Natural disasters/wonders

[JamesJKirk]

The disaster could destroy a building, along with foodstuffs, production and gold production for a number of turns, thereby providing some impact, but not absolutely crippling, also more near reality, since buildings would tend to get rebuilt

[Fuzzball]

Here, here!!! I agree wholeheartedly. A weather feature and/or a random natural disaster feature which could be enabled/disabled would make the game alot more fun and competitive. Gives big civ's something to worry about, and the little guys somethin to wish upon the big ones. hehe.
To allow for natural disasters, ie: acts of god etc would make things a bit more realistic also. Like tornadoes in America, cyclones in Australia, earthquakes happen everywhere, as do floods, bushfires etc. And ALL of these things have had great impact on nearly every society/civilisation throughout history. Please include them in a more realistic Civ III.

[Cyberbugs]

As well as there should be natural disasters, it would also be good with positive effects on your civilization.

[Ralf]

I also agree, of course! Check out this similar thread: Click Catastophes preventable by improvements

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited April 21, 2001).]

[Admiral PJ]

How about an Asteroid Impact Disaster, which is like a nuclear explosion-
destroying a city or randomly somewhere (but not on poor weak civs)
It would contribute pollution to global warming (creating big dust clouds like a nuclear winter, blocking out some of the sun)

an Alien Ufo crash would be fun.. (like with Roswell)
and how about Snow Blizzards or an extremely cold winter in arctic regions
that kills some population (its silly you can settle on the arctic so early anyhow) ..

[OzzyKP]

I deffinatly think that disasters should be readded, and made more powerful. But together with making them more powerful there should be buildings that can be built to ward off disasters, and tech to do likewise. Earthquake resistent buildings like in Los Angeles, or levies to protect against floods and whatnot.

I think they should be based on terrain or be totally random. Shouldn't be more frequent for bigger civs, but should be more damaging for bigger civs, so destructivness of each should be based on percentages and population. Lets say an earthquake kills 20% of the population in a city. While a city of 3 wouldn't be hurt much, a city of 25 could be devestated. This makes realistic sense too. An earthquake hitting uganda wouldn't do as much damage as New York City or something. More people more death. But also by the time people make cities that are that big and have that many improvements they will also have tech and improvements to fight off the disasters, so it evens out.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Id like to disagree with almost everything

Not all rivers flood. Not all mountains have quakes. I think that natural disaters are not on a high enough strategic level and shouldnt be added to the game.
Does that also mean that a city on a river whos adjacent sqaure is a mountain has a 3 in 50 chance of natural desaster. And if you consider that the river is on a plain, then it has even a greater chance?
------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now
[This message has been edited by Lawrence of Arabia (edited April 24, 2001).]

[Gammaray fan]

Laurance of Arabia,
Have you ever played Civ1? Disasters happened very infrequently, but because they were linked to terrain, it forced cities in different terrain to develop differently, which is an accurate reflection of reality. I believe that one of the great weaknesses of the CIV games, is that all cities are essentially forced to develop in a very similar way - at least having disasters like in Civ1 made river cities more likely to have city walls than ocean cities which would have barracks (to ward off pirates)!

I would take the notion of 'varied city development' even further. For example, city's surrounded by forests should be able to build wooden buildings or units (archers, triremes, granary) a lot more quickly than cities on mountains which would be able to build stone structures (city walls etc) a lot easier.
At the very least, since the 'city view' from Civ1 is making a comeback, the buildings in the city display (like houses, marketplace etc) should be built of different materials depending on the terrain surrounding the city. Eg. The Eskimos could have ice-marketplaces and igloos, while most civs would have a mixture between wood and stone. Civs with no mountains in any of their city radius's would have no stone even for city walls.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

yes, Ive played Civ1 and Civ2 and Ctp and SMAC and I must say that in Civ1, the disasters (especially flooding) occured very often. If you didnt build any city walls, your city on a river would flood every 2 turns. Also, I am against this cities next to forests build wood units quicker. It would be too hard to implement and it would make the game more complex than anything.Lets stay with an abstract "production" shield. Also, none of this Eskimo stuff.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Ecthy]

I support the idea, in general

NOTE: I WROTE A HUGE POST; BUT THE ****INGBOARD ENGINE WOULDN'T ACCEPT IT... WHEN I RETURNED TO THE SUBMITTING FORM, IT WAS DELETED FROM THE WINDOW

[Maccabee2]

quote: Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 04-17-2001 02:36 PM I think the earthqaukes should have radius's, and there should be three levels, first level would be say...2-3 square radius, and it only destroys one improvement in the closest city. lvl 2 would be 4-5 square radius, and would destroy one improvement in the two closest cities. and would have a 50% chance of destroying a second improvement. the third lvl would be the worst, it would have a 6-8 square radius, and would automatically destroy one improvement in the three closest cities, plus a 50% chance of destroying a second improvement. and a 50% chance of killing one citizen in each of those cities. also, all units within a earthquakes radius when it happens, depending on the lvl, is killed. for the first lvl, it would have a 50% chance of being killed. second lvl, 75% chance. and the third would automatically kill any and all units within radius. this may souond a bit too vierce, but it is realistic. earthquakes would be random, as would their sizes. for floods, if your city was next to the sea or river, then it would be flooded during floods. when a city is flooded, its production is slowed by half for up to five turns. floods would also be random, but only on rivers and ocean shores there should be a new tile improvement also, a volcano, it would erupt say...every 500 years. or at random. a city next to it would have a 50% chance of losing a citizen, and an improvement.

I like your idea of the earthquakes' radii! Way cool!

[Lonestar]

Don't forget Locusts!!! Can't leave out those locusts!!! Or plague of Frogs neither!

[Russian King]

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 04-25-2001 11:14 PM Also, I am against this cities next to forests build wood units quicker. It would be too hard to implement and it would make the game more complex than anything.Lets stay with an abstract "production" shield. Also, none of this Eskimo stuff.

I must say i agree! I think complexity in civ is what makes it LIVE, but too much would truly SUCK
On the other hand we might have to put more time into learning it all so itll be more interesting.
BUT then again: more time consuing=boring
Boohoo :confuses: i just dunno what to think... Ill let FIRAXIS deside. They will solve this problem better.