We should add natural disasters to the game too!

[easy]

Such as earthquake, tornado, locusts, blizzard etc.
Earthquake, population decrease in effected cities. Many city
improvements will be destroyed. Units in effected area got
damaged and some of them even died.
Tornado, should be similar to earthquake, but the effect
should be less than earthquake.
Locusts, population decrease and food empty in effected cities.
Blizzard, increase moving cost in effected area.

[Wiglaf]

I don't think a tornado really had an impact on any civilization ever, and some of those things you listed would be a real disappointing way to lose a game. Also, would these be random? If so, I wouldn't like them at all - tactics should always be the deciding factor in a strategy game. SMAC's random events really got to me after a while, so I doubt these would be any better.

[Ming]

Civ one did have random "natural" events. I wondered why they weren't included in Civ II

[Wiglaf]

Ever had your size 25 science city smashed and destroyed by a random rock from space in SMAC? There ya go.

[General Ludd]

Actually, I once encountered a civil war in civ2(in all the years that I have played it, I've only seen this happen once, though) I was playing on the world map, and the zulus which where at the time the most powerful civ, had a civil war and half of their empire formed into a new civ (there where only 6 civs left at the time, which is probably an important factor) I forget which civ came out of it, though.

It was quite an interesting event, the zulus had dominated africa and most of europe, and now they where split in half and the two sides where fighting each other, though, like all AI wars, it quickly ended.

[easy]

Yes, good idea! Your earth is destroyed and all civils died!!!

Originally posted by Wiglaf
Ever had your size 25 science city smashed and destroyed by a random rock from space in SMAC? There ya go.

[Wiglaf]

Actually, I once encountered a civil war in civ2(in all the years that I have played it, I've only seen this happen once, though) I was playing on the world map, and the zulus which where at the time the most powerful civ, had a civil war and half of their empire formed into a new civ (there where only 6 civs left at the time, which is probably an important factor) I forget which civ came out of it, though.

It was quite an interesting event, the zulus had dominated africa and most of europe, and now they where split in half and the two sides where fighting each other, though, like all AI wars, it quickly ended.

That occurs when a large civ's capital is taken by an enemy force. It's a very good aspect of the game that isn't random - had it been, IMO, it would've put a dent in civ2's reputation as a fun, strategic game.

[General Ludd]

ah.. I probably hadn't seen it happen because I almost always have 7 civs in the game.

[Mergle]

I remember civil wars as being one of the most unbalancing factors in single-player Civ2. You had to ensure that in your first strike you took the capital of your main opponent (easy to do late game with howitzers and spies to avoid ZOCs). They split into two warring factions and were never able to muster any form of response.

Incidentally, the split was always based on distance to capital - the "rebel" faction was formed from those cities furthest from the capital (which you just took). For an evenly-expanding civ, that meant a ring around the "loyal" faction.

Are civil wars in civ3? If so, not in this fashion, I hope.

[Tingkai]

The natural disasters were great in Civ 1. It's been a while since I played, but I think cities could be reduced by plague if there no aquaduct.

[Eagle one]

In the original Civilization, there were disasters and they were cool. I can remember of earthquakes, floods, plunder, fire... You needed some city improvements to prevent such disasters. For example barracks prevented plunder, aquaduct - fire, city walls - flood.

I really find them a good idea. But I agree that their impact shouldn't be overdo. Just like in the original Civilization. A earthquake destroyed one city improvement, a plunder steal some money and flood coast one city population.

(As I haven't played the original Civilization for a long time, some disasters could have been different.)

[rah]

Agreed as long as the damage wasn't horrendous.

It's always fun when something random can happen to throw off the best laid plans. (that's real life)

I too was surprised that they weren't in CIVII

RAH

[Slax]

Wiglaf - One of your "tactics" should be to be prepared for a natural disaster.

[General Ludd]

Personally, I really liked the events in SMAC, though I felt that there wasn't enough variety.

[mark13]

I remember there was a big debate a while ago in the SMAC forum on whether random events were a good thing. It would be good to think that they will be an option in much the same way as in SMAC, as opinion was so divided on the issue.

I guess what it all boils down to is what you want from the game. There's no harm in including it as an option, of course - though random events could get very irritating if imposed on everybody.

[Gramphos]

I'm not against them as long as you can turn them off in multiplayer. I think they might be unfair else.

