Disease

[Andreiguy]

I was just thinking about how disease has influenced civilization (I'm kinda in a sadistic mood ) and if it should be in Civ III. Maybe Lawrence of Arabia included this in his "Random Acts of Nature" thread (I especially like the drought disaster, with squares drying up, etc.), but I was just wondering. Disease has been (unfortunately) a big part of history, from the Plague to the Native Americans dying of European diseases to AIDS in the world today. Perhaps this should be implemented in Civ III with random breakouts in cities? Cities with more health improvements (Hospital, etc.) would be at less of a risk, and big, unhappy cities in impoverished, primitive nations would have a huge risk. Scientists could find cures and make their civ famous...I dunno, I won't be surprised if no one answers this .


"Just a thought..."

[Quartz Dragon]

Good idea

Trade could also be a factor in spreading the plague.

[Andreiguy]

Yes! I wanted to say that, because rats on ships from the Orient spread the Plague to Europe.

[Andreiguy]

Yes! I wanted to say that, because rats on ships from the Orient spread the Plague to Europe.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

In ctp, if you poisened a city, any city with a trade route to it would have a chance of also being poisened. I don't have an opinion on the other ideas (yet )

[Andreiguy]

Yeah, but I mean something different, just random outbreaks. (Or at least usually random), and it would have a much more horrible effect. I mean, the Plague killed more than half of Europe! It would be devestating, but hey, its what you get when you put lots of people very close together in unsanitary conditions like Medieval cities!

[Cyclotron]

Actually, I must correct you... the plague killed approximately one third of Europe's population.

But your idea... is a good one, as long as there are measures you can take to at least somewhat prevent them. What do you suggest a plague should do?

[colossus]

That is not a bad idea. But chances are slim that it will be implemented.

I believe the isuue is related to the wider one whether there will be natural disaster in civIII. And it seems unlikely that there will be disasters in civIII.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Too complicated. Keep this one out of CivIII, IMO.

Wouldn't really add any fun to the game. Just make it more complex.

[Adm.Naismith]

If I remember right, disease was well modelled into a dedicated area of The List v.2
(download and check it at CIV III page http://apolyton.net/civ3).

It consider effects of Acqueduct, Sanitation, Hospital, Trade route, etc.

I think it could be added as Natural Disaster (not really random, but driven from some factors the human player can try to counteract). It will be frustrating to have your Civ hitten by a Plague, but life was (is) not a rosebed.

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea of keeping disease simple, as a preventable random event. Such as having sanitation eliminates the threat of the plague/typhoid/malaria. Although the idea of transfering disease to nearby towns is very intriguing, I think it should be a very simple system, such as only to nearby towns connected by roads and then only with a decreasing % chance with each tile from the infected city.

[Inverse Icarus]

no.

no plagues or disease in civ, please.

disease would first of all create a huge mess of code with would delay civ3

secondly, it would be hard to regulate/control.

thridly, an early plague would severally screw over a civ.

fourthly, its effects are too far ranging in possibility.
[list=1][*]would it kill citys population?[*]would it kill settlers / workers?[*]would it kill units?[*]would production be hindered?[*]would the plague spread via military units?[*]could you send infected units to enemy cities and give them the plague?[*]could you send a plagued caravan to an ally's city and give them the plague?[*]is that an act of war?[*]can the plague be cured? or does it just die out?[*]do special units / buildings cure the plague?[*]if you nuke a plagued city does it get cured? [*]does a city have the plague forever, with immune people living in it? if a civ that has not met them comes over, can they get the plague 1000 years after it died out?[/list=1]

its a huge mess of code and calls. i say don't bother.

[senowen]

Originally posted by UberKruX

disease would first of all create a huge mess of code with would delay civ3

It would probably use less code than your post.

secondly, it would be hard to regulate/control.

Well, that's kind of the point. Only the discovery of penicillin made medicine truly able to actually cure or control disease.

thridly, an early plague would severally screw over a civ.

