[GS] Which disaster intensity are you using?

[thecrazyscot]

I've gone back to 2 from 4, not because the disasters are too intense, but because they are just too good, which is wack. You're incentivized to settle in dangerous areas because the ridiculous yield stacks outweigh any repairs you end up having to do, and there are too many ways to completely nullify disasters. Ironically, I'd probably go back to the higher disaster settings if they made the disasters more dangerous. They feel too much like raining rewards on the human player for making decisions where you should actually have to think long and hard about the possible worth of a dangerously-placed city instead of merrily making a beeline for the closest cluster of 4 volcanoes and a floodplain.

 

[Piranga]

100% agree with Thecrazyscot. I reduced disasters to level 2, because they just seem too positively rewarding.

One thing I always wanted though was the ability to set the frequency to random. I'de like to start a game not knowing how often they will occur.

 

[Cerilis]

100% agree with Thecrazyscot. I reduced disasters to level 2, because they just seem too positively rewarding.

One thing I always wanted though was the ability to set the frequency to random. I'de like to start a game not knowing how often they will occur.

How about a setting to regulate their impact? Like a slider with more bonus yields on one side and more damage on the other.

 

[RallyK]

Capture2

• RallyK
• May 20, 2020

Here's Vesuvius at level 2 next to my Mali capital. Also, I was Fire God. This is at Emperor, Standard, 10 civs, 16 city states. I gave up because Australia had twice the science output and was ahead 46 technologies to 34.

I've been playing level 3 lately.

 

[tedhebert]

I set it at 2 also... the point is probably moot now anyways, NFP will certainly change all that

 

[blackcatatonic]

I've stuck with 3. I do like them though sometimes find the pop-up too intrusive.

And I still haven't seen Vesuvius erupt!

 

[Uberfrog]

I've stuck with 3. I do like them though sometimes find the pop-up too intrusive.

And I still haven't seen Vesuvius erupt!

The recent Game of the Month 84 had a cracking start next to Vesuvius, which after killing a builder and a barbarian and ruining my +6 adjacency Holy Site a couple of times, became the faith centre of my empire. It certainly does erupt!

I tend to go for three... two feels like half measures (you don’t get two tile eruptions), although I do agree that volcanic soil is very beneficial.

 

[UWHabs]

Count me as someone else on the 3 train. On 3 you can still have some rivers or volcanoes give no yields, but if you happen to get an active one, you can start to get some big yields from them.

Like my last game, I had a river that I had perfectly planned out, except I didn't realize the spot I wanted my dam wasn't actually valid. But I got lucky in that the river only flooded once in the entire game. But on the flipside, there was a nearby volcano that blew 2-3 times, leading to some truly special yields (and a little bit of rebuilding nearby).

 

[Shorlin]

I don't think disasters are that beneficial when you factor in the lost production on repairs and builder charges. A few extra food and hammers are nice for yield porn screenshots.. doesn't exactly break the game though. I left it on 2 but might try 3 as the bigger volcano eruptions sound interesting.

 

[Furycrab]

I'm not an enormous fan of them. Mostly when I realized that being target of a disaster in the late game on higher difficulties was dumb. Not sure if that has been patched out, but I had a game where I was playing as Mali and got a Major Flood in a relatively minor city, which allowed me to trigger a world aid request... and got me enough gold to setup to win for any victory. So I sorta stopped treating disaster intensity as difficulty and treating it as variance.

 

[Clan]

3.
Later in game when conditions permit, I tend to have at least 2/4 builders asleep waiting to rush in and repair.