The Mighty Tempest

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Solver
Random events that have a large effect .

You're preparing a naval invasion, 3 transport ships escorted by 3 warships... poor, hurricane, 4 out of 6 ships gone.

Dear Solver,

Large effect is being assumed by our knowledge of Civ3. However, the effect should not be that large, and unit cost should be smaller. I always wondered why a single unit loss is so "costly", that we would not risk any suicide activities.

I would rather have the effect of unit loss being smaller, and the occurence of unit loss being greater.

And, I am for secession wars.

[Yarco_TW]

Originally posted by Xorbon


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.

I forgot! I always wanted to have pack ice, permanent ice, and icebergs on map. Icebergs can move for quite some time as long as they are not near equator.

Still, storms are accepted. They can last for one turn. Can't they?

[Solver]

Large effect is being assumed by our knowledge of Civ3. However, the effect should not be that large, and unit cost should be smaller. I always wondered why a single unit loss is so "costly", that we would not risk any suicide activities.

Well, but whether the loss of a unit is "costly" depends, doesn't it? Firstly, it makes sense, as units represent large army groups. Secondly, there are cheap and expensive units. Thirdly, there's how you lose them. If you lose a unit but weaken a defender in a city, it's not a costly loss. But if you lose a ship and 4 of your most expensive units aboard it to a random event, it's costly - and I'd say it's pretty frustrating.

[Aro]

Still, sh** happens. And it happened all over the mankind history.

But it IS a good and realistic thing. If very rare, of course... Otherwise would be annoying and frustrating, like said by Solver.

[Solver]

I can take such a thing if it does not have an irreversible effect. Unit slowdowns on ocean, yes. Inability to enter storm squares, yes. However, ever since SMAC, I hated anything that would cause me to lose a unit/city, gain something substantial or such.

[Nikolai]

Originally posted by Solver
I can take such a thing if it does not have an irreversible effect. Unit slowdowns on ocean, yes. Inability to enter storm squares, yes.

Sounds like a good compromise.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Aro

But it IS a good and realistic thing. If very rare, of course... Otherwise would be annoying and frustrating, like said by Solver.

I take the opposite view. If it's very rare, then don't bother with it. I think random events shouldn't be rare; they should be frequent (though smaller). Then they're just part of the game. If you have random events once or twice per game, they can really knock things out of kilter, but if you have a dozen or so smaller, random events each game (per player), it's just another thing. With infrequent random events, it seem unfair; one civ may get an earthquake which enables the others to outstrip them. On the other hand, if one civ gets an earthquake, another gets a flood, another suffers from the plague, another loses their fleet in a freak storm, etc., the fairness issue doesn't apply nearly as much. There's a big difference between 1 random catastrophe happening to me and none to you as compared to 13 happening to me and 11 to you.

[Aro]

Ok, your idea seems to work too. I don't know exactly how this kind of thing should be designed, but I would like to see random events altering the curse of the game. Not in a decisive way, more like an avoidable thing (like a storm in the ocean), or you can have your fleet disperse and thrown away without control for one turn or two… (doesn’t matter how many years has passed, this “time count” simply doesn’t make sense at all), or an earthquake may break your roads and RR…
Not hard enough to be frustrating, but only the necessary to spice up the game with the unpredictable.
A good game experience includes a bit of frustration, sometimes…

[Xorbon]

Of course, if there are random events, there should be 'good events' as well as 'bad events'. You could have bumper crops and spontaneous discoveries, just to name a couple.

[Aro]

For sure

[MxM]

I see zero, let me repeat ZERO strategic depth values of the storm event as originally suggested. There may be some "fun" factor in it, for some, but this is a TBS, and I rather they spend time on diplomacy or AI than on this thing.

[M. le Comte]

Originally posted by MxM
I see zero, let me repeat ZERO strategic depth values of the storm event as originally suggested. There may be some "fun" factor in it, for some, but this is a TBS, and I rather they spend time on diplomacy or AI than on this thing.

I agree. I don't want Civ to become a RTS. I hope I won't live long enough to see my settlers cut some wood or extract gold from the nearest mine, and me building an upgraded forge with an arrow tower to defend it...

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by sophist


I take the opposite view. If it's very rare, then don't bother with it. I think random events shouldn't be rare; they should be frequent (though smaller). Then they're just part of the game. If you have random events once or twice per game, they can really knock things out of kilter, but if you have a dozen or so smaller, random events each game (per player), it's just another thing. With infrequent random events, it seem unfair; one civ may get an earthquake which enables the others to outstrip them. On the other hand, if one civ gets an earthquake, another gets a flood, another suffers from the plague, another loses their fleet in a freak storm, etc., the fairness issue doesn't apply nearly as much. There's a big difference between 1 random catastrophe happening to me and none to you as compared to 13 happening to me and 11 to you.

and maybe get a higher rep score by sending aid?? if one choses

[Odin]

Please no, random disasters will remove the fun just as much as polution wack-the mole does right now. Remember, this is a STRATEGIC game the only kinds of disasters whose effects last long enough to effect things on the civ time scale are the same "city is distroyed" disasters that would riun a game. A bad storm that messes up a battle would be a bad roll of the RNG.

[chequita guevara]

Re: The Mighty Tempest

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
Ship after steam power could be imune or it could be linked to some kind of tec, imunity to these storms would then greatly improve your navel power.

Not after steam power. WWI was temporarily averted in 1903 when a taiphun wrecked British and German cruisers in Somoa. Only the American ship surived, which is why it is today, American Somoa.