:nuke: GLOBAL WARMING :nuke:

Ahh, yes, the leading cause of the earth's deterioration. Of course making an appearance in this game is necessary. But once it hits, you can't dodge it. Once lush terrain that was once where your level 25 city was built upon has been hit and now it starves out to a level 17. The question that may spur to one's mind is: How can I stop it. Of course one would assume that space is the only alternative to this planet-killer. But what about the oceans? In the future there probably will be underground labs and maybe even resorts. But thats quite a long time from now. The thing that I noticed was that the terrain really was the only thing that changed, what about oceans? Could the oceans, and vast fresh water sources too succumb to this violent force? I am not so sure about the underwater cities, but the oceans receding and rivers drying up should be included in to this mammoth of a game known as Civ4. Things should be conducted in this kind of order.

1. Scientists become alarmed at the rising temperature
2. Scientists warn of certain disaster if pollution is not cut down
3. Polar ice caps melt, causing the water level to rise; cities and units drowned
4. The rising temperature has caused the terrain and oceans to dry
5. All hope is lost to contain the pollution, ocean dry up to 3/5 their normal size; temperatures cause plant life to deteriorate. A bar should indicate how many years the human race has to live before they die; should be based upon the level of global warming; humans must leave the planet via Space.



Civil Wars

Some of the most important civilizations were formed by these. America is one of these examples. But there should also be religious civil wars. If half of your civilization is Islam, and the other half Judiasm, you should be able to incite a civil war and side with the religion you started first until it was introduced to a new one. Then you should be able to have a choice of what to do with the rebels.



UN Peacekeepers


The primary role of the peacekeepers is to help 3rd world countries out by giving them a military force, controlled by you; but cannot leave the country and can only fight the one enemy(s). After a certain number of turns or until peace has been redeclared, it must stay there. Along with the military, there should be a fund in which if you donate an exuberant amount of money to a 3rd world country, other nations should be more willing to cooperate with you and be friendlier towards you.


Coalitions


Coalitions have existed for a long time and for once, they should let you make one with multipule countries. You will be able to name them like CANA (Countries Against Nuclear Arms), or PRC (Pollution reducing countries),
and stuff like that. Coalitions should be able to declare war on each other too. They should all have a choice of being permanent or temporary.

Good First Post.
Welcome to CFC [party]

Global Warming: Not sure what i think about this but i am sure that someone else will be quite happy to give their opinion. Global warming is already in civ 3 to an extent.

Civil Wars: Aussie_Lurker came up with quite a good idea for civil wars. I don't know where the thread is but i am sure he willing to fill you in. Religion could be a factor in creating a civil war but i can think of no reason why a nation would want to "incite a civil war". Maybe what you are talking about is the purging of your nation rather than a civil war.

UN Peacekeepers: I like the idea. The main risk is the way it is handeled diplomatically.

International Organisations: I would like to see this idea fleshed out more. It would be quite good to have a NATO, Warsaw Pact, or Coalition of the willing. Again the main risk is how they would be handeled diplomatically, also you will have to look over the effects of them and look at the advantages / disadvantages to the player.
Some ideas for Coalitions:
Nations that can all declare peace or war at the same time (like WW1 or WW2)
Nations that can control the supply of a particular rescource
A UN type system where people discuss certian events
General Alliances
I would be interested to see how you plan to have these being created / managed on the diplomatic screens.

Good Post. Nice Ideas. Not sure about the colours though ;)

Heh, thanks for the greeting. Makes me feel like a king :king: .


Global Warming: What I mean't by this is that global warming should go through stages and reach a point so critical that you would have to escape the planet before your civilization dies. Possibly instead of a time limit for your civilization, it could be based upon how many people you have and if your country is or is not a pollution-infested country.

