View Full Version : Air & Water Pollution


Hydromancerx
Apr 27, 2012, 03:48 AM
Now that we have Flammability and Crime in place I would like to add some more types of properties. Specifically Air and Water Pollution. Like Crime or Flammability different buildings would increase or decrease the amount of air or water pollution.

As your pollution goes up there will begin to be "fake" buildings like the crime buildings have such as ...

- Pollution (Smog)
- Pollution (Acid Rain)
- Pollution (Polluted Water)

I would also like to tie in the terrains to it to where say at acid rain the surrounding forests or jungles could become barren trees.

I know there are global warming triggers in the game but it would be nice to make them more transparent in how they work. That way you could know if its getting bad and then try to reverse the effects.

Buildings that contribute would be things like factories, farms, etc. It would be nice to set improvements that could either increase or decrease the effects as well. There is lots of potential in this.

Please give me your feedback on how you think this could work.

Il Principe
Apr 27, 2012, 04:43 AM
Factories, fossile fuel power plants... they all should be upgradable. As in having a building that partially or completly cancels lets say a coal power plants pollution, only buildable if you already got a power plant in the city. It could come with a tech a bit after the one enabeling the original building, maybe even in several stages, with each more modern upgrade reducing pollution a bit more.
Some would not add aditional cost ( like filters for a coal power plant), some would ( like a chemical plant using less troublesome but less efficient ingridients).

Of course some classic health buildings should get a pollution reducing effect. Thinking about the water treatment plant here.

I would also like to see a change of the landfill with this: Remove the unhealthiness ( because the garbage is not lying in the streets anymore but out of the way), but make it a huge water pollution problem.

High water pollution should spread downstream ( if possible) , and also on coastal tiles. ( Might be interesting with "waste to the seas" civiv). If it becomes to high it could destroy fishing boats, and maybe even the resouces.

Thunderbrd
Apr 28, 2012, 12:49 PM
I was thinking about this the other day. Unhealthiness seems to be a catchall for a lot of issues, including these two. But it could be interesting to start going into some depth with it and dividing it up. Air and water pollution strike me as being more 'toxin' based while many other forms of unhealth seem to be 'disease' based. I wonder if that's the critical split to consider. I was thinking of this when I was considering the toxic effects of modern farming methods. I can see how it would be greatly beneficial to the system of the game to track pollutants on a tile by tile basis, reducing the effectiveness of farms and ocean tiles that rivers lead into over time.

Also... maybe we should label tiles with 'forested' values that indicate the density and health of the forests and jungles and have this system interact with these pollutant variables as well... hmmm... (and flammability with forest fires naturally coming through once in a while until man interrupts that process and increases their capacity for being consumed by fire entirely.)

Koshling
Apr 28, 2012, 12:53 PM
I was thinking about this the other day. Unhealthiness seems to be a catchall for a lot of issues, including these two. But it could be interesting to start going into some depth with it and dividing it up. Air and water pollution strike me as being more 'toxin' based while many other forms of unhealth seem to be 'disease' based. I wonder if that's the critical split to consider. I was thinking of this when I was considering the toxic effects of modern farming methods. I can see how it would be greatly beneficial to the system of the game to track pollutants on a tile by tile basis, reducing the effectiveness of farms and ocean tiles that rivers lead into over time.

Also... maybe we should label tiles with 'forested' values that indicate the density and health of the forests and jungles and have this system interact with these pollutant variables as well... hmmm... (and flammability with forest fires naturally coming through once in a while until man interrupts that process and increases their capacity for being consumed by fire entirely.)

Health feels somewhere close to the correct balance now in the latest C2C, so if you move some aspects OFF of unhealth onto new properties positive health will all need rebalancing again too. Of course, additional bad effects as ell as traditional unhealth won't affect that.

Daedwartin
May 01, 2012, 09:15 AM
I was thinking about this the other day. Unhealthiness seems to be a catchall for a lot of issues, including these two. But it could be interesting to start going into some depth with it and dividing it up. Air and water pollution strike me as being more 'toxin' based while many other forms of unhealth seem to be 'disease' based. I wonder if that's the critical split to consider. I was thinking of this when I was considering the toxic effects of modern farming methods. I can see how it would be greatly beneficial to the system of the game to track pollutants on a tile by tile basis, reducing the effectiveness of farms and ocean tiles that rivers lead into over time.

Also... maybe we should label tiles with 'forested' values that indicate the density and health of the forests and jungles and have this system interact with these pollutant variables as well... hmmm... (and flammability with forest fires naturally coming through once in a while until man interrupts that process and increases their capacity for being consumed by fire entirely.)

If we are to have pollution have a counting system like this, higher pollutions levels should cause a city to get a pollution penalty to health, showing that pollution can make it harder breath and water unusable. Also river Tiles that have been polluted lose fresh water til cleaned up.

Make promotions for the animals to show which pollution level they start getting weaken by, then heavily weakened, and cant even enter because its no longer survivable for them.

You might also make a map script that has every tile maxed out in pollution, for those who want a difficult and nerve racking game. At least the AI would have the same issues as you.

AIAndy
May 01, 2012, 10:38 AM
I am currently working on the possibility for a plot to have more than one feature. This will also allow auto adding/removing of a feature depending on a property (similar to what we have now with buildings).
With that certain levels of pollution could add a feature that reduces yields or adds feature unhealthiness.

hotrodlincoln
May 01, 2012, 11:16 AM
To be honest, this just sounds needlessly complicated. Every building/civic/technology that affects health would have to be completely redone. Balancing would need to be redone for many buildings. And for what, precisely? I don't really see this as being a massive game changing feature the way crime is (Which I love), so what really justifies all this effort? I think the hard work would be better applied in other directions.

Just my $0.02.

Il Principe
May 01, 2012, 12:18 PM
I think it a wonderfull idea, despite that hard work :) Sure other thins come first.. but one day.. and until then it is nice to have a concept already standing, shaped by discussion.

I like yure idea about animals being affected by it Daedwartin. maybe it could even be aranged to get less food and hammers from butchering "sick" aimals.

@AIAndy: sounds great. Might this be used for things like defensive structures and farms/mines etc on the same tile? Wiht slightly reducing yields of course.. i long for trench warfare :)

AIAndy
May 01, 2012, 12:42 PM
@AIAndy: sounds great. Might this be used for things like defensive structures and farms/mines etc on the same tile? Wiht slightly reducing yields of course.. i long for trench warfare :)
Farms/mines and forts are improvements, not features. But a possibility could be to allow building defensive features.

Il Principe
May 01, 2012, 12:53 PM
Ah sorry for that misunderstanding.

ls612
May 01, 2012, 03:31 PM
To be honest, this just sounds needlessly complicated. Every building/civic/technology that affects health would have to be completely redone. Balancing would need to be redone for many buildings. And for what, precisely? I don't really see this as being a massive game changing feature the way crime is (Which I love), so what really justifies all this effort? I think the hard work would be better applied in other directions.

Just my $0.02.

I actually agree with this statement quite a bit. Pollution and the cleanup of said pollution is already handled by Unhealthiness and Health on buildings in large part. Crime had no real parallel in BtS, and so was a prime candidate for the first test of the Extended Property System. If it was up to me, I would actually like to convert Electricity into a property, replacing the hammers produced by power plants. The inspiration for this comes from one of Hydro's old ideas (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=343423) for AND.

Dancing Hoskuld
May 01, 2012, 07:58 PM
I am currently working on the possibility for a plot to have more than one feature. This will also allow auto adding/removing of a feature depending on a property (similar to what we have now with buildings).


This would certainly help with the problems I am currently having trying to "fix" the coast and ocean environments. Shipwrecks and so on.

Hydromancerx
May 23, 2012, 10:37 PM
Updates
- Added Air and Water Pollution properties.

Note they do not do anything yet except for accumulate pollution. They should work like the crime property works. No buildings add or reduce it yet and there are no free buildings produced yet. Note they are both set to 1 per turn per city size (crime has 3 per turn per city size).


:bump:

EDIT: So the effects are applied to a majority of the buildings that should have +/- Air and/or Water Pollution.

Please let me know if I forgot any, if you think they are too strong or too weak or you think a building should not have a property. Note that the general rules I followed are ...

+ Air Pollution = Factory or Fire Burning building.
- Air Pollution = Park or Trees
+ Water Pollution = Produces a lot of Chemicals or is a Water Port
- Water Pollution = Water Cleaning buildings

Note that there are some that do not follow that but for the most part those were the types of buildings.

Koshling
May 24, 2012, 06:41 AM
:bump:

EDIT: So the effects are applied to a majority of the buildings that should have +/- Air and/or Water Pollution.

Please let me know if I forgot any, if you think they are too strong or too weak or you think a building should not have a property. Note that the general rules I followed are ...

+ Air Pollution = Factory or Fire Burning building.
- Air Pollution = Park or Trees
+ Water Pollution = Produces a lot of Chemicals or is a Water Port
- Water Pollution = Water Cleaning buildings

Note that there are some that do not follow that but for the most part those were the types of buildings.

I presume you will do this with a dynamic property (like crime), not a static one (like flamability), so that it can diffuse to surrounding tiles (and thus be used to kill forests etc as you suggested in an earlier pot)?

Sgtslick
May 24, 2012, 10:51 AM
Sound really really interesting! Im excited by dynamic property system sound amazing. I think it should go beyond just killing forest (hence your etc i guess koshling :) ) It should create arid land and fallout and kill population/limit population, cause unhappiness.

Hydromancerx
May 24, 2012, 03:52 PM
I presume you will do this with a dynamic property (like crime), not a static one (like flamability), so that it can diffuse to surrounding tiles (and thus be used to kill forests etc as you suggested in an earlier pot)?

Yes it works exactly like crime. I have been PMing AIAndy and he has been helping me.

Right now they should all work by adding or subtracting air and water pollution. However the "free" buildings are not put in yet. I am working on those right now. I have 13 different air pollution buildings righting from Pollution (Light Smog) to Pollution (Blackened Skies).

I also plan to give terrain features like Forest and Jungle air cleaning properties and terrain features like swamps and bogs water cleaning properties.

I would also like to link the free buildings to events such as if you reach Pollution (Reef Bleaching) then if you have a Coral nearby it will disappear. Likewise if you have Pollution (Major Global Warming) the Global Warming event will trigger.

And at the very extreme if you get Pollution (Toxic Atmosphere) tiles will begin to generate Fallout around your city.

Sgtslick
May 25, 2012, 02:32 AM
sound cool :)

Hydromancerx
May 25, 2012, 02:40 AM
So the 13 types of pollution are implemented. I messed up earlier and had them trigger on the crime level so make sure your SVN is up to date to test. I am just entering the Ancient era and my Capital city has 129 Air Pollution and 109 Water Pollution. This means I only have Pollution (Light Smog), triggered at AP 100. This makes sense since its a big city (size 10) and has air pollution buildings such as the fire pit and tannery.

I will have to see how it goes as I add things like forges and smiths. And way down the road how bad it will get in the Industrial Revolution. Note my city is still in positive health so not much effect yet. Which means its not overpowered for at least the Prehistoric Era.

ls612
May 25, 2012, 03:28 PM
@Hydro: A few quick questions/ideas on the new Pollution properties.

1. How about Peaks to a large degree and hills to a much smaller degree limit the spread of Air Pollution. Mountains and high hills can form good barriers to airflow, this causing them to block the spread of pollutants in the air.

2. Would it be possible to have Water Pollution spread along rivers? I don't know if AIAndy implemented that capability to the Extended Property System, but if not it would be nice if that could be done.

3. How do you intend more specifically to do Global Warming? I know a little bit about the science, and know that it is influenced by pollution in the air, but also by many other things, including the solar output and the amount of land under cultivation. I think it would be bad to tie Warming/Cooling to only one factor, especially considering that eventually you will be able to to intentional terraforming.

Hydromancerx
May 25, 2012, 03:44 PM
@Hydro: A few quick questions/ideas on the new Pollution properties.

1. How about Peaks to a large degree and hills to a much smaller degree limit the spread of Air Pollution. Mountains and high hills can form good barriers to airflow, this causing them to block the spread of pollutants in the air.

2. Would it be possible to have Water Pollution spread along rivers? I don't know if AIAndy implemented that capability to the Extended Property System, but if not it would be nice if that could be done.

3. How do you intend more specifically to do Global Warming? I know a little bit about the science, and know that it is influenced by pollution in the air, but also by many other things, including the solar output and the amount of land under cultivation. I think it would be bad to tie Warming/Cooling to only one factor, especially considering that eventually you will be able to to intentional terraforming.

1. That's a good point. However I am not sure how you can "trap" the spread of pollution.

2. Again I am not sure how to spread or stop pollution only generate or degenerate.

3. Well at the moment there are 3 levels of Global Warming pollution. However thy just act like crimes in that they are buildings. I would like to link them to events so they will actually effect your map. As on now they just are localized in the polluted city.

ls612
May 25, 2012, 03:51 PM
1. That's a good point. However I am not sure how you can "trap" the spread of pollution.

2. Again I am not sure how to spread or stop pollution only generate or degenerate.

3. Well at the moment there are 3 levels of Global Warming pollution. However thy just act like crimes in that they are buildings. I would like to link them to events so they will actually effect your map. As on now they just are localized in the polluted city.