Not necessarily, because it would be a purely percentile factor. Ex. If you have a three person city and each person has <30% chance of getting a new plague then you will likely only have 1 or less citizens killed.

1,2,3. Yes, up to ~30% max chance per population or unit, I'd say. Yes, I know Old World diseases killed over 75% of the Native American population, but that's too extreme a case for a game, way too unbalancing.
4,5,6,7. Yes.
8. No
9. Not until modern ages, yes.
10. Not until modern ages.
11. No.
12. I'd say yes, and yes.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Again... this adds a level of complexity (possible frustration) to the game without adding any fun. Reading the thoughts here, there are some good, simple ways to implement this.... maybe. But why? Yeah, disease had a definite effect on civilization throughout history. So, have about 16 million other things. Why focus on something as boring as disease?

[senowen]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Again... this adds a level of complexity (possible frustration) to the game without adding any fun. Reading the thoughts here, there are some good, simple ways to implement this.... maybe. But why? Yeah, disease had a definite effect on civilization throughout history. So, have about 16 million other things. Why focus on something as boring as disease?

Well, I didn't actually say that I think 'disease' should be implemented into the game, b/c I don't. I was just saying that it would not be that hard or complicated to do so. Sorry for not adding that in the above post.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Yeah... well I guess what I'm saying is that even though it doesn't make the game super complex, it does add one more thing that the Civ'er has to "take into consideration".

Players already have to manage happiness, science, luxuries, resources, buildings, land development, diplomacy, culture, trade, etc. Now, they'll have to make sure their empire is as disease-proof as possible by either researching the right techs or building the right improvements. For me, I'm thinking "why bother?".

There's already so many factors to take into consideration when playing Civ and they've just added a few more in culture and trade. These are bonuses which could boost the fun of the game significantly. I'm not so sure a disease-model (even in simple form) would do that.

IMO, then Civ design team is right on track with adding a couple of awesome new ideas in there and leaving out the ideas (like disease) which would not really make the game a heckuva lot more fun to play. There's a critical mass here in how bureaucratic this game could become before it becomes boring. We should try to avoid that critical mass as long as possible.

Just an opinion...

[SerapisIV]

Disease should be in the game, but not as some enormous game concept. Keep it simple, make it a random event, one which is preventable by sanitation or medice discovery. It wouldn't happen often. How many Civ1 games did you have where a "lose 1 pop" random event killed your early game? Random events have been shown to be wanted in Civ3 (see past threads) why not include disease?

[Quartz Dragon]

Originally posted by Frugal_Gourmet
Yeah, disease had a definite effect on civilization throughout history. So, have about 16 million other things. Why focus on something as boring as disease?

Plague is one of the largest events that occured in history, and believe it or not, the black plague virus is still arround.

Also, having a plague model would allow bio warfare like in CPT. Bio warfare would be an act of war as well as an atrocity.

As a natural occurance, the random factor could work just like the random events in SMAC.

[Inverse Icarus]

bio warfare? omfg.

seems were leaving civ here.

STICK TO YOUR ROOTS BIATCH.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by UberKruX
bio warfare? omfg.

seems were leaving civ here.

Not really, just depends on the scope of how you define bio warfare. Poisoning a city's water (Civ2 feature) is technically bio warfare. A feature that I think should remain in the game. Unleashing Anthrax and wiping out several cities connected by trade with one shot, I don't want that feature, too powerful and too SMAC/SciFi.

[K.J.H.]

I don't know. Maybe it is too complex. But diseases and civilization are and were like Romeo & Julliet, Fred & Barney, Adolf & Eva, Hillary & Bill, Tom Green & Glenn ...