Civil Wars: I will look up that topic you said Aussie_Lurker came up with, but away from that and back to the civil war. If your civilization that posseses the first religion is defeated, you become the leader of the nation that took over and have to stay that religion for a set number of years ranging in my opinion between 75-200 years before another religion can be reinstated. However, this should only occur in cities in oh lets say 16 cities, if it were like 4 cities, the human would probably become frustrated beyond belief and quit. If conditions are very bad in your country, there should be governments for the other rebellion side of your country to choose. Lets say your a Bureacreacy and your industry makes the people wholly unhappy of what your are doing to the land around the city. They should rebel with armed forces and become a Enviromentalist nation and if you are defeated, that government should stay in power for around 20-100 years before it can be changed. This would give the human player a little more time to reconsider the feelings of the people and change the way things are build by cutting down the factories and/or being more open to the country that the religion came from if its a religious battle.



UN Peacekeeping Force: I think it should go to some extent like this: Nations that are part of the UN can contribute units to the Peacekeeping force. This will not be a nation but rather a barbarian-like band of people like you who, when they capture a city, they can either burn it or give it to the the country they are fighting for. Of course there has to be some extent to the units contributed (able to cope with a 2nd world country). If a nation contributed units and are attacking a 3rd world country, they will immediately recall their troops to fight for their country. Diplomatically, the country you are fighting as the UN will not care, their attitude should only change if you side with the opposing nation, switch religion, or start embargos and trade with the opposing 3rd world nation. I think that the UN should have an option to 'pull out' if other countries were to take a vote to either continue fighting or to pull out. This should go around every few turns. If your nation votes to continue fighting, you must send troops to assist the 3rd world country.


Coalitions: Yes, I agree with your ideas fully. I really don't have a clue on how to flesh it out more. If you have a suggestion I would like to hear it. On the diplomatic screen, when communicating with another nation that is part of a different coalition, it should tell you what they are part of and if they are at war with your's or not. They should make a different screen for the coalition and let you choose options as to declare war on a different coalition and what nations to embargo if you control a specific natural resource.

I put the colors there for the heck of it ;)

I don't see the benefit of having UN peace keepers. Please enlighten me.

The benefit of the UN Peacekeepers is quite simple. The third world country that is under attack either has a lack of resources or a low production rate. Since you contribute troops to this third world country, it will more likely favor you more. However, if the country that is under attack contains a critical resource that you don't own, you definetly don't want to risk letting it get into the other power's hands. Also, by helping this country, it could improve its military over time and contribute units to the UN, so if your country is attacked by a country and reduced to a certain point, the UN will step in, using the units the other country contributed to helping.

Stages of Global Warming, yep good idea, could be a devious way to force everyone into Space Race victory esp. if you're about to lose to culture victory or similar.

In the interests of scientific accuracy I'll say that Global warming won't eliminate humanity per se, the temp differences mean some places get drier and others wetter as clouds are formed/rain-out faster, and the oceans rise several feet, making your civ game very crappy and ruining all civilisation as we know it.

If the humans were to stay on Earth at the most critical stage, it would take roughly 200 years for the climate to return to normal. Maybe if pollution were to slow down, it could start to improve the planet? However, if the pollution is beyond the control of the humans and the computers due to a nuclear war or massive industrial sprawl, you should have a chance to evacuate the planet of your civ. Again, I go back to the idea of your civilization dwindling away due to the tense atmospheric condition and the ratio of oxygen to greenhouse gases. The challenge of this game is to make your civilization survive. War, in my opinion is not enough. The forces of nature have shaped humanity and I believe in the future they will continue to.

If the humans were to stay on Earth at the most critical stage, it would take roughly 200 years for the climate to return to normal. Maybe if pollution were to slow down, it could start to improve the planet?
Not necessarily :( (not taking issue with your point, it's not a bad idea, it would probably break civs up enought to prevent the run away victory problem people complain of) Global warming has positive + negative feedbacks (eg.neg:increased photosynthesis) and the positives can put global warming in a vicious circle situation where temps go up around 12C, this would help the challange of nature aspect. Screw up too bad and you are in a lot of trouble

You are thinking in the short run. But in the long run, it doesn't have any positive feedbacks because the earth will become so hot the oceans will boil and cloud cover will block out the sun causing the ground to heat and plant life to die due to a lack of sunlight. Yes, you are right, if the planet is polluted to a certain point, you are screwed because you will probably need to destroy your cities to get enough workers in time and the time it takes to travel to some parts and clean it up. Judging by your increased photosynthesis part, I think you mean it should go like this:

1. Plants photosynthesis increases, helps produce more oxygen.
2. Temperature reaches extremes, plants begin to die.
3. Clean up pollution quickly or steer towards certain doom.

My ideas on the UN here (they need fixing, tho)
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=116027

And on UN Peacekeeping Operations here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=112164

You actually have some really good ideas for the UN. Possibly if our two were to form into one idea, it could be the structure for a solid, and useful UN system.

Why would you do it as the UN as opposed to just allying with the poor country with the critical resource?

Would you rather be a supported country or a country despised by even the lowest levels of civilizaton?

If it means more units, by allowing this... then im all in.

I've never thought of a way to properly implement Civil wars in Civ. I thought their inclusion in Civ 2 was pathetic - your capital falls, and THAT sparks a civil war? I can't think of anything less likely to divide a nation. Religious civil wars sound interesting, but I think that in most cases they are more like religious civil disturbance, eg Northern Ireland.

Major civil wars are an entirely different thing. The ones we are all familiar with (English, French, and American Civil Wars) were largely disputes over how the country was governed. And what do we already have when we change government? Anarchy.

Maybe Civil Wars should be like a kind of super-anarchy, where during the anarchy period some troops actually rebel against you and will attempt to control cities. This would need some kind of incitment - and the new system of governments sounds like just the right thing. Maybe if many other Civs have democratic tendancies your people will force you into Civil war in the hope of change.

That said, given how they are toning down things that are of an annoyance to players I wouldn't have high hopes for this one...

I wouldn't mind to have "global warming" in the game, as I said in other threads. My impression is that you are trying to base your global warming ideas upon real facts. Sorry if my impression is wrong. There is too much controversy and a lot of pseudoscientific issues created to scare people, like Malthus did long time ago and time prove that he was wrong.

The sea level will rise in first place and drop in second? How much do you expect the sea level to rise in civ IV. 80 meters? Too much, there is no ice in the world to cause such a big rise. An average of 25 meters of ice should be melted in every square meter of the Earth's land in order for the sea level to rise only 10 meters. (29 % of Earth surface is land, 71 % is water) There is no ice on earth to rise the sea levels, lets say 80 meters. And the north pole does not count as land, even if it melts completely, because is floating in the ocean.

And the other question is: Where do you obtain that humongous quantity of energy to melt the ice caps first and to evaporate the oceans in second place? From the sun? But the sun only provides a constant quantity of energy (polution on Earth is not going to increase the energy produced by the sun) And a high amount of the energy that reaches the Earth is already absorved. The increment of the concentration of CO2 up to 2 % in the atmosphere is not going to increase the absortion so much, since the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth, H20, already does the job. Think about the humidity levels reached in some places on earth, far above 2 %.

And we don't produce so much heat to melt Greenland. :)

As I said, It would be nice to have global warming on Civ IV, but, please, don't try to base it in pseudocientific stories.

I wouldn't mind to have "global warming" in the game, as I said in other threads. My impression is that you are trying to base your global warming ideas upon real facts. Sorry if my impression is wrong. There is too much controversy and a lot of pseudoscientific issues created to scare people, like Malthus did long time ago and time prove that he was wrong.

The sea level will rise in first place and drop in second? How much do you expect the sea level to rise in civ IV. 80 meters? Too much, there is no ice in the world to cause such a big rise. An average of 25 meters of ice should be melted in every square meter of the Earth's land in order for the sea level to rise only 10 meters. (29 % of Earth surface is land, 71 % is water) There is no ice on earth to rise the sea levels, lets say 80 meters. And the north pole does not count as land, even if it melts completely, because is floating in the ocean.

And the other question is: Where do you obtain that humongous quantity of energy to melt the ice caps first and to evaporate the oceans in second place? From the sun? But the sun only provides a constant quantity of energy (polution on Earth is not going to increase the energy produced by the sun) And a high amount of the energy that reaches the Earth is already absorved. The increment of the concentration of CO2 up to 2 % in the atmosphere is not going to increase the absortion so much, since the most abundant greenhouse gas on Earth, H20, already does the job. Think about the humidity levels reached in some places on earth, far above 2 %.

