Unofficial Poll 7: Acts of Nature

Lawrence of Arabia · May 21, 2001, 22:44

i know that this thread is already been addresed, but i want to check out the new poll feature so im doing it this way.

Kyle · May 22, 2001, 00:48

That could be interesting in an annoying kind of way.

Could certainly add something to the game.

Maxxes · May 22, 2001, 01:11

O no, we're going to be flooded by polls from now on

Cyclotron · May 22, 2001, 01:15

I don't like the idea of random environmental disasters, because it focuses on micro elements of the game. Take a famine, for instance: Some years are good farming years, some are bad. The simpler Civ2 system averages these into a food bonus based on the average and general productivity of the land.

Civvers already suffer from bad terrain; for instance, having no river with which to irrigate your plains is the same as an extended drought until you build aqueducts and irrigation to counter this. Random acts don't really add anything to the game, they just turn game trends into instantaneous acts.

So what's the problem with this? Well, random acts that cannot be stopped are very frustrating. 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.

El hidalgo · May 22, 2001, 01:59

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.

OneFootInTheGrave · May 22, 2001, 04:47

Wow... it will take me some time to get used to this format...

However, rendom acts of nature were grat in Civ 1, and I think there shuld be an option to turn them off, but it is as in real life, there were, adn still are towns, adn regions devastated randomly by natural disasters, and it should be represented in Civ III. Plus tere could be regions where these occur more often.

DrFell · May 22, 2001, 05:20

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.

Henrik · May 22, 2001, 11:12

Why not make all of the options, options in the game?
You should be able to pick each one of the ones in the poll if you wanted to

Lawrence of Arabia · May 22, 2001, 21:35

Looks like im the only one who voted for no acts of nature....

I WILL FORCE MY ATTITUDE ON EVERYONE MUAHHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA

Wittlich · May 22, 2001, 21:43

I wouldn't mind if CIV3 had RANDOM acts of nature and/or human catastrophes - AS LONG AS these are in actuality "random" and not random for the human(s), hardly ever for the AI Civilizations. Oh, and I believe this rule should be able to be toggled on or off in the beginning of the game.

DarkCloud · May 22, 2001, 22:17

Having Random effects would add a whole new level of strategy and depth to civ.

Cyclotron · May 23, 2001, 00:27

Quote:

Having Random effects would add a whole new level of strategy and depth to civ.

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???

Lung · May 23, 2001, 00:32

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!

BeBro · May 23, 2001, 09:38

Acts of Nature sound nice, but there should be the option to turn them on/off.

Lung · May 24, 2001, 20:53

Wow! 82%+!!!

A pity it's only 30 or so votes, though, so keep those votes coming so Firaxis can add it to this wonderful game!

Lung · May 27, 2001, 20:02

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 · May 27, 2001, 20:33

Quote:

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 · May 28, 2001, 00:58

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 · May 29, 2001, 01:35

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.

May 29, 2001, 15:33

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 · May 29, 2001, 18:25

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 · May 30, 2001, 06:03

Quote:

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 · May 30, 2001, 06:18

Quote:

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 · May 30, 2001, 06:56

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 · May 30, 2001, 09:23

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