Why natural disasters?

[stealth_nsk]

Since Civ1 I found natural disasters to be the most frustrating part of the game experience. They are random, they are negative, and some of them can't be prevented. Civ6 tried to add some bonuses from some of those disasters, but this resulted in weird things like random bonuses from prevented floods. But at least in Civ6 volcanoes worked more or less well. Their eruptions were rare and if the volcano is sleeping you could benefit from previous eruptions bonuses for significant time.

Now we see in Civ7 volcano being so active what player doesn't bother rebuilding an iron mine. Of course, this potentially could be tuned to Civ6 level of volcano management, but this still leaves a big question - why do we need those natural disasters at all? What value they bring to the game?

 

[Siptah]

why do we need those natural disasters at all?

To make GS look like it brought at least one useful thing to the franchise that's worth keeping, instead of being a super expensive expansion that's best skipped and forgotten.

What value they bring to the game?

A bit of randomness, which isn't bad per se. But we saw that a tiny bit of gold (20?) was enough to instantly repair the flooded tile. So, if it is that inconsequential, I don't think they bring anything to the game. We haven't seen a dam or something similar yet, iirc, so it's also just a random event that you cannot interact with as it seems.

That said, I believe that volcanoes will be tuned down to be a net positive in the long run.

 

[_hero_]

What value they bring to the game?

Immersion. Civ has always been a game trying to loosely simulate the human path through history. Disasters have been a major, impactful part of human history. They belong in a game that is about playing out human history.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Immersion. Civ has always been a game trying to loosely simulate the human path through history. Disasters have been a major, impactful part of human history. They belong in a game that is about playing out human history.

That's a very questionable road. Adding things just because of their existence in real life is how simulation games are made, not strategic ones.

 

[Siptah]

Immersion. Civ has always been a game trying to loosely simulate the human path through history. Disasters have been a major, impactful part of human history. They belong in a game that is about playing out human history.

But in civ 7's design, I don't think these local disasters are necessary. They were a stupid nuisance in civ 6, but at least required investment or spare builders. In 7, they seem to be unnecessary busy work and distraction at most, with instant fix even. Ed said he doesn't want to rebuild the iron mine, because the volcano destroys it all the time. But he was floating thousands of gold. The fact that he didn't use this suggests something is wrong, the disaster didn't have a meaningful effect on his playing - maybe simply because "I don't fight, therefore I don't need the iron" and "I also don't need the extra production from the mine for some reason".

Hence, instead of having these local unimportant busy work, rather let us have disasters that are actually impactful and make them crises. I hope we'll see something like a little ice age there - diminishing global food production, slowing trade routes, souring relations with neighbors, decreasing happiness etc.

Also, I'm not sure whether random events really increase immersion or rather break it. To me, a stupid mechanic like a volcano going every 20 turns is a constant reminder of "this is a game with a mean turns to happen mechanic" rather than "this is a believable, alive world."

 

[_hero_]

But in civ 7's design, I don't think these local disasters are necessary. They were a stupid nuisance in civ 6, but at least required investment or spare builders. In 7, they seem to be unnecessary busy work and distraction at most, with instant fix even. Ed said he doesn't want to rebuild the iron mine, because the volcano destroys it all the time. But he was floating thousands of gold. The fact that he didn't use this suggests something is wrong, the disaster didn't have a meaningful effect on his playing - maybe simply because "I don't fight, therefore I don't need the iron" and "I also don't need the extra production from the mine for some reason".

Hence, instead of having these local unimportant busy work, rather let us have disasters that are actually impactful and make them crises. I hope we'll see something like a little ice age there - diminishing global food production, slowing trade routes, souring relations with neighbors, decreasing happiness etc.

Also, I'm not sure whether random events really increase immersion or rather break it. To me, a stupid mechanic like a volcano going every 20 turns is a constant reminder of "this is a game with a mean turns to happen mechanic" rather than "this is a believable, alive world."

Could they be better implemented is a different question than should they exist at all. I completely agree that the current implementation is not ideal. It doesn't follow from that, however, that putting them in the game at all is a bad idea.

 

[_hero_]

That's a very questionable road. Adding things just because of their existence in real life is how simulation games are made, not strategic ones.

