1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

3.17 Global Warming Mechanics

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Refar, Jun 24, 2008.

  1. KrikkitTwo

    KrikkitTwo Immortal

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    12,316
    Well I think the effect of "Global Warming" should be
    1. reversed with Time alone (maybe tech would speed it up.. but no Workers cleaning it up, no whackamole)
    2. have a smaller effect on a tile (not 'desert' but say -1 food, no access to food resources)
    3. be far more common
    4. be Reducable through the U.N. (either through a special Vote, ie no unhealthiness buildings may be built....making Recycling centers mandatory... OR making Environmentalism actually reduce Global Warming somehow)... because it affects everyone

    If Environmentalism meant your civ was 'skipped' when it came to unhealthy building contributions, then you could stop global warming through the UN.. No Nukes and Global Civic:Environmentalism
     
  2. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    I have a question and a possible mod idea.
    There are some events that give a health bonus to unhealthy buildings (I think coal plants). When that happens it doesn't show +2:yuck: +1:health: for that building, it shows +1:yuck:. So my question is, does the global warming calculation look at the buildings original health, or it's modified health?
    If it looks at the modified health for the building then I have an idea. Change the Environmentalism civic from giving +6:health: in all cities, to giving +1:health: to six of the unhealthy buildings. That way forcing environmentalism through the U.N. would actually help fight global warming. The way t is now it looks like environmentalism would just make it so you could pollute more without affecting your own city, but harming the world in general.
    I really think it should work this way, such that it shouldn't be a mod at all but in the next official patch.
     
  3. Refar

    Refar Deity

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2005
    Messages:
    4,608
    I think it looks at the modified health, so it might actually work - i will have to check tomorrow tho, to be sure.

    And i think it's really a great idea - not only does it make enviromentalism - as one would expect - help prevent GW, it also gives the player something to combat the AI caused GW.
     
  4. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    I have not played around with this very much since the official 3.17 patch was released (the one game I played to completion ended in the 1700s, before industrialism started taking effect,) but perhaps we could add the Forest Preserve and National Parks to count toward GW_DEFENSE? This way there would be a positive action the player could take that would definitely have at least SOME impact on GW (and the preserves would eventually have an impact, too, through encouraging the growth of forests.)

    I also like the idea of civs running the Environmentalism civic adding a little bit toward GW_DEFENSE - though I don't think it should be very high.
     
  5. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Groan....no....no....no "cracked like an egg".... :faint:

    Yes, this is a good idea, and something I want to include in my own NextWar mod at some point. EDIT: ESPECIALLY if someone has a very good fusion plant graphic they could point me towards.

    (I assume you mean: construct nuke plants with no possibility of meltdowns.)
     
  6. mungbean

    mungbean Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30
    Yes, precisely.

    What do you think of having diplomatic modifiers associated to polluter status?

    A milder version of "crack like an egg" would be to reduce scores if there is too much global warming. So you might still win a domination victory, but if you preside over a burnt planet you might not get particularly high marks.
     
  7. kurtkage

    kurtkage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    USA
    Anyone played call to power with those eco terrorists? They would completly wipe out a city and turn all tiles in the weapons radius back to pristine land. hehe I loved those things.

    Edit to add something on topic.

    I like the idea of having fallout on the effected tile as apposed to losing it to desert permanently. Seems like an easier fix than modding in terraforming tho I agree I don't want to have to micromanage pollution clean up either.

    Also I seem to recall someone mentioning a mod that added the different effects for diff tiles ie ice to tundra etc.

    And lastly, remember solar plants stopping global warming and being able to nuke away in civ3 I think?
     
  8. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    Not to rant but the buildings with modified :health: ( drydocks and coal plants AFAIK ) show both modifiers and not only one global modified health

    On topic: I like the idea of Enviromentalism, in one way or another, to enter in GW accounts. But I would seriously like that the GW effects could be reversible or at least , make the default tile plains.
     