1 and 2. I thought AIAndy said you could have negative spread. Would that not cause a "stop" of the property spread? He would know the answer better than I would though.

3. Oh that seems good for now. We should also then have the options in the TH era to put up solar shades and/or solar foci, in order to try to purposfully warm or cool a planet (this ties into the Mars terraforming, but that's an entirely different discussion.)

Hydromancerx
May 25, 2012, 04:22 PM
So I am testing out the terrain features ...

Reduces Air Pollution
- Forest (-5)
- Bamboo (-3)
- Savanna (-4)
- Tall Grass (-2)
- Cactus (-1)
- Kelp (-5)

Reduces Water Pollution
- Jungle (-5)
- Bog (-5)
- Swamp (-5)
- Flood Plains (-5)
- Coral (-5)

Increases Air Pollution
- Active Volcano (+10)
- Dormant Volcano (+5)

Increased Water Pollution
- Tarpits (+5)

AIAndy
May 26, 2012, 07:22 AM
1 and 2. I thought AIAndy said you could have negative spread. Would that not cause a "stop" of the property spread? He would know the answer better than I would though.
You can have terrain dependent spreading behavior by moving the respective propagators from the property info to the terrain info. Then each terrain type can diffuse air pollution more or less (not sure though if all peaks are set properly to terrain type peak).

For proper water pollution spreading the concept of downriver would be needed which is not yet in.

ls612
May 26, 2012, 10:28 AM
You can have terrain dependent spreading behavior by moving the respective propagators from the property info to the terrain info. Then each terrain type can diffuse air pollution more or less (not sure though if all peaks are set properly to terrain type peak).

For proper water pollution spreading the concept of downriver would be needed which is not yet in.

I think that the peaks are acutal terrain, at least as far as promotions are concerned. I don't know how far that extends though.

CIVPlayer8
Jun 04, 2012, 11:30 AM
Hydro, take a second look at your free water pollution buildings. They use air pollution, not water.

Hydromancerx
Jun 04, 2012, 02:05 PM
Oops! Will fix.

AIAndy
Jul 17, 2012, 04:28 AM
To make water pollution somewhat different I would suggest having the diffusion propagators only active on water plots (rivers, lakes, ocean) or at least have only a weak diffusion on non water plots. Ideally you would only diffuse it downriver but that is not possible at the moment.

To implement that you can use the Active tag on the diffusion property propagators:

<Active>
<Is>TAG_WATER</Is>
</Active>

Hydromancerx
Jul 17, 2012, 04:38 AM
Could you give an example on how it would be used?

AIAndy
Jul 17, 2012, 06:19 AM
In the property infos XML you have this:
<PropertyPropagator>
<PropertyPropagatorType>PROPERTYPROPAGATOR_DIFFUSE</PropertyPropagatorType>
<PropertyType>PROPERTY_WATER_POLLUTION</PropertyType>
<GameObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</GameObjectType>
<TargetObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</TargetObjectType>
<TargetRelationType>RELATION_NEAR</TargetRelationType>
<iTargetDistance>1</iTargetDistance>
<iPercent>4</iPercent>
</PropertyPropagator>

This diffuses the water pollution between plots that are adjacent to each other. Currently it is active everywhere so water pollution will also diffuse deep into deserts for instance.
If you add the Active tag, you can control where that diffusion should be applied with a boolean expression. Adding the Active tag I suggested earlier will result in this:
<PropertyPropagator>
<PropertyPropagatorType>PROPERTYPROPAGATOR_DIFFUSE</PropertyPropagatorType>
<PropertyType>PROPERTY_WATER_POLLUTION</PropertyType>
<GameObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</GameObjectType>
<TargetObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</TargetObjectType>
<TargetRelationType>RELATION_NEAR</TargetRelationType>
<iTargetDistance>1</iTargetDistance>
<iPercent>4</iPercent>
<Active>
<Is>TAG_WATER</Is>
</Active>
</PropertyPropagator>

Now water pollution will only diffuse from plots that are either river or ocean (that is where TAG_WATER is considered true). It will still diffuse to plots that are next to river or ocean plots but not further from there.

You could of course also extend that and, e.g., consider that farms spread water pollution with irrigation. So if a plot has a farm improvement, it should diffuse the water pollution even if it is not next to a river:
<PropertyPropagator>
<PropertyPropagatorType>PROPERTYPROPAGATOR_DIFFUSE</PropertyPropagatorType>
<PropertyType>PROPERTY_WATER_POLLUTION</PropertyType>
<GameObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</GameObjectType>
<TargetObjectType>GAMEOBJECT_PLOT</TargetObjectType>
<TargetRelationType>RELATION_NEAR</TargetRelationType>
<iTargetDistance>1</iTargetDistance>
<iPercent>4</iPercent>
<Active>
<Or>
<Is>TAG_WATER</Is>
<Has>
<GOMType>GOM_IMPROVEMENT</GOMType>
<ID>IMPROVEMENT_FARM</ID>
</Has>
</Or>
</Active>
</PropertyPropagator>

AIAndy
Jul 17, 2012, 12:34 PM
I have changed water pollution diffusion now but slightly different than in the previous post.
Water pollution diffuses now to river, ocean, farm and city plots but will not diffuse in the other direction (except from a city to its directly surrounding plots).

I have also added peaks as a diffusion barrier for air pollution.

Koshling
Jul 17, 2012, 02:14 PM
I have changed water pollution diffusion now but slightly different than in the previous post.
Water pollution diffuses now to river, ocean, farm and city plots but will not diffuse in the other direction (except from a city to its directly surrounding plots).

I have also added peaks as a diffusion barrier for air pollution.

Will diffusion to ocean cause it to process the entire ocean? If so can we make it coast?

Hydromancerx
Jul 17, 2012, 02:36 PM
@AIAndy

Could you apply your new stuff to the terrain? Please?

AIAndy
Jul 17, 2012, 04:33 PM
@AIAndy

Could you apply your new stuff to the terrain? Please?
What do you mean? Which stuff are you talking about and what terrain?

@Koshling: It does currently process the ocean (which it also did before, just less of the land now). Active only on the coastal terrain would be possible.

EDIT: Plot diffusion for both air pollution and water pollution is now inactive on ocean terrains.

Hydromancerx
Jul 17, 2012, 11:37 PM
@AIAndy

Thanks! :worship:

ls612
Jul 18, 2012, 09:52 AM
What do you mean? Which stuff are you talking about and what terrain?

@Koshling: It does currently process the ocean (which it also did before, just less of the land now). Active only on the coastal terrain would be possible.

EDIT: Plot diffusion for both air pollution and water pollution is now inactive on ocean terrains.

Cool, this will help early turn times somewhat.

Kreatur
Sep 12, 2012, 05:34 PM
after completing a game in middle modern age, i am really impressed of the pollution system. for the first time in civilisation, i don't cut down every jungle ore remove every swamp. natural preservetaion really makes sense now. wery good job.

but something buggs me. even if i run green ore green agriculture, it has no influence at all at air ore water pollution. i mean for crime ore fire we have ordonances like smoke detector that reduce these properties in every citie in exanche of higher upkeep. why dont we do the same with pollution. for example exhaust gas filters for cars and factories ore carbon dioxide trade. maybe even modern technologies could reduce pollutions from factories.

the national park (national wonder ) i mean not the state park should reduce pollution too.

Daedwartin
Sep 12, 2012, 09:02 PM
after completing a game in middle modern age, i am really impressed of the pollution system. for the first time in civilisation, i don't cut down every jungle ore remove every swamp. natural preservetaion really makes sense now. wery good job.

but something buggs me. even if i run green ore green agriculture, it has no influence at all at air ore water pollution. i mean for crime ore fire we have ordonances like smoke detector that reduce these properties in every citie in exanche of higher upkeep. why dont we do the same with pollution. for example exhaust gas filters for cars and factories ore carbon dioxide trade. maybe even modern technologies could reduce pollutions from factories.

the national park (national wonder ) i mean not the state park should reduce pollution too.
...i can understand everything but the final sentence. May you please clean up the grammar and spelling in your post. no offense intended, but it would really make it easier on people who might have issues understanding through those mistakes in spelling and grammar.

Hydromancerx
Sep 12, 2012, 11:58 PM
@Kreatur

Those are some great ideas. The short answer is that we just have not done much in balancing out and filling out past the Industrial Era. There is just so much I want to do for Industrial Era and beyond. In short its not that we don't want to do those things, its we just have not done it yet. And like it or not since most people start in the Prehistoric Era, the early eras get more polished. However even there we still have some empty techs in the early eras too.

LumenAngel
Sep 13, 2012, 03:19 PM
Need some balance...
Just an example : Landfill.
Before moderne era, The health bonus is less than all the pollution boost, so you will gain at least as unhealth because of pollution as you gain health (and you will lose money)

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 15, 2012, 11:56 PM
@Hydro: A few quick questions/ideas on the new Pollution properties.

1. How about Peaks to a large degree and hills to a much smaller degree limit the spread of Air Pollution. Mountains and high hills can form good barriers to airflow, this causing them to block the spread of pollutants in the air.

2. Would it be possible to have Water Pollution spread along rivers? I don't know if AIAndy implemented that capability to the Extended Property System, but if not it would be nice if that could be done.

3. How do you intend more specifically to do Global Warming? I know a little bit about the science, and know that it is influenced by pollution in the air, but also by many other things, including the solar output and the amount of land under cultivation. I think it would be bad to tie Warming/Cooling to only one factor, especially considering that eventually you will be able to to intentional terraforming.

Neat fact: There's actually new hard evidence that 99% of global warming is due to the sun's unnatural high activity. This hotter activity in turn causes the oceans to release unprecedented amounts of CO2 and feeds the surveys the 'pollution' that they're looking for. The graphs of the sun's activity parallel the Earth's average temperature and the 'pollution' amounts. In the past year however, the sun has been calming down and the CO2 levels are expected to decrease over the next couple decades. Of course this has been rejected by many politicians since, well, since when do they understand anything that has nothing to do with their popularity?:lol:

LumenAngel
Sep 16, 2012, 12:05 AM
Neat fact: There's actually new hard(1) evidence that 99%(2) of global warming is due to the sun's unnatural(3) high activity.

(1) Not that hard
(2) with 98% error
(3) sort of...

More funny : if it's unnatural, so it must be the work of .... aliens!
Hydro, you need to had the alien conspiracy about poljuting earth!

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 16, 2012, 12:21 AM
(1) Not that hard
(2) with 98% error
(3) sort of...

(4) More funny : if it's unnatural, so it must be the work of .... aliens!
Hydro, you need to had the alien conspiracy about poljuting earth!

1. tomato, tomahto
2. I'm not getting into that dispute (again) shame on you for even thinking of bringing that here. I'm just echoing what I've been reading, hearing and seeing. I must admit though that the new evidence probably hasn't reached the public eye yet as my source comes from Lockheed Martin.
3. It's called literary flavor (or in layman's terms exaggeration!)
4. Or the work of Hotblack Desiato's limo crashing for a Disaster Area concert on Mercury.:lol:

LumenAngel
Sep 16, 2012, 01:21 AM
I must admit though that the new evidence probably hasn't reached the public eye yet as my source comes from Lockheed Martin.

Nor the peer-review science magazine...
I can have proof of creationnism too, but not in peer-review mag. Maybe for a reason...

ls612
Sep 16, 2012, 01:12 PM
I highly doubt, given the string of recent revelations about falsified data (in peer-reviewed journals, of all places), that any change in the earth's temperature is due to human activity. However, I did not object to the global warming system ori made because 1) I thought it made for some interesting gameplay in the modern era and 2) It can easily be reversed in the TH era with Terraforming.

AIAndy
Sep 16, 2012, 01:20 PM
I highly doubt, given the string of recent revelations about falsified data (in peer-reviewed journals, of all places), that any change in the earth's temperature is due to human activity. However, I did not object to the global warming system ori made because 1) I thought it made for some interesting gameplay in the modern era and 2) It can easily be reversed in the TH era with Terraforming.
Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40% without causing any change in earth's temperature?

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 16, 2012, 01:24 PM
Do you really believe that you can increase the amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere by 40% without causing any change in earth's temperature?

Erm, I think he's saying that according to having falsified data claiming that we did release that much CO2, we didn't really release that CO2. Which would coincide with the newest data released from Lockheed Martin about the sun activity causing the ocean to release the CO2.

ls612
Sep 16, 2012, 01:46 PM
Erm, I think he's saying that according to having falsified data claiming that we did release that much CO2, we didn't really release that CO2. Which would coincide with the newest data released from Lockheed Martin about the sun activity causing the ocean to release the CO2.

Thanks for clarifying. :)

AIAndy
Sep 16, 2012, 01:49 PM
Erm, I think he's saying that according to having falsified data claiming that we did release that much CO2, we didn't really release that CO2. Which would coincide with the newest data released from Lockheed Martin about the sun activity causing the ocean to release the CO2.
So after staying nearly constant for around 10000 years the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere suddenly got larger because of sun activity and it is pure coincidence that that happened after the industrial revolution when people started to massively burn ancient carbon reservoirs?
And the carbon from the billions of tons of oil just vanishes every year?

ls612
Sep 16, 2012, 01:57 PM
So after staying nearly constant for around 10000 years the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere suddenly got larger because of sun activity and it is pure coincidence that that happened after the industrial revolution when people started to massively burn ancient carbon reservoirs?
And the carbon from the billions of tons of oil just vanishes every year?

