Health in Civ 4?

[Optimizer]

Public health has been an important issue for all rulers, especially since cities grew really large, and epidemics have changed history several times, but none of the Civ games has a proper health or disease model.

Health has been represented by city population caps that could be lifted by aqueducts, sewer systems and hospitals. Plague used to be a random event in Civ 1. In Civ 3 it was back with a vengeance, decimating the population of most cities near jungles. And of course we have the Cure for Cancer and Longevity...

A simple disease model could be split between two parts - one simulating common diseases, and one modelling plague and other epidemics.

High population, pollution and tropical terrain would make some citizens sick, so that they eat without working. Certain city improvements and techs would decrease the number of sick citizens.

Extreme sickness would trigger a plague. The plague would spread to other cities with many sick citizens, killing some of them. The plague would strike harder against low-tech civilizations, and the ones that have experienced few plagues before. (Compare native Americans.)

[Trifna]

I would also add that all types of epidemies are closely linked to human movement. Like wars, trading or planes in modern times.

[rendelnep]

yeah, various dieases could cut into your food supply (say X/X reduction in food production for x turns) and/or hurt production (sick leave or reduction in army recruitment) and commerce (similar to production).

Another idea would include diease resistance. probably on a similar model to pollution after you discover medicine diseases slowly become more sever again i.e each time a plague hits after medicine is discovered the resistance couter increases and plagues become more likely to occur.

Such a system might require some new techs like vaccination, chemical pest control (dunno?),hygiene , molecular imaging techniques (1920's- 1953 onwards), DNA analysis and others to better represent the population exploison during the modern era

[Xorbon]

I'd like to see a more realistic city growth system. There'd be rural and urban populations (instead of just urban, as it is now). City growth would be affected by birth rates, death rates, immigration, emigration, and rural <--> urban migration. Disease would simply be a part of the death rate. A plague would cause a big increase in the death rate. Of course, such a 'realistic' system could complicate the game unnecesarily...

[Kuciwalker]

The C3 system - or rather the C3C system, with the plague (though slightly more refined in the way it spreads).

[Optimizer]

How do plagues work in C3C?

I would prefer a health model that contains few or no random factors, but still allowed for severe epidemics.

Here is an example:
* Each population point and each worked marsh/jungle/floodplain would add 2% to the disease ratio in the city. A number of citizens proportional to the sickness ratio will be sick, eating but not working (so a city with 8 citizens and 4 floodplains would have 24% disease = 2 sick citizens). Fresh water, hospitals and certain resources would decrease sickness.

* As soon as the number of sick citizens in a city (or a civilization, or the world) reaches a certain cap, an epidemic breaks out in the city with the most sick citizens. All sick citizens die, and production and trade is halted for (at least) one turn. Military units are weakened, too.

* This epidemic then spreads to all neighbouring cities - faster if there are roads. The only things that can stop an epidemic is a gap of neutral territory, or a high-tech hospital.

* If a civilization has never had a certain level epidemic, it will get hit as soon as they get a territorial border with a civilization that has had it. (Each city could have a log of all diseases that have past.)

* The epidemic could be named by the civilization or the city where it started.

[Kuciwalker]

Plagues break out semi-randomly, and kill pop points. Cities with walls are affected worse by the plague, and cities integrated in the trade network (with harbors and airports increasing this) are more likely to get it. I would like a little refinement with the spreading, but otherwise it's pretty good.

This isn't in the epic game btw - you have to enable it (it is in the Middle Ages conquest, though).

[Optimizer]

High concentration of livestock should increase the risk of plagues breaking out.

[Optimizer]

So, most voters are interested in a complex disease model.

One problem is that complex game concepts should introduce strategic choices. What choices would diseases add?

[Kuciwalker]

Nothing, but it would be an intersting background. It would also provide a consequence for being some uber-trading empire.

[Fosse]

I agree. I don't think people want disease in because they want to pour over more decisions, but instead because history is filled with disease. It's flavor, really.

If the disease model takes into effect trade, crowding, and health improvments it will add the most basic of choices (barely... who would choose not to trade because it increases your disease chance?!), but mostly ensure that disease makes sense. Random penalties are painful, not fun.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think that what diseases adds to the game is exactly what revolutions and Civil Wars would add-namely to act as a reminder that there is no such thing as 'Perpetual Growth'! In Civ2 and, for a while, Civ3 this was how things worked! Real history is a series of Booms and Busts, growth and collapse! The game needs to be more dynamic to reflect these facts. If you encourage rapid growth in your core cities, then there should be a greater chance of epidemic. Of course, there should be methods to counter this-like population controls, good health care and some kind of 'quarantine model'. Equally, if you build/conquer your way to a huge empire, then there is a good chance that some of those far-flung cities will want to become independant!
Anyway, it's stuff like this which I'd like to see taken into account in future Civ games!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Xorbon]

I have to agree with Aussie-Lurker's last post. Another reason to have diseases and epidemics is to add to the feeling that you're running a civilization, and not just playing a game. The game has always been addictive, but rarely have I felt like I'm moving through history and shaping a society. I want to be able to get totally immersed in the game in such a way that it doesn't feel like I'm playing a game anymore. I want to get so immersed that I stay up until 6am instead of just 2am. (I have to apologize. My idealistic side has taken control of me tonight. )

Oh yeah, my point is, disease helps add flavour to the game!

[Sandman]

I'd like to see various randomly generated diseases. They have a series of traits that affects their killing power and spreading power. For example, they could be infectious, contagious, airborne, waterbourne, animal-transmitted, tropical, etc. A waterborne disease would be more likely to spread in a city on or near a river, and would need to be countered with a sewage system and piped water. A tropical disease would be confined to the jungle areas, hindering exploration and colonisation there.

