Unofficial Poll 7: Acts of Nature

[Lung]

A brilliant thought just occurred to me, and it only took me a fortnight

The biggest criticism i have seen against random acts of nature is that it is random, and the player should have total control of his/her fate. Fair enough, but what about goody huts?? If they're not random, i don't know what is!!!

Goody huts can have a huge impact on a game, with a couple of free cities or settlers enough to tilt the game heavily in favour of one player. Random acts of nature would not influence the game as much as goody huts anyway, so i don't see what the problem is.

Hypocrites!!

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by cyclotron7


No, it is obvious that by definition, having random events would add a whole new level of randomness to the game. If you like that, fine... but explain to me where strategy comes in???

The strategy is to cope with the unexpected. You want to use all your resources against an enemy, fine. But a famine possibly destroys all your plans. The wise leader keeps in mind that some unexpected things occur. That's strategy and life

[El hidalgo]

Also barbarians. They're pretty random. And they are similar to the "pirates" natural (well, not reall natural, but you know what I mean) disaster. So barbarians, pirates... what's the difference? At least with pirates you didn't have to kill them and they didn't destroy terrain improvements.

Besides that, I think people here are assuming that natural disasters would be devastating to the civ they hit. They wouldn't. They would just affect one or maybe a few cities and would only cause loss of life and property damage. It wouldn't even be as bad as getting nuked. Even in mp I don't think they'd have that big an effect.

Originally posted by Lung
A brilliant thought just occurred to me, and it only took me a fortnight

The biggest criticism i have seen against random acts of nature is that it is random, and the player should have total control of his/her fate. Fair enough, but what about goody huts?? If they're not random, i don't know what is!!!

Goody huts can have a huge impact on a game, with a couple of free cities or settlers enough to tilt the game heavily in favour of one player. Random acts of nature would not influence the game as much as goody huts anyway, so i don't see what the problem is.

Hypocrites!!

[Pilfur]

Natural disasters are a fantastic idea. I'm all for anything that adds depth of play to the game, turning it into a true game about Civilization game rather than a simple conquer the world game.

These disasters, as suggested above, should NOT be purely random. They should occur according the risks associated with the local geography. Volcano eruptions, river floodings, earthquake zones, etc. You could even interact with the natural landscape or wonders of nature with this. Ie have a large volcano natural wonder on some maps that can be both used for power generation and be a big risk to the town(s) using it.

[Conquesticus]

As long as there's a toggle, everything should be game, within reason and the programmer's ability to make it feasible. Disasters, barbarians, bring em all on. They should also make the barbarians more kick ass. Like an option to make them as tough as Genghis or Attila every now and then and take over half the world, raze all the cities, and just leave a zone of death. And how about stock market crashes for the capitalist civs, oh yeah...

[Cyclotron]

Hey, that's a good idea... you could use Civ3 military leaders for the barbarians too, like Atilla, etc.

I think that overall, I would have to see exactly what kind of system you are proposing before I would support it. Its an idea that if done correctly would be good... But if done poorly, you could really **** up the game...

[Wernazuma III]

Originally posted by Conquesticus
Like an option to make them as tough as Genghis or Attila every now and then and take over half the world, raze all the cities, and just leave a zone of death. And how about stock market crashes for the capitalist civs, oh yeah...

Ha, Alexander the Great surely destroyed as many cities as Gengis, but he's considered a civilized, Gengis is viewed as a barbarian

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Wernazuma III


Ha, Alexander the Great surely destroyed as many cities as Gengis, but he's considered a civilized, Gengis is viewed as a barbarian

Alexander conquered a lot of the ancient world but the Greeks introduced some advanced culture and science to the people they ruled. I am not aware of any city he actually destroyed outright, or any great massacre of civilians, unlike the Mongols. The Khan's armies burned, massacred and looted many civilised cultures and introduced almost nothing of any lasting value to them.

[Sean]

I don't mind random acts...so long as we can prepare against them. Just like city walls and floods in Civ 1. Maybe only a very rare disastor that can't be prevented, (eartquake?) in the sense that the worst of its effects are nullified.

[rah]

I want random acts of distruction. But also a couple of good random acts. I don't want them to happen too frequently and I don't want the so devestating that it would eliminate a civ from the game. (i.e. like your capital being lost in the first 1000 years. This wouldn't finish you off but basically remove you from any serious competition in an MP game)

This wish is in reference to MP. I could care less what they do in SP. With all the hope for a good AI, i'm not holding my breath.

RAH