What were we measuring CO2 with 10000 years ago?;)

AIAndy
Sep 16, 2012, 02:04 PM
What were we measuring CO2 with 10000 years ago?;)
By measuring bubbles in ice sheets that formed around those times for instance.

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 16, 2012, 02:13 PM
(1)So after staying nearly constant for around 10000 years the carbon dioxide level in the atmosphere suddenly got larger because of sun activity and it is pure coincidence that that happened after the industrial revolution when people started to massively burn ancient carbon reservoirs?
(2)And the carbon from the billions of tons of oil just vanishes every year?

2. No, but there have been studies about quantities and those billions of tons of oil is but a hairline movement in the graphs compared to the other natural CO2 emitters. Well, in a way yes it does disappear - they're called plants. They take in CO2 and emit oxygen, but that's beside the point.;)

1. Who's said that this hasn't happened before? I'm sure the sun has acted up before measuring was possible. Hell, measuring CO2 levels wasn't even possible before the 18th century. And when the sun calms down, the ocean absorbs vast amounts of CO2 again (as seen in polar ice).

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 16, 2012, 02:17 PM
By measuring bubbles in ice sheets that formed around those times for instance.

There is a problem though. Any carbon that would have been captured by ice during the times of warmth, the ice would not form and would not capture the carbon to be able to be dated and analyzed. Since, well, ice needs cold to be able to form.

ls612
Sep 16, 2012, 02:19 PM
There is a problem though. Any carbon that would have been captured by ice during the times of warmth, the ice would not form and would not capture the carbon to be able to be dated and analyzed. Since, well, ice needs cold to be able to form.

Well, it is always cold in Antarctica. Even in the summer it stays frozen except for the very edges.

Civ Fuehrer
Sep 16, 2012, 02:29 PM
Well, it is always cold in Antarctica. Even in the summer it stays frozen except for the very edges.

Yea, I'm not talking summer, I'm talking climate shift like what's happening.

When the average temperature rises for the planet, ice formation slows down and therefore does not trap as much CO2 as it otherwise would when there is an abundance of CO2 in the air. This means that there would only be a miniscule change in carbon in the ice that would seem normal levels down to the millionths place. And of course we can't see the carbon in the ice for our own age to contrast as carbon dating requires a minimum of 500 years to date.

AIAndy
Sep 16, 2012, 06:59 PM
2. No, but there have been studies about quantities and those billions of tons of oil is but a hairline movement in the graphs compared to the other natural CO2 emitters. Well, in a way yes it does disappear - they're called plants. They take in CO2 and emit oxygen, but that's beside the point.;)
Most of them are a very temporary storage as at the end of their life the carbon bound in their biomass gets released again.
Some can bind carbon in longer lasting forms but have you seen an increase of those plants that could bind the additional carbon influx?
The carbon cycle works as a buffer to a degree but as with all buffer systems there are limits to some parts of it and what you call a hairline movement is a significant amount when it stays in the atmosphere.

1. Who's said that this hasn't happened before? I'm sure the sun has acted up before measuring was possible. Hell, measuring CO2 levels wasn't even possible before the 18th century. And when the sun calms down, the ocean absorbs vast amounts of CO2 again (as seen in polar ice).
Well, there are quite a lot of different sources for climate changes including some really long solar cycles, but the measured sun activity does not explain the unprecedented speed of the change.

Vokarya
Oct 07, 2012, 02:33 PM
Here are some thoughts/problems I have on working with pollution and trying to keep it under control.

Pre-Industrial Pollution
Pre-industrial buildings seem to me that they are giving too much pollution for their benefits. Several of them are moving into "never-build" territory for me, like Stained Glass Workshop, Hat Shop, and especially Landfill. The 25 water pollution from Landfill is frustrating, as it makes Landfill into a "trap" building. You might build it once, but once you realize that the water pollution is going to cost you way more in unhealth than you get in positive health from Landfill, so you won't build it again. I don't think we should set the game up to have situations like that.

Global Warming
The threshold for the Global Warming buildings is too low. I was able to trigger the Global Warming event in the Renaissance Era, which I think is too early. 250 air pollution is very easy to get to.

No Control Tools
Right now, it seems we have absolutely no way to reduce pollution in the pre-Industrial era except for Street Cleaner, and that only reduces pollution by 1 point each as well as being hideously expensive for when it becomes available. Shouldn't Sewer System at least reduce water pollution, if it's keeping garbage out of the rest of your water supply?

ls612
Oct 07, 2012, 02:59 PM
Here are some thoughts/problems I have on working with pollution and trying to keep it under control.

Pre-Industrial Pollution
Pre-industrial buildings seem to me that they are giving too much pollution for their benefits. Several of them are moving into "never-build" territory for me, like Stained Glass Workshop, Hat Shop, and especially Landfill. The 25 water pollution from Landfill is frustrating, as it makes Landfill into a "trap" building. You might build it once, but once you realize that the water pollution is going to cost you way more in unhealth than you get in positive health from Landfill, so you won't build it again. I don't think we should set the game up to have situations like that.

Global Warming
The threshold for the Global Warming buildings is too low. I was able to trigger the Global Warming event in the Renaissance Era, which I think is too early. 250 air pollution is very easy to get to.

No Control Tools
Right now, it seems we have absolutely no way to reduce pollution in the pre-Industrial era except for Street Cleaner, and that only reduces pollution by 1 point each as well as being hideously expensive for when it becomes available. Shouldn't Sewer System at least reduce water pollution, if it's keeping garbage out of the rest of your water supply?

My proposed solution to each of your three issues in order would be;


With regards to pre-Industrial pollution, I think that all buildings coming before factories should not give more than 10 pollution per turn of either type. That way the transition between the unclean but pre-Industrial cities and Industrial pollution (as well as the transition from dirty to clean industry) will be more noticable, and the early eras won't have as many issues with it.
As I said before, doubling the Global Warming thresholds would be a good idea.
I think that that is a good thing, as it realistically reduces how much population a pre-Industrial city can have. Remember that the main way of absorbing Air pollution pre-Industrial is with Forests, so you shouldn't chop all of those down. ;)

Vokarya
Oct 07, 2012, 03:42 PM
My proposed solution to each of your three issues in order would be;
With regards to pre-Industrial pollution, I think that all buildings coming before factories should not give more than 10 pollution per turn of either type. That way the transition between the unclean but pre-Industrial cities and Industrial pollution (as well as the transition from dirty to clean industry) will be more noticable, and the early eras won't have as many issues with it.

I think Landfill is the only one with more than 10. There are a lot of +5's, and I think they might be better off lowered to +2. Right now, a Hat Shop gives off as much air pollution as a Forge.


As I said before, doubling the Global Warming thresholds would be a good idea.

Fair enough.


I think that that is a good thing, as it realistically reduces how much population a pre-Industrial city can have. Remember that the main way of absorbing Air pollution pre-Industrial is with Forests, so you shouldn't chop all of those down. ;)


Air pollution isn't too bad, as long as I stay away from the buildings where the pollution doesn't offset the bonuses (Foundry and other +hammer buildings are worth it, +gold/culture buildings are not), and really the issue is here isn't the unhealth, it's the triggering of global warming events. Water pollution is where I wish I had a couple more buildings that could control it. I am seeing problems with cities that are surrounded by water and hills, so the Forest situation isn't an option.

I admit I'm probably pushing the pollution situation to its absolute limits, but I do think we should have some tools to keep it in check.

With the current unhealth from pollution where it is, there is no way that pollution keeps population down. There is just so much food coming in from farms that I can make cities grow very, very large. If you really want to keep city sizes down, remove some of the +food/Farm from technologies.

Thunderbrd
Oct 07, 2012, 03:51 PM
If you really want to keep city sizes down, remove some of the +food/Farm from technologies.
Or take farms down just a notch in food. I think they're a bit OP now anyhow.

AIAndy
Oct 07, 2012, 04:22 PM
Here are some thoughts/problems I have on working with pollution and trying to keep it under control.

Pre-Industrial Pollution
Pre-industrial buildings seem to me that they are giving too much pollution for their benefits. Several of them are moving into "never-build" territory for me, like Stained Glass Workshop, Hat Shop, and especially Landfill. The 25 water pollution from Landfill is frustrating, as it makes Landfill into a "trap" building. You might build it once, but once you realize that the water pollution is going to cost you way more in unhealth than you get in positive health from Landfill, so you won't build it again. I don't think we should set the game up to have situations like that.
I think a good idea would be to make a line of autobuilt garbage buildings that depend on civic, city size and maybe some building prerequisites. They would represent what people do with garbage when there is no organized alternative.
Then you could manually build Landfills and similar to improve the situation as they replace the autobuilt garbage buildings.

ls612
Oct 07, 2012, 04:30 PM
Or take farms down just a notch in food. I think they're a bit OP now anyhow.

I would rather increase the amount of yields provided by other things than nerf farms.

Vokarya
Oct 07, 2012, 04:43 PM
I would rather increase the amount of yields provided by other things than nerf farms.

What can you increase? I usually don't care about hammers except for a handful of cities that are actually building military units, and commerce doesn't mean anything given where levels are now. Science comes fast enough, gold is pretty pointless after the 100%-science-and-still-break-even point, culture doesn't do nearly enough, and I never use espionage when I can just crush the offending party.

ls612
Oct 07, 2012, 04:46 PM
What can you increase? I usually don't care about hammers except for a handful of cities that are actually building military units, and commerce doesn't mean anything given where levels are now. Science comes fast enough, gold is pretty pointless after the 100%-science-and-still-break-even point, culture doesn't do nearly enough, and I never use espionage when I can just crush the offending party.

I guess, although I don't know if those same conditions remain now with the past month of Koshling's AI enhancements.

Thunderbrd
Oct 07, 2012, 08:11 PM
I think a good idea would be to make a line of autobuilt garbage buildings that depend on civic, city size and maybe some building prerequisites. They would represent what people do with garbage when there is no organized alternative.
Then you could manually build Landfills and similar to improve the situation as they replace the autobuilt garbage buildings.

+1! An excellent idea!

Hydromancerx
Nov 08, 2012, 11:38 PM
Reduces Air Pollution
- Forest (-5)
- Bamboo (-3)
- Savanna (-4)
- Tall Grass (-2)
- Cactus (-1)
- Kelp (-5)
- Sea Grass (-5)

Reduces Water Pollution
- Jungle (-5)
- Bog (-5)
- Swamp (-5)
- Flood Plains (-5)
- Coral (-5)

Increases Air Pollution
- Active Volcano (+10)
- Dormant Volcano (+5)

Increased Water Pollution
- Tarpits (+5)

Bumping for Thunderbrd. :bump:

Thunderbrd
Nov 09, 2012, 01:48 AM
Ok... sorry for going on about it in the wrong spot but I'll repost here:
Wait... Jungle doesn't help with Air Pollution? About the only thing keeping Earth anywhere near on track in that dept is our jungles!

It seems you've tried to divide responsibilities for reducing the differing pollution types here but that strikes me as less rational whereas I think you can still strike a good game balance while keeping with good rationale by allowing some to overlap. Besides, if Jungles handle only Water Pollution and Forests handle only Air Pollution, it kinda imbalances the map starts a bit I think. I'm not saying Forests should have much of an impact on Water Pollution nor that I disagree with Jungles helping in that regard, but I'd think Jungles would help a LOT with air pollution.

Also, I've noticed that polar regions tend to suffer less from air pollution thanks to the ability for water to freeze the water vapor out of the air and thus transferring the pollution to the ground (which usually isn't as bad there) so Ice and such would probably help with Air Pollution.

Oh... something I was thinking about the other day regarding this subject... Global Warming triggers... we have the Global Warming being triggered by a particular spot on the Air Pollution level of a given city and that is impacting areas outside of the city radius which does make sense but what I think we need to get that all into balance is a Global property counter for air pollution that controls Global Warming so that one city may contribute a lot to the problem, yes, but doesn't directly trigger it. Even one terribly unmanaged huge city would still be unlikely to have much of an effect on the globe by itself.

Hydromancerx
Nov 09, 2012, 04:14 AM
@Thunderbrd

So what are your ideas for new stats of the terrain features? Like Jungle -5 air and -5 water? What values would you put?

bill2505
Nov 09, 2012, 05:33 AM
@Thunderbrd

So what are your ideas for new stats of the terrain features? Like Jungle -5 air and -5 water? What values would you put?

forest also should have -1 water pollution

Hydromancerx
Nov 09, 2012, 01:22 PM
forest also should have -1 water pollution

Well that's why I am asking about all of them.

bill2505
Nov 09, 2012, 02:28 PM
what about except sewers have this
from rometotal war http://rtw.heavengames.com/rtw/info/Buildings/Building-Water/

Thunderbrd
Nov 09, 2012, 04:17 PM
@Thunderbrd

So what are your ideas for new stats of the terrain features? Like Jungle -5 air and -5 water? What values would you put?

Ok... I'll do a thorough suggestion workup. The only thing it wouldn't be taking into account is the bigger picture of intended balance consequences so I'd like to hear your thoughts in regards to that in whatever I suggest. I'll consider it from the perspective of what I believe are actual real world effects of these terrain types. Will post that here soon.

