Removal of Global Warming

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sonereal said:
The only way a "realistic" climate change system could work in-game is if Civilization had a climate system and therew as ability to set food distribution across the empire.
Click to expand...
Maybe, but a food distribution system has it's own issues, regardless of using the MM bore of manual controled caravans, citizen swap ( like in CivCol ... probably the only good feature of the game :p ) or some kind of automation.

I would 100% support a climate model in the game , though :p It would help a lot in ganarating interesting maps as a side effect :D
 
r_rolo1 said:
Maybe, but a food distribution system has it's own issues, regardless of using the MM bore of manual controled caravans, citizen swap ( like in CivCol ... probably the only good feature of the game :p ) or some kind of automation.

I would 100% support a climate model in the game , though :p It would help a lot in ganarating interesting maps as a side effect :D
Click to expand...

I was thinking something simple like a menu showing total amount of food being generated by farms and a list of cities that you can distribute the food to. You can set the slider for each city below the needed level (causing starvation and unhappiness and after a while, food riots). More than the "substaintable" level would cause growth and there should be a button that allows the player to set all levels to substaintable and collect all the surplus food for storage.

That way there's a chance of having food in case of emergencies and with a climate change model, something bad may happen like fertile farmland becoming....less than fertile.
 
Actually I think Global Warming could make for a good scenario for Civ. Think of a scenario set maybe 20 years from now, in which GW is starting to get terribly bad. Desertification is speeding up, coastal areas are slowly turning to swamps or oceans, rainfall patterns changing (some plains turning to grasslands, grasslands to plains), etc. In general, resources are diminishing.

So then you have two groups of civs: massively overpopulated ones which will get hit hard by GW and have to try and keep themselves from collapsing into civil war, or have to go to war with others to secure resources for their people. The second group of civs would be ones hit less hard by GW, but which begin experiencing a major influx of environmental refugees.

Thoughts? I think it'd be a nift scenario.
 
The problem is that without a climate system, the scenario is broke since its just one random disaster after disaster the player is forced to respond to.
 
logintime said:
Actually I think Global Warming could make for a good scenario for Civ. Think of a scenario set maybe 20 years from now, in which GW is starting to get terribly bad. Desertification is speeding up, coastal areas are slowly turning to swamps or oceans, rainfall patterns changing (some plains turning to grasslands, grasslands to plains), etc. In general, resources are diminishing.

So then you have two groups of civs: massively overpopulated ones which will get hit hard by GW and have to try and keep themselves from collapsing into civil war, or have to go to war with others to secure resources for their people. The second group of civs would be ones hit less hard by GW, but which begin experiencing a major influx of environmental refugees.

Thoughts? I think it'd be a nift scenario.
Click to expand...

Souds like your typical post-apocalyptic scenario, ala Mad Max.
 
Venereus said:
Souds like your typical post-apocalyptic scenario, ala Mad Max.
Click to expand...

Very much true, but I don't there have been too many games out there with that particular setting. At the least, we could probably modify the Civ4 or Civ5 game engine to have some of those mechanics, though as Sonoreal noted without a climate system in place it'd feel more random than I'd like.
 
Venereus said:
Souds like your typical post-apocalyptic scenario, ala Mad Max.
Click to expand...

More like the apocolyptic scenario that precedes Mad Max. It would be very much about shifting politics and forcing resource wars over prime agriculture regions. To get the most out of it, starving cities should have the potential to rebel and threaten Empire stability so that the player feels as if he/she has to make some important choices until technology can counteract the negative effects.
 
ohioastronomy said:
But you don't need to get into the weeds to recognize the basic nature of the problem.
Click to expand...

The basis of my disbelief is the simple fact of defining it as a "problem" to begin with, and a man-made one if it is. Do you think people 20000 years ago caused the end of the ice ages? I somehow doubt it, but there was certainly a lot of climate change. And 20,000 years is nothing in geological timescales. Whether or not the global temperature has actually gone up or down one degree in the last 50 years is sort of beside the point.

The climate of the Earth has changed A LOT since it's been around. Saying that we're drastically affecting it just in the last 100 years (when baseline temps and such are really not that different) seems silly to me. But it does make a good excuse to cause hysteria, guilt, and give the liberal minded a cause to feel good about... and, well, people of any time need a reason to say "we're all doomed!"

Anyways, I strongly disliked having global warming shoved down my throat in Civ4, and am very glad they took it out for 5. Yay nukes! Now I just have to find an ingame reason to not use communism >.>
 
Zechnophobe said:
No, it really isn't. Science is about noticing trends, and then making predictions based on input. Whichever 'trend' is the strongest we assume will continue. When it does not, science gets excited and tries to figure out why not.
Click to expand...
Wrong. Completely and utterly wrong. Science is about making theories about how facts fit together. Trends by themselves mean nothing at all.

Certainty is a construct that people crave so that it can validate their actions. Without validation, we feel lost. I think this is why a lot of people have weird misconceptions about the idea of science.
Click to expand...
Indeed. That's why the warmists have such bizarre notions about the meaning of science.
 
Well, there will have to be a major rethink to perhaps include 'climate change' as a VC in a future Civ game, perhaps in place of the UN victory.

The undertaking is huge, and so far, the modelling of global warming has been generally out of human control, and all bad.

The only verison that gave players reasonable control over it was Civ3, and it was whack a mole style pollution clean up. A very 90s 'clean up the sludge' concept to tackling climate change.

