the potential for civil unrest, even long after they've been "pacified."

Or is that too much micromanagement on a game that should be more about the bigger picture?

Could the Civ 6 engine even incorporate these elements?

 

[Phoenix1595]

Several itinerations of your suggestions were in Civs 1-4, with Civ4 introducing a random event generator (i.e. diplomatic marriages, olympics, natural disasters, etc.).

I'd love to see them return, but their lack of inclusion in the past two titles leaves me to believe the developers aren't prioritizing them at this point.

 

[Atlas627]

I would prefer a little more controlled randomness, yes. What I mean by this is things you did not expect but are still somewhat controllable by your actions, and certainly can be reacted to afterwards. Theoretically, the opponents will provide this by beating you to a wonder/GP/settlement, attacking you, or influencing a City-State, but the AI can be rather predictable and all the AIs play roughly the same. Multiplayer could also fix this problem, but the game really isn't designed for multiplayer (it tries to be, but a long slow game doesn't lend itself to that very well).

So some sort of internal politics or management would be nice. Factions or dynasties that try to make you do decisions you don't want. I want my people to clamor for war with a forward settler even though I have no army! I want a coup to attempt to change my government type to one I don't like! I want a foreign Great Person to defect to me, causing an international incident! I want an assassination attempt on the royal consort from my DoF to make me choose between a peasant uprising (let them eat cake) and getting denounced by a friend!

But this is probably content for a mod, not for the base game. The scope is a little different, I think.

 

[unpossible251]

yes, yes, and yes.

but I think there should be 3 options:

Turn Off
Truly Random
Events to Equalise

so, Events to Equalise is a gentle knock down to civs that start to run away. Example, you've set a good pace and had a lot of luck with early settler stealing, but, oh no! you settled under Mount Vesuvius! lose a city.

On the other hand, a civ that just hasn't managed to achieve much of anything and has a low score may suddenly hit the motherlode in a gold mine, enjoy a bountiful harvest with a freebie settler + worker, inspire a free great person... and so on.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

In 4 some events gave the player choices as to how to respond with different choices being desirable in different situations, while other events amounted to little more than a procedurally generated middle finger. They either had two people working on them or one guy who could not distinguish good ideas from bad ideas. I would like to see random events make a comeback but with only ones from the good idea pile. A volcano that randomly erupts for example needs to visibly differ from normal mountains so you know not to build nice things near it.

 

[fodazd]

My personal opinion: No, there shouldn't be random events in civ.

I have never played a strategy game with random events where these random events were not extremely annoying.

 

[Temppu]

I like the idea, but such events should not be completely random in my opinion. Complete randomness would make a mechanic that you cannot prepare to and hence it is not possible to improve your gameplay with respect to such a mechanic. Optimizing your play is one of the key sources of fun in the Civ series, and I would not want to see it harmed.

Instead, I would gladly welcome gameplay related randomness. More precisely, these could be called Risks. A Risk would realize randomly, however, the probability and the severity of the risks is based on your actions. A few clarifying examples:
-Civil uprising risk: Probability and severity increases by negative amenities and occupied cities. The risk can be decreased with certain buildings.
-Natural disaster risk: Probability and severity is based on city location, i.e., warm areas would have higher risk. Active volcanoes would be visible, and these could have more, e.g., wheat and rice than usual due to fertility and to impose reward for taking a risk settling near the volcano.
-Disease risk: Risk increases with increasing population. In earlier eras, it can be reduced by having (multiple) sources of water, fresh or salty. In later eras, the risk can be reduced with infrastructure (neighborhood, hospitals, etc.)

 

[Archon_Wing]

I'd rather not especially not any of the disaster types which are the first to get turned off. 4's implementation was terrible, and I personally like how luck has been reduced as a factor in 5 and 6.

What I do want to see are things like City State politics, such as receiving quests to bully another city state. That made city states much more interesting in Civ V.

Or perhaps something along the lines of a World Fair mechanic. So say there has been a disaster and Civs could assign resources to donate to the cause; the ones that donate the most would receive more rewards.