As I said, It would be nice to have global warming on Civ IV, but, please, don't try to base it in pseudocientific stories.

I don't base my facts on pseudoscientific facts, because most of them aren't false. As in this diagram, the effect of greenhouse gases and the sun's energy and heat is depicted here:

http://www.ucar.edu/learn/images/gheffect.gif

The oceans would rise and fall because in the 'Civilization Earth', ice does exist. First, the heat by the pollution retaining the radiation, heat and the rapid depletion of the ozone layer would cause more heat and radiation to hit the earth, causing phenomenal results. First, the ice caps would melt causing the ocean to rise. Then, as the heat continues to grow, the oceans would boil becoming one with the atmosphere and would keep retaining the heat until the earth would become a lot like Venus with its super-hot surface temperature. Currently, the radiation and heat hits the earth freely but as greenhouse gases continue, the heat becomes trapped. I don't know where you got the impression of "I want the ocean to rise 80 meters" thing. The global warming issue should be based upon the amount of ice on the ice caps too.

What I mean't about the CO2 was that as the plant life began to die due to lack of sunlight and the heat, the CO2 levels would increase dramatically, causing life on earth to die off. I don't know where you got the impression that CO2 levels would increase the absortion so much that the earth would heat up really fast due to just this. In short, I don't base most of my facts on 'psuedoscientific beliefs'.

As I said, It would be nice to have global warming on Civ IV, but, please, don't try to base it in pseudocientific stories.
There has been no pseudoscientific crap on here as of yet. Global warming has a real basis in fact, 70m+ ocean incrase is never true but that hasn't come up.
Extra solar energy is not needed, just more retained; it is unlikely that oceans will boil unless all aerobic eukaryotes and prokaryotes are destroyed (which will never happen) because human will stop being able to add gases to the atmosphere indefinitely once warming begins.

There has been no pseudoscientific crap on here as of yet. Global warming has a real basis in fact, 70m+ ocean incrase is never true but that hasn't come up.
Extra solar energy is not needed, just more retained; it is unlikely that oceans will boil unless all aerobic eukaryotes and prokaryotes are destroyed (which will never happen) because human will stop being able to add gases to the atmosphere indefinitely once warming begins.

Solar energy is already retained in great extent. The main greenhouse gas is, and has always been, H20, with is far more abundant than CO2. And, even if all the solar energy that arrives to Earth is retained (which is impossible) It wouldn't be enough to boil the oceans, regardless of how much CO2 we or other sources can add to the atmosphere.

And no so long ago weather conditions were warmer than today. In the XII century, when the vikings arrived to Greenland they found it was green and they colonize the southern part (that's why they call it Greenland (Groerland?), they weren't very creative ;) ) And now it is covered with ice. So, in the XII century weather was warmer than today's, (there is more evidences of that) and there were no gases added to the atmosphere in such a large extent. It is the solar cycles that changes the weather in Earth, as it always has been.

While you can give evidences of global warming, I also can give you evidences of the contrary. That means that there is a lot we don't know, but that does not mean that the worst option is gonna be the real one. And does not mean that is human driven, either.

http://www.iceagenow.com/Growing_Antarctic_Ice_Sheet.htm

Weather changes, It always has been that way, thinking that is solely due to the man's action is as egocentric as the Ptolomean theory.

That's why I prefer nature changes and tornadoes, droughts, plagues, volcanoes, tsunamis, etc, in the game rather than the Global Warming fad.
But if the game has the global warming thing, It is OK with me, I would buy it anyway.

That's my two cents. Don't take it bad, my friend.

Have a nice day.

Global warming is a real thing. Whether it is caused by human action is a can of worms. I have thought that global warming as done in civilization was kind of weak, though; you had to pollute a lot for it to be an issue, and I'd clean up the pollution as a matter of course because I wanted to work those tiles. As such, I'm skeptical of its gameplay value, regardless of how well established the connection is in the real world.

Global climate changes should happen in the game, but they should be part of an overall framework of progressive, gradual terrain changes, not a thing unto themselves. Sometimes forests encroach on land. Sometimes rivers change course. Sometimes lakes get drained. Etc. But that gets into random events, which are another can of worms.

okay this is all nice and dandy, a slightly educated debate about global warming, my only comment to all of this is that they are removing pollution, so...........?

