Natural disasters/wonders

[Gammaray fan]

Although lacking in many ways Civ1 was 'fun'. One reason for this was natural disasters (which were taken out in Civ2) If you built a city next to a river for example, you would be prone to floods (which had some negative impact) unless you built city walls. The only indefensible disaster was earthquake (destroys 1 building), which could happen if you built your city next to a hill terrain. Civ3 should bring these disasters back, and additionally add natural wonders. There should be various wonders such as the himalayas which could have a random chance of producing increased resources, food, etc. (oh and perhaps the first civ to reach these landmarke could name them!)
ANY OPINIONS?

[Chronus]

I agree wholeheartedly! The natural disasters were fun and made sense. However, I wonder if there should be fewer of them but more disasterous. Earthquakes that destroy only one building and no effects on the population seems a bit odd.

[Maccabee2]

Stuff 2 was the one who posted that earlier list of 3 major items needed for the "epicness." (See old thread on Epicness of Civ.)
If he will permit me to expound a little on his idea of major catastrophes, I would like to point out a few interesting vagaries of history that might, if integrated into code, might make the game a little less predictable and a little more exciting.
Too often a civilization (human or AI), by luck of placement of his first settler in relation to rivers or natural resources, accelerates his "curve" of ascension by being the first to build a crucial wonder, further accelerating his civ past the rest until they can't catch up. I think that something more than the progression of technology should be able to end a wonder or its effect.
I proffer the following idea:
Let there be each turn after a city is built a chance of natural catastrophe, depending on geography as follows:
1. City on river: flooding, say 1 in 20 (odds for flood could increase the farther downriver the city sits)
2. City near mountain range: Earthquake, say 1 in 100 (odds for quake could increase with the length of the mountain range. This would be consistent with the tendency of seismic fault lines to create long moutain ranges, like the Pacific "Ring of Fire".
3. City near longest mountain ranges: volcanic activity, a flow or even more destructive eruption with blast (say 1 in 500, but with much worse consequences)
4. City on plains: Tornado (say 1 in 10, but much less damaging than earthquake, hurricane, etc.)
5. City on coast: Hurricane (say 1 in 50, fairly damaging)

The logic for this lies in the historical trend that the same geographic locations that help a civ grow faster (rivers, mineral rich mountains, fertile plains) also put "speed bumps" in the path of their growth (all the catastrophes mentioned above.) A natural catastrophe would destroy certain city improvements and reduce the city's population, requiring them to be rebuilt and repopulate over time. Below are a few examples of Wonders being destroyed by natural catastrophes:
Lighthouse of Alexandria: destroyed by earthquake
Great Library of Alexandria: while many scholars continue to repeat that it was burned by the Romans, it is much more likely to have burned from the fires that inevitably follow an earthquake. Alexandria has been shown by recent archaeological discoveries to have been rebuilt many times following earthquakes.
Temple of Jupiter (at Athens?): destroyed by earthquake
Temple of Artemis: arson (okay, so its not natural, but a nut with a torch is still a catastrophe)
Hanging Gardens: flood? I'm not sure on this one, but since it was made of mud bricks and built on a flood plain, this makes sense.
Tomb of King Mausoles(sorry if I misspelled his name): earthquake
Colossus of Rhodes: earthquake after standing for less than 60 years

What do you think?

Perhaps in a later post we might discuss the possibility of plagues.
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 05, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Maccabee2 (edited April 05, 2001).]

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by SerapisIV on 04-16-2001 12:44 PM I'd rather they be completely random. It doesn't seem fair that just because you have a big city that its more susceptible to damage.

Yes, I agree. I think the idea of natural disasters is great, but let them be an equal danger to all.

[Gammaray fan]

Anyone want to discuss the natural wonder aspect of my original post?

[tniem]

Seems reasonable.

One thing is that it could be used by Firaxis to keep people from getting to powerful. Got a large city long before anyone else? Have the game burn it.

What do others think about disasters being used to even the playing field?

[Colonel Rhombus]

I don't like the idea the game knocking you from the pedestal you built yourself. "Rewarding" superior skill with a higher percentage of misfortunes and catastrophes is just annoying. I would prefer nature's vengeance to be colour blind, in accordance with reality.

------------------

[SerapisIV]

I'd rather they be completely random. It doesn't seem fair that just because you have a big city that its more susceptible to damage. I see the balancing potential for it, but that would get the same complaints as having 6AI v. 1human in CivII. It's totally unrealistic and more annoying being overly harrased for the sole crime of being bigger while no one else on the map has similar problems

[Ilkuul]

Yes, I like the idea of natural wonders. The Great Lakes could be another, or the Arabian desert (with lots of oil). And I'm 100% in favour of being able to add names to terrain!! That's been mentioned in other threads, and IMO would add tremendously to the sense of total immersion in the game.

[SerapisIV]

I like the idea, but how about if natural wonders could be over used. Look at the fishing waters off of Massachusetts/Nova Scotia. Humans do a pretty good job of over-using nature's potential. Sort of like a random chance of the item disappearing. Well maybe this is more of a map resource though, not sure, read this how you'd like to.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

I havent been here in a long while, not since December I think. anyway...I think the idea of natural disasters and natural wonders are a great idea. But an earthquake just destroying one random improvement? way too weak.

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.

[tniem]

Welcome back Diablo,

Gammaray fan,
What exactly do you mean by natural wonders? Are you advocating the SMAC landscapes that gave the holder extra resources, trade, food, growth, etc.? Or something different?

Please explain.

[Gammaray fan]

I haven't played SMAC much (only the demo - there was no stacked combat!)
but from your description of it, yes, that is what I mean by natural wonders. That said, people could come up with their own views on what they should do - perhaps, have a chance that a natural wonder will do something - good or bad!

[EnochF]

I certainly wouldn't mind geographic features like the ones in SMAC. For one thing, the concept has already been implemented, and it worked pretty well. On a standard Earth map, I don't know exactly what effects these features would have. Would the Grand Canyon provide extra trade? Would the Sahara Desert boost culture? Beats me. Quite frankly, I think features would work better on random maps. That way they wouldn't seem so out of place. People would be more willing to accept a great peat swamp that provides extra production if it's not in the middle of Canada.

As for disasters, yech. As long as the potential for disaster is toned down, I don't mind too much, and as long as there are ways to protect your precious cities in the late game. But for the most part, disasters are just another way to screw people with bad luck, like me . If you must implement random events, you have to balance them out with minor positive events.

Alpha Centauri did a fairly good job with this. When something random happened, it was often good, except on the higher difficulty levels. And the negative events weren't crippling. But most games I've played have implemented ridiculously harsh random events. Birth of the Federation springs immediately to mind. If a disaster occurred, it coudl end up wiping out absolutely all of your production, or all of your food improvements. (In BotF, you had to build several "factories" to boost production, several "hydroponic farms" to boost food, etc. Sometimes your big planets had upwards of 30 of these things, and one "earthquake" can knock out all 30. Especially with production, this is a kick in the shorts. When 25 factories are knocked out, it can take more than fifty turns to get back in shape.)

[Sean]

I am in favour of natural diasters, with thr proviso that you could of prevented, and thus are a victim of poor for-sight and not "luck". The rivers and city walls are the classic example here. Though I guess I could handle one unpreventable diaster, as in the earth-quake---just to keep it interesting. Some of the odds of diasters mentioned so far are, frankly, ridiculas. If they happened at anywhere near the suggested rates, I would doubt the very possibility of civilisation at all! Think of the very nice profits insurance companies make.

------------------
Give me Liberty, or give me death!

[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.