Removal of Global Warming

TheMeInTeam said:

By far the most likely reason is that the game was released before they could even present a complete AI, or war vs peace strategy balance, or a game that does not crash on us. Those kinds of things are a much bigger priority than any kind of GW - before we go adding features (or asking for more of them), it's probably a good idea to work on/ask for the features that are in the game to work!

Click to expand...

I want an economy that's based on more than just # of cities.

I want warfare based on more than building 4 highly promoted horseman or ranged units and then massacring everything.

I want AIs that don't act like it's Always War, All the Time

Can they give us those, please?

I do not know but think they should create some kind of improvement of tile (in forest or jungle) to set up some kind of ecological park or forest reserve that would provide health and production of hammers at the same time.
Improvement near rivers as water treatment and respect for animals that were raised earlier this misogyny, could have an option to tame them ...

what do you think about it?!

TheMeInTeam said:

By far the most likely reason is that the game was released before they could even present a complete AI, or war vs peace strategy balance, or a game that does not crash on us. Those kinds of things are a much bigger priority than any kind of GW - before we go adding features (or asking for more of them), it's probably a good idea to work on/ask for the features that are in the game to work!

Click to expand...

Of course! However, the thread's topic is the removal of GW, and we don't need another thread derailed into Civ V criticism. But just in case:

Venereus said:

Of course! However, the thread's topic is the removal of GW, and we don't need another thread derailed into Civ V criticism. But just in case:

Spoiler :

Half of Civ V's game mechanics are an annoying disaster.[/HATE]

Click to expand...

Granted, but I still bring a valid point:

Rather than GW suffering from "removal", it needs something to justify its inclusion. No matter when this game was released or how good or bad it was on release, GW would still compete with alternative mechanics for time.

And historically, GW has been one of the least dynamic, least realistic, and most useless mechanics from a gameplay balance standpoint. Adding to that fact that it is a politically controversial topic which has almost no unbiased data coming from any media source (or even academic sources) on either side of the issue and that it has had little impact on the decisions for almost the entirety of history that makes up a civ game, it's complete inability to provide anything useful in terms of gameplay balance in a single civ game certainly seems to bump its priority a notch or two below improving the AI or ironing out a peace treaty bug .

Zechnophobe said:

On the one hand, I agree that previous global warming mechanics weren't the best. Especially as the tied in to Nuke usage more than was reasonable (in many cases).

On the other though, doesn't it seem like a rather auspicious decision given the REAL worlds current political climate... and actual climate?

I bring up the subject because I am worried it may have been a politically motivated move or something. Like, they didn't want to make people denying Global Warming (via people) to not buy the game. I've always considered Civ to be a good learning tool, and I'm sad to see this latent warning removed.

Click to expand...

I don't know how a theory based on admittedly faked and replicated temperature readings and thermometers planted next to heat generators and on top of cement buildings is even considered.

Well, I do, it has a lot to do with the motivations and view of man that the philosophy of collectivism has spawned.

Game-wise, Firaxis didn't even finish the very basic stuff, so it's no wonder that they didn't get to an end-game mechanic.

Venereus said:

Global Warming was "streamlined" out of the game probably for the same reasons everything else was left out. Firaxis, in their misguided conception that their costumers are dumb, thought some people's mind would be blown away by such a concept. Either that, or it was politically motivated by a similar reasoning, wich would be worse, and therefore I prefer the first explanation.

Click to expand...

You may have remembered it fondly, but I assure you, whack a mole global warming and keeping armies of workers scurrying to clear up your land, and sometimes your neighbours lands was a waste of time.

It was unfun and the first thing cut with Civ4.

I'm not even sure why global warming is even considered as another one of those deep features cut from Civ5 when it was last seen limping out as a core mechanic nearly half a decade ago.

dexters said:

You may have remembered it fondly, but I assure you, whack a mole global warming and keeping armies of workers scurrying to clear up your land, and sometimes your neighbours lands was a waste of time.

It was unfun and the first thing cut with Civ4.

I'm not even sure why global warming is even considered as another one of those deep features cut from Civ5 when it was last seen limping out as a core mechanic nearly half a decade ago.

Click to expand...

