 |
Do you want acts of nature (poll open for 20 days)
This poll is closed. |
| Yes! I want random acts of Nature along with Random human catastrophes! |
   |
47 |
74.60% |
| Yes! But I dont want the acts to be random |
   |
1 |
1.59% |
| Yes! But no random human catastrophes |
   |
6 |
9.52% |
| No acts of nature |
   |
9 |
14.29% |
| Total: |
63 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
El hidalgo
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7
If I build an irrigation system, and then have a drought anyway, I will feel helpless as a player. So my take is to leave the environmental factors to the environment and terrain, and keep them long term factors instead of instantaneous penalties. |
Is it not possible to have a drought despite having an irrigation system? I'm no farmer but it seems to me this is possible.
Anyway, I favor random acts of nature. I'm not sure what is meant by random human catastrophes, but I would probably favor those too. Maybe they can be an option, to make everyone happy? There are a lot of Civ I features I'd like to see make a comeback (in some form) and this is one of them.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DrFell
|
|
As long as the random disasters can be turned off then I'm all for them. They'd make the game more interesting, but would add an additional element of randomness and thus unfairness in mp games. So give us an option to turn them off.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Lung
|
 |
of my princess Anastasia!
Mar 1999
time: 15:14
|
|
The acts of nature should be random, but they don't necessarily have to be totally unavoidable. They should reflect the realities faced by settlers and colonists and the risks associated with certain terrains/climates, etc. For example, the risks of settling close to volcanoes goes without saying. Cyclones only affect coastal tiles in tropical lattitudes, rivers are affected by floods, only certain locations are affected by earthquakes, etc.
Sure, if you don't want them, turn it off at the start of each game, but let those who want it be able to have it!
All we ask of Firaxis is that they allow it to be turned off, and if left on it affects the AI as well as human players!!! This is a must!
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
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.
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
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...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sean
|
|
Auckland, New Zealand.
Jan 2001
time: 05:14
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
22-05-2001 07:44
O no, we're going to be flooded by polls from now on 
|