Why natural disasters?

[thecrazyscot]

I found natural disasters novel for a while in Gathering Storm, but ultimately found them annoying and that their increased tile yields became kind of absurd.

Since some of the civs have bonuses that directly interact with them, I have little hope there will be an option to turn them completely off, but I suspect I may need to tweak them to (a) reduce their frequency and (b) remove their bonuses to tile yields. There are enough bonuses for being near rivers already, and volcanoes should just give permanent bonuses to adjacent tiles.

 

[Krikkit1]

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.

Actually better would be
Holy men say we should sacrifice a virgin or the volcano will consume us
(volcano eruption rng not actually affected)

Sacrifice + no eruption…you are a great and wise leader (culture/happy bonus to local/all altars)

Sacrifice + eruption obviously you were unholy…altar(s) destroyed, production penalty until they are rebuilt

No sacrifice and no eruption …you get to cleanse the corrupt priests and seize their property (+lump sum gold and influence)

No Sacrifice and eruption…the people undertake a mass sacrifice to appease the gods (-3? pop)

 

[Patine]

Since Civ1 I found natural disasters to be the most frustrating part of the game experience.

Since Civ1? I don't clearly remember them in Civ1 (but my memories of that are hazy). The Civ2 vanilla game only has global warming, which was very ham-fisted and bizarre in display, but could be managed. I don't recall any in the Civ3 vanilla game, either.

 

[Siptah]

Since Civ1? I don't clearly remember them in Civ1 (but my memories of that are hazy). The Civ2 vanilla game only has global warming, which was very ham-fisted and bizarre in display, but could be managed. I don't recall any in the Civ3 vanilla game, either.

Civ 1 had disasters, including volcano eruptions and earthquakes. They could be much stronger than in civ VI.
I don't think Civ 2 had disasters at all, aside from global warming and nuclear fallout.
Civ 3 had volcano eruptions as well. They were frustrating, as they razed the city completely. Never settle close to a volcano in civ 3.
In CTP underground volcanoes were great in the future era because they had incredible yields, I don't think they could erupt at all.

 

[Seek]

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.

Indeed, they also make the map feel more alive and add to emergent storytelling (“I settled next to four volcanos and somehow my holy site was never pillaged!”).

 

[Mr Jon of Cheam]

I quite liked them in VI, to be honest, even if I can see all the logical reasons why they aren't great game design.

 

[Siptah]

I wonder if I would like them more if there is real risk attached, i.e., no guarantee that improvements near volcanoes and on floodplains will be beneficial in the long run. Either because added yields are more random or repair costs being tied to yields per age (e.g., 50 gold per yield in antiquity, 100 in exploration, 200 in modern). That way, it would be more of a choice and the disasters wouldn't be so inconsequential. But maybe it would also be more frustrating if disasters aren't always a net positive.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I wonder if I would like them more if there is real risk attached, i.e., no guarantee that improvements near volcanoes and on floodplains will be beneficial in the long run. Either because added yields are more random or repair costs being tied to yields per age (e.g., 50 gold per yield in antiquity, 100 in exploration, 200 in modern). That way, it would be more of a choice and the disasters wouldn't be so inconsequential. But maybe it would also be more frustrating if disasters aren't always a net positive.

Real Risk simply means Human players will find ways to avoid them, or Mod them out, or if there's no way to avoid them complain bitterly about them on every platform they can reach.

Random negative events that the gamer can do nothing about are simply bad design, and in the case of Natural Disasters they don;t have to be done that way.

Every IRL Natural Disaster had something Positive attached to it, for someone.

Tsunami wipes out a city: Urban Renewal Time, and a lot of extra effort from the population who want to rebuild as fast as as possible. In game: X turns of X% increase in Production/Gold/resources to rebuild.

Floods, Volcanoes damage tiles - they also provide extra benefits in those tiles after rebuilding. But if you provide no extra benefits, or no certain benefits, savvy gamers will simply not build on tiles subject to those events. Especially those gamers who play to Max the gains out of every tile and adjacency - losing everything you've put into a tile in simply Not Acceptable without compensation of some kind.

Natural Disasters have a place in the game, if simply on the continuum from Local Disaster (Volcano, Flood) to Regional Disaster (Tsunami, Hurricane, Drought) to World Climate Event ("Global Warming" which is only the latest example: Events have been happening on a continental or multi-continental scale since modern Humans evolved).

BUT they have to be very carefully included. I'll say it again: negative events without compensation are either Game Ending or simply In-Game Irritations that gamers will want to avoid at all costs, or quit the game in disgust. Neither is a welcome event from the game's or game designer's perspective.

 

[Siptah]

Real Risk simply means Human players will find ways to avoid them, or Mod them out, or if there's no way to avoid them complain bitterly about them on every platform they can reach.

Random negative events that the gamer can do nothing about are simply bad design, and in the case of Natural Disasters they don;t have to be done that way.

Every IRL Natural Disaster had something Positive attached to it, for someone.

Tsunami wipes out a city: Urban Renewal Time, and a lot of extra effort from the population who want to rebuild as fast as as possible. In game: X turns of X% increase in Production/Gold/resources to rebuild.