The game is not complete...yet, and there are still a few decisions to be made...

While you can give evidences of global warming, I also can give you evidences of the contrary. That means that there is a lot we don't know, but that does not mean that the worst option is gonna be the real one. And does not mean that is human driven, either.
Very true, but don't bet on it, 90% of those studies are on dodgy ground (financed by oil companies, :lol: ) however you are right, solar cycles are influential on climate.
I really doubt that boiling of the oceans is ever even remotely possible (as stated in previous post) but Venus shows that retention of heat can be vicious

As long as we're going to add "global warming", why not add other hypothetical (sp?) things? Maybe in a certain year in the future aliens land and create a new Civ to try to win by domination. Maybe at some point a deity from one of the religions decides to end his/her/their experiment. (couldn't think of a better word. please do not be offended, none is directed toward any or all religions.)

These are all theories that have the same thing in common; lots of speculation with no proof one way or the other. Since the global warming and melting of the polar ice caps has yet to be proved to occur because of modern society, I think it is wrong to try to model it into a what if historical sim. Enviromental causes because of nuclear war, or limited polution from large production/population is resonable. Dramatic global changes are not.

Would could easily make a sci-fi mod with this, though.

actually the entire scientific community now does not dispute the existence of global warming, there was a summit by all leading scientists in the field that were both for and against the existance of it, at the end of the summit they decided it does exist, it is partially human driven, what they now dispute is its effect, the amount of human contribution, and how severe it will be

The game is not complete...yet, and there are still a few decisions to be made...

I think it's highly unlikely that they'd be making such changes at this time. They're probably polishing art, searching for bugs, refining the rules, and furiously at work on the AI at this point.

well, there is a special issue of Nature about climate change. (And Nature is not a secondary magazine sponsored by oil companies ;) ) There are all flavors of articles, I copy down the url and some interesting (under my point of view) headlines.

http://www.nature.com/news/infocus/climatechange.html

-East Antarctica puts on weight. (acording to data recorded by satellite, Antarctica ice cap is growing)

-Sea-level records reveal surprising choppiness. Fresh analysis shows that levels changed even between ice ages. (Did the dinosaurs used fossil fuels??? :lol: just kidding)

-Past climate change questioned.Swings in temperature might be more common than though.

-Internet project forecasts global warming. Biggest-ever climate simulation warns temperatures may rise by 11 ºC. (yeah, the simulations are as good as Civ III AI, Those guys that started studying the wheater in long term by simulating the Earth back 30 years ago didn't give up after their first predictions. In the 70's they predicted another ice age :lol: Now, they predict a 11 ºC increase of temperatures in 100 years. And they used those funny screensavers that takes the idle time of your computer to make the calculations. Of course, we are not going to be here to tell them that they were wrong. That's not science, Earth is too big to be simulated on computer and there is a lot of parametrization that simply you have to probe that is valid in long term. The short term parameters they use to simulate the wheater during 7 days are not valid when you run the simulations for 10 or 100 years, they commited that mistake 30 years ago and they are commiting the same mistake again. They touched the parameters and run the simulations again and again until they have the results that they want. That's not science, sorry.

Fluid dynamics are too complicated to be simulated without approximations, but planes still fly. By your logic, you shouldn't attempt to model any physical process.

Antarctica's ice pack increasing in mass is not a counter-argument. The operative word is average. Global warming is not uniform. Climate change is a less confusing term for the phenomenon.

That said, "climate change due to human action" is a sticky subject which I will not claim to understand. I think it would be disingenuous for you to make such claims as well, unless you are a climatologist. It's obvious that temperatures have increased rapidly over the last century. It is not obvious that this is a problem, nor that it is due to human action.

... It is not obvious that this is a problem, nor that it is due to human action.

I agree with that, and I leave the discussion as it is. cos it is driffting off topic.

As I said, I don't mind having climate changes in Civ IV. I spent a good time playing SMAC where the sea levels rise and fall 200 meters or more. It is unrealistic, but, it is fun to play, and that's at the end, what matters.