Agreed, however, deciding whether or not it's worth building a settlement next to a volcano and take the risk because it's otherwise a superior spot, or to settle further away and avoid the risk IS a strategic decision.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Agreed, however, deciding whether or not it's worth building a settlement next to a volcano and take the risk because it's otherwise a superior spot, or to settle further away and avoid the risk IS a strategic decision.

That's huge game mechanics (and a lot of graphics and animations) for a tiny bit of strategic decisions.

 

[Siptah]

Could they be better implemented is a different question than should they exist at all. I completely agree that the current implementation is not ideal. It doesn't follow from that, however, that putting them in the game at all is a bad idea.

I disagree. I would rather not have a feature in the game than having a bad implementation of it. For example, no repetition of loyalty unless there is a better implementation. No inclusion of migration (arguably of similar importance for history to disasters, and sometimes as a consequence of it) until they find a way that feels good. No World Congress unless it is fun to interact with. So, but this is just my opinion: in principle, if something isn‘t well implemented and not a core mechanic, it should be dropped. Meaningless feature bloat isn‘t good game design and the game isn‘t barebones without natural disasters.

Here‘s hoping though that in age 3 they have some use/interesting element. Hope dies last.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Agreed, however, deciding whether or not it's worth building a settlement next to a volcano and take the risk because it's otherwise a superior spot, or to settle further away and avoid the risk IS a strategic decision.

It is a strategic decision, true, but its a terribly ahistorical one. People ALWAYS settled in the flood plains and beside the volcanoes, because people take the certainty of fertile farmland over the uncertain risk of some horrible disaster. Then to hedge their risks, they erect places of worship to appease the gods so that they don't punish them with floods or lava. And why wouldn't they settle in the flood plains and close to volcanoes? If the gods are going to get them, they'll get them wherever they go, so only an idiot would pass on prime farmland.

EDIT: come to think of it, if you wanted to keep natural disasters in and you want to give player agency to it, you'd be better off giving players a chance to reduce the chances of natural disasters:

• antiquity and exploration ages: shrines and temples reduce the chance of natural disasters in their area
• modern age: science buildings reduce the chance of natural disasters in their area

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

Having disasters that decrease production city-wide as part of some negative modifier, would be far less annoying than the game laughing at you by blowing up random tiles.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

It is a strategic decision, true, but its a terribly ahistorical one. People ALWAYS settled in the flood plains and beside the volcanoes, because people take the certainty of fertile farmland over the uncertain risk of some horrible disaster. Then to hedge their risks, they erect places of worship to appease the gods so that they don't punish them with floods or lava. And why wouldn't they settle in the flood plains and close to volcanoes? If the gods are going to get them, they'll get them wherever they go, so only an idiot would pass on prime farmland.

EDIT: come to think of it, if you wanted to keep natural disasters in and you want to give player agency to it, you'd be better off giving players a chance to reduce the chances of natural disasters:

• antiquity and exploration ages: shrines and temples reduce the chance of natural disasters in their area
• modern age: science buildings reduce the chance of natural disasters in their area

In fact, many of the earliest cities in Mesopotamia were started in flood plains, and cities like Uruk (one of the earliest and biggest) were formed around two temples on artificial hills ('proto-ziggurats') that were already there because the earliest farmers/settlers needed the Gods' help against flooding.

And Etna in Sicily has been in near-annual eruption for at least 5000 years, and people have been settled all around the base and lower slopes of that mountain the whole time.

What's a little natural disaster among friends?

On the other hand, to make the natural disasters in-game more balanced, there are positives that could be built into them to counter the negatives.

Volcanoes almost all had a Religious Component: Fiji, Tahoma (Rainier), Etna, Thera - they all were affiliated with Divine Powers and could be so modeled in game. Extra bonuses from Altars/Temples and other religious structures in addition to the very real extra productivity of the soil.

Volcanoes were also a source for Obsidian, one of the earliest Trade Goods known that acted as a substitute for early metals as well as being a component of jewelry. The Romans, of course, made a very good thing out of volcanic ash as a component for their early cement/concrete, and they weren't the only ones: Assyria built the Jerwan aqueduct in 688 BCE using volcanic ash mixed with kiln-baked mortar to form a waterproof concrete, so that construction material isn't even Uniquely Roman. At the least, a Production Bonus from Volcanic soils is also a possible positive effect.

