Summary: RFC: random disasters destroying cities is too
Submitted by: jtn
Submitted on: Sun 25 May 2014 13:17:00 BST
Severity: 3 - Normal
Priority: 5 - Normal
Status: Need Info
Assigned to: None
Release: S2_5 r24940
Discussion Lock: Any
Operating System: Any
Planned Release: 2.5.0, 2.6.0
In classic and civ2civ3 rulesets, as well as 'alien', random disasters can
happen to any city, including immediately after founding, which strike with no
notice and there's nothing the player can do about it.
Most of the effects are recoverable setbacks and thus minor annoyances which
are reasonable to be random.
However, "ReducePopulation" can destroy a city of size 1. Destroying a city,
including all its buildings, maybe wonders (which we don't let migration do),
and losing territory, seems much harsher than the others.
(civ1 also has this property with its Famine, Flood, Plague, and Volcano
disasters; but there we should implement whatever's historically accurate; I
don't know what that is. 'experimental' ruleset has disasters but not
What do people think? Am I being overly precious?
There's an argument that newly established (or migrated-almost-to-nothing)
colonies _are_ vulnerable to the whims of fate.
But I think there'll be players (e.g. me) who'd be content with the other
effects but not this one, and in the absence of some fine-grained way for them
to express that preference, such players will turn off all disasters forever
with disasters=0 after the first time their newly founded city is destroyed
before it has a chance to grow. So I'm minded to tone down the default.
If we do decide to tone it down:
For 2.5, we can just add MinSize=1 reqs to any disaster that has
ReducePopulation as an effect. This does mean other effects don't happen
either (so a size 1 city with Nuclear Plant is spuriously immune to fallout),
but is otherwise by and large good enough.
For 2.6 and later, if patch #4719 is implemented, we could use that instead.
Reply to this item at:
Message sent via/by Gna!
Freeciv-dev mailing list