Il Principe
Nov 09, 2012, 11:30 PM
Are pollutions affecting improvements yet? That could severeley cut down city growth if you try to farm land that is about as toxic as a US military installation.
It would also be a good step towards multible improvements on one tile: Sure.. build a farm and a mine on one tile. Should not be a problem, with the mine mostly being underground and not taking up much space on the surface.. but beware of the mines water pollution.

IronClaymore
Nov 09, 2012, 11:47 PM
Not improvements as such, but water pollution has for a while now decreased yields from coast/ocean tiles if it gets bad enough. However it depends on the pollution in the city itself, not from those particular tiles.

I suppose it makes sense in a strange sort of way. You build farms and mines everywhere, and if there's aqueous pollution that makes the crops wither, what do you do? You wash it away!

I suppose the idea is that you can have vibrant, well fertilised farms producing mountains of food, while nearby the rivers and oceans are a sickly green of algae, slime and bacteria from all the fertiliser/pesticide runoff.

Il Principe
Nov 09, 2012, 11:56 PM
Not improvements as such, but water pollution has for a while now decreased yields from coast/ocean tiles if it gets bad enough. However it depends on the pollution in the city itself, not from those particular tiles.

I suppose it makes sense in a strange sort of way. You build farms and mines everywhere, and if there's aqueous pollution that makes the crops wither, what do you do? You wash it away!

I suppose the idea is that you can have vibrant, well fertilised farms producing mountains of food, while nearby the rivers and oceans are a sickly green of algae, slime and bacteria from all the fertiliser/pesticide runoff.

But high yield farms with too much water pollution are a no go. Sure much gets washed away, so the rivers feel it first. But sooner or later the ground water gets poluted as well, and then you have trouble growing healthy crobs.

That gives me an idea for an entirely new improveent chain ( that needs to exist alongside otehr improvments of course) : Pipelines. For transporting clean healthy water to a city or farm tiles to wash away polluted water ( have fun on the coast where all the filth washes up).
Not sure how this could be implimented, maybe a mitigation modifier.
If we will have voluminetric resoruces one day, pipelines could of course be itneresting for transporting oil as well.

Thunderbrd
Nov 10, 2012, 12:13 PM
Reduces Air Pollution
- Forest (-5)
- Bamboo (-3)
- Savanna (-4)
- Tall Grass (-2)
- Cactus (-1)
- Kelp (-5)
- Sea Grass (-5)
- Jungle (-5)
- Ice (-3)
- Permafrost (-2)
- Tundra (-1)
- Coast (-2)

Reduces Water Pollution
- Jungle (-4)
- Bog (-5)
- Swamp (-5)
- Flood Plains (-4)
- Coral (-5)
- Lake (-1)
- Ice (-3)
- Permafrost (-2)
- Tundra (-1)

Increases Air Pollution
- Active Volcano (+10)
- Dormant Volcano (+5)

Increased Water Pollution
- Tarpits (+5)


Suggested adjustments in Red

Il Principe
Nov 10, 2012, 01:05 PM
But doen´t Ice andpermafrost mean msot of the water frozen, so pollutants have no chance to be washed away?

bill2505
Nov 10, 2012, 01:12 PM
But doen´t Ice andpermafrost mean msot of the water frozen, so pollutants have no chance to be washed away?

change it then to forest

Thunderbrd
Nov 10, 2012, 02:51 PM
But doen´t Ice andpermafrost mean msot of the water frozen, so pollutants have no chance to be washed away?

Its about it being neutralized by being encased in the ice. When the ice melts, it washes away with the meltoff. Will help the northern regions that don't gain the benefits of Jungles and such.

Hydromancerx
Nov 10, 2012, 09:39 PM
@Thunderbrd

What do you mean by "lake"? I have no idea how you would even determine a lake.

Also why would ice/permafrost/tundra reduce air and/or water pollution? What's the reasoning?

Thunderbrd
Nov 11, 2012, 02:48 AM
A 'lake' tile is a coastal tile that isn't ocean - I can identify it in game but I can't recall off the top of my head exactly how its worded different in its naming. The cause would be simply diffusion as well as the lake biosphere tends to filter out a lot of toxins.

In regards to your second question, Cold weather tends to fluctuate throughout a given day and throughout the course of the seasons. During the warmest periods, the air can maintain some humidity. The water in the air tends to bond with most forms of pollutants. Then, at night, and certainly as the weather gets colder, this water is frozen out of the air to bring those pollutants to the ground, locking them in ice until meltoff when the water rushes off and washes away the previously trapped pollutants. Water pollution would runoff in the spring rushes as well.

If we had Ground Pollution, for these reasons, such territories would actually have a natural increase to that type because its not as if the pollutants disappear. Its simply that the freezing and cooling cycles tend to rapidly take air and waterborne pollutions and deposit them in the Earth and/or rush them off into the ocean in cyclic meltoff bursts.

0100010
Jan 05, 2013, 09:17 AM
Reposting ideas posted elsewhere

Pollution/Disease:
These have general not been a problem at all, but Ive not pushed a game into the modern era when more polluting buildings exist yet.

Jungles should be able to reduce air pollution as well as a forest can, in addition to its water pollution reduction. An Oasis needs to reduce a small amount of both air and water pollution.

Jungles, flood plains, swamps, and peat bogs, should create a small disease boost for their own and adjacent plots. (or will this cause an infinite rise like how I see so many feature create high negative air and water pollution values? Can features have a limiter so that they don't add (or subtract) from their own or an adjacent plot's value once they have reach a minimum or maximum level?)

There seems to be an attempt a pattern of Minor, Moderate, Major, but it not consistent for each Type (Smog, Groundwater, Coastal, and River), plus a few extemes or specific types (Acid Rain, and the Toxic Atmosphere/Hydrosphere and Blackened Skies)

For the basic one I'd make the names consistent. Smog seems to be the odd one odd using Light, Moderate, Heavy.

The river pollution line should have negatives to the food, coins, and/or hammers on river tiles as it increases in severity, and the Coastal line should do the same to water tiles. While Smog and Groundwater should focus on the primary unhealthiness and unhappiness modifiers. That way they are all doing something different.

Global warming and Ozone should be treated a bit differently. The cleanest city in the world will still suffer from Global warming and Ozone depletion if all the other cities are causing it. I'm not sure how to best do this, possibly a forced resource made accessible to everyone once the thresholds have been met? Maybe an automatically built "World project" similar to how the cure for cancer gives 'all cities in the world' a +2 health, but instead its a -X health? (Also need to know how to reverse it, and a project be unmade? If not a Ozone restoration and Global Warming solution project might be needed)

Furthermore the Global Warming line should kick in with Industrialism tech, and the Ozone line with Refrigeration & Organic Chemistry.

New Buildings:
Burning Trash Piles: Requires Garbage Anywhere, Civic must be active. Is built automatically, generators air and water pollution.
Coastal Dump Site: Requires Coast, Requires Waste To Sea, Civic must be active. Is built automatically, generates water pollution.

New pollution related events?:
Pollution (Contamination): -X health, -X happiness, +X water pollution.
allows building 'Contamination Cleanup'. This building does not get triggered by
meeting a threshold, but by an event, such as a mining accident or an oil spill, which
automatically constructs the building.

Contamination Cleanup: requires and replaces Pollution (Contamination)
This building does nothing, but it does remove the Pollution (Contamination) building from the city. Then it deletes itself. (So that if the event happens again, you have to spend time cleaning it up again. Or you could not cleanup up and just ignore it, and deal with the unhealth, unhappiness and pollution build up)

Raven Destroyer
Jan 05, 2013, 01:12 PM
In my game in my Capitol Having 0 Anger and no Building Pollution Negates about Everything from the Pollutions (or anything else for that matter) i've only just started with the Industrial era (got Steampunk and like 4-5 other techs in that era)
0100010 Great idea's would also give me more thinking before just building "EVERYTHING" in my capital
also Smog might be best as a tile thingy reducing movement and reducing health on units (i'm not living in a nation where Smog is an issue so i'm not really sure if movement get's impeded by smog although from my logic reduced visibility>reduced speed)

if we go by Light Smog> Medium Smog>Heavy Smog i was thinking the following
- Light Smog = -X health in the city maybe reducing movement in the city by 0.25 or so (idk if it is possible i don't know to much about modding myself)
- Medium Smog = -X health -Unit health (Terrain damage) Reduced movement speed by .5-.75 can spread to the hamlet+ directly next to the city(?)
- Heavy Smog = -X Health -X Happiness -Unit health (increased Terrain damage) Reduced movement speed by 1-1.50 and on all hamlet+ in city vicinity

making Unit damage really gives the player a reason to be careful

IronClaymore
Jan 06, 2013, 05:10 AM
Nah, smog's one of those conditions that degrades and diffuses relatively quickly in the atmosphere. You're talking about nitrogen existing in a delta-positive state here, a veritable positive ion that naturally wants to be electronegative, no way that sort of thing lasts long enough to be around to become a terrain feature. You could be in the smoggiest city in the world, and if everyone stopped driving cars and factories stopped working, in a week it'd be pristine and clear. (Well mostly.)

I think it's working quite nice now. The global warming .pythons are something to be worried about. I put State Forests in every city, even though I'm running with massive corporations and so +15% maintenance is killer, just to try and avoid it, even early game I avoid cutting forests and put preserves on them in renaissance, just to try and stop global warming in industrial. Plus, covering everything in farms and getting 100+ population gives more air pollution than an Ironworks ever could.

The best thing is that is doesn't have truly bad effects until it goes global. It seems really realistic - pollution is a little problematic locally, but you can cope pretty easily until the land starts to sink, and when it does it sinks for everyone. I'd love to see more coral reefs in the mapscripts though, and some coral bleaching events to destroy them. And could we get water pollution events like we have with air pollution's global warming? Wiping out forest and flood plains features and even animal/plant/seafood resources? Ooh, some sort of contaminated land or water table feature, just like fallout, but that can't spread, and is almost totally impossible to remove (I've been trying to get a job in contaminated land reclamation recently, so this is relatively close to my heart).

Hydromancerx
Jan 14, 2013, 03:55 AM
Ok here are the updated stats ...

Reduces Air Pollution
- Ancient Forest (-6)
- Bamboo (-3)
- Cactus (-1)
- Forest (-5)
- Jungle (-5)
- Kelp (-5)
- Mangroves (-4)
- New Forest (-4)
- Savanna (-4)
- Sea Grass (-2)
- Tall Grass (-2)

Reduces Water Pollution
- Bog (-5)
- Coral (-5)
- Flood Plains (-4)
- Jungle (-4)
- Mangrove (-5)
- Swamp (-5)

Increases Air Pollution
- Active Volcano (+10)
- Dormant Volcano (+5)

Increased Water Pollution
- Tarpits (+5)

I have not added anything to actual terrains yet, just Terrain Features. Do you use the same code for normal terrain that you do for terrain features?

Thunderbrd
Jan 14, 2013, 09:06 AM
Those strike me as appropriate improvements overall :)

ls612
Jan 14, 2013, 04:00 PM
@Hydro:

That looks OK to me. You do realize though that the Global Warming events are still disabled right? If it were up to me I'd turn those into a gameoption (but I don't know if that is possible with Python-driven effects).

Hydromancerx
Jan 14, 2013, 04:23 PM
@Hydro:

That looks OK to me. You do realize though that the Global Warming events are still disabled right? If it were up to me I'd turn those into a gameoption (but I don't know if that is possible with Python-driven effects).

You sure? I had a bunch of Global Warming events in my game. So much that almost my entire planet is covered in Dunes and Salt Flats. That's why I recently adjusted the Global Warming trigger buildings (see the SVN log).

If they are off they should be turned back on now.

ls612
Jan 14, 2013, 04:31 PM
You sure? I had a bunch of Global Warming events in my game. So much that almost my entire planet is covered in Dunes and Salt Flats. That's why I recently adjusted the Global Warming trigger buildings (see the SVN log).

If they are off they should be turned back on now.

I still think they should be a gameoption, but I'll believe you if you say they are on, I just didn't notice them being turned on. :crazyeye:

Hydromancerx
Jan 14, 2013, 04:34 PM
I agree that a game option would be nice.

Note I did not get global warming until the Renaissance Era. However with the pushed back thresholds it should be in the Industrial/Modern era.

At any rate they should be turn on. Can someone confirm its on?

Daedwartin
Jan 14, 2013, 05:19 PM
You sure? I had a bunch of Global Warming events in my game. So much that almost my entire planet is covered in Dunes and Salt Flats. That's why I recently adjusted the Global Warming trigger buildings (see the SVN log).

If they are off they should be turned back on now.

Ouch. Terraforming must have been a popular tech.

Hydromancerx
Jan 14, 2013, 06:20 PM
Ouch. Terraforming must have been a popular tech.

Well you cannot start terraforming until Weather Control tech which is a Galactic Era tech. So yeah I have a long way to go if I want to reverse the effects of Global Warming.

Daedwartin
Jan 14, 2013, 07:23 PM
Well you cannot start terraforming until Weather Control tech which is a Galactic Era tech. So yeah I have a long way to go if I want to reverse the effects of Global Warming.