 

[Ozisl]

I would like more random events. After a while, even playing different civs, things start feel repetitive in going for every victory condition.

 

[Noble Zarkon]

Instead, I would gladly welcome gameplay related randomness. More precisely, these could be called Risks. A Risk would realize randomly, however, the probability and the severity of the risks is based on your actions.

I agree 100% with this perspective.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm okay either way. People complained so much about Civ4 random events, but I thought they worked out well. That said, I don't exactly miss them in Civ6. It's hard to do them well so they are interesting.

 

[Westwall]

I like the idea, but such events should not be completely random in my opinion. Complete randomness would make a mechanic that you cannot prepare to and hence it is not possible to improve your gameplay with respect to such a mechanic. Optimizing your play is one of the key sources of fun in the Civ series, and I would not want to see it harmed.

I agree. Random is the wrong word. What I was actually thinking was more along the lines of things that have a better chance of happening due to in-game factors, similar to how cities in Civ 5 have a chance to switch sides or barbs have a chance of appearing within your civ given a low enough state of unhappiness, etc. I just like the idea of being able to perform humanitarian or peacekeeping operations without actually declaring war on another civ, for instance. Like say a city falls under "contested" status due to internal turmoil. Not just flipping to another civ right away but suddenly under dispute until its owner civ manages to get it under control.

You would then be able to move in and pacify it, and either annex it or give it back to the owner civ similar to how you would if you were liberating an occupied city.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I think this game absolutely needs some kind of dynamism, particularly in the final third. One of my gripes is how static the game becomes in the final third. I rarely finish games anymore because I usually get myself into position to win by the late Renaissance and then I can usually rest assured that nothing will happen for the rest of the game. I can go exploring, or build a fleet of Settlers and Builders to claim empty land (not because it's actually useful to do so, but just because I feel like it - and of course the AI won't, like, fight me for it or anything). Basically, once I've set myself up for victory, it's just a sandbox from that point forward. Usually I just quit and start a new game.

Part of the problem is in the AI, but I think some kind of "events" could help a great deal.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Completely Random Events, especially with negative consequences, are just an example of a game programmer with no imagination, who is compensating for his dull game design by throwing bricks at you to keep your attention.

The "Events and Decisions" Mod for Civ V, which was based on a similar, much more elaborate mechanism in Europa Universalis IV, is an example, I think, of how to implement 'random' events: the events represented things that could happen, but each required you to make a decision as to how to handle it which in turn resulted in various negative/positive effects on your game. I would add to that a mechanism where the accumulation of decisions might lead you down a certain path in your civilization.

For instance, if most of your reactions to minor disasters (Plague in X City/Province! River Flooded villages near City X! The Heir to the Throne Insists That He Be Addressed As "The Royal Twinkie"!) are to ignore them, on the one hand your population will stop expecting you to react to them, on the other hand they may decide you are a Heartless Wretch and revolt. BUT it's Your Decisions that complicate your game, not just the Random Events themselves.

AND - as I've said before in other posts - ideally each Random Event should NEVER be entirely Negative. There have to be results that are both negative and positive, or at least negative and neutral.
Example: Volcanoes and volcanic Eruptions were a feature of - I think it was Civ IV, or maybe III - and are frequently mentioned as Something To Bring Back. Fine, but in addition to the potential of an eruption that removes population from the nearest city, or destroys Improvements in X tiles, also have the Positive Aspects of Volcanoes - the volcanic ash fertilizes the soil making it more productive, volcanic tephra is a prime material for producing waterproof concrete/cement (a Roman engineering 'secret'!) and volcanoes are sources for Obsidian, an alternative material for blades/weapons/tools if you have no access to copper/bronze/iron.

If all the consequences are negative, it will be turned off every time...

 

[Temppu]

The "Events and Decisions" Mod for Civ V, which was based on a similar, much more elaborate mechanism in Europa Universalis IV, is an example, I think, of how to implement 'random' events: the events represented things that could happen, but each required you to make a decision as to how to handle it which in turn resulted in various negative/positive effects on your game. I would add to that a mechanism where the accumulation of decisions might lead you down a certain path in your civilization.