I'm more fond of Civ IV BTS Global Warming than previous versions, but I still think is more on the side of features that should've been reworked instead of ditched, like Religion or Espionage, except GW isn't expansion pack material. Heck, you can even include the debatable nature of the subject in it's implementation.

Global Warming might be a well-documented and verifiable problem, but that doesn't mean it is a fun game mechanic. On the contrary, since we can't do things like move cities or alter the terrain (building/removing hills, working mountains, reclaiming land from the sea, planting forests, etc.) it always seemed an annoying thing when your terrain tiles suddenly turned to desert. Also unrealistic; some areas would get dryer, sure, but others would get wetter and more tropical, while some places would just be flooded over.

IMO, it could be replaced with desertification, a problem which has affected human civilization in all eras and which would discourage AI and human players alike from chopping all their forests.

I don't think there's ANYTHING political about the removal of global warming. I think it was removed for the same reason random events were removed: the design team felt that ANY negative 'random' event that affected the player was "not fun".

Whether you agree with that or not is up to you.

Defianc4 said:

I don't know how a theory based on admittedly faked and replicated temperature readings and thermometers planted next to heat generators and on top of cement buildings is even considered.

Well, I do, it has a lot to do with the motivations and view of man that the philosophy of collectivism has spawned.

Click to expand...

You've never met a single climatologist or geologist or ecologist have you? That's too bad, they're good people. Hairy oftentimes....but usually pretty nice and real smart.

Oh, you're also ALMOST CERTAINLY an American Conservative and probably a Christian to boot.

(I have nothing against Americans, conservatives or christians being two out of those three things myself.....just making a point that anti-global warming claims pretty much ONLY come from a certain segment of the world's population).

A little respect for people who have spent their entire lives working and studying something is usually warranted. Not always (I will admit....) but usually.....

There's alot of stuff that would have to implemented for global climate to be a real problem, not just a nuisance.
Best thing is like people said is that worlds have actual climates with wind currents relative to high and low pressure areas (land and sea), sea currents, natural climate change, atmospheric changes etc.
Otherwise its just another half arrsed nuisance like religion in Civ IV. It needs a more complex system then just having random tiles turn to desert.
And with Civ V already being so slow i doubt we will se this implemented in the game.

Fluxx said:

4. The measurement data that is available to us is on a miniscule timescale (110 years) to what it should be to make any conclusions.

Click to expand...

I should probably state that this is factually incorrect.

There are many methods for studying the climate of the Earth going back into the very distant past. One such measure (and again, there are many) includes looking at ice from the south pole and recognizing how often the floating ice-shelf there has broken free of Antarctica as a result of fluctuations in the world's temperature.

I believe we can comfortably go back several 10s of thousands of years (if I rememebr correctly...been a while, you see...)

Probably adding in a climate change component is too difficult. I mean, FIRST they would have to add in global cooling as a consequence of industrial activity, like all the enviro-scientists were worried about in the 1970s. Then they would have to have this same industrial activity cause global warming rather than cooling starting right around 1980 or so. And THEN right around 2008 they would have to have have neither cooling or warming be caused by industrial activity, but instead all "Extreme" weather is caused by industrial activity. And they would also need a video of the man-made climate change viewpoint actually jumping a shark tank (during Al Gores global climate change rock concert), and as we all know they took out videos from the game...

jjkrause84 said:

You've never met a single climatologist or geologist or ecologist have you? That's too bad, they're good people. Hairy oftentimes....but usually pretty nice and real smart.

Oh, you're also ALMOST CERTAINLY an American Conservative and probably a Christian to boot.

(I have nothing against Americans, conservatives or christians being two out of those three things myself.....just making a point that anti-global warming claims pretty much ONLY come from a certain segment of the world's population).

A little respect for people who have spent their entire lives working and studying something is usually warranted. Not always (I will admit....) but usually.....

Click to expand...

The challenge to link a source that definitively proves man-made global warming as a significant % of recent climate change stands. No media reports or other pure trash, the study itself please.

If you can't do it, you're no more valid than anyone else.

Also, you're making some mighty claims about world opinion, once again lacking sources.

Of your criteria, I'm American and that's about it.

jjkrause84 said:

I should probably state that this is factually incorrect.