They could also have interesting randomly generated names, like 'Corinth Green Fever', or 'Yellow Cow Blight'.

Some more health-related techs would be nice as well, for example: vaccination, public health, germ theory, virus theory, DNA, etc.

[Roman]

I would like to see a two pronged disease model.

1) Persistent diseases - something akin to the unhappinness model - can be reduced through investing in health care and building sanitation & medical city improvements (and wonders).

2) Epidemics - these hit suddenly last for a while and then disappear - can be prevented (see above)

[Lord_Davinator]

AIDS... don't forget AIDS... oh and don't forget diarrhea..

[Wernazuma III]

I don't think pandemics should be included in Civ 4 more than in Civ3 ("disease"). Just think them as being incorporated in normal pop growth.
But epidemics - hell, yes! And make them hurting badly!
Furthermore, I'd like to see disease/exhaustion for troops without "supply line" in enemy territory.

[Naokaukodem]

Health is for the wealthy who don't look at the poor if you as me. Unhappiness is for the wealthy who looks at the poor... Well just set up walls between "karma classes" then!

[Lawrence of Arabia]

plagues are a must -it will force you to decide if you want you're large empire to be isolated (little chance of getting plague from elsewhere) or internationalist, where you can grow huge, but lose 1/2 of your power in one turn to plague.

and plague could reduce the chance that if you get an early lead you will win the game. more ups and downs in your empire.

[Whoha]

If we add disease we also have to add responses to take to them. Who wouldn't quaruntine/destroy an infected population here?

Disease doesn't really add anything("disease has struck! do something about it [yes/no]?")

[alva]

This isn't in the epic game btw - you have to enable it (it is in the Middle Ages conquest, though).

I hope it will be in Civ 4.

[Dauphin]

I just hope the disease model chosen doesn't get annoying. See Culture flipping, and whack-a-pollution..

[Addled Platypus]

I would like to see this as a opt in


My .002 worth

Would you add more advances to help reduce the amount of people infected?, add more medical type city improvements?


Look at our world today, major diseases dont slow down warfare enough to make a impact.

I am would not play this, just because of another layer of something to build with no real benifit.

[Paddy]

Originally posted by Dauphin
I just hope the disease model chosen doesn't get annoying. See Culture flipping, and whack-a-pollution..

well said

[Didymus]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
Look at our world today, major diseases dont slow down warfare enough to make a impact.

Spanish Flu, anyone?
What about the depopulation of Africa due to AIDS?
The Black Death?

However, with one comment I must agree. What strategic choices follow from inclusion of a disease model? Very few that I can see, so it prolly isn't going to be in the game.

[Quezacotl06]

Some ways I see it being applied would be to add pressures to population control, and have more flavor in foreign trade. Even biological warfare.

A Plague could be an invisible trade good, one that you don't need the civ's permision to export. For example, civ1 has a plague, and its hurting them. Civ2 has no plague. But if Civ1 has a trade route with Civ2, then undoubtably the plague will make its way to Civ2, and now they both have the plague. A plague could be hiding in a jungle of yours for quite some time before you bulldoze it for road, and now the plague makes its way into cities that are connected by road to the plagued tile, and to cities of ur trade partners.

EXAMPLE OF PLAGUE AS A STRATEGY
Ok, you're a european civilization, who has just settled into america. You encounter the iroquois. They have trade routes with the aztecs and the mayans. Secretly, you hate all their guts. But will you declare war on them? NO!
You've suffered bubonic plague before, your hospitals have them well under control. But you still have it. So what do you do? You say, "here, take this silk, out of the goodness of our hearts!" And indian-friend says "thank you". Turns later, the bubonic plague emerges in full ferocity on another continent, eventualy reaching the aztecs, but the mayans to a lesser extent (having a hospital or two of their own).
THIS TOTALY MIMICS HISTORY! Except it was with tuberculosis and small pox and the like. Best of all, when you're negotiating, foreign advisor-friend says "they've been known to have terrible diseases. I don't trust them on our roads and docks!"

But how to distinguish between spreading disease intentionaly or accidentaly? I think once you discover medicine, you should be able to detect where certain diseases are (no longer invisible on the map), and also be able to choose to spread the disease to your trade partner or not.

And once you discover medicine, you can also detect if a particular civilization is giving you the disease, and whether it is intentional or not (The spy we ordered to plant ebola was caught. Ghandi was not pleased.) This ensures that later on, ppl wont just be sending diseases to ever other civ on the planet, because it can be counted as an offensive by the time you reach the industrial revolution.

Also, when you get espionage, you can order spies to have biological warfare. It gives espionage a more offensive edge, and smaller civs a better chance of hitting hard.

[Vince278]

The way they do it in CtP was good. Plagues spread along trade routes with affected cities. It struck fast, spread fast, then burned itself out after doing considerable damage.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Whoha
If we add disease we also have to add responses to take to them. Who wouldn't quaruntine/destroy an infected population here?

Disease doesn't really add anything("disease has struck! do something about it [yes/no]?")

Except often the reaction has a positive reinforcement instead of a deterrent effect. In Europe they would burn villages that suffered severely from the plague. The rats bearing the fleas that spread the plague would scatter and eventually arrive in nearby towns...

Quarantine in krankhauses helped, but was more of a cultural response than scientific or command response.

[Addled Platypus]

STD's anyone?

[Chuckles]

I love civ1 random events. They may have been a popular excuse for reloading but they were fun as a lot of the game can be quite predictable in stretches.