Edit: I model physical processes that take nanoseconds to happen, that is why I said that parametrization for simulating climate changes is impossible to do, It takes too long. You cannot finetune the parameters and see if they are correct physically.

I am not making this post to debate the merits or demerits of the "Theory of Global Warming". I am just saying that there needs to be an on-off button for it. Liberals can turn it on. Conservatives can turn it off.
Political Scientists can turn it on. Real Scientists can turn it off.

All I want is the choice. I am Pro-Choice on this matter? Anybody see a problem with that?

All I want is the choice. I am Pro-Choice on this matter? Anybody see a problem with that?

I would like pollution and a global warming system put into Civ4 - I think it would be interesting.

Probably Firaxis took it out because they're just trying to avoid controversy - or someone there decided they're now a top scientist and know all the answers.

For interest, as to global warming:

1. The non-executive Chairman of Shell Corporation recently stated/asserted in public conference that - to quote approximately, 'we have to do something about global warming and pollution now rather than later, as only if we do so now do we have the chance to prevent it from becoming much worse.

2. The US Pentagon has a number of studies into the affects of global warming, and, particularly, it's implications of US industry/economy and military activity.

It seems, along with accepted scientific evidence, that global warming is fact - the debate now is not as to that, but, rather, whether we are responsible or it is natural.

With regards to Civ, as it is fact that global warming and cooling is a reality - and I'm not talking about any human factor - it would be a realistic and interesting addition.

After all, the middle east used to be covered in forest - now it's largely desert.

A climate model in Civ4 would be cool - but they won't add it - if only for the desire to concentrate on other areas.

This would be an excellent opportunity for some modding :goodjob:

Let's nut it out :)

I am not making this post to debate the merits or demerits of the "Theory of Global Warming". I am just saying that there needs to be an on-off button for it.Political Scientists can turn it on. Real Scientists can turn it off.
There are some real scientists who would go mental over that, as they fight political scientists who state there is no global warming. Not all scientists agree but 95% of financially independent scientists do and generally they have very solid science on their side.
(I hate doing further GW arguing now that it looks off topic, but models are sketchy (1 of several reasons of course) because no-one is certain of the cooling effect of particulate matter in the atmosphere, secondly increased Antarctic ice mass is due to increased rain and cloud cover in the area which is likely due to Global Warming (in New Scientist special on GW after the big meeting + in other sources)
Anyway :lol: post and good point

Why are you debating me when I cearly posted that I do not want to debate this issue. Just give me the stupid on-off button.

Geese! What is your problem? The whole topic is off-subject anyway so shut up about it! I only said that I would like to have the choice. What is wrong with that? I learned years ago not to argue with liars or fools. :)

On/off buttons are a slippery slope. You can't have one for everything because the development, test, and balancing effort scales exponentially with the number of options. I think it's reasonable to be a little ornery when someone suggests making a behavior optional.

Whether or not the global warming theory identifies an actual problem, correctly assigns cause, and acurately suggests solutions is irrelevant. In addition to the fact that they are removing pollution in civ IV, consider how the game would handle global warming inclusion....

For it to even be considered, the concept (global warming, in the case) would have to add a decision element to the game. The most common method, and the one that global warming lends itself to, is causing the player to trade off between two other elements. In other words, the player must spend money or lower production in order to improve global climate. If there is an uber factory that produces the most and doesn't pollute then there isn't even a reason to continue with adding global warming.

So if you have to choose between better production and the "healthier planet" jazz, consider how the AI has to be programmed. Each opposing AI player needs to address the issue of global warming aswell...don't forget the actual game making process. This is what really kills the global warming idea. There are four general scenarios.

1.) All the AI opt for mega production. Well, assuming that the negative effects of global warming are large (and if they aren't...why include the damn concept) then you are screwed no matter what. If you are a good steward, either the AI build 20% more than your handicapped ass and owns you...or your good heart isn't enough to save the world from the other pollution crazy civs. End result....global warming is always a negative on the game.