The victory condition would be to get enough Civs on board, for X turns, sacrificing production for lower emissions and you win.

But that's probably too politically sensitive for them to do as Firaxis is a US company and many Civvers are libertarians and or conservatives who would probably shoot Sid in the face.
 
logintime said:
Actually I think Global Warming could make for a good scenario for Civ. Think of a scenario set maybe 20 years from now, in which GW is starting to get terribly bad. Desertification is speeding up, coastal areas are slowly turning to swamps or oceans, rainfall patterns changing (some plains turning to grasslands, grasslands to plains), etc. In general, resources are diminishing.

So then you have two groups of civs: massively overpopulated ones which will get hit hard by GW and have to try and keep themselves from collapsing into civil war, or have to go to war with others to secure resources for their people. The second group of civs would be ones hit less hard by GW, but which begin experiencing a major influx of environmental refugees.

Thoughts? I think it'd be a nift scenario.
Click to expand...

If you could try to predict the climate change, too, that would be interesting. You'd be motivated to scramble for territory that will become valuable in a couple of decades. OR, if you're not able to get the turf that will become good, you could try to stop AGW with treaties and stuff.
 
El_Machinae said:
If you could try to predict the climate change, too, that would be interesting. You'd be motivated to scramble for territory that will become valuable in a couple of decades. OR, if you're not able to get the turf that will become good, you could try to stop AGW with treaties and stuff.
Click to expand...
Pretty much like SMAC ;) Or in extreme cases, drop the planet in a global cooling to freeze the oponents :p
 
I don't miss GW in Civ in the slightest. In theory it seems like a decent counter/consequence to rampant industrialization and nuclear exchanges, but the implementation of it was frustrating at best. Despite what any realism might or might not be, a game mechanic is supposed to add to the game or make it fun. Random tile swapping, with no way to predict or counter, is just frustrating. The 'green' techs and buildings pretty much did nothing to abate it.

Granted, it beats a thousand workers playing whack-a-mole on pollution though. I don't miss that in the slightest. Most worker functions are pretty tedious, to be honest. I will bake a cake for the first modder that transforms the worker mechanic into CTP2's public works system.
 
I doubt it was a concious decision to leave it out. Probably didn't have enough time to put it in, like everything else that is missing.
 
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...

Well since man made Global warming is a myth to make people who own the 'Green Companies' rich. There was no need to put it in the game. Now if they had a system that took into accounts scams and such then by all means put it into the game.

It was not a very good mechanic anyway. However pollution I would like to see put back into the game.
 
logintime said:
Actually I think Global Warming could make for a good scenario for Civ. Think of a scenario set maybe 20 years from now, in which GW is starting to get terribly bad. Desertification is speeding up, coastal areas are slowly turning to swamps or oceans, rainfall patterns changing (some plains turning to grasslands, grasslands to plains), etc. In general, resources are diminishing.

So then you have two groups of civs: massively overpopulated ones which will get hit hard by GW and have to try and keep themselves from collapsing into civil war, or have to go to war with others to secure resources for their people. The second group of civs would be ones hit less hard by GW, but which begin experiencing a major influx of environmental refugees.

Thoughts? I think it'd be a nift scenario.
Click to expand...

Actully that is not a bad idea. And one victory condition would be some tech that will affect the sun to slow down or stop the global warming effect (because after all it is the cause)
 
Quetz said:
The basis of my disbelief is the simple fact of defining it as a "problem" to begin with, and a man-made one if it is. Do you think people 20000 years ago caused the end of the ice ages? I somehow doubt it, but there was certainly a lot of climate change. And 20,000 years is nothing in geological timescales. Whether or not the global temperature has actually gone up or down one degree in the last 50 years is sort of beside the point.

The climate of the Earth has changed A LOT since it's been around. Saying that we're drastically affecting it just in the last 100 years (when baseline temps and such are really not that different) seems silly to me. But it does make a good excuse to cause hysteria, guilt, and give the liberal minded a cause to feel good about... and, well, people of any time need a reason to say "we're all doomed!"

Anyways, I strongly disliked having global warming shoved down my throat in Civ4, and am very glad they took it out for 5. Yay nukes! Now I just have to find an ingame reason to not use communism >.>
Click to expand...

Also there are those who stand to profit from the Global Warming Hysteria. Such as Al Gore and his 'Green' Companies.
 
Actually, Global Warming should be removed from the game at a certain point in time, say at the year 2010, when it was discovered that global warming was an attempt by corrupt scientists skewing scientific data to promote a global redistribution of wealth.

It's strange, how the global warming crazies always want only money, they never hardly ever promote planting trees or solutions to the actual 'made-up' problem.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

TyrannusRex
What if there were more Tech/Civic quotes?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
Boris Gudenuf
Boris Gudenuf
S
  • Sticky
Tweak Mod for Xtended + Master of Mana Updates
10 11 12
Replies
224
Views
15K
Guru-Meditation
Guru-Meditation
S
VP Congress 6: Stalker0's Voting Record
Replies
11
Views
705
Legen
Legen
S
VP Congress 5: Stalker0's Voting Record
Replies
17
Views
1K
pineappledan
pineappledan
Recursive
  • Locked
New Version - 2.7.3 (October 7, 2022)
23 24 25
Replies
486
Views
52K
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom