I suggested this a long time ago and got a good responce but we never got around to adding it - Real life natural disasters affect the game.. If a city or homebase is San Francisco and there is a major earthquake (over 4 on the richter scale) some troops die - if a hurricane/typhoon/cyclone hits somewhere in the world, troops near by die so on so forth - not many troops, maybe 1% or 2% (the more powerful the disaster, the higher the %) - enough to make it worth knowing whats going on :)

Oppinions?

T.

This is a blast from the past. I'm still in favor of it. Anything to give the game some feeling of the real world.

Since we're going down this road, I should probably revive the whole "economy" debate again. :)

Bringing in real world aspect is a terrific idea, however would you include an item like war? When a city has been nearly blown apart by scuds and cruise missles couldn't that also be reflected in the game?

War is a great idea, too - CT :)

Glad this is still getting a good responce! I think it would be cool :cool:


T.

War is a great idea, too - CT :)

Glad this is still getting a good responce! I think it would be cool :cool:


T.


huh, araT? what was that? double posting? tztztz ;)

huh, araT? what was that? double posting? tztztz ;)

I don't see anything. Nope, looks like a single post to me.

*whistling innocently*

Ooops! thanks birq - my ISP has been jittery all day - thats the second time its done that :o :)

I really like the natural disaster idea. It could be a network link folder like the armies, homebase, and city ones are. Updating the overlay at some specified interval, i.e. every 10-15 minutes etc. The overlay could display a natural disaster icon and it could "travel" across some random path for some random time frame.

can i be a disaster?

can i be a disaster?
If he is, I want to be one as well.

Maybe if a disaster, war, etc. occurs it could also reduce the city population by X% in addition to reducing troop levels in and around the city.

This may be a little fancy, but it would be neat it cities grew over time based upon population statistics. Maybe updated every month or so, but that may require too much work unless it could be automatically calculate and then applied to city worth.

Gruss

Agreed on all counts. Population growth is excellent. Population DECREASE is even better.

Great idea. Programatically very difficult. The issue with these kind of ideas is that the number of variables that have to be introduced in the programming make it too difficult to actually implement. Think of what actually would have to be calculated in order to make this happen. Start smaller and I think you'd see more idea implemented.

Not to speak for Luke, of course.

Great idea. Programatically very difficult. The issue with these kind of ideas is that the number of variables that have to be introduced in the programming make it too difficult to actually implement. Think of what actually would have to be calculated in order to make this happen. Start smaller and I think you'd see more idea implemented.

Not to speak for Luke, of course.

Yeah I thought of that but the best option in the start would be to start with losing troops.
I also don't know if we can succesfully combine real life disasters, but Tara later came up with the idea to just have random made up events occuring if we can't.

like a hurricane that just floats around the map, moving randomly and erratically? Sounds choatic, I like it!

like a hurricane that just floats around the map, moving randomly and erratically? Sounds choatic, I like it!
Ooh! Ooh! First spotter gets to name it!!

like a hurricane that just floats around the map, moving randomly and erratically? Sounds choatic, I like it!

No, more like *real* natural disasters. If there's a hurricane in the Atlantic that destroys Cuba, whoever owns Havana takes a hit.

I see a great idea in that yes.
Also makes more use of Google Earth if you have to keep looking out for incoming tornados and such.

I see a great idea in that yes.
Also makes more use of Google Earth if you have to keep looking out for incoming tornados and such.
Yeah...that sounds awesome.
HURRICANE!! HURRICANE
Abandon Miami NOW!

Of course, these things couldn't come TOO often, right? Maybe once a week, on average...

I like this "real" disasters idea. Like few days ago, those fires in Hemel Hempstead, England should have affected London owner.

And cities in USA should always be affected by GWB. ;)

We've decided to go with a Natural disaster generator (ie; fictional weather) as its easier to create a random script than to get our info off several variable sources.. makes it much much easier to code...

T.

And random disaster generators shouldn't offend anyone.
A real disaster like a big earthquake or tsunami can hurt people when they read the good reactions from enemies of those effected by it in the game.