  9. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    I disagree with this. The whack-a-mole style global warming in Civ3 (like so many other things in this game) just wasn't fun at all.
     
  10. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    I don't know. I'd prefer to see how the GW system works right now and decide what needs to be fixed (if anything) before worrying about modding on the fringes.


    Again, this could be interesting, but how would you calculate if "too much" GW had occurred?
     
  11. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    ^^maybe a ratio of spawned desert tiles vs the map land area?
     
  12. mungbean

    mungbean Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 10, 2007
    Messages:
    30
    Something like [Score *= (1 - a * frac of tiles affected by GW)] could do it.

    (rolo beat me to it with a = 1)
     
  13. kurtkage

    kurtkage Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 29, 2006
    Messages:
    228
    Location:
    USA
    Yea I agree with you on that jkp. Maybe if you could automate workers to just clean up fallout and then they would pop up for you to build the improvement you wanted or something.

    Having the terrain changes reversable / terraforming would still be alot of whackamole micromanagement too, so I'm not sure that idea is much better.

    Perhaps the best solution is to offer more ways to keep GW from occuring in the first place, as has been suggested.

    The environmentalism idea is pretty good.

    On one hand I feel like tweaking the values or GWterrain or turning GW off all together, but then I feel kind of cheap using nukes hehe.
     
  14. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    How would that skew the score if you played on a large vs. small map, though?
     
  15. r_rolo1

    r_rolo1 King of myself

    Joined:
    May 19, 2006
    Messages:
    13,818
    Location:
    Lisbon, Portugal
    The score formula AFAIK also includes the quantity of land tiles.... I'm not sure but I think that it would auto scale ( must check old articles about score calc )

    P.S. Technically it would not autoscale,but the diference would be small.
     
  16. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    That may have been a mod or unofficial patch or a discussion in the unofficial patch thread I'm thinking of that did that.
     
  17. Woody1

    Woody1 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    468
    Location:
    Texas
    Somewhat unrelated question...

    Can somehow explain to me why coal power produces +4 unhealthiness, but the description of it says it only produces +2 ?

    I get +1 from forge, +1 from factory, +2 with access to oil, +2 with access to coal. Then, when I build a coal plant, I get another +4 for power. Shouldn't that only be another +2?
     
  18. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    That could be cool, then.

    Has anyone else played a couple of games to the modern era yet to see how GW 'feels'?
     
  19. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    It's because having power give a 2 :yuck: while the coal plant itself gives another 2 :yuck:. So even if you built a hydro plant it would still add unhealthiness.
     
  20. mynystry

    mynystry jaguar warrior from hell

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Messages:
    277
    Location:
    Guanaguashington, Mexico
    Good thread! I really think Global Warming could add a interesting element in the game, but as much players here, i agree that the system needs to be improved... at least we see firaxis giving a first step, which is not bad, hopefully they won't stop now, there are some very interesting ideas coming out from these forums.

    some more ideas (maybe some already metioned):

    1. Global warming remains "global", affecting all players, so it poses a real threat

    2. Because of the global impact, it affects relationships; the most polluting civs get minus points in diplomacy, specially towards more ecological friendly civs. (eg: +2 Your care for the world vs -5 your nation stinks :D )

    3. The AI behavior should be modified to match the new criteria, the most logical is that industrious/agressive are also polluters, while philosophical/charismatic are also ecological (just to give an example!), this means also that some leaders will not just chop every forest in their cultural borders, and some will build more health buildings than others.

    4. Preserve Forest, Environmentalism should play a more important role slowing GW and adding diplomacy points with eco-friendly leaders.

    5. What has been said before: not everything turns to desert!! tundra to grassland - grassland to plains - plains to desert makes more sense to me. ice to tundra or water is a good idea too :goodjob: this would add realism, according to some theories in "some" years everyone will want to live in greenland because of the californian weather there!! XD

    alright... pls firaxis, fix the GW in the game!!!! :bowdown:
     

Share This Page