Sounds great. This would add even more depth to handling the events in that if you could (i) control the chances of the events occurring, and if the events happen (ii) select a way to handle the event so that it is actually not that harmful, then smart players could do quite a lot to mitigate the risks.

There have to be results that are both negative and positive, or at least negative and neutral.

It wouldn't make sense to have decisions that have chances of affecting your empire in a negative way but have no additional value, because then these decisions would simply become infeasible. Nevertheless, I'm not convinced that the events must have positive results per se. It would probably suffice that while taking a risk, you obtain value, but the risk is the price you pay for the value. For example, the land near the volcano could have a better Food and Production yields. Then the player would have to think whether he or she is willing to take the risk of getting hit by a volcano to obtain higher yields. Or even better, the player would have to plan for selecting the less harmful way to handle the event and prepare accordingly. This mechanic would include high risk high reward kind of mindset for the game, while currently most decisions in the game have few drawbacks, other than some puny neighbor getting pissed after you grab that perfect city location near their capital, or even grab their capital.

 

[Art Morte]

I'm not in favour, I think they would be more annoying than fun. It's different in something like SimCity - or was when I played some version many years ago - where the whole game is geared towards managing such events. In Civ they would just feel unfair.

I think this game absolutely needs some kind of dynamism, particularly in the final third. One of my gripes is how static the game becomes in the final third. I rarely finish games anymore because I usually get myself into position to win by the late Renaissance and then I can usually rest assured that nothing will happen for the rest of the game. I can go exploring, or build a fleet of Settlers and Builders to claim empty land (not because it's actually useful to do so, but just because I feel like it - and of course the AI won't, like, fight me for it or anything). Basically, once I've set myself up for victory, it's just a sandbox from that point forward. Usually I just quit and start a new game.

Part of the problem is in the AI, but I think some kind of "events" could help a great deal.

Yeah, same here, it's rare to have an actual race to victory. Also, the further the game goes, the better the human player is prepared to fight off any AI DoWs. There is no sense of danger in late-game. I often find myself not even caring that much whether I'm going to win or not, I'd just like the game to stay interesting - like it is in the expansion phase while getting to new techs or civics or lands early feels like it actually matters - until the end. But it doesn't. I wouldn't introduce random events, though.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

... There is no sense of danger in late-game. I often find myself not even caring that much whether I'm going to win or not, I'd just like the game to stay interesting - like it is in the expansion phase while getting to new techs or civics or lands early feels like it actually matters - until the end. But it doesn't...

Here, here. I managed to take a game to the Modern Era just to build a tank once, no other game of mine has lasted past the Renaissance, and most I have quit in disgust/boredom because it gets so d****d Boring in the Late Game. Civ VI (and it's not the first Civ Game like this) feels like they threw together the last 3 Eras just to bring the game to the present day, without actually giving any thought to content, playability, or making them interesting.
Random Events may or may not be the way to go ( I think they could help, but are not a singular solution) but Something has to be added to the late game to make it worth playing: Corporations, Terrorist Ideologies, Over Population, Global Warming - something to challenge the gamer besides the lame AI, which I long ago gave up on waiting for Firaxis to get right...

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I personally like random events. Makes the game more interesting, more realistic, more immersive and more challenging. The real world is full of unexpected challenges. As long as the player has the option to turn them off to keep everyone happy.

 

[jozef57]

we had random events in the past and i loved it than and i would love it for civ6

 

[Morningcalm]

I think random events would add some nice flavor, and not just in scenarios. I didn't like the random volcanos, tornadoes, etc since a lot of them simply ripped up your improvements with no ability to react to them. However, if a choice was added to react to them that could be great (i.e. Scientists are divided on the risk of the volcano exploding. Start the evacuation now, reducing your gold income in that area, but not risking death, or continue your valuable work on trade goods to develop an alliance with the neighboring civilization, but risking death and destruction from the volcano if it *does* erupt?)

Similarly, the quests they had in Civ IV random events were quite excellent, and really put a great twist on strategizing in the game. I think random events could and should be reintroduced to VI, albeit with the option to turn them off.