Why no volcanoes?

[Fishman786]

It's good to see a disasters DLC and I'm looking forward to seeing how the various disasters are implemented. A lot of players have been wanting something like this from the start and I definitely think there's a user-base out there, what with how many people use mods like fire spread.

But why are there no volcanoes? That would have been so cool, to have molten lava pouring through the city, maybe moving through the tunnels and along the sewage pipes underground like the the movie Volcano. I know having an actual volcanic mountain would be a bit of a situational disaster, but there could still be monogenetic volcanoes in the city itself. Auckland and parts of Naples are built on volcanic fields themselves so it's not as if this is an impossible disaster type.

I'm definitely going to buy the DLC regardless, don't get me wrong, but volcanoes... Seems like a missed opportunity!

 

[Grapplehoeker]

I hear you.
This was for me, the best movie (short) of the year 2015 and I dedicate this to you.

I hope someone sends you someone to lava too

 

[Sanny]

Strange they haven't included Volcanoes since they added the world manipulation tools for actual gameplay-use.

Perhaps it's too Fantasy-ish? If you think about the way SimCity 4 did it, with the Volcanoes erupting from the ground and creating a mountainous volcano, then after eruption it is left there permanently.

CO might consider creating Volcanoes in the same way as Water Sources, allowing them to be placed on land features and allow them to periodically erupt.

 

[Fishman786]

Perhaps it's too Fantasy-ish?

They have a meteorite strike though, which is more fantastical.

 

[Sanny]

They have a meteorite strike though, which is more fantastical.

I would say they occur just as much as Volcanoes in populated areas.

 

[Fishman786]

I would say they occur just as much as Volcanoes in populated areas.

There are only a handful of instances of people being harmed by meteorites though, whereas many cities have been destroyed by volcanoes.

 

[Steve B.]

There are only a handful of instances of people being harmed by meteorites though, whereas many cities have been destroyed by volcanoes.

How many advanced cities have been destroyed by volcanoes? Advanced cities are not built nearby active volcanoes; only towns and villages which have been there for many years. I agree with you about meteorites, but what instance can you cite of an advanced and populous city being destroyed by a volcanic eruption?

 

[Fishman786]

How many advanced cities have been destroyed by volcanoes? Advanced cities are not built by active volcanoes; only towns and villages which have been there for many years. I agree with you about meteorites, but what instance can you cite of an advanced and populous city being destroyed by a volcanic eruption?

Akrotiri, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Saint Pierre, Rabaul and Plymouth, to name a few. The latter three were modern cities destroyed in the 20th century. In terms of current/future hazards, Naples is surrounded by three dangerous volcanoes and the suburbs are actually inside the crater of one of them. Auckland in New Zealand is built on a volcanic field. There are lots of suburbs and towns up the slopes of Mt. Rainier. Mexico city and Guatamala City are both surrounded by volcanoes, and a few of them have been active in living memory. Japan is just chock-full of dormant calderas and crater lakes.

 

[Steve B.]

Akrotiri, Pompeii, Herculaneum, Saint Pierre, Rabaul and Plymouth, to name a few. The latter three were modern cities destroyed in the 20th century. In terms of current/future hazards, Naples is surrounded by three dangerous volcanoes and the suburbs are actually inside the crater of one of them. Auckland in New Zealand is built on a volcanic field. There are lots of suburbs and towns up the slopes of Mt. Rainier. Mexico city and Guatamala City are both surrounded by volcanoes, and a few of them have been active in living memory. Japan is just chock-full of dormant calderas and crater lakes.

I'm sorry but none of these places are modern developed cities. I agree with you about Mexico City and Guatamala City; but I have to say again, none of these cities are comparable to New York city, Paris, Berlin, London or any other major city. This game is about building a modern large city. No major city in the world is built near an active volcano.

 

[Grapplehoeker]

I'm sorry but none of these places are modern developed cities. I agree with you about Mexico City and Guatamala City; but I have to say again, none of these cities are comparable to New York city, Paris, Berlin, London or any other major city. This game is about building a modern large city. No major city in the world is built near an active volcano.

What about Naples and Salerno, Italy and Mt. Vesuvius and the Phlegraean Fields caldera?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...area-threatened-eruptions-Mount-Vesuvius.html
Or Catania, Sicily and Mt Etna?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Etna

 

[Fishman786]

I'm sorry but none of these places are modern developed cities.

Well you asked for examples of advanced cities (not villages) being destroyed by volcanoes. If they've already been destroyed they're going to be past-tense pre-modern cities by definition (except Rabaul, which is being re-built yet again as we speak). And the future risks certainly include modern developed cities, Mexico City and Guatamala City are enormous national capitals. Naples is one of the most important cultural centres in Europe and the most important city in southern Italy. Auckland is one of New Zealand's main urban areas.

This game is about building a modern large city.

Is it? You can build cities of any size, it's just a game about building a city. A present-day city, not a period one, but there's no rule about size. In fact actually building a city the size of London or Paris is going to be a real challenge even with mods and a very powerful PC.

