 |
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
Why does the Civ line generally ignore disasters? MOO, MOO2, SMAC all had random occurences, so why not our game? Yes, we havee 'disease' which appears here or there, but is not much of a challenge. I say, that for a more interesting and , dare I say it, realistic game, we should have random events in civ3 (of course, like in MOO or SMAC, as optional. For those with guts! )
Some suggested ramdom events are:
Earthquake/volcano: happens near mountains. Kills pop. and destroys city improvements
Floods: happens on floodplains/next to rivers. Pillages squares near city, destroying infrastructure.
Tsunami: same as flood for coatal squares.
Drought: anywhere but more likely on 'dry' terrain. For x turns all squares produce -1 food.
Epidemic: (improved disease) anywhere: for x turns, a 50%chance of loosing 1 pop. point per turn.
For real players: Plague: anywhere. Starts as epidemic in one city. Every turn, a 80% chance that it will spread to another city connected to city 1 with roads. It will spread exponentially after that and to any cities connected (including enemy cities). This neat little effect could always be modifed by gamers to create bio-weapons.
Also, the harder the level, the more random events- if you want to be a diety, well, you better deal with acts of God.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Kolyana
|
|
Yes, I'd like to see this as an addition to the game. It could easily be an optional feature.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
I thought the combat system was a disaster...
Anyways, I posted a thread on this a while ago - I also miss the Civ disasters. They didn't do much damage, they were just one of those small things that when added with other small things made the game so incredible...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
They usually either stole gold (Thieves have broken in to the treasury in X and stole X gold, citizens demand a BARRACKS) or took a city population down a notch (Flood ravages X, citizens demand CITY WALLS).
It was just the right flavor, and it of course encouraged building infrastructure...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Evil_Eric_4
|
|
If there were disasters I would want an option to disable them.
I always disabled them in MOO2 cause programers think its fun to make them hit succesful civs most often.Gee my reward for doing well is an earthquake?no thanx.
I also turned off the anterans attack option.thats just me though.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001 time: 06:16
|
|
Blah there are random events already. More randomness is just more aggravating.
I don't see why people want to be spanked by such a thing as 'bad luck'. What fun is it? You play well, you are poised to win, and then thunder strikes and you can't do anything about it and you lose. You like that?
It's the same thing in FPS games by the way, which can make them very annoying: despite having the best of skill, if you respawn in front of the enemy's gun, you're still dead. Not very exciting.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
tonyhaug
|
|
Columbia, MD
Nov 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
Hey, you guys haven't played Civ III much. I am continually getting disasters in Civ III. I frequently lose population in some of my best cities due to plagues (in cities with jungle squares) and floods (in cities built in a flood plain). See page 41 in the manual under Disease!!! I guess you guys can't read, either! Just kidding.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001 time: 23:16
|
|
I expected lots of people to say 'no, i don't like random events, it sucks' but to see no one defend the notion of large disasters (not 'disease' which kills one pop. at best, does no damage to infrastructure) is kind of disappointing. I agree that big disasters like those in SMAC (though i never turned them off) can really be bummer but still, what happened to the spirit of adventure? Would a disaster be random? Yes. Could it really hurt you? yes. But would it not be a sign of real leadership and skill of you could overcome them? Yes! Here we have abunch of wannabe emperors and conquerors, and yet mention possible sniffles and everyone goes running.
As i said in the start, this would be something that could be turned off (like in most games, this is a feature that could be turned off) but for those seeking realism (I know you exist) or a challenge (yeah, beating the A.I. at deity is easy. Now do it after a plague epidemic wipped out half your total pop. if you are that good.) could keep them on. Also, whenever the ability to create scenerios comes (and perhaps if we will be able to make them at all [infogrames ]) having disaters around would be a good bonus for people making historical scenerios (assuming then we could create events. I hope).
As for the whole, 'armageddon' plot thing wrong_Shui mentioned: well, I have not heard of any giant meteors hitting earth and wipping out civilization. Did I miss something?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
It depends on how it was done - large disasters really aren't that large, save plagues. A hurricane or flood would only affect a city or two.
A plague, however, would decimate entire populations.
The KEY is that it also happens to the AI, and the AI can handle it.
There should also be a toggle off for players who don't want them. But having disasters to deal with should give you a score bonus...
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cyclotron7
|
 |
Drowning in Schnitzel
Jan 2001 time: 21:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by GePap
I expected lots of people to say 'no, i don't like random events, it sucks' |
No, I don't like random events, they suck. 
There are things that can be said for randomness, but sheer "rolling of the dice" on a large scale would not be fun (in fact, aggravating). Civ is a strategy game, and I expect to do well if I play well and do poorly if I play poorly. That is the underlying expectation. Some randomness is essential (i.e., all combat) but even combat follows a trend and is more or less expected.
The only random events which I would ever support would be those that can be corrected (or at least minimized) by the player's action, and that cause no sudden or major consequences. Losing 2 or 3 pop to a disease would be alright, as long as building hospitals or sewer systems, etc., could eliminate or minimize the threat.
In general though, randomness tends to be frustrating and goes against the underlying themes and assumptions of strategy games.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|