Flooding from Floodplains, as modeled in Civ VI, greatly increased the productivity of the soil by refreshening tit with silt. But in addition, floodplains also provided specialized materials. Reeds were an early construction material, being used for river and coastal boats (reed bundles float!), roofing, partitions, and other non-structural components of housing and other structures. and, of course, specialized reeds like the papyrus could provide specialized bonuses to education, administration (the majority of papyrus sheets found are covered with administrative 'paperwork' in Egypt right down to Roman Imperial times). Marshes, wetlands or floodplains were also home to a massive concentration of fish and waterbirds, a major source of non-agricultural food/protein that might best be modeled as an increase in Happiness if the game doesn't include a Health component directly.

So, at the very least, the two most common situational (permanently shown on the map) Natural Disasters could be muc better modeled if they are going to be included. Simply negative random events are both simplistic game design and will be resented by many gamers.

 

[Bactrian]

I totally disagree with this take. If you don't want the risk of a volcano blowing up your tiles, then don't settle near them. If you don't want the risk of your city being flooded by a river, then don't settle along it. This is the exact kind of risk-reward dynamic Civ needs way more of. The only quibble I had with the existing implementation was that I thought the drought/blizzard/etc. disasters were too limited in scope. Such things can potentially impact huge areas. Some more dramatic visuals would also be nice.

 

[Aquila SPQR]

Since Civ1 I found natural disasters to be the most frustrating part of the game experience. They are random, they are negative, and some of them can't be prevented.

Just like in the real world. I don't see you complaining that there are jungles near the equator and polar caps near the poles.

But at least in Civ6 volcanoes worked more or less well. Their eruptions were rare and if the volcano is sleeping you could benefit from previous eruptions bonuses for significant time.

Just like in the real world.

Now we see in Civ7 volcano being so active what player doesn't bother rebuilding an iron mine.

No one forces you to settle near it. That sounds like all those people who live near a volcano which is known to be active and then complaining that it erupted. Yes, that's what active volcanoes simply do. If you don't want to be buried in ash or burned by lava then don't settle near an active volcano. It's really that simple.

Of course, this potentially could be tuned to Civ6 level of volcano management, but this still leaves a big question - why do we need those natural disasters at all? What value they bring to the game?

Immersion, creating a believable, living world which ideally should teach people a thing or two about consequences - for example what is a consequence of settling near a volcano, a river that often floodes the area or messing with the climate by increased CO2 emission.

 

[Zaarin]

Now we see in Civ7 volcano being so active what player doesn't bother rebuilding an iron mine.

This can happen in Civ6, too. My last game of Civ6, I settled my capital right next to a volcano, perfectly aware of the consequences for doing so. The volcano was so active I didn't bother building anything around it, and my capital was the smallest city in my empire (but the yields were glorious).

 

[pokiehl]

Natural disasters add fun randomness, additional ways to interact with the map, and a good risk/reward proposition. I’m thrilled to see them back.

 

[Nikolai II]

Natural disasters add fun randomness, additional ways to interact with the map, and a good risk/reward proposition. I’m thrilled to see them back.

Same. Adding yields, giving potential for great yield income against danger of losing pops or having to invest gold to repair is a good risk vs reward.

 

[gdr_willter]

Natural disasters add fun randomness, additional ways to interact with the map, and a good risk/reward proposition. I’m thrilled to see them back.

And they provide the opportunity for some interesting additional bonuses, like Russian blizzard feature.

 

[Bestbank Tiger]

Agreed, however, deciding whether or not it's worth building a settlement next to a volcano and take the risk because it's otherwise a superior spot, or to settle further away and avoid the risk IS a strategic decision.

Which might be the thought process.

In Railroads!, if you wanted a realistic simulation you'd need floods to take out a bridge. But players hate when a random event screws them, and the point of the game is enjoyment. So they made stone bridges immune to floods and more expensive. That way if a flood took out a wood bridge it sucks but you had a fair chance to avoid it.

In this case the player has to decide if it's worth the risk of building in a flood plain or near a volcano.

Might be a good idea to incorporate climate change. If you don't do some form of environmental mitigation (seawall, reforestation, green energy) you're more likely to suffer from a weather disaster. It makes intuitive sense and gives the game a cost/benefit balance.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

The map would feel dead now to me without some natural effects.
I don’t know if having the be part of narrative events would be better. Sacrifice a virgin or be hit by a volcano eruption.