This is my idea. When a city get overcrowded (like in CTP) the risk of having an epidemic increases. Then this happens:
- 2 pops die (you won't be afraid of total annihilation, because overcrowded cities have more pops then two!)
- the 50% of the content citizens become unhappy (the happy class have probably enough drugs and luxuries too be healthy)
- it can be spread by trade
- in eight turns the city is under control

when the disease reaches an other city by trade then:
- in overcrowding cities 1 pop dies, in non-overcrowding cites no-one dies (well, they die, but not as fast as in such stinky places as overcrowing cities)
- the 20% of the content citizens become unhappy
- it can be spread by trade
- in five turns the city is under control

when the disease reaches a third city then:
- no one dies
- the 20% of the content citizens become unhappy
- it can't be spread by trade anymore
- in two turns the city is under control

After Advances as Medieval Medicine, Pharmaceuticals, Genetic Engineering, Modern Surgery etc. etc. the chance of disease decreases
This also counts for Improviments as Sanatorium, Drug Store, Aquaduct, Hospital and maybe a WoW as Cure for AIDS, Flemming's Cure and The Pasteur Institute

I don't know
Please Reply

[Theben]

I hate to say it again, but Check the ListTM and you'll find a working disease model. Scroll down to the bottom and you'll see it with an example. But if Firaxis hasn't put it in yet, I doubt they will. Which is okay.

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Originally posted by Quartz Dragon


Plague is one of the largest events that occured in history, and believe it or not, the black plague virus is still arround.

Also, having a plague model would allow bio warfare like in CPT. Bio warfare would be an act of war as well as an atrocity.

As a natural occurance, the random factor could work just like the random events in SMAC.

Again, I'm not disputing that the plague didn't have an effect on real history. What I'm disputing is how much value it would add into the game.

No matter how simple you make then disease model (though if you make it too simple it will become stupid and unstoppable), it is still one more thing that a Civ player must take into consideration. One of the biggest problems of Civ is beauracracy and managing every part of your empire.

If you had to manage your own empire to prevent/stop things like disease, it would only add to the already existent micro-management/complexity of the game and make it less fun. Numerous things that a Civer must take into consideration have already been added. These features are ok because they're fun and give the player the since that he's really impacting a fictional history. Making all of your cities "disease-proof" or preventing/stopping disease in any way is just adding something the game doesn't need.

I stand firmly opposed to this.

[eNo]

I havn't read the disease model (I should be studying for a chem exam) but from what I know, disease/plagues were not that random. They were caused by either improper sanitation or being carried from one group to another. I think the Black Plague was carried by the Mongol Horde to Europe from Asia. Also when Europaons landed in North America, the native population suffered their own plague because they did not have the natural defences.

I'm not sure how the flu epedimic that happened around 1900's worked so I can't comment on that. Finally plagues generally hurt every nation, so its affect on gameplay is same as giving every team one point in a game of Pictionary so it really wouldn't add that much to gameplay.

[BigRich]

Originally posted by SerapisIV


Not really, just depends on the scope of how you define bio warfare. Poisoning a city's water (Civ2 feature) is technically bio warfare. A feature that I think should remain in the game. Unleashing Anthrax and wiping out several cities connected by trade with one shot, I don't want that feature, too powerful and too SMAC/SciFi.

Am I right in thinking that in medieval times, a sieging force would catapult carcasses of dead city defenders back into the sieged city, partly to demoralise the city defense and partly to spread disease?
If I'm right - wouldnt that count as bio warfare.
If I'm wrong - blame my over reading of fantasy type books and my shaky grasp on fiction/fact

Rich

[Frugal_Gourmet]

Originally posted by eNo
I havn't read the disease model (I should be studying for a chem exam) but from what I know, disease/plagues were not that random. They were caused by either improper sanitation or being carried from one group to another.

That's one of the things I worry about. If it's not random, that means the Civ'er must PLAN for it and attempt to prevent and/or cure it. If the Civ'er must take it into this kind of consideration, another level of complexity has been added to the game.

Finally plagues generally hurt every nation, so its affect on gameplay is same as giving every team one point in a game of Pictionary so it really wouldn't add that much to gameplay.

Agreed.