In the future of Hydromancerxa, their is only sand, sand dunes, sand, sand, sand with sand dunes, sand with lakes fiercely fought over, natural resources hopefully not set on disappearing being fought over, the seas being the only bountiful land(it's got to be), more war, war forever, did I mention sand? Pollution so dark their is no sun, even more war, and war.
that sum up your game?
Did it force the tech race to level out?

Thunderbrd
Jan 14, 2013, 08:36 PM
I still think they should be a gameoption, but I'll believe you if you say they are on, I just didn't notice them being turned on. :crazyeye:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they are a game option, it kinda screws up the pollution mechanism which relies on those effects to be the appropriate punishment for out of control pollution right? (if played with the option off anyhow)

Dancing Hoskuld
Jan 14, 2013, 09:17 PM
You can plant forest much earlier (currently at TECH_GUILDS) but it takes a lot longer to grow into a usable forest. during which time you can't do anything with it. This is part of ModifiedA4's Basic Forestry mod which I think I have finally got working properly. The tech may be wrong, the earliest deliberate planting of forest I know of was early 20th Century done by one man in Italy.

Hydromancerx
Jan 14, 2013, 11:43 PM
In the future of Hydromancerxa, their is only sand, sand dunes, sand, sand, sand with sand dunes, sand with lakes fiercely fought over, natural resources hopefully not set on disappearing being fought over, the seas being the only bountiful land(it's got to be), more war, war forever, did I mention sand? Pollution so dark their is no sun, even more war, and war.
that sum up your game?
Did it force the tech race to level out?

Well there are 3 major nations ...

Uber Mali
Who has like 6 vassals and as a huge tech lead.

Dickish Spain
Spain had like 2 vassals but currently has none. They are also more advanced than me but also made the Clockpunk civ so they have overall have the best military. They also have very huge cities and are the cause of the Global Warming.

Hydro's Roman Empire
Made up of originally Rome, then conquered Russia, then vassalized Korea and then conquered Xiongnu and eventually the Viking at the South Pole. Xiongnu had a ton of rebellions early on before the Global Warming but it has stabilized.

Spain has kept me from expanding and we have had a stalemate at the eastern borders. The western borders are with Korea and the Northern borders are with the Mali. However its always been desert so not many people make it across from there. South is water and the bottom of the map.

So no the tech level has not leveled out and if they are not a vassal or the top 3 they are primitive backward nations. Mostly in the "New World" however since the seas have been evaporating a land bridge has formed connecting it to the old world. And port cities continually become land locked. However it opens up more land to spread to. IF we can ever terraform the land we could have lots of nice land.

Daedwartin
Jan 14, 2013, 11:51 PM
Well there are 3 major nations ...

Uber Mali
Who has like 6 vassals and 20 something cites as well as a huge tech lead.

Dickish Spain
Spain had like 2 vassals but currently has none. They are also more advanced than me but also made the Clockpunk civ so they have overall have the best military. They also have very huge cities and are the cause of the Global Warming.

Hydro's Roman Empire
Made up of originally Rome, then conquered Russia, then vassalized Korea and then conquered Xiongnu and eventually the Viking at the South Pole. Xiongnu had a ton of rebellions early on before the Global Warming but it has stabilized.

Spain has kept me from expanding and we have had a stalemate at the eastern borders. The western borders are with Korea and the Northern borders are with the Mali. However its always been desert so not many people make it across from there. South is water and the bottom of the map.

So no the tech level has not leveled out and if they are not a vassal or the top 3 they are primitive backward nations. Mostly in the "New World" however since the seas have been evaporating a land bridge has formed connecting it to the old world. And port cities continually become land locked. However it opens up more land to spread to. IF we can ever terraform the land we could have lots of nice land.
Take the new world. You need the land. Get Mali to hit Spain. Keep expanding til you can fight spain. And Mali needs to be in on your side. Get their tech. However, it does seem your world is quite stable politically. It seems it's more advantageous to go vassal collecting and conquering minor states. The big three are simply just expanding into the land they can. The new world will be a area of massive hell. The main powers will look at it with hunger.


You know, if I replaced humans with Drell, I have the Drell homeworld here.

ls612
Jan 15, 2013, 03:25 PM
Correct me if I'm wrong, but if they are a game option, it kinda screws up the pollution mechanism which relies on those effects to be the appropriate punishment for out of control pollution right? (if played with the option off anyhow)

That is one out of many punishments for letting Pollution get out of hand. Ori though is the one who made the GW events, so I think he'd need to configure them to use a new option added to the SDK.

Well there are 3 major nations ...

Uber Mali
Who has like 6 vassals and as a huge tech lead.


And a large Rebel problem? :D

Daedwartin
Jan 15, 2013, 03:39 PM
It might actually be nice to try and see how others deal with it. I'm imagining quite a few would like the challenge of a dying world, now get to the point you can fix it to begin with and fix it up.
Normally it also be the point one asks if a person has a compatible version...but this is C2C. If its from before 27 and not SVN, it be compatible with most those people who want to do a challenge like that.

Hydromancerx
Mar 26, 2013, 06:35 PM
Has anyone encountered the Global Warming event since the push back and fix? My per-industrial (Renaissance Era)buildings seem to max out in the 400 range and are no where near the 900 mark. I am curious to see what happens when I go into an Industrial Revolution.

Snofru1
Mar 27, 2013, 03:57 AM
Around modern times many of my cities reached around 1400 of air pollution after I forgot to check for a while. I built tons of parc rangers/ecologists then to reduce it everywhere below 900 which was a pita. I never observed a Global Warming in the meantime but I also might have overlooked it. It definitely didn´t happen often.

Can you add a later building that reduces pollution by something like 50% or add that to an existing building? I wouldn´t mind if it is expensive, just would save me so much play time for things that would be more fun...

Hydromancerx
Mar 27, 2013, 03:22 PM
Around modern times many of my cities reached around 1400 of air pollution after I forgot to check for a while. I built tons of parc rangers/ecologists then to reduce it everywhere below 900 which was a pita. I never observed a Global Warming in the meantime but I also might have overlooked it. It definitely didn´t happen often.

Can you add a later building that reduces pollution by something like 50% or add that to an existing building? I wouldn´t mind if it is expensive, just would save me so much play time for things that would be more fun...

Yes I do plan to make some modern and trans-human era buildings that help counter pollution.

Hydromancerx
Apr 12, 2013, 03:10 AM
Re-posting this here in case the other thread gets burred.

Anti-Pollution Building
- Carbon Exchange
- Ecoscraper
- Green Belts (possibly could be an Ordinance)
- Artificial Tree Farm (http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t106/OnlyObvious/GlobalWarming/artificial_co2_capture_tree_400.jpg) (Article (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2784227.stm))

Ok here is a list of all the building and wonders that I can recall that reduce either air and/or water pollution.

Prehistoric
- None
Ancient
- Palace Garden = -5 Air Poluttion
- Hanging Gardens [WW] = -5 Air Pollution
Classical
- Grove = -5 Air Pollution
- Sewers = -5 Water Pollution
- Street Cleaner = -1 Air Pollution and -1 Water Pollution
Medieval
- Tree Nursery = -5 Air Pollution
- Artesian Well = -10 Water Pollution
- Castle Garden = -5 Air Pollution
Renaissance
- Arboretum = -5 Air Pollution
- Botanical Garden [NW] = -5 Air Pollution
Industrial
- State Park = -50 Air Pollution and -50 Water Pollution
- Coastal Preserve = -25 Air Pollution and -50 Water Pollution
- National Park [NW] = -100 Air Pollution and -100 Water Pollution
- Water Treatment Plant = -100 Water Pollution
- City Park = -5 Air Pollution
- Ordinance (Carpool) = -50 Air Pollution
- Public Transportation = -25 Air Pollution
Modern
- None
Trans-Human
- Agroforest = -10 Air Pollution and -10 Water Pollution
Galactic
- Paradise Garden = (Plan to Add Anti-Pollution to)

So wow I am shocked that Modern has nothing yet Industrial has a TON! Which means by the time you reached modern Era and assuming you have all the techs and we don't count replaced, obsolete, wonders or palace or coastal then ...

- Street Cleaner = -1 Air Pollution
- Tree Nursery = -5 Air Pollution
- Arboretum = -5 Air Pollution
- State Park = -50 Air Pollution
- City Park = -5 Air Pollution
- Ordinance (Carpool) = -50 Air Pollution
- Public Transportation = -25 Air Pollution
- Total = - 141 Air Pollution

- Sewers = -5 Water Pollution
- Street Cleaner = -1 Water Pollution
- Artesian Well = -10 Water Pollution
- State Park = -50 Water Pollution
- Water Treatment Plant = -100 Water Pollution
- Total = - 166 Water Pollution

Note that if it was coastal, palace and had all anti-pollution wonders ...

- Sub Total = -141 Air Pollution
- Palace Garden = -5 Air Poluttion
- Hanging Gardens [WW] = -5 Air Pollution
- Botanical Garden [NW] = -5 Air Pollution
- Coastal Preserve = -25 Air Pollution
- National Park [NW] = -100 Air Pollution
- Total = -281 Air Pollution

- Sub Total = - 166 Water Pollution
- Coastal Preserve = -25 Water Pollution
- National Park [NW] = -100 Water Pollution
- Total = -291 Water Pollution

But yeah there is just so many other buildings that cause both types of pollution I can see where even if you built them all you still would struggle.

ls612
Apr 12, 2013, 03:54 PM
As I stated in the other thread I'd personally like to see an improvement like a Tree Nursery or something (we already have one named that, so it would need a better name) which gives something like +2 :hammers: and -3 Air Pollution. That would be a decent way to get a handle on the pollution in the Industrial Era for now.

TowerWizard
May 27, 2013, 03:58 PM
@HydromancerX
Ok, I understand this a bit more now. Correct me if I am wrong. You add all bonuses and maluses from pollution buildings and this is the "constant building sources" detailed in the tool-tip. This means that the value given by pollution is generated only from the city tile?

Does that also mean that if my city have a Air pollution value of 200 and all the tiles surrounding it have on average -200 air pollution, then 200 is just peachy and no problem at all? Only if the city generates more than around 4000 pollution does this begin to out-weigh the contribution from the surrounding 20 tiles? What about tiles not within the fat cross? How does their contribution factor in? Or is it just the city tiles that are important with regards to global warming?

Hydromancerx
May 27, 2013, 04:13 PM
Not entirely true. While most pollution comes from the city population and buildings there are some improvements that give pollution such as Farms give like 1 water pollution and Factories give some air pollution. In addition tar pits and volcanoes give pollution.

Property dispipation is hard to explain. Both Pollution and Crime work similarly in that they dissipate and can spread to neighboring tiles. Like Town Watchemen who can reduce crime on a tile Park Rangers and Ecologists can reduce Air and Water Pollution on the tile they are standing on as well as neighboring tiles.

For more info on properties you should ask in the property thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=451915).

JosEPh_II
May 27, 2013, 06:06 PM
As was asked in the other thread, Street Cleaner is a bit (actually a whole lot) underpowered. Is this going to be addressed or is there some future city cleaner to help do the street cleaner's job better?

JosEPh

Hydromancerx
May 27, 2013, 09:48 PM
How much do you think they should give?

JosEPh_II
May 28, 2013, 07:22 PM
Well 1 and 1 is weak to say the least. You have many other units and buildings that do multiples of 5 or 10.

What are your bases for Pollution giving "things"? All most all are 5 or it's multiple. We still have smokehouses giving 20? Or was that reduced finally to 10? Which is Still too large for a smokehouse. You would need Hundreds of them to produce any measurable pollution. But I digress. The discussion is over Street cleaner.

I'm not sure what to tell you they should be, cause someone will disagree with what I propose and it will get changed back again. But even 2 and 2 is better than 1 and 1 now isn't it?

By the way have you ever seen a smokehouse in operation? Or it's size? It would need to be the size of your local Wal-Mart to generate the pollution you have attributed to it.

JosEPh

teakbois
May 28, 2013, 07:36 PM
Its not just the 1 and 1, its got a pretty big hammer cost.

I think the concept of a street cleaner would work better as a specialist anyway. Could give a - to both pollutions and disease, with a slight boost to :hammers: and/or :gold: because a cleaner, healthier city would be more productive/attractive to shoppers.

Hydromancerx
May 28, 2013, 08:06 PM
Well 1 and 1 is weak to say the least. You have many other units and buildings that do multiples of 5 or 10.

What are your bases for Pollution giving "things"? All most all are 5 or it's multiple. We still have smokehouses giving 20? Or was that reduced finally to 10? Which is Still too large for a smokehouse. You would need Hundreds of them to produce any measurable pollution. But I digress. The discussion is over Street cleaner.

I'm not sure what to tell you they should be, cause someone will disagree with what I propose and it will get changed back again. But even 2 and 2 is better than 1 and 1 now isn't it?

By the way have you ever seen a smokehouse in operation? Or it's size? It would need to be the size of your local Wal-Mart to generate the pollution you have attributed to it.

JosEPh

Well its hard to judge. Generally the buildings in the cities represent more than one building. Basically the presence of that type of building.

I am open to tweaking polluting and flammability generating buildings too. And as for people arguing with you, has that ever stopped you and I from posting our opinions?

In general my base line is a Factory is 5 Air Pollution and 5 Flammability.