2.) All the AI opt to be stewards (and remember that I only mean they are more planet friendly...they don't have to neuter their factories). If this is the case then you have no other real choice then to take advantage of the extra productivity over your oponents. The name of the game is still to win and most of the win conditions require you to create more of something...troops spaceship parts cultural buildings....than the AI. Any global warming effect will, by definition, affect all players in a similar fashion. Proportionally you still come out ahead. The only choice here is whether or not you want to make victory easier....is this really a good game element?

3.) The AI adopts a mixed approach depending on the current planet condition. In this case, the decision is even easier...as you pollute and reap production benefits, they neuter their factories. The fact that they might be programmed to get mad and ally against you would be the only equalizer. Despite this, you still gain the production advantage....and were probably in tense or war relations with them to begin with.

4.) The AI adopts an approach based on their civ. This would...unless you stack your opponents...produce a mixed amount of pollution. Essentially, the global condition is predetermined by the civs playing....a terrible AI method and another thumbs down for global warming as a good game element.

Sorry for the length...I just tried to be exhaustive. The end result is that, in my opinion, global warming is not a valuable game element...independent of its validity as a climate change theory.

That's a roundabout way of describing the prisoner's dilemma, a classic game theory problem, or the "tragedy of the commons." If we're both good, we both benefit. If I'm good and you're bad, I'm screwed. If I'm bad and you're good, you're screwed. If we're both bad, we're both screwed.

There are numerous strategies for working through this situation. One is the tit-for-tat strategy (assuming multiple rounds), which means I do to you what you did to me in the last turn. Another option would be an alliance with other non-polluters to take out the polluters, or at least to force them to behave better. There are several ways that you could punish AIs for harming the common good, with war, trade, diplomacy, and other standard civ tools being well-suited for the purpose.

I would reccomend you rethink the comparison to the iterated prisoner dillemma. Remember that in that scenario, if we are both "good" as you put it, we both benefit. In a computer game, where the goal is to defeat your opponents, maintaining status quo does not move you towards the goal...you need to gain an edge somehow. Since global warming encompasses everyone equally...having the "everything stays the same" scenario where noone pollutes does not move you ahead. By polluting, when your opponents don't, you gain comparative advantage. And if everyone pollutes or everyone doesn't....what has the concept added?

if global warming is some how included..lets just hope that not everything on the map turns drier and hotter...in actuallity...some areas would become super cold..some super hot..some super dry..and some super wet.. ...im just not sure exactly how an accurate model would be made that would appease the global warming caused by humans...or natural causes crowds(i for one am a natural causes fan. the artic ocean was a hot freshwater pond at one point...there were no cars or steal mills) but oh well. ill let some one smarter figure out how to do it. just my usual 2 cents worth :crazyeye:

cfacosta, that's a good point, but I don't think it sinks it. Consider trading resources or alliances. Yes, you're competing with the other civ, but you're also cooperating. You recognize that failing to stop a common threat may sink both of your chances of winning. Perhaps climate change could become serious enough that nobody could win the game. All land turns to desert, the sea levels rise and drown the coasts, your population plummets, your infrastructure is destroyed, and the game ends. For that to happen, though, you'd have to be able to regress as well as progress, but in civ, you can't lose culture, techs, or the like, so you can't have a Dark Ages like that.

Honestly, I had not considered the noone wins scenario... That would definately provide the additional element required to make the iterated prisoner dilema function. Another point I realize that I didn't address was that noone has stated global warming needed to affect the whole planet evenly. If global warming were to create more extreme weather in areas of high pollution (I don't know how scientifically sound any of this crap is...) then the polluting civ would actually have a proper balancing decision to make. Additionally, if polar regions actually became more habitable due to global temperature increases...then forcing global warming might actually be a viable strategy depending on your location.

I guess there are several approaches that might make this work. My personal opinion, however, is still that global warming would not be a great game element.

You've highlighted enough drawbacks that I wouldn't cry if it was taken out.

With respect to global warming... global warming doesn't have a uniform effect. That's why "climate change" may be a better term. Making one part of the world hotter affects weather patterns, evaporation rates, ocean circulation patterns, etc., which can cause other parts of the globe to cool. It wouldn't correlate to highly polluted areas, but it would cause disruption all over. Some would benefit more than others, but it would be unpredictable.