 

[Grapplehoeker]

After visiting the Pompeii exhibition as a student and seeing first hand the truly dramatic and tragic remains of the dead forever frozen in fossilised ash, I have always been amazed at the human propensity to disregard obvious danger to livelihood by wishing to build and live close to nature's most dangerous designs. Historically, mankind has and continues to play Russian roulette by building populations within range of volcanos on account of the opportunity to take advantage of the extremely fertile soil that can occur thanks to volcanic activity.
The frequency and total damage to populations due to volcanic eruptions throughout recorded history far surpasses the comparatively rare instances where meteors have managed to breach our atmosphere and are of a sufficient size to cause large scale destruction. The fact that mankind is known for choosing to defy the odds and live within range of volcanos makes a disaster far more likely to be a volcanic one than a random lucky hit by a space rock that should have burnt up in the atmosphere.
Heh but then again, CO is known for keeping it simplistic and simulating a meteor strike is a lot less complicated than a volcanic eruption so it is to be expected

 

[Yvanoff]

From Seattle you cans see Mt. Rainier pretty well, too. And there are concerns about lahars if it was to awaken.

I'd like to see vulcanoes, but I don't think it would necessarily fit very well. Vulcanoes don't tend to erupt often. Especially since you wouldn't settle a city near a vulcano in permanent eruption.

Plus, the game is about settling a modern city. We can guess that with modern instruments, the founders of the city have made sure not to put your city inside a caldera or near a potentially active vulcano.

Don't get me wrong, I'd love to have to cope with volcanic eruptions in game, but I'm not sure it fits the game very well. Though I'd be happy if they add it

 

[Simcity5]

A volcano would look good, it would probably look the best.

Simcity 4 I would build a city, when it looked good and it was the end of the day I would save it, unleash all the disasters, watch it burn for 5 or 10 mins, then reload the pre disaster save and carry on, did it about 3 or 4 times, and that was enough.

Now in the future I can watch a youtube vid of somebody doing it to city they saved. Looks good, but spending hours building a city to destroy it seems stupid which is why you save first and after the novelty wore off reloaded.

Not sure why this is heavily requested and once the people who have heavily requested play with it for a bit, maybe stick a few clips on youtube then carry on from an undestroyed save, I think they will be wondering the same, why did CO listen to me

 

[Grapplehoeker]

You can build cities of any size, it's just a game about building a city.

Absolutely! I enjoy building cities of all sizes and the size of the population is never a priority for me.
Speaking of sizes...
After having played devil's advocate for volcanos, I have to offer the contra-argument
Volcanos cannot really be modelled within Cities: Skylines by virtue of their scale. They are huge mountains and that is just the cone, let alone the calderas that may cover a huge subterranean area. They would dwarf any city built in the game and no map would be big enough to contain both. So for this reason alone, we cannot see a true volcano within the game as it is currently.

 

[Fishman786]

Absolutely! I enjoy building cities of all sizes and the size of the population is never a priority for me.
Speaking of sizes...
After having played devil's advocate for volcanos, I have to offer the contra-argument
Volcanos cannot really be modelled within Cities: Skylines by virtue of their scale. They are huge mountains and that is just the cone, let alone the calderas that may cover a huge subterranean area. They would dwarf any city built in the game and no map would be big enough to contain both. So for this reason alone, we cannot see a true volcano within the game as it is currently.

It's true that volcanic mountains or calderas probably don't fit in Cities: Skylines, but monogenetic volcanoes exist which only erupt once and don't form large structures. You would have to be pretty stupid to found a city in an active monogenetic field, granted, but the western suburbs/satellite towns around Naples are located in one.

True, this monogenetic field also happens to be inside a caldera, but the caldera itself is not easily-visible from the surface and isn't realistically a hazard.

 

[Grapplehoeker]

@Fishman786 I love volcanos just as much as you appear to, but unfortunately for the purposes of this discussion, to suggest volcanos would mean adding a massive geological structure to an existing map. This of course could not happen overnight, nor weeks or months. It would take many many years for even a fast growing volcano to reach maturity and become a threat. How would that translate to the game? It cannot and if I saw one growing on my map, I'd be on it with my landscaping tools to level it out of existence faster than you could say monogenetic field

 

[Fishman786]

@Fishman786 I love volcanos just as much as you appear to, but unfortunately for the purposes of this discussion, to suggest volcanos would mean adding a massive geological structure to an existing map. This of course could not happen overnight, nor weeks or months. It would take many many years for even a fast growing volcano to reach maturity and become a threat. How would that translate to the game? It cannot and if I saw one growing on my map, I'd be on it with my landscaping tools to level it out of existence faster than you could say monogenetic field

It wouldn't need to grow. Monogenetic volcanoes erupt only once, often just exploding straight out of the ground. After a short period of activity they leave behind a small cinder cone and then never erupt again.

There wouldn't need to be anything complicated or a geological structure. There could simply an eruption at a random place on the map, possibly accompanied by a liquid lava flow. It would destroy buildings nearby, cause fires and deform the map for a bit, then stop. Perhaps there could be some earthquakes and warnings before hand so you can prepare.

 

[Grapplehoeker]

It wouldn't need to grow. Monogenetic volcanoes erupt only once, often just exploding straight out of the ground. After a short period of activity they leave behind a small cinder cone and then never erupt again.

There wouldn't need to be anything complicated or a geological structure. There could simply an eruption at a random place on the map, possibly accompanied by a liquid lava flow. It would destroy buildings nearby, cause fires and deform the map for a bit, then stop. Perhaps there could be some earthquakes and warnings before hand so you can prepare.

Very interesting and plausible. Now if only you were on hand to answer every query regarding monogenetic volcanos to explain this phenomenon to everyone who complains about it lol.

 

[co_emmi]

Volcanoes could have been an interesting element to Natural Disasters, but I am afraid we were able to do only certain amount of disasters and unfortunately volcanoes were left out this time.