I have tried to account for both open flames, flammable materials, explosive materials and hazardous materials (mainly for water pollution).

I don't feel like looking them all up but if you have some major offenders you think should be readjusted let me know.

JosEPh_II
May 29, 2013, 07:08 AM
So Street Cleaner to 2 and 2 for starter?

JosEPh

Hydromancerx
May 29, 2013, 12:51 PM
Pushed to the SVN.

LumenAngel
Jul 13, 2013, 09:34 AM
Just a little thing about all Polluton building.
Theu nearly all have the same effect : Big unhappiness, big unhealthiness, the bigger have some food malus.

Some ideas to change this :
- Pollution (Acid rains) trigger Acid Rains event, placing a pollution/storm for X turns on a case in city radius (reduce food, commerce and production on case, deal dmg to units)
- Pollution (Blackened Sky) replacee all solar plants and the like
- Polluton (xxx smog) increase disease
- Pollution (xxx Coastal Pollution) decrease commerce on coast title
- Pollution (xxx River Pollution) decrease commerce on river title
- Pollution (Toxic atmosphere) increase deasease and reduce food on all case (not only water case). It increase chance of revolution too beecause 950 is really too much
- Pollution (Toxic hydrosphere) increase deasease and reduce food on all case (not only water case). It increase chance of revolution too beecause 950 is really too much

With this, I think we will have to care a little more about pollution in Industrial and Modern Era.


And a new pollution idea :
- Pollution (Natural Wondrer Waste), req 800 air pollution and a naturl wonder iin city vicenity. +2 unhappy, replace all Wonder of Nature building for land Natural Wonder
- Pollution (Water Natural Wondrer Waste), req 800 water pollution and a naturl wonder iin city vicenity. +2 unhappy, replace all Wonder of Nature building for water Natural Wonder

Hydromancerx
Jul 13, 2013, 01:35 PM
@LumenAngel

Events are beyond my skills so it would have to be Ori or SO to do stuff like a Pollution storm.

LumenAngel
Sep 10, 2013, 01:40 PM
Another idea, link to the other one.
But it would need a new tag for building : "Need <Property> below <number>"

Because, I dont know you, but a marina or a beach where water pollution is 1200... Not for me.
With so much pollution, I think even some fishing building cant work : all fishes are dead... So these building would have a req "Water pollution below XXX".
Same with Air pollution and aeroport or solar panel. If there are a sky black from pollution, they cant work. If the pollution is too much, maybe even farm will be impossible.

Best housing for rich people can have both : only poors want to live in a city where pollution will kill them. Maybe same with some tourism buildings

Hydromancerx
Sep 10, 2013, 02:55 PM
@LumenAngel

Well some has already been done with -food from sea plots and buildings replacing buildings. I suppose we could always add a property or new building that either replaces or bans a resource such a s fish from a city when the pollution is really bad.

Dancing Hoskuld
Sep 10, 2013, 03:14 PM
@LumenAngel

Well some has already been done with -food from sea plots and buildings replacing buildings. I suppose we could always add a property or new building that either replaces or bans a resource such a s fish from a city when the pollution is really bad.

Except that also stops them from having fish from another city where there is no pollution!

Hydromancerx
Sep 10, 2013, 03:29 PM
Except that also stops them from having fish from another city where there is no pollution!

Oh that's true. Guess the replacing of building would have to do.

Note that Blackened Skies currently replaced all 4 solar type of Power Plants.

I suppose we could have an equivalent for the ocean.

EDIT:

One question. If I have 3 buildings A, B and C. And have B replace A and then C replace B, will C replace A? Or once C replaces B then A will be not replaced anymore?

The reason I ask is I wonder if I could have say a Resource Building replaced by a Pollution and then later on have some sort of hi-tech solution to cancel out the pollution but not replace the Resource Building.

Do you know if this is possible if I just don't tell C to replace A?

Dancing Hoskuld
Sep 10, 2013, 03:47 PM
EDIT:

One question. If I have 3 buildings A, B and C. And have B replace A and then C replace B, will C replace A? Or once C replaces B then A will be not replaced anymore?

The reason I ask is I wonder if I could have say a Resource Building replaced by a Pollution and then later on have some sort of hi-tech solution to cancel out the pollution but not replace the Resource Building.

Do you know if this is possible if I just don't tell C to replace A?

C will only replace A if you say it does on A. That is why you have to list all upgrade buildings not just the first.

IE you tell A that C replaces it not tell C that it replaces A.

Hydromancerx
Sep 10, 2013, 04:52 PM
Great! Thanks for confirming my suspicions.

AIAndy
Sep 11, 2013, 12:24 PM
Another idea, link to the other one.
But it would need a new tag for building : "Need <Property> below <number>"

Because, I dont know you, but a marina or a beach where water pollution is 1200... Not for me.
With so much pollution, I think even some fishing building cant work : all fishes are dead... So these building would have a req "Water pollution below XXX".
Same with Air pollution and aeroport or solar panel. If there are a sky black from pollution, they cant work. If the pollution is too much, maybe even farm will be impossible.

Best housing for rich people can have both : only poors want to live in a city where pollution will kill them. Maybe same with some tourism buildings
There is PrereqMaxProperties to restrict a building from construction if the given properties are too high but that one does not deactivate the building if the property gets too high after construction.

Koshling
Sep 11, 2013, 02:08 PM
There is PrereqMaxProperties to restrict a building from construction if the given properties are too high but that one does not deactivate the building if the property gets too high after construction.

...but I'm sure that can easily be added if the XML modders are going to make good use of it...

LumenAngel
Sep 12, 2013, 01:12 PM
There is PrereqMaxProperties to restrict a building from construction if the given properties are too high but that one does not deactivate the building if the property gets too high after construction.

Oh, OK. My idea was more a desactivation.

The replacement work too, Koshling, but can be a little more tricky. Everyone can easily undesrtand why Blackened Sky replace Solar Panl building. But for some buildings, it can be hardier to understand why a given pseudo-building replace a true bluilding, whul it's easier to understand a "it's replaced because Air pollution/Water pollution/Crime is too high".
As an example, Water Pomp buildings can be desacivated because of high water pollution (ans players will hate losing Fresh water in a city because of pollution...). It's easier to say "After 400 Water pollution" than "Replaced by this pseudo building not directly related"

Koshling
Sep 12, 2013, 01:40 PM
Oh, OK. My idea was more a desactivation.

The replacement work too, Koshling, but can be a little more tricky. Everyone can easily undesrtand why Blackened Sky replace Solar Panl building. But for some buildings, it can be hardier to understand why a given pseudo-building replace a true bluilding, whul it's easier to understand a "it's replaced because Air pollution/Water pollution/Crime is too high".
As an example, Water Pomp buildings can be desacivated because of high water pollution (ans players will hate losing Fresh water in a city because of pollution...). It's easier to say "After 400 Water pollution" than "Replaced by this pseudo building not directly related"

Yes, deactivation was what I meant when I said it could be addressed if it was going to get used.

intlidave
Sep 26, 2013, 03:28 PM
Pollution system is acting really weird in v33.
A small pre-industrial town has pollution level of 959 AND RISING. Plenty other cities also have quite high polution. Did I mention yet that this is pre-industrial era?

Save can be downloaded here:
http://www.edisk.cz/en/download/81641/Pollution.CivBeyondSwordSave_3.45MB.html
Town's name is Lijiang.

Crocutrax
Sep 29, 2013, 12:51 AM
Hills and mountains affect how air pollution is diffused. Basically because the city is on a "flat" square surrounded by "elevated" spaces the air pollution is trapped there and the normal diffusion that would contribute to a somewhat lowered city air pollution (and a somewhat heightened air pollution in the surrounding square) is happening to a far less extent. (From my observations).

Also while I'm not sure if this happen to be the case, the pollution caused by the mines on the hills and/or mountains surrounding your city square diffuses to the flat areas around them more readily than other spaces around them. As your city seems to be on a "flat"" square you are also copping a lot of extra pollution from the mines surrounding the city since there are very few other flatland squares within the area. Again not entirely sure if that is the case, but I have experienced a similar thing happen in a city when I did a Modern start in v32.

raxo2222
Sep 30, 2013, 12:33 AM
From what I heard, pollution CAN'T spread over mountains.

Athmos
Oct 03, 2013, 06:52 AM
what ways are in the game to fight air pollution ? and water pollution ? There should really be listings under these concepts in the pédia, so that we have a chance to know how to fight / reduce/ produce less pollution, or flammability, crime and diseases, and the research priority one should set to combat those aspects. with 700+ techs, it's very hard to try to guess where/when one can do anything.

And the next game I'll play, everything will have been changed anyway. The mod really need some better pédia entries, with some guides for such concepts.
At least I think we need listings of building contributing positively to such factors, building contributing negatively, and the tech that allow their buildings. Could such lists be automatically generated ?

Dancing Hoskuld
Oct 03, 2013, 04:13 PM
what ways are in the game to fight air pollution ? and water pollution ? There should really be listings under these concepts in the pédia, so that we have a chance to know how to fight / reduce/ produce less pollution, or flammability, crime and diseases, and the research priority one should set to combat those aspects. with 700+ techs, it's very hard to try to guess where/when one can do anything.

And the next game I'll play, everything will have been changed anyway. The mod really need some better pédia entries, with some guides for such concepts.
At least I think we need listings of building contributing positively to such factors, building contributing negatively, and the tech that allow their buildings. Could such lists be automatically generated ?

We would probably need a new set of pages but once designed they would be dynamic/ always up to date as all pedia pages are generated ultimately from the current XML where such information is stored.

Hydromancerx
Oct 04, 2013, 12:04 AM
what ways are in the game to fight air pollution ? and water pollution ?

Here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12357688&postcount=102) is a list of some of them.

MrAzure
Oct 04, 2013, 07:31 PM
@Hydro
Do we have a Freshwater Merchant already in the game? It could reduce water pollution around it.

Hydromancerx
Oct 05, 2013, 01:25 AM
@Hydro
Do we have a Freshwater Merchant already in the game? It could reduce water pollution around it.

Nope.

I have also been thinking. Perhaps water should be either a property like Electricity or even a Resource. I have not been able to figure out how it should work or if it should even be done. Especially when we have water pollution already as a property.

Faustmouse
Oct 05, 2013, 03:28 AM
As I propsed in the Research and Securety Property thread (we should really clean up a bit and make either ONE thread for the new discussed properties or one thread for each property), Water should be a property and be verly valuable especially in desert regions and the TH era.

Yudishtira
Oct 05, 2013, 10:53 AM
As I propsed in the Research and Securety Property thread (we should really clean up a bit and make either ONE thread for the new discussed properties or one thread for each property), Water should be a property and be verly valuable especially in desert regions and the TH era.

Why is water at a premium in TH? You mean on the moon? What happened to the oceans?

Yes of course that's saltwater but a) water has lots of uses other than being drunk and b) desalination technology does not have to be speculated as we have it already.

Thunderbrd
Oct 05, 2013, 11:20 AM
Nope.

I have also been thinking. Perhaps water should be either a property like Electricity or even a Resource. I have not been able to figure out how it should work or if it should even be done. Especially when we have water pollution already as a property.

Drinking water could be a very important resource. Perhaps properties could track it properly but there's two severities of difference in its lack that would be tough to manage.

1) There's no pure water but you're on Earth so if you're clever you can get just enough to get by anywhere.

2) There's no pure water but you're not on Earth so you're dead.

Faustmouse
Oct 05, 2013, 11:26 AM
Why is water at a premium in TH? You mean on the moon? What happened to the oceans?


No, but now, with an exploding population and disappearing glaciers (that supplied a lot of people with fresh water) there is a strong need to find new sources of water. And yes, desalination is a fine concept, but it requires quite a lot energy.

Dancing Hoskuld
Oct 05, 2013, 03:17 PM
There is already a property on plots called fresh water but it either yes or no.

No, but now, with an exploding population and disappearing glaciers (that supplied a lot of people with fresh water) there is a strong need to find new sources of water. And yes, desalination is a fine concept, but it requires quite a lot energy.

Small plants do require a lot of energy, but large plants work with just the energy from the sun. Think glass houses over salt water canals with the fresh water condensing on the glass and being collected.

MrAzure
Oct 05, 2013, 07:18 PM
There is already a property on plots called fresh water but it either yes or no.



Small plants do require a lot of energy, but large plants work with just the energy from the sun. Think glass houses over salt water canals with the fresh water condensing on the glass and being collected.

There is also "water generator" in future by combining Hydrogen and oxygen and freeze it with Liquid Nitrogen . That's why I wanted Noble Gases resource.

Yudishtira
Oct 05, 2013, 11:06 PM
And yes, desalination is a fine concept, but it requires quite a lot energy.

That's what those who covet the monopoly over your water supply want you to believe, which is why it's the 'conventional wisdom' despite being quite false.

Seriously we are implementing all these barely-dreamed-of future tech buildings etc. and travelling to the planets and the stars, but are going to put current techs such as desalination in the too-hard basket? Sorry but no way.

MrAzure
Oct 05, 2013, 11:24 PM
We have Desalination Plant at Novus Chemistry already.

You can get Hydrogen from a Gas Giant and gas distilled carbon dioxide to get oxygen. Fuse both and you get Water.

Water won't be scarce for a while as long as both resources are avaliable.