Floods, Volcanoes damage tiles - they also provide extra benefits in those tiles after rebuilding. But if you provide no extra benefits, or no certain benefits, savvy gamers will simply not build on tiles subject to those events. Especially those gamers who play to Max the gains out of every tile and adjacency - losing everything you've put into a tile in simply Not Acceptable without compensation of some kind.

Natural Disasters have a place in the game, if simply on the continuum from Local Disaster (Volcano, Flood) to Regional Disaster (Tsunami, Hurricane, Drought) to World Climate Event ("Global Warming" which is only the latest example: Events have been happening on a continental or multi-continental scale since modern Humans evolved).

BUT they have to be very carefully included. I'll say it again: negative events without compensation are either Game Ending or simply In-Game Irritations that gamers will want to avoid at all costs, or quit the game in disgust. Neither is a welcome event from the game's or game designer's perspective.

I agree. And I didn't mean to suggest that disasters should be only negative, but more random in what they bring to the table in the long run. It would be more risk/gamble if you wouldn't know beforehand whether it is a benefit or not. But I guess that gambling is less of a strategic choice.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I agree. And I didn't mean to suggest that disasters should be only negative, but more random in what they bring to the table in the long run. It would be more risk/gamble if you wouldn't know beforehand whether it is a benefit or not. But I guess that gambling is less of a strategic choice.

Yes, I'm afraid most gamers subscribe to Field Marshal Montgomery's strategic thinking:

"I never gamble with my battles. If I think a battle is a gamble, I don't fight, I wait until I am ready."

Mind you, that quote is 'attributed' which means he may never have actually said it, but it does sum up his strategy perfectly, and unfortunately that of many gamers: If It's A Gamble, Avoid It Entirely.

 

[playshogi]

If they are trying to get rid of pita type micromanagement, then natural disasters have to be eliminated, or repaired automatically. In the long run, a random flood or volcanic eruption does nothing except create busy work. Hopefully, destroyed tile improvements will be auto-repaired in a few turns or in 1 turn with an automatic deduction of gold.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

While I generally dislike natural disaster mechanics, I did find the ones in Civ 6 to be the most appealing take on it. If we have to have them, I at least appreciate getting bonus yields.

The issue that remains for Civ 6, and it's difficult to say if Civ 7 will have it also, is that the AI is sloppy about rebuilding. So human players recover disproportionately well.

 

[UWHabs]

While I generally dislike natural disaster mechanics, I did find the ones in Civ 6 to be the most appealing take on it. If we have to have them, I at least appreciate getting bonus yields.

The issue that remains for Civ 6, and it's difficult to say if Civ 7 will have it also, is that the AI is sloppy about rebuilding. So human players recover disproportionately well.

Yeah, most disasters in VI you actually like when they hit early enough. You'll get some bad ones, sure. But the extra yields add up over time. And I like how they make the environment feel more unique - when you explore and see a river that's flooded 3 or 4 times, that's basically like settling a natural wonder.

Sure, getting the random drought, or tornado, which are only negative, suck, and there's not much you can do to avoid them. Or when the river floods 2 turns before your dam is finished.

 

[Evolena]

The issue that remains for Civ 6, and it's difficult to say if Civ 7 will have it also, is that the AI is sloppy about rebuilding. So human players recover disproportionately well.

Maybe the fact that repairs are now done in the city buying or production queue instead of with builder charges may help AI?

 

[stealth_nsk]

While I generally dislike natural disaster mechanics, I did find the ones in Civ 6 to be the most appealing take on it. If we have to have them, I at least appreciate getting bonus yields.

The issue that remains for Civ 6, and it's difficult to say if Civ 7 will have it also, is that the AI is sloppy about rebuilding. So human players recover disproportionately well.

Yes, also different natural disasters work differently. Floods and Droughts are preventable (although not cheap), Meteor Shower is more a bonus than a disaster. But volcanoes, storms and forest fires can't be prevented and even though they could increase tile output, they are really annoying.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

Yes, also different natural disasters work differently. Floods and Droughts are preventable (although not cheap), Meteor Shower is more a bonus than a disaster. But volcanoes, storms and forest fires can't be prevented and even though they could increase tile output, they are really annoying.

Tornadoes are the worst. You can only prevent them by refraining from deforestation and/or by planting trees, and they have zero benefit.

Since it seems like improvements and districts do not remove vegetation in Civ 7, deforestation will not be as much of an issue.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Tornadoes are the worst. You can only prevent them by refraining from deforestation and/or by planting trees, and they have zero benefit.

The zero benefit thing is weird, because Oz, duh.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

The zero benefit thing is weird, because Oz, duh.

Clearly, they should be adding Culture and Science

 

[Zaarin]

Tornadoes are the worst. You can only prevent them by refraining from deforestation and/or by planting trees, and they have zero benefit.

They also make no sense. A tornado that lasts for centuries and covers thousands of miles isn't a disaster; it's a catastrophe beyond human comprehension because it's a sign that the climate is borked in a way that defies the laws of physics. IMO no disaster should last more than a single turn, and tornadoes just need to be gone. (I like the others.)

Clearly, they should be adding Culture and Science

Apply a black and white filter until your civ has its first tornado.

 

[The_goggles_do_nothing]

It's not the tornado that last centuries, it's just if you were there you can tell stories about it for that long.