Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by Pietato, Nov 22, 2018.
Right now it seems that there's not going to be anything like earthquakes at launch. It's a big pity in my opinion, but maybe they were partially developed and scrapped before launch. We can hope that earthquakes will make it in during a content patch later, otherwise there's mods...
I hope they get in. And many volcano eruptions come with Earthquakes. I guess why they aren‘t included: unlike volcanos and floods, they have no positive aspect.
This. Risk-reward is fun, but I think civ history has shown that the majority of people don't like pure disasters.
The no positive aspects may be part of it, but storms and droughts are also included, which I don't think had any positive aspects associated with them?
It might simply be a case of sometimes less is more, i.e. we don't need all possible disasters, just a representative mix.
I think they said Storms actualyl help with Fertility too.
On the other hand Drought seem to suggest that they happen when there's no forests/jungles in the area so I think it's mean to be like "you can chop those forests, but you will pay the price for that".
The problem from a gameplay perspective is that earthquake are completely random (unless you modal in fault lines) so they are not fun for the player.
Floods, okay I built in a flood plain so I did a cost/reward check
Droughts, okay I cut down all those forest so that's on me ect
Sea level Rising, okay I built all those Coal Plants so that's on me
With Earthquakes there is no player control with it
Most earthquakes occure between the boundaries of two tectonic plates. If it's a convergent boundary the territory will feature mountains and hills, the best tile in the game. So while the DLC won't give a direct benefit from earthquakes the tiles where they can occure are very valuable whether it's for production or adjacency bonuses. Like this hill and mountain regions will be high risk, high reward rather than just be better than plain regions.
Also as the game advance techs will allow to mitigate the damage from earthquakes by unlocking earthquake engineering so at some point most earthquakes will do negligeable damage.
I could see an expansion or any additional content that is based on "history and culture" in the game. One aspect of it could be the element of settlement-abandonning, detecting ruins of razed cities, and a gamley use of earthquake dammage as well.
I have no idea how could Firaxis implement such vague ideas, but I was surprised just the same way to see those new ideas that are the guidlines of Rise and Fall and now of Gathering Storm.
I guess earthquakes are all risk and no reward, as others have said. Slightly odd given that they have added tectonics but it still makes sense from a gameplay perspective.
I think they intended them to be in the game, but couldn't find a way to balance them. The fact that they are in the trailer makes me think they were intended to be in the game. Same reason I think World Congress was intended to be in Rise and Fall (it was in Rise and Fall trailer).
It’s also worth mentioning from the thread title that hydraulic fracturing (something that doesn’t exist in Civ VI anyway) is not associated with serious magnitude earthquakes. The most powerful human-induced seismicity occurs as a result of waste water injection from oil and gas production, and from underground nuclear tests. Even these pale in comparison, particular when damage to infrastructure and loss of life is considered, to naturally occurring earthquakes. I can see no reason to bother implementing them in this expansion.
It’s a shame that earthquakes don’t seem to feature, but as others have said, there’s not quite the same risk vs reward tradeoff as there is with volcanoes and floodplains.
Agreed with @Disgustipated
It's a shame as it does stand out, particularly with the presence of volcanoes, geothermal fissures and plate tectonics. I can see why they excluded them with the unpredictability and all-pain-no-gain factors, though. Perhaps they wanted to see how people got on with a few select natural disasters first before overwhelming them.
I could conceive of earthquakes being added in a major patch rather than needing a full expansion - but they would need to come up with a way to balance them first.
I learnt by now that sandstorms and hurricanes shall have a chance to change tiles or up fertility as well... And droughts will take place once you killed all your trees - but like bite said: That's on you!
Personally I'm completely against having earthquakes in CiVI, because as mentioned: It's very random and no fun. Positive aspects: None.
I'm surprised no-one can see the positive aspects of earthquakes. Does no-one remember Lex Luthor's cunning plan in Superman the Movie? Buy up worthless California desert, nuke the San Andreas fault, and bingo - prime beach-front property! Now that is forward planning...
So the abundance of earthquakes pretty much destroys the possibility to have Lex Luthor as a leader... A pity.
The point about earthquakes not having a silver lining is a good one, but to be fair neither did the plague and at least they did put that in a scenario (OK the plague did lead to the balance of labor vs capital but they're not going to to model that surely).
I wonder if disasters will be available in the mod API's? If so then some enterprising souls can gives us plagues, earthquakes and portents to our heart contents.
Your "traders" in Civ 6 travel to foreign cities to extract gold, often delivering nothing in return … so, no, I don't expect the balance of available labour versus investable capital to be modelled any time soon.
Aside from the 'All Negative' aspect, earthquakes also do wildly varying amounts of damage depending on Other Conditions.
Earthquakes under water, for example, produce Tsunamis, and even Information Era Technology does not prevent those from producing truly Mass Disasters - Indonesia and Japan very recently.
Earthquakes where you have built your city out of flammable materials, such as wood, result in widespread conflagrations: Edo/Tokyo at least three times in recorded history, the last in 1922 resulting in over 200,000 deaths, San Francisco in 1906. Again, Mass Disaster at least to one of your cities even in the Modern Era. Not Fun.
On the other hand, Beyce Sultan site in Anatolia had 22 levels of city, almost all leveled by earthquake - and then rebuilt, since most of the town/city was mud brick and easily repaired/reconstructed.
Much too variable for decent gameplay. Also, since Volcanic and Earthquake activity is related geographically, volcanoes can provide the Disaster Factor for the hill/mountain terrain at the tectonic plate edges, without requiring a 'second disaster mechanism' for those same areas of the map.
If earthquakes are in, gameplay-wise they will be very similar to storms - randomly occurring disaster that will hit a random small area (maybe earthquake is more common on continental borders, but exact location is still random), causing damage to units and infrastructure. It is difficult to give earthquakes a unique "flavor" without too much overlap in functionality.
Separate names with a comma.