Maxima7
Oct 05, 2013, 11:44 PM
There is also "water generator" in future by combining Hydrogen and oxygen and freeze it with Liquid Nitrogen . That's why I wanted Noble Gases resource.

You can just use waste heat from plants. Both solar (Concentrated Solar Power) and nuclear can generate a lot of heat.

Faustmouse
Oct 06, 2013, 06:18 AM
We have Desalination Plant at Novus Chemistry already.

You can get Hydrogen from a Gas Giant and gas distilled carbon dioxide to get oxygen. Fuse both and you get Water.

Water won't be scarce for a while as long as both resources are avaliable.

Why would you import Hydrogen from other planets and let it react with oxygen just to generate water if you have oceans full of it?

Also, neither Hydrogen nor Oxygen nor nitrogen are noblegases? :crazyeye:



Ok the Desalination Plants make a lot of sense. Downside is, that they release the salt-inriched water not too far away from the place they gather water for desalination. At least this is what I know...

MrAzure
Oct 06, 2013, 11:27 AM
I was talking when in space far away from Terra planets.

You know, if we are going to have Electricity, what we can do for water is Plumbing.

The same property, just duplicated for water.


Electricity /Power
Plumbing /Aqua

Water Towers store extra water.

Water Tower
+10 Aqua

Irrigation
+1 food - 3 Aqua

Electricity converts gold to Power indirectly
Plumbing converts hammers to Aqua indirectly


If Aqua sounds too weird, we can call it H2O or Tap Water. Aqua can mean purified water.

Thunderbrd
Oct 06, 2013, 11:37 AM
I was talking when in space far away from Terra planets.

You know, if we are going to have Electricity, what we can do for water is Plumbing.

The same property, just duplicated for water.


Electricity /Power
Plumbing /Aqua

Water Towers store extra water.

Water Tower
+10 Aqua

Irrigation
+1 food - 3 Aqua

Electricity converts gold to Power indirectly
Plumbing converts hammers to Aqua indirectly


If Aqua sounds too weird, we can call it H2O or Tap Water. Aqua can mean purified water.
I'd begun to consider this in a similar manner... once electricity is worked out this would be a great project I think :) It'd have its own tricks to working through it though.

MrAzure
Oct 06, 2013, 12:37 PM
Except for volcanic activities, I am perplexed why there is air pollution above 100 before the Renassiance.

I think Crops and Farms need to have a - 1 Air Pollution.

Distillation if it already doesn't needs a - Water Pollution.

If there is a heavy rain event, it needs to give - Water Pollution.

Aqueduct - Water Pollution.

Wells - Water Pollution.

Hydromancerx
Oct 07, 2013, 02:07 AM
I think Crops and Farms need to have a - 1 Air Pollution.

I pondered over this for awhile. And my conclusion was to have crops be neutral. Since chopping down the trees and clearing the land would remove plants that could clean the air. However the crops themselves to help clean th air, but not as much as a forest could. So rather than giving an air penalty I just have them cancel each other out and give 0.

Distillation if it already doesn't needs a - Water Pollution.

Hmm. This is more for getting out the salt. I would think the Water Treatment Plant and Sewers would cover this.

If there is a heavy rain event, it needs to give - Water Pollution.

Good idea. Perhaps storms too could do that.

Aqueduct - Water Pollution.

It has no filtration so it don't give it.

Wells - Water Pollution.

Artiesian Well Gives it while the Town Well dose not. Since the artesian well has a filtration system.

MrAzure
Oct 07, 2013, 02:44 AM
Sigh, Your design philosophy is a bit weird.


Distillation = Filtration.

Again, you keep combing elements from buildings in two eras into one.

Distillery is Medieval
Water Treatment Plant is Industrial
Sewers is probably Classical

I don't understand why you do this over and over lol.

Hydromancerx
Oct 07, 2013, 03:30 AM
Sigh, Your design philosophy is a bit weird.


Distillation = Filtration.

Again, you keep combing elements from buildings in two eras into one.

Distillery is Medieval
Water Treatment Plant is Industrial
Sewers is probably Classical

I don't understand why you do this over and over lol.

Oops! I thought you ment the "Desalinization Plant".

As for the "Distillery" that's for making liquor, not distilling water.

Athmos
Oct 07, 2013, 03:36 AM
was distillery ever used for water purification in any significant amount ?

Drinking water purification should help reduce disease. Before the industrial era, the most common methods are boiling (tea drinking - tea house should certainly help combat disease), and the use of alcohol. Alcohol beverages have obvious long term health issues, but wines are not subjects to bacteria issues as much and storing drinking storage as beer, cider and wine probably did help reduce disease spreads (compared to drinking from the river).

The reduction of water pollution is more to do with waste treatment (as opposed to water purification, which is more linked to drinking water and disease), and generating less wastes. However, most technologies that are impacting pollution got cleaner with time, by small increments. Tannery is tannery, but tanning leather directly in the river with toxic mineral compounds is more polluting than the use of organic wastes compound, which are worse than using vegetable tanning agents, and the use of a separate place for tanners in town or along the river helped reducing the pollution, then often restriction to a certain small river, then technique to use less water, then filtration techniques in the tanneries, etc. When tanners started using organbic wastes (feces, urea) for their work, they also employed people to collect these in the streets, so tanners also had somewhat of a cleaning effect in the streets from that point (overall still polluting, but still).

Waste concentration (landfills, from open air ones to nuclear wastes storage, same ideas), don't treat pollution itself but diminish its effect by putting it all in one place - usually not our kitchen. The installation of public trash bin (no sooner than the industrial era IRL !) and the progressive diminution of littering also had a huge impact on city pollution.


I think we could reasonably assume that most technology linked pollution generation would decrease with time once technology matures (at least that's the pattern for older practices, until now). In game terms, that would be pollution generated by buildings. As time goes on and technology mature, the impact of a new development should recedes and its effect gradually be considered to merge with the population generated pollution.


For many buildings, the pollution generated should diminish with technology progresses. In game terms, key tech would reduce the pollution generated by the buildings.

Some techniques got better at purifying and protecting water as well.

For example, the romans had "closed" sewer, but most of medieval cities had open air sewers - which are not as good - and our modern sewers are a lot more efficient, better designed, and can cope with much larger amounts of water, waste, events like strong rains, etc.

Maybe we could build open-air sewers, then upgrade them to closed sewers, than add some "main collector" or such improvement later on to get better water treatment ?

There are also some researches in the work to use some measure of bacteria enrichment to get a better and faster degradation of wastes before even reaching a water treatment station.



Population in itself with all its activities is the main pollution generator later on; the most impacting changes then become change in the way we live (Law/urban organisation, etc : compare in your mind a city where everyone commute with his own car to one where most people use public transportation, bike, and walking).

As an example, a city well equipped with bike lanes, pedestrian equipment (pedestrian bridges, large walkways, protected crossings, etc), and public transportation would really generate much less air pollution than one without for example. Such buildings would be very welcome; and they would make some of the most obvious candidates for modern era buildings to fight pollution (I think there are none ?).

intlidave
Oct 07, 2013, 05:15 AM
was distillery ever used for water purification in any significant amount ?


AFAIK only for industrial use (distilled water isn't very good for drinking anyway - no salts).


Drinking water purification should help reduce disease. Before the industrial era, the most common methods are boiling (tea drinking - tea house should certainly help combat disease), and the use of alcohol. Alcohol beverages have obvious long term health issues, but wines are not subjects to bacteria issues as much and storing drinking storage as beer, cider and wine probably did help reduce disease spreads (compared to drinking from the river).

Good point. I'd also like to add that most cooking was done "at home". A few additions: (watery) soups were a vital part of medieval/early modern cuisine. Honey was used to preserve fruits, salt to preserve meats, etc...

The reduction of water pollution is more to do with waste treatment (as opposed to water purification, which is more linked to drinking water and disease), and generating less wastes. However, most technologies that are impacting pollution got cleaner with time, by small increments. Tannery is tannery, but tanning leather directly in the river with toxic mineral compounds is more polluting than the use of organic wastes compound, which are worse than using vegetable tanning agents, and the use of a separate place for tanners in town or along the river helped reducing the pollution, then often restriction to a certain small river, then technique to use less water, then filtration techniques in the tanneries, etc. When tanners started using organbic wastes (feces, urea) for their work, they also employed people to collect these in the streets, so tanners also had somewhat of a cleaning effect in the streets from that point (overall still polluting, but still).

Yes. I'd like to see later-era resource producing buildings (say leather factory as opposed to tannery) create LESS pollution, rather than more.

Waste concentration (landfills, from open air ones to nuclear wastes storage, same ideas), don't treat pollution itself but diminish its effect by putting it all in one place - usually not our kitchen. The installation of public trash bin (no sooner than the industrial era IRL !) and the progressive diminution of littering also had a huge impact on city pollution.

Somewhat. Modern landfills are placed so they contaminate neither water, nor air in populated areas. Medieval cesspits were worse. Totally agree on trash bins.

...
Population in itself with all its activities is the main pollution generator later on; the most impacting changes then become change in the way we live (Law/urban organisation, etc : compare in your mind a city where everyone commute with his own car to one where most people use public transportation, bike, and walking).

I'd say that heavy industry is still by far the greatest pollutant. The big difference is that most of it has been outsourced to China these days, so people in the West don't notice it any more.


As an example, a city well equipped with bike lanes, pedestrian equipment (pedestrian bridges, large walkways, protected crossings, etc), and public transportation would really generate much less air pollution than one without for example. Such buildings would be very welcome; and they would make some of the most obvious candidates for modern era buildings to fight pollution (I think there are none ?).

Automobiles are the third largest source of pollution after industry and power generations. Lead-free fuels and catalytic converters put a huge dent in the amount of pollutants they produce though. And Hydrogen-powered cars and EVs produce no pollution at all.

Yudishtira
Oct 07, 2013, 06:37 AM
Great post Athmos!


Drinking water purification should help reduce disease. Before the industrial era, the most common methods are boiling (tea drinking - tea house should certainly help combat disease), and the use of alcohol. Alcohol beverages have obvious long term health issues, but wines are not subjects to bacteria issues as much and storing drinking storage as beer, cider and wine probably did help reduce disease spreads (compared to drinking from the river).

I don't think anyone replaces all their water/milk consumption with alcohol - anyway if they did it would be far more unhealthy would it not? No on second thoughts you're right, there were certainly periods just about everyone was drinking beer/mead/wine/cider for a significant proportion of the time.

As for the tea-house (or the coffee-house, tavern, pub, etc.), I dare say you would not consume a significant proportion of your liquid intake there. I don't think it should be given any impact. About boiling in general, you're absolutely right. When do you think boiling became commonplace? I dare say it was long before Pasteur, but beyond that I have no idea. I would (off the top of my head) put it somewhere in the mid-Renaissance. Certainly the technology to do it existed in the home from way way back, but I'm talking about the knowing to thus reduce disease, which is a (folk-medicine - IMO) tech in its own right.

However, most technologies that are impacting pollution got cleaner with time, by small increments. Tannery is tannery, but tanning leather directly in the river with toxic mineral compounds is more polluting than the use of organic wastes compound, which are worse than using vegetable tanning agents, and the use of a separate place for tanners in town or along the river helped reducing the pollution, then often restriction to a certain small river, then technique to use less water, then filtration techniques in the tanneries, etc. When tanners started using organbic wastes (feces, urea) for their work, they also employed people to collect these in the streets, so tanners also had somewhat of a cleaning effect in the streets from that point (overall still polluting, but still).

You obviously know your stuff about the increments. However, there is no incentive for the tanner to change his methods. Therefore it usually needs to be mandated before the incremental methods take over. Often it is not mandated until some shocking crisis happens. Thus often increments that were available add together without being implemented, until a crisis incentivizes the authorities to mandate a change. The accumulated increments, all implemented at once, can have an impact akin to a revolution!

the progressive diminution of littering also had a huge impact on city pollution.

...some places more than others.;) Depending on the culture... And some times more than others. For example I would not be surprised if littering became more prevalent over the course of the 20th century.

I think we could reasonably assume that most technology linked pollution generation would decrease with time once technology matures (at least that's the pattern for older practices, until now). In game terms, that would be pollution generated by buildings. As time goes on and technology mature, the impact of a new development should recedes and its effect gradually be considered to merge with the population generated pollution.

Hmmm as above, it's not as simple as this is it? The new technology becomes available, but is not implemented due to inertia, fear of the unknown and the substantial initial cost of the change in infrastructure. Not to mention 'vested interests'... For example, most of us still use coal and steam (ie. technology which obsoleted for other purposes around a century ago) to generate electricity...

For many buildings, the pollution generated should diminish with technology progresses. In game terms, key tech would reduce the pollution generated by the buildings.

Again, techs don't generate change without the will to change. Which is more a civic or an ordnance than a technology imo.

Some techniques got better at purifying and protecting water as well.

For example, the romans had "closed" sewer, but most of medieval cities had open air sewers - which are not as good - and our modern sewers are a lot more efficient, better designed, and can cope with much larger amounts of water, waste, events like strong rains, etc.

Good point. They're called the Dark Ages because 'standard of living' actually took a giant leap backwards. Some Classical Roman technology is arguably 'Renaissance-era' in game terms.