In fact, some climatologists claim global warming could cause an ice age. There is an important circulating current in the North Atlantic. This current brings warm water from the Equator north along the African and European coasts. It pulls cold water deep into the ocean at the northern point, from where it moves southward. Melting ice caps could decrease the salinity of the northern water, which means it wouldn't sink, which means the conveyer would cease, and warm water would no longer move north from the Equator, leading to an ice age in Europe.

You've highlighted enough drawbacks that I wouldn't cry if it was taken out.

The suggestion to change the thoughts to a CLIMATE CHANGE MODEL as opposed to a GLOBAL WARMING MODEL seems a very good one - it suggests a more global and time-spanning model - considering that the Earth has experienced cooling too. Imagine playing Civ over such a time-period - could yours survive an ice-age? What if your Civ's once lush lands are becoming barren - will you conquer your neighbours and their productive lands, collapse into subsistence, or develop methods and technologies to counteract?

A climate change model doesn't need to be about 'who wins'. In the game of Civ, who wins seems to me less important than the journey - I for one by far prefer :D a thousand-year war against a superior foe, which sees my civilisation, after much heroics, and tales of one unit holding off scores, ultimately and utterly destroyer - rather than an overwhelming win.

What a climate model could add, apart from the obvious realism/immersion, is another area for the player to affect their experience, and for their experience to be effected.

However, I really think such a model far beyond the current scope of Civ4 - perhaps Civ6, or as a player mod to Civ4, it would certainly be a possibility, and one I think would enrich the game a great deal.

I think it's also worth exploring ways a civilization could collapse. Maybe forgetting technologies is excessive, but in the game as it stands, you can only go forward. You can only go backward relative to other civs, but it should be possible for you to go backward in absolute terms as well. Indeed, that would be necessary to model things like the Great Depression. Plagues would be one way for that to happen; a plague might invade your lands and kill 1/3 of your citizens.

I think that's an interesting idea - imagine our Civ, with low levels of literacy/stratified literacy - manufacture of cars, for instance, occurs in a central location - all in all, the Civ appears well developed.

But what happens during an invasion, or a powerplant meltdown - the city is destroyed, and, thus, a good deal of knowledge is lost.

It could force the civ, during an invasion, where once they had armoured cars, to fall back on horses and rifles.

Perhaps, as each city represents it's share of learning, the loss of this, to whatever reason, affects knowledge - in the simplest way, it chops some learning off your research, and could even lose a previously learned technology.

To do it effectively seems like it would need to have citizens have varying education levels and wealth. Thus, if your nation had a few wealthy, educated people, but mostly poor illiterates, you'd be more vulnerable to this kind of setback. As we progress in the game, wealth and power should be expressed more and more in terms of the quality of the citizens and the infrastructure we construct, and less about the quantity of citizens, the amount of food we grow, etc. Compare early 18th century France or Russia to the Dutch or English.

cfacosta has made enough good points to show the drawbacks of GW as a game element, (RL not least because polluters are protected from GW by the crap they throw into the air, it cools the land beneath it), I think now it should be killed as a game element. Atthough maybe the Coalitions of the thread title would be a good way to combat polluters.
I don't like the idea of forced regression, most of the time conquering a civ (to take one example raised) gets harder as you reach the older centralised cities in prime locations that throw out huge numbers of units. Knowledge would generally be moved before an army assaulted the city (although if it must be included then modern techs that facilitate the internet should eliminate it)

@froglegs
FFS chill! I was not 'debating' your point, in your post (as I said :lol: good post , so not serious) I just responded to the real/ political part, the misconception that it is only a political issue irritates me. That was not the point you raised so apologies if it pissed you off and sorry for the offence

Atrebates, not forced regression. More like the Red Queen from "Alice in Wonderland:" you have to run faster and faster just to stay in one place. If you don't progress fast enough, you stagnate.

If there's a worldwide plague that kills 1/3 the people in all nations, you should have to do more than simply grow more people to recover. Losing a tech was just an example. Maybe tile improvements that are unused should deteriorate over time. If you lose 1/3 of your people, 1/3 of your tile improvements would fall into disrepair and have to be rebuilt.