[Wiglaf]

Originally posted by Slax
Wiglaf - One of your "tactics" should be to be prepared for a natural disaster.

How would that work? I'm assuming the system would be:

---
No Aqueduct - riots
No fire station - fires

etc, etc..

Rather than:

Every turn after 1890 = 1/15 chance of asteroid strike
---

The latter presents many problems with the core gameplay. I don't want my game ruined because of some dice roll that destroyed my most important city (SMAC). The former (civ2, sort of) makes more sense, but in moderation. I don't want messages to keep coming up saying, "sorry! You don't seem to have an X. Riots have begun in Rome" for every improvement.

But totally random events that nothing prompted is going a bit too far.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I am for natural disasters, they were great in Civ I.

I missed the newspapers as well. Not to mention the short history at the end... I want them all back.

Palace is back

and the short history might be....

[Slax]

I based my comment on CIVII disasters. You should be prepared to absorb the loss of a city improvement or starvation.

The loss of an entire city, to me, is ludicrous. If thats the way it is in SMAC, I think that goes too far.

[Scrooge]

After all, Earth IS a vicious planet. "If it doesn't kill you, it makes you stronger".

The game should have more random elements. The game-map is much too static and uninteresting. There should be natural disasters like VOLCANO (mountains) EARTHQUAKE (in some tectonic region like a large land mass) TSUNAMI or TIDAL WAVE (some coastal areas near large water bodies) TORNADOES (near equator land and sea).

A volcano eruption could wipe out a size 3 city (-3pop).
Earthquake could demolish a size 2 city (-2pop and 2-3 buildings destroyed some tile impr gone).
Tidal wave (-2pop and 1-2 coastal buildings destroyed some coastal tile impr gone).
Tornado (-1pop and 3-4 buildings gone some tile impr gone).

That's all unmodified. Natural Disasters could be an option, and should occur infrequently according to the initial geology activity/planet age setting, set at the beginning of the game.

And techs you research would give you benefits to guard yourself, to contain losses and minimize casualties. Say, first tech, like masonry, makes huts stronger; engineering improves buildings further; It's just a matter of analyzing the tech tree and figuring out, which techs give you specific natural-disaster bonus.

As I see it, you'll just have to live with natural disasters, and never be able to counter their effects, only effectively protect yourself from the outcomes. Global Sat Survey (weather sats) e.g. can predict natural disasters and so lets you "evacuate" endangered area (benefit: you don't loose pop points any more).

I also like the idea of population caused disasters, like the plague. In modern-day world this is still an important issue, but developed nations don't experience this very much. Why?

Disasters in many ways influenced and still influence very heavily civilizations' destinies. This should be taken into account.
These are just some loose ideas. Details remain to be worked out but shouldn't be too difficult. But catch my drift.

[General Ludd]

I thought that was a great disaster in smac, what it was, was a comet that strikes the planet, destroying everything that was in the radius and leaving a crater (which is a special landmark and gives resource bonuses in the center) and also, it would scatter dust into the air, resulting in -1 energy in each square across the globe for 10(or was it 20?) turns, it was a real disaster, that would have very noticeble effects.

You can usually see when comets had hit the planet by looking at the power graph, most of the factions who where not economicly ready for such a disaster take huge plumits in the graphs, while the more economicly strong factions like morgans for example, continued on more or less undamaged.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

I one could implement it. Different disasters could have different consequences.

If a city is built on a square where vulcano erupts than it should dissapear.

It could only be a very small chance. (let says it occures once in 5 games). But would definitly add to the suprise factor of the game.

You could even have vulcano rifts and instable terrain built in, but this is probably asking a bit too much out of Civ III.

I just wish for random disasters. If they could implement it in Civ I they can be in Civ III as well.

[Christantine The Great]

Hum, flood, fire, and riot. I think those are the only natural disasters that should occur. Volcanos, earthquakes, and asteroid impacts. I don't think any of these have destroyed as many cities as a flood has (I don't recall an asteroid ever hitting the earth and killing a single human in humanity's lifetime).

If they are included I think that a flood should destroy a random improvement plus the dock/port and a pop point. Fire should destroy 2 random improvements plus a pop point. Riot should deduct a certain percent of the city's treasury and a random improvement plus disable a pop point for a few turns (to represent the rioters in jail).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi Guys,
Well, it's been a long time since I last posted, but this time I just couldn't resist.
My feelings on disasters are that they should be included, but only if they don't unbalance the game!
Firstly, they should only be able to damage a city, not destroy it (unless its a very small city). Many of the disasters should be preventable with the appropriate improvements (eg. hospitals reduce chance of diease etc.) and if really big disasters (like asteroids) are included, then they should effect all civs equally!