There are many methods for studying the climate of the Earth going back into the very distant past. One such measure (and again, there are many) includes looking at ice from the south pole and recognizing how often the floating ice-shelf there has broken free of Antarctica as a result of fluctuations in the world's temperature.

I believe we can comfortably go back several 10s of thousands of years (if I rememebr correctly...been a while, you see...)

Click to expand...

The issue with that is that all of those things are heavily localized and are nowhere near of the data coverage on the XX century ( said in other words, the coverage of the planet areas that we know the climate with some certains steadily decreases with the distance to the past ). We make guesses about the blank areas, but they are as good as any other guess .

I liked global warming in CTP series, it was a cool feature, but in civ.. if tech tree is finishing in modern era adding global warming is useless

TheMeInTeam said:

The challenge to link a source that definitively proves man-made global warming as a significant % of recent climate change stands.

Click to expand...

There is no such thing as "definitely proving" anything in science....it's simply not how science works. That said, if you want a few scholarly articles I'd be happy to provide them (although I won't look until you confirm just so that I don't waste my time, which i thin kis fair).

UKScud said:

Wrong...ice core samples from Antarctica go back 750,000 years.

Click to expand...

Indeed they do. And they show quite definitively that the global warming comes first and the rise in CO2 levels follows.

Our recent warming spell, although smaller in magnitude, follows exactly the same pattern. The earth started warming up after the end of the Little Ice Age around 1650. Then CO2 levels started rising around 1880. Finally industrialization took off in the 20th century, especially after WWII.

Thus the conclusion is obvious. Global warming causes industrialization! I mean, at least, this gets events in the right order.

This is silly, of course, but it is easy to understand why global warming causes increases in CO2 levels. There is roughly two thousand times as much CO2 in the oceans as there is in the atmosphere. What happens when you leave a can of soda pop out on a hot day? It is exactly the same thing.

Incidentally, this little fact also proves that Man cannot have a significant influence on atmospheric CO2 levels because almost all of any excess CO2 we may or may not generate will wind up in the ocean. Can you say equillibrium?

This is a scam pure and simple. And this is far from the only reason why it's nonsense. The whole theory (if I can dignify this crap with that word) violates math, history, and physics. Not to mention simple common sense.

Another little tidbit. Do you know why their garbage models claim that increased CO2 levels cause global warming? Hint: it's not because CO2 is a greenhouse gas, although that's what they let the press and the rubes think.

If you to know why they make this stuff up, the answer is quite simple. Follow the money. The state always provides tons of it for people who are willing to make up lies that justify socialism. There's a reason why so many of the skeptical scientists are retired, you know.

Abegweit said:

The state always provides tons of it for people who are willing to make up lies that justify socialism.

Click to expand...

Ummmm.....and then there's THAT theory.....

jjkrause84 said:

There is no such thing as "definitely proving" anything in science....it's simply not how science works.

Click to expand...

Certainly there is. That's what science is all about. In contrast climatology is all about getting research money. You don't get it by performing science. You get it by proving that the official position is true.

Actually that's true of pretty all so-called science these days. Science used to be all about coming up with theories that explain observed phenomena. Today, in climatology and economics it's about creating computer models that "prove" the necessity for socialism and/or crony capitalism. In diet and medicine it's about studies which make correlations between something bad (or good) with some food or drug, thereby giving nannies a soapbox to stand on when they lecture us and giving drug companies an excuse to inflict chemical they don't understand on patients they don't care about.

There are other examples but this will do for a start. Science is dead, replaced by things which can be rigged. Anyone can make a study or model to prove anything he wants. And that's exactly what they do.

That said, if you want a few scholarly articles I'd be happy to provide them (although I won't look until you confirm just so that I don't waste my time, which i thin kis fair).

Click to expand...

Perhaps you might look up some of the articles that explain how their models actually work and then tell us what you found in English. Things about the effect of CO2 on water vapor might be interesting. Also the fact that there are no clouds in the atmosphere. What? Didn't you know that? That's what their models say. Simplifying assumptions, you see.

Edit: xpost with jjkrause84. I should add that's it's not just about socialism; it's also about crony capitalism. There is lots of corporate money going towards inventing this crap. GE is probably the worst offender but there are plenty more.