What if the natural disasters stopped your tax flow for a few days and made the citys value dip temporarily?

I don't think they should kill troops as the Army are generall well bunkered down in disasters. I think what would be better is if the disaster temporarily reduced the city population therefore earning you a bit less tax revenue, but not making you extremely vulnerable to an immediate attack while you're not even online.

I think that natural disasters are a great idea, maybe even volcanoes along the ring of fire, causing damage to cities and even troops that pass. Or perhaps blizzards in Russia as a cold front is passing in the real world. :)

i dont know, wouldnt be complicated *sorry randomness*

the disasters would cause heaps of problems, and like, arent there heaps of them all the time?

I think that natural disasters are a great idea, maybe even volcanoes along the ring of fire, causing damage to cities and even troops that pass. Or perhaps blizzards in Russia as a cold front is passing in the real world. :)

Good idea with the volcanoes. You could make cities that are located near volcanoes (which there are many) worth more, because the volcanoes nearby erupt infrequently but when they do make a city uninhabitable for about 36 hours and kill all troops inside.

So while they are worth more, no-one could hold onto them for more than a week or two because of the (always) pending disaster about to occur.

The drawback i could see is that you may need a whole lot of troops in there to hold a city of increased value, and when the volcano erupts you take a big hit. - maybe a 15 minute warning or something.

We are thinking of implementing a disaster warning system for the donators to the game (if that whole system gets off-the-ground) ...we might make it for purchase in the store, too.. :)

T.

We are thinking of implementing a disaster warning system for the donators to the game (if that whole system gets off-the-ground) ...we might make it for purchase in the store, too.. :)

T.

Nah, only for donaters. But if you can purchase it, it should cost more than nuke - kinda like more of an incentive to donate.

Tara mentioned Godzilla to me in a PM. I think the city of Tokyo should have some infrequent, random Godzilla attacks... payback for all that nuclear testing in the Polynesian Islands. Man that would make a great article.

Yeah, hehe.. Godzilla would rock, he'll definately be one of the disasters, though not as common as some of the others :) we have one more special one in mind, but that ones a secret! hehehe, only us staff and our Chief Editor p0wderfinger knows ;)

I can't wait to read that article, p0wderfinger :D

T.

No, more like *real* natural disasters. If there's a hurricane in the Atlantic that destroys Cuba, whoever owns Havana takes a hit.

And no one can celebrate that with cigars.. :D

People, what about guerilla attacks and insurgencies. These would qualify as "natural" disasters too.

People, what about guerilla attacks and insurgencies. These would qualify as "natural" disasters too.

Insurgencies are a good idea. Maybe have it so there's a percentage risk of an insurgency after taking over a city. Maybe factor in the length of time the city was owned by the previous owner (longer = higher chance), and the size of the army which was defeated (larger army = stronger insurgency). I don't know about guerilla attacks though... seems like they're already represented by all the people who attack with 100 man armies. ;)

Not sure that guerilla attacks and insurgencies are really "natural disasters" however:

As iricigor suggested: "And cities in USA should always be affected by GWB."

You could maybe have a detrimental effect on all US cities every time America invades somewhere but whoever owns Washington should get a corresponding increase for all the arms deals the administration will divide up amongst themselves.

Speaking of Bush... maybe in the future we could find a way to impliment global warming somehow? We might have city industries and stuff like that. This is far off, as we don't even have a feature that sparks global warming yet, but it's a cool thought (no pun intended).

Insurgencies are a good idea. Maybe have it so there's a percentage risk of an insurgency after taking over a city. Maybe factor in the length of time the city was owned by the previous owner (longer = higher chance), and the size of the army which was defeated (larger army = stronger insurgency). I don't know about guerilla attacks though... seems like they're already represented by all the people who attack with 100 man armies. ;)

I agree with insurgencies being a good idea - new thread posted regarding it.

Thanks blitz, lets get this back on the topic of natural disasters ;)

T.