The_Aussie_Lurker

[General Ludd]

I wasn't suggesting asteroids, they wouldn't fit well into the game, and besides, there is no 3 dimensional terrain like in SMAC, nor do the engineers have the ability to raise/lower land.

Not to mention that any sizeble asteroid would likely mean the end of most (if not all) civilisations given the time period this takes place in.

[star mouse]

They should be optional, but if you choose them you gain bonus points to your score, similar to the way you get bonus points for setting Barbarians to Raging Hordes. All disasters can be prevented with suitable improvements. here are some examples of disasters:

* Riots should be triggered in a city if you have unhappy people, particularly if you only need 1 or 2 more to have civil unrest. I like this one, because you would get early warning of an unhappy city.

* Volcanic eruptions can happen if you have a city next to a mountain. How do you prevent it? Terraforming!

* Floods can destroy population and possibly destroy one or two tile improvements like irrigation if your city is next to a river.

* Severe storms works similarly to floods for coastal cities. Anyone who's lived near a coastline knows how severe these storms can be.

* Vermin can reduce your food on hand. Don't just dump your food on the ground, build a granary!

* Plague reduces population. An aqueduct reduces the incidence and severity of plague, a hospital eliminates it entirely.

* A nuclear accident on your nuclear power plant causes a meltdown! (Pollution on all city tiles) Build a fusion plant to prevent meltdowns.

* Nuclear accidents can also happen if you have nuclear weapons. Sometimes those joes driving the truck that's transporting the weapon can be really stupid. It would be especially interesting if these "nuclear accidents" could be triggered by transporting the device.

* Fires destroy one or two city improvements and causes pollution on a few city tiles. Aqueduct reduces fires, fire station eliminates them.

* Poor crop yields reduce the food harvested that turn. Preventable by irrigating all food-producing squares.

* A rock from space lands in your city and kills a few people, and destroys one or two improvements if it lands on your city centre (5% chance per rock). The rock has a chance of creating a new suitable resource tile (iron, stone, etc.) You may gain some science bonuses as well.

There should also be good events as well. These would be triggered by suitable improvements and circumstances.

* Bumper crops increasing the food yield for all tiles in a city for one turn.

* Economic boom doubling all trade in a city for one turn.

* Happy workers working overtime doubling shields for a turn.

* A society wedding between an important member of your civilization and that of another civilization improves relationships between the two countries. (Need an embassy)

But we should wait and see what they have included. If they have disasters, great, but I won't fret if they didn't make the cut.

[FrostyBoy]

hehe, one asteroid wiping out the entire planet, that would be very funny

disasters play a major role in civilization, to ignore them, is as equal to ignoring war or farming.

Look at pompeii and the recent Turkey earthquake.

Maybe most of the disasters that happen can be minor, like when the Germans and Russians attacked during wwII, during the heavy snow.
and maybe a minor flood can wipe out +1 food for one turn, etc.

disasters are real, they are an impact, they add flavour, and more purprose to building certain buildings, so I too think they should be in the game. hopefully they are!

[Urban Ranger]

It's okay to add calamities to the game if:

1. They don't unbalance the game
2. They are preventable by some civ advances - at least most of them should be

For example, a city wall prevents flood. Another example, granary prevents famine. Of course nothing prevents, say, a volcanic eruption or an earth quake, but still advanced technology should be able to reduce casualties.

[Wiglaf]

disasters play a major role in civilization, to ignore them, is as equal to ignoring war or farming.

Look at pompeii and the recent Turkey earthquake.

Even though I had nothing to do with it, I'm all of a sudden without supplies, etc to deal with an oncoming invasion by the AI or a friend, simply because it happened once or twice in history? Personally I don't like the idea, though it'd probably be an option to make everyone happy. Still, I like my games more like Diplomacy and less like Axis and Allies.

[star mouse]

By their nature, a natural disaster should be a local event. A big Earthquake may affect a couple of adjacent cities, but as a general rule such random events would be confined to a single city. If you have a half decent civilization, these calamities would not cripple you. They would act as a minor setback to a single city, from which you would easily recover.