Maybe we could build open-air sewers, then upgrade them to closed sewers, than add some "main collector" or such improvement later on to get better water treatment ?

There are also some researches in the work to use some measure of bacteria enrichment to get a better and faster degradation of wastes before even reaching a water treatment station.

If you think open-air sewers gave any real benefit. I know more is more, but buildings without benefits are an exception:

Buildings - Benefits = CLUTTER :lol:

Population in itself with all its activities is the main pollution generator later on; the most impacting changes then become change in the way we live (Law/urban organisation, etc : compare in your mind a city where everyone commute with his own car to one where most people use public transportation, bike, and walking).

Exactly.

As an example, a city well equipped with bike lanes, pedestrian equipment (pedestrian bridges, large walkways, protected crossings, etc), and public transportation would really generate much less air pollution than one without for example. Such buildings would be very welcome; and they would make some of the most obvious candidates for modern era buildings to fight pollution (I think there are none ?).

But as you say, it requires the will to use it. You could add a trillion's worth of Euro-style pedestrian infrastructure to LA, and they would still get in their SUV to go next door...:mischief:

Athmos
Oct 07, 2013, 07:30 AM
Great post Athmos!
Thanks !

Now I will have to answers yours (great post) in details :)


(...)
As for the tea-house (or the coffee-house, tavern, pub, etc.), I dare say you would not consume a significant proportion of your liquid intake there. I don't think it should be given any impact. (...)

Tea house are only the form it takes in the game. For entire civilization (India, China, North Africa, Maghreb and middle-east for example), a large proportion of the water absorbed during the day was Tea or herbal tea of some sort since times immemorial. In Europe, soup (as mentioned by intlidave) and low alcoholic beverage were a large part of the water intake.


(...)
However, there is no incentive for the tanner to change his methods.
(...)

social pressure was enough for tanners to be isolated in specialized quarters as soon as antiquity in many instances, like many industries. Some of the compounds that were used for a long time were toxic enough to kill people working with them in YEARS. Since you can only have so many apprentices to burn through, toxicity IS a sufficient incentive when it get high enough. Hands burned by the products used, fumes toxicity killing a neighbours son (or convincing him it did), and the average longevity of the profession being 10 years lower than the standard populations are incentive.

Many improvement were implemented over the course of history because people realised they were improvement, even if they didn't have the science to carefully lay down the chain of causation from original poisonous substances to shorter life the way we do now.


(...)And some times more than others. For example I would not be surprised if littering became more prevalent over the course of the 20th century.

Until the public trash bin, people just threw their stuff, from faeces to discarded food, in the street.

With prosperity and progressive improvements in our level of life, we pay more and more attention to all this. This is no wonder we live at least (too lazy to check exact numbers) 10 years older than a century ago.


(...)
For example, most of us still use coal and steam (ie. technology which obsoleted for other purposes around a century ago) to generate electricity...


My point exactly ! But your Power plant use steam turbines that are probably more than twice as efficient, the coal is better refined, a higher temperature burn produce more energy with less coals, generates less smoke as well, and there are filters in the chimney that remove some of the worse pollutants... A modern power plant is vastly more efficient (use less coal per Watt generated), and generates significantly less pollution for a given quantity of coal burned.

Some of these changes are the result of law changes (filters, conditions on the quality of coal...), think "clean Air act", but most of the evolutions are ways to make more power with less coal : Anyone in the business would implement those as soon as possible. Efficiency upgrades are their own incentive, and they constitute a large part of the actual pollution reduction as well. If you burn less coal per Watt, you are generating less pollution.


Again, techs don't generate change without the will to change. Which is more a civic or an ordnance than a technology imo.


See above.



Good point. They're called the Dark Ages because 'standard of living' actually took a giant leap backwards. Some Classical Roman technology is arguably 'Renaissance-era' in game terms.


Indeed, the "re-naissance" (rebirth in french) is the time when europe re-discovered its roman and greek ancestors, their philosophy and some lost techniques.


If you think open-air sewers gave any real benefit. I know more is more, but buildings without benefits are an exception:

Buildings - Benefits = CLUTTER :lol:


I completely agree. It would only present an interest if it was implemented as a kind of lesser version of the current sewer system.


But as you say, it requires the will to use it. You could add a trillion's worth of Euro-style pedestrian infrastructure to LA, and they would still get in their SUV to go next door...:mischief:

I don't think so. It all goes together really. And this is all choices. Any money/production spent on building transportation systems is not spent on building highways. And you definitely forgot about EU style oil/gas prices...

I live in Europe, and most people commuted by car in many places for a long time. In 30 years, most cities (some very slowly and late, some faster and more spectacularly) have changed a lot regarding people habits about transportation. Town centres are more and more pedestrian, people are coming back to town centres, tramways are sprouting again all over the cities (after a 50+ years disappearance in many cases). Uses that you think simply CANT change do actually evolve quite fast if you look at it later on.

intlidave
Oct 07, 2013, 08:43 AM
Thanks !
...
With prosperity and progressive improvements in our level of life, we pay more and more attention to all this. This is no wonder we live at least (too lazy to check exact numbers) 10 years older than a century ago.

I'm not :) http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0005140.html

My point exactly ! But your Power plant use steam turbines that are probably more than twice as efficient, the coal is better refined, a higher temperature burn produce more energy with less coals, generates less smoke as well, and there are filters in the chimney that remove some of the worse pollutants... A modern power plant is vastly more efficient (use less coal per Watt generated), and generates significantly less pollution for a given quantity of coal burned.

I've been to a coal-burning power plant recently. The only things that come out are water vapor and CO2.

I live in europe, and most people commuted by car in many places for a long time. In 30 years, most cities (some very slowly and late, some faster and more spectacularly) have changed a lot regarding people habits about transportation. Town centres are more and more pedestrian, people are coming back to town centres, tramways are sprouting again all over the cities (after a 50+ years appearance in many cases). Uses that you think simply CANT change do actually evolve quite fast if you look at it later on.
In my experience: The only people coming to town centers are tourists. Locals avoid them like the plagued quagmires they are. Local governments are doing everything in their power to make the situation worse (bus only lanes, parking zones, banning cars from entire areas) and the only group that unquestionably benefits from all this are drug dealers. And bureaucrats who are (naturally) exempt from these ordinances.

Athmos
Oct 07, 2013, 09:17 AM
Well, I live smack down in the centre of a 500K+ inhabitant city in France, which is rather underdeveloped when it come to public transportation (comparatively with other french cities), because of geographic constraints (between mountain and sea) and higher "car" conservatism, and I can tell you the town centre is rather pleasant to live in, I commute by bus, and in many many towns in Europe the centre is among the "rich" quarters, and quite often the richest.

As far as I know, urbanism is very different in the US (maybe that's where you're thinking about ?) and town centres are often poorer places or ex-gethos, but I can assure you that in Europe, you are often much better of living in the centre rather than in the suburbs. I never went to the US (yet !), but as far as reputation goes, New York is the only town that is structured in a comparable way.

There's a reason the price of a flat in Paris (for example) is so much higher than in the suburbs.

intlidave
Oct 07, 2013, 09:36 AM
I live just outside Prague. And while the center *was* (well, by most standards it still is, just nowhere near as before) rich, most businesses moved to the outskirts. These days there are only two reasons for having a business in city center: tourism and prestige.
Anyway, I think we're getting a bit off topic here.
To get to my point: Want less pollution from traffic? Devise personal transportation that pollutes less. Public transportation has limited capabilities and ordinances often make things worse instead of better.

LumenAngel
Oct 07, 2013, 01:57 PM
@Athmos and Yudishtira View Post
Not, it was call "Dark Age" and "Renaissance" mainly for politic reasons. In fight, Dark Age are far less dark tha some people thinj, and Renaissance is not a ray of light in these darkness.

@Athmos
Hmmmmm... Marseille? :D

@MrAzure
Near a medieval tannery or blacksmith, Air pollution was nearly worse than during industrial era.
And 1-2 ^^

intlidave
Oct 10, 2013, 11:25 AM
Speaking of pollution:
http://www.damninteresting.com/in-soviet-russia-lake-contaminates-you/

MrAzure
Oct 12, 2013, 01:31 AM
Here are Water and Air Property Icons (if you want it).

Hydromancerx
Oct 12, 2013, 02:41 AM
Actually I think that water droplet is what I used for it but when it shrunk down it was hard to see.

Also that cloud look way too clean to be air pollution.

Faustmouse
Oct 12, 2013, 03:35 AM
1. If we might using clean water as Property then the Water Pollution Icon should look different.

2. With all the Pollution and Disease I was thinking if we should get rid of the :yuck: from normal buildings. A Factory is mostly :yuck: because of the Air Pollution for example. Then we need to add more Pollution Pseudo buildings and/or tweak existing ones.

Hydromancerx
Oct 12, 2013, 03:38 AM
The :yuck: is mainly for injures and stuff. They are not the safest places to be.

Dancing Hoskuld
Oct 12, 2013, 03:45 PM
Not so most was pollution from all the fibers (eg cotton) and smoke.

BTW if you want me to change the font icons for the properties put the request with the icons on teh Art Request thread. That way I wont be guessing what I should do. :)

Faustmouse
Jan 31, 2014, 01:30 AM
Since we discovered how to use Techs, Resources and Civics to modify buildings properties, I had some ideas about pollution:

1) Roads (Highways etc) should get more Air Pollution (AP) with Automobiles. This can be decreased when other Automobiles are available (for example electric cars) or with new techs (iE Fuel Cells.)

2) Factories should start with fewer AP and develope more during the Ind Era. During the Modern Era this should gradually decrease again. Flammability in Factories as well as :yuck: should also decrese in the Modern Era.

3) Some techs can increase the AP and Water Pollution (WP) from Housing buildings while others (iE Solar Power) could decrease them. This could work on a "per pop" basis, if this is really possible.

4) Flammability in general could be reduced by some Techs like Canal Building and different fire fighting techs.

5) IIRC (and I'm pretty sure I do) it is even possible to modify a Buildings properties with another building. So iE Smokehous could get -5 Flammability with Irrigation Canals. I need to check this again.


Hydro asked me to post them here so others can comment on them (or bring up more ideas). So... here you go :goodjob:

Hydromancerx
Jan 31, 2014, 01:39 AM
1. What would this be applied to? An auto-build building or some constructable?

2. Arg that's a big thing to apply since there are TONS of factory buildings. Doable but just a pain.

3. Many of these are in place from what building the player chooses. Such as building a Solar Power Plant instead of a Coal Power Plant.

4. Probably a good idea. However they kinda do already with the buildings they unlock. Sure you discovered Firefighting but if you don't build a Fire Station then its not much of a use.

5. Yes I think you can have a building effect the stats of another building. However its to EVERY building. So such a building should be a National Wonder.

Faustmouse
Jan 31, 2014, 01:50 AM
1) No, just the Road(s) itself. Like "+50 AP with Automobiles"

2) I know, but most of them are in either your Craft Mod or my Module, so at least they are easy to find.

3) Well yeah... Have you ever build a Wind Farm to really GET energy? I haven't. Just for the extra hammer probably. So I usually have both, Coal and Solar Power Plant.

4) Well, I say wie COULD use the new discovery for that :crazyeye:

5) Are you sure it's every building? I think with the Expression system it should be possible to give Building X: "+5 Education if building Y is in the same city".

Hydromancerx
Jan 31, 2014, 02:14 AM
2) If you want to be the one to add the could you have my permission to edit my mod. However we should decide what values at what tech first.

3) No because Wind Farms come so much later. However one could delete the coal building once Wind Farms are available. However all this is better suited to have the Electricity mod that we have yet to make.

5) In my experience it has been every city. I do not know for the same city.

Faustmouse
Jan 31, 2014, 02:57 AM
2) Sure.

3) Yeah, you are right I guess...

5) I think it should be possible to translate the code from: "<Has>TECH_XXX</Has>" to BUILDING. I will try it out this weekend.

AIAndy
Jan 31, 2014, 12:11 PM
5) I think it should be possible to translate the code from: "<Has>TECH_XXX</Has>" to BUILDING. I will try it out this weekend.
Indeed that is possible. Any GOM type can be used like this (buildings, civics, improvements, ...).

You could also do things like give +1 for every hill near the city or +1 for every city within 10 tiles that has building X.
Only a small subset of what is possible has been put to use yet.

Mind though that compared to the dynamic properties like crime and education, the static properties like flammability are underdevelopped and the things you can do there are very limited (as in you can't have +X at tech Y).

Faustmouse
Jan 31, 2014, 12:36 PM
Very cool!
I think there was a not tag was well? So you could give Markets +10 Crime if there are not Market Scales in this City.

AIAndy
Jan 31, 2014, 12:42 PM
Very cool!
I think there was a not tag was well? So you could give Markets +10 Crime if there are not Market Scales in this City.
True.

Dancing Hoskuld
Jan 31, 2014, 02:29 PM
the problem then is with the hover over for the buildings as they will have all this expression system stuff that does not show up when you are deciding what to build. Eg you are deciding between building a market and a market scales.

AIAndy
Jan 31, 2014, 03:53 PM
the problem then is with the hover over for the buildings as they will have all this expression system stuff that does not show up when you are deciding what to build. Eg you are deciding between building a market and a market scales.
It does show up, but only on the building that you put the property manipulator on, and it might be hard to read at times.