Spicing up the game a bit? Yes please! :)

[Bibor]

Oh we all post many great things about "this and that", how things would be more cool, more realistic, more fun etc.
But all of these just make our game more fun, more intriguing, more "i feel powerful".

But what about new, improved penalties? Or unexpected bonuses?

The only real penalty that I see in civ3 is that AI neighbours get uneasy about you breaking (20 turn) deals. And that's it???

What about internal strife? Famine? Plagues? revolutions? military coups? market crashes? computer viruses? unemployment? general unhappiness? criminal activity?

or beneficial things? Good crops this year? major criminal busted? an exceptionally good military cadet generation? journalist uncovers a plot against government?

I know that CIV is an "idealised" game of running a government, but the fact is, at a certain point of a game you know that you either lose or win. But no factors can unexpectedly change this fact. No real "edge" (except new technology) that you can get.

I know that I'm being boring with my SMAC whining (Sid Meier's: Alpha Centauri), but there were "random events" in that game similar to the ones i mentioned. That would be definitely a step forward, i think.

No need for huge-mega-extra new management of things (okay, maybe some ), just a dozen or more possible random events that brings the feeling that the game is a living world, not a chess-game.

my 1 dollar and 2 cents (i gave 1 dollar for a mini pizza )

-kirby

EDIT: Imagine a worker stike (reduces shield production) hits your UN wonder build city with no other prebuilds?

 

[warpstorm]

Yes, penalties would be great. They would add an extra challenge and make victory that much sweeter. Like the good traits that a civ can have, negative traits should be allowed also.

 

[Verowin]

I totally agree Bibor, but everything to a degree. These random events should be triggered, so you get the opportunity to seize or avoid it.
For example, you hear of the black plague investing your neighbors, you can close all trade and thus reduce the death toll in your cities.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the events should have logical triggers you can avoid.

But I'd like success to be the trigger

Kind of the same way that in Mario Kart, if you're lagging behind, you always seem to get the lightning bolt and the star. You would think that this would frustrate the hell out of most players, but in fact it makes the game ten times more fun.

Civ, this never happens. You run away with the game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

At the risk of being repetative, I do agree with the concept of SEMI-RANDOM positive and negative events. Namely, I think that negative events should be counterbalanced with positive events (like Dark Age/Renaissance; Coup/Mercs; Plague/population boom-that kind of thing), and though I think there should be a random element to these events, I think the ultimate decider in how likely these events are to occur should be the players actions!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[phoule]

I don't agree entirely, for one because I've experienced them in M:TW and they can really make a game frustrating. They can't be drastic events at any rate. And they can't be soo far reaching that there's nothing you can do unless you plan ahead because you know ahead of time it's going to happen. Some randomness is cool, but if you've ever played M:TW seriously then you also know that it can really suck too.

 

[Bibor]

As i stated, everything to a degree. No single random event should turn the tide completely. But it should be encouraged to thwart/bless some hazardous plans. After all, luuck is a dangerous opponent or a worthy ally. Not an instant ticket to winning.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

Random Events are a great idea, provided there is some User influence on them as mentioned. What about random events that force you to make decisions in daiolgue boxes or something? Or that are effected both positive and negatively bvy things yuve done.

For example, say a random event such as rising poverty occurs. If you have a Free Market government (I think you should have a choice between Free Market and Planned Market civs, see my post on Civ4 suggestions, but even if not, then Democracy and Republic seem to be considered Free Market, the others Planned) then you suffer some Pop loss but your economic penalties are minimal, just that produced by the lost pop. If you are a Command economy, then you suffer no population loss (your state welfare system keeping the poor alive and sheltered) but you suffer something like -1 Commerce per Square in a poverty stricken city, or -10gpt or something for 10 turns or whatever due to the costs of the welfare and the low productiveness of your poverty stricken workforce.

 

[masterofdragons]

long live Bibor! Absolutely, I said the same thing with catastrophes and disasters.