From the latest GameSpy preview:

In fact, compared to previous games in the series, so much more of what's happening in Civilization IV is clear right from the main interface. You can see the strength of units by how many soldiers are standing there, you can see city improvements like aqueducts (which dynamically wind toward cities from nearby mountains), and you can tell at a glance which cities have pollution or unrest. Even the diplomacy screens give you info at a glance -- if a ruler isn't willing to negotiate a point, it's highlighted in red, meaning that he won't consider trading it. If you mouse over an item you'll see text explaining why the ruler is reluctant. It's a huge time-saver.

So pollution is still in...
Is it exactly the same as in CivIII (building masses of workers to clean it up) or is it only in the city itself, like civil unrest (no messed-up tiles, but reduced production or something like that)?

it is exactly the same. They decided to change everything else and then state that pollution won't be a tedious micro management chore - and then did absolutely nothing. :rolleyes:

It isn't the same. Pollution within the city affects the health and possibly happiness of the city population. There are no pollution tiles produced by the pollution. That is what they meant all along.

AFAIK pollution is still in, but you don't need worker any more to clean some squares. Instead pollution reduces healthpoints in the city and I think this will limit the citygrowth.

Edit : Ups, someone was faster than me ...

Now, now, Troy-don't be mean.
As far as we know-the two effects of pollution are : (a) visual-your cities actually look ugly and smog-bound and (b) Health effecting-your cities get a hit to their health. This, in turn, can reduce your population growth-or even send it into reverse.
What we don't know is whether or not pollution has any 'global' effects on terrain (like reducing their long-term productivity, or even changing terrain) or whether the health effects of pollution can also impinge on happiness.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I curtainly like this development since i absolutely hated spending most of my turn time in cleanign up polution and then resetting citizens to work that tile again.

This is really a pleasant change, would also add an extra realism if indeed plution can effect terain and such.

lets juz see where this goes

I curtainly like this development since i absolutely hated spending most of my turn time in cleanign up polution and then resetting citizens to work that tile again.

You're in the majority on that one. It surely did suck and blow all at once.

This is really a pleasant change, would also add an extra realism if indeed plution can effect terain and such.

I'm not so keen on that possibility, unless they perfect the effects of counter-pollution improvements (I hated how very large cities produced pollution no matter what counter-pollution improvements were made). terrain alteration should only occur in the event of a civ's serious and callous disregard for environmental issues.

Pollution and unrest is not the same.

What we know already:
->You will not have to clean up pollution squares. Health decreases which will cost extra food when the city is unhealthy. If you are losing too much food, cities will shrink.

->If cities are in unrest, the will not revolt like civ 3, causing you to check every city every turn. Simply the unhappy workers dont work. So you do have to keep an eye on this and minimize unhappy pops. In civ 3 a city of 17 pop with 3 happy, 10 content and 4 unhappy people would stop working altogether. In civ 4, I expect only those 4 to stop working.

But no pollution on squares that need to be cleaned up, good. That's what I thought but that last preview had me wondering.

->If cities are in unrest, the will not revolt like civ 3, causing you to check every city every turn. Simply the unhappy workers dont work. So you do have to keep an eye on this and minimize unhappy pops. In civ 3 a city of 17 pop with 3 happy, 10 content and 4 unhappy people would stop working altogether. In civ 4, I expect only those 4 to stop working.

I like this new approach, it makes a lot more sense. Why should the whole city shut down because the minority of people are unhappy?

I like this new approach, it makes a lot more sense. Why should the whole city shut down because the minority of people are unhappy? You've never seen a political protest shut down traffic before? Protesting groups are often too considerate to use such strategies, and the police usually become involved when they aren't, but a sufficiently large protest can bring a screeching halt to normal business and production.

You've never seen a political protest shut down traffic before? Protesting groups are often too considerate to use such strategies, and the police usually become involved when they aren't, but a sufficiently large protest can bring a screeching halt to normal business and production.

But shutting down traffic doesn't close every shop, every business in a city. There's still foot traffic to keep things going. It might slow things down considerably, but it doesn't stop completely. People would be starving in no time if it did.

Well just like a riot in civ 3 meant no trade or production, but food was still collected..and only food.

Not to mention the protest can involve transit workers striking, which seems to happen every other week in France.