The Mighty Tempest

[Bogdanovist]

The combat in Civ has always been random representing, amongst other things, the uncertain effects of weather on a battle. Maybe on the odd occassion a freak downpour bogs a whole bunch of tanks and in the confusion the crew get skewerd by a bunch of half naked spearmen.....

These 2x2 storms that move around randomly would apparently last for centuries! This is Earth, not Jupiter!

The point is that Civ is a strategic rather than a tactical game. Weather and disasters are already represented in the different tiles. Plains have more frequent and worse droughts than grasslands, mountains suffer from earthquakes do produce less than hills etc etc.

[Alex]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
The combat in Civ has always been random representing, amongst other things, the uncertain effects of weather on a battle. Maybe on the odd occassion a freak downpour bogs a whole bunch of tanks and in the confusion the crew get skewerd by a bunch of half naked spearmen.....

I have to say that this is one of the most original explanations for the "tanks vs. spearmen" nuisance...

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
The combat in Civ has always been random representing, amongst other things, the uncertain effects of weather on a battle. Maybe on the odd occassion a freak downpour bogs a whole bunch of tanks and in the confusion the crew get skewerd by a bunch of half naked spearmen.....

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
These 2x2 storms that move around randomly would apparently last for centuries! This is Earth, not Jupiter!

I agree. The only way the idea would make any sense is if it was a part of a scenario where turns represented days or weeks. Storms don't last for years and years here on Earth!

If there are any random events, they shouldn't be city-destroying kinds of events (although I do kinda like the volcanoes in C3C). And there should be technologies and city improvements which the player could build to reduce (or eliminate) the chances of a bad random event happening.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
These 2x2 storms that move around randomly would apparently last for centuries! This is Earth, not Jupiter!

A point rendered moot by the fact that in Civ, it can take 5 years for a destroyer to circle the globe.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
WWII D DAy almost never happened because of a storm
Battle of the Bulge could have been a masacre agaisnt the Allied troops because of cloud cover
Minor dust storms in Desert Shiled/Storm
I could play this idea

I don't think it's a good idea because CivIV is a strategy game, not a tactic one. When you send your troops against a city during a turn, you don't fight just a battle. It embodies a war against a whole region, a war which can last 50 years (at the beginning of the game, turns last that long).

So hurricanes cannot be taken into account for battles. No storm lasts 50 years. You, as the chief of state, demand your generals to attack a city. And if that day there is a storm, your general can wait until the next day, or the day after. It doesn't matter: Civ is not a RTS; the rythm of time is years.

However hurricanes, even lasting one week, can damage a city, so can earthquakes, eruptions etc. To my mind it would be an interesting feature.

[molly bloom]

I like the idea of a storm at sea- or a sandstorm for that matter, or blizzard in the right latitudes.


Could be teeth grindingly fun- like the random events in SMAC/X, which I never turn off.

[Bogdanovist]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
A point rendered moot by the fact that in Civ, it can take 5 years for a destroyer to circle the globe.

pfff of course this has always been a mismatch in timescales, but troops have to have a slower movement that the passage of time in terms of research etc suggests in order to make Civ playable. If weird tacked on weather effects like persistant storms that wander around were added this mismatch would be amplified considerably without adding anything to gameplay. The timescale of weather effects happens much faster than the troop movement and battles in the scope of Civ. You seek to justify worsening an existing problem just because the problem is there in the first place

[DeathByTheSword]

make them like random events in SMAC....that is always fun

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by DeathByTheSword
make them like random events in SMAC....that is always fun

Except when the volcano/meteor takes out your best base. Then is there wailing and gnashing of teeth in the land as the Human Genome and Hunter Seeker and Virtual World are made toast.

[DeathByTheSword]

of course that would suck...but i also dont like games that i know from the beginning i will win because i can plan ahead for 59 turns

[Sir Og]

If the storms are not deadly but only scatter your fleet and damge it than it can work out.
If it takes away your fleet it will be too frustrating

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by H Tower
didn't that happen in some Japanese-Russian naval battle?

True, but that's the effect that Civ model simulate when you lose a trireme/vessel into "treacherous sea"...

A small damage on modern boat could be more acceptable (I know ships still sink here and there, but in Civ we are modeling a navy group of ships for every "unit", AFAIK).

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Bogdanovist
pfff of course this has always been a mismatch in timescales, but troops have to have a slower movement that the passage of time in terms of research etc suggests in order to make Civ playable.

This is true of almost all strategy games.

If weird tacked on weather effects like persistant storms that wander around were added this mismatch would be amplified considerably without adding anything to gameplay. The timescale of weather effects happens much faster than the troop movement and battles in the scope of Civ.

Now, saying it wouldn't add anything is not necessarily so. For me, it would add a great deal of atmosphere and "realism" in the sense of having to take into consideration realistic strategic (and I do mean strategic issues). Think of the huge impact weather has had on the history of the world, from enormous natural disasters that have reshaped it to Napoleon's ill-fated invasion of Russia. So I don't think including weather anomalies won't add anything, by default. It would have to be done right, of course. No, a storm shouldn't destroy a fleet. But causing damage to the ships, blowing it off course, damaging some transported units, etc. would be a good balance without making the game "unfun."

You seek to justify worsening an existing problem just because the problem is there in the first place

No. I seek no such thing, as a) I don't find fudging the timescales to be a problem at all, and b) I don't seek to "worsen" anything, as I think such random events can add to the gameplay experience.

[Anaximander]

Originally posted by sophist


However, thanks to weather satellites and mechanical propulsion (gas, oil, or nuclear), the fleets are never in a position to get hit by such a hurricane in the first place.

Yes, and the player could move his or her ships out of the path of the advancing storm if they wished; however, if they didn't for what ever reason, they would then get wacked.