3.17 Global Warming Mechanics

[Ammar]

PS Ammar, you believe what you want to, and let me believe what I want to.

Didn't notice me using my telepathic powers to make you change your mind. Anyway, I must disappoint you. I would *love* to disbelieve in Global Warming. It would considerably lessen my worries about the future.

There is a significant move against worrying about global warming right now in this country (roughly 60% of the population don't actually believe it's a problem DESPITE what they read in most newspapers, because don't forget that the climate change lobby is also pretty powerful nowadays too)

Well, yes. 60% believing that does not make it true. And once again, I do not see the powerful climate change lobby you talk about. Yes, there are many people who warn about it. But the people who don't believe it are just as vocal. The fact-remains that most peer-reviewed articles add evidence to the global warming theory.

because we are facing an economic downturn and have more immediate social concerns that, unlike what my sister says, arise from genuine poverty in this country rather than being able to be ascribed to any environmental reason;

I can assure you that GW is not the only thing I am concerned about, or even the one I am most concerned about. I still don't think we should ignore it, though.

Also we are probably looking at a global population cap of 10 billion which is supportable, given most of the Western world has a declining birth rate as well as developing societies beginning to improve infant mortality, which means that birth rates there might also start to decline as well given no need to replace dying infants.

Since global warming would direclty influence the population cap (prob. for the worse), once again, I do not see this as an argument for ignoring it.

Also, the possibility remains that there is an entirely natural element to this anyway, given longer-term fluctuations.

Sure. But it's becoming more and more unlikely the more we know. The fact that CO2 contributes to warming isn't really in dispute and whatever "natural element" is involved, CO2 will still amplify the effect.

From your response to Rolo it's actually evident you have no idea about political and social realities, what propaganda you are falling for, and so on.

Sure, I am an easily manipulated idiot unlike you. So what trustworthy sources do you have for your claims? What understanding of the data and evidence leads you to another conclusion?

Knowledge of mathematics doesn't or needn't cancel out common sense or looking at the longer term perspective.

Sad truth is that human common sense is woefully useless when it comes to some things and mathematics are more reliably. And our best mathematical climate models do point towards global-warming.

I'm also not going to discuss this with you or anyone else because I see no need to enter into pointless arguments with someone who doesn't take others' suggestions into account anyway.

Oh, but I do. I just haven't really seen anything more than "global-warming is a myth". No evidence, no articles, no mathematics... You will notice above that the Nitrogen thing above interested me enough to ask about a *reviewed* article about it. I did not dismiss it out of hand, I asked for more evidence.

let's get back to discussing the game.

Fair enough.

 

[r_rolo1]

@PieceOfMind

I also read what the credible climatologists say ... and I could resume it this way:

With the data that we have and with our knowledge of the Climate mechanics, our computers simulations show a increase of temperature in the next century most of the times ( sometimes it shows a cooling ... ) if it continues the today trends. We believe that the buildup of CO2 in our atmosphere , among others, is the main factor

This is not equal to:

The Earth is warming due to the buildup of CO2 and we don't do nothing our climate will get extremely warm. And we can prove it.

Right?

Let's face it: the atmosphere ( just ot not add the ocean ) is ruled by a set of equations that show chaotic behaviour ( def. close values in input will not necessarily lead to close values in the output ), a thing that ,combined with our less than perfect instruments and planet coverage of data, makes our predictions quite blurry, even if we don't consider the possibility of some unexpected externality ( a volcano eruption, solar activity increase or decrese, a meteor..... )...

Should we dismiss the data that we have just because we are not sure? No way.... the stakes are too high. Should we act like have certains ? No way as well.... the stakes of being wrong are too high as well .

About the diminuishing of CO2 emisions : given that most of them come from the burn of fossile fuels and that they are limited to the Earths reserves unless we start to go to Titan to refuel , it is a worthy goal by it self ( quoting a Iranian politic of other times : Oil a thing too precious to burn. ). We don't need GW to justify it.

 

[Ammar]

Let's face it: the atmosphere ( just ot not add the ocean ) is ruled by a set of equations that show chaotic behaviour ( def. close values in input will not necessarily lead to close values in the output ),

While this is true, it should also be noted that the average global temperature is a very rough and unspecific value and as such, can be predicted a lot more easier, than say whether it will be raining in a specific plane in half a year.

 

[viz]

I just find it interesting that in all your examples you only site negative consequences of global warming. The media and Al Gore's of the world have certainly brainwashed the public.

How about increased food output in northern countries? How about the opening of the northwest passage? How about less home-heating required? How about an expansion of forested areas? (Plants love CO2.) How about making huge areas of land in Canada and Russia actually livable?

I totally agree with you about the need to represent reality as I indeed said in my post and I am all for that, but if you are implying that I am at all 'brainwashed' for stating the negatives you are sadly mistaken and clearly showing a lack of rational.

The negatives greatly outweight the positives.

Making previously 'unlivable land' into 'livable land' is great, but making 'livable land' into 'unlivable land' is a disaster. It's the 'increased lack of' rather than the 'increased abundance' that is most poignant, anyone can see that.

If 10,000 years ago in the ice age, there were environmentalists warning of global warming, I'm sure glad that the rest of the cavemen clubbed them over the head and ate them.

No comment.

 

[r_rolo1]

While this is true, it should also be noted that the average global temperature is a very rough and unspecific value and as such, can be predicted a lot more easier, than say whether it will be raining in a specific plane in half a year.

True , but the average global temperature is not exactly the best indicator that we can concieve..... it is , after all, a average . If the winters got in average 10ºC down and the summers got 10ºC up, the average would be still the same. But our lifes would not ....

P.S Not Implying that this could happen easily... AFAIK it would require a massive tilt on the Earth axis.

 

[jkp1187]

I think this debate is unnecessary and, in fact, inappropriate here. It belongs in the Off Topic forum.

I'm sure you all have doctor-level degrees in meteorology along with several publications on these issues in peer-reviewed science journals, but the issue to discuss here isn't what the long-term effects CO2 in the atmosphere will be, but rather how to make the GLOBAL WARMING mechanism in Beyond the Sword fun and challenging for the players.

I believe that the steps taken in 3.17 were good, but are incomplete and there are several ideas that may be implemented to make it a little better. Note that my first instinct is to be very cautious in making any changes at all -- when in doubt, leave it as-is.

1.) AI, AI, AI. The AI must be able to plan for GW and not necessarily go crazy chopping trees...HOWEVER, aggressive leaders such as Genghis Khan, Stalin, Shaka and the like who may attempt to win by outright domination or conquest should be less inclined to worry about it. (At the same time, peace-loving folk like Gandhi should be more inclined to avoid chopping trees.) This is a tricky thing -- the AI should not necessarily be inclined to spend the whole game worrying about GW just to make the Human player's end game easier. But the AI needs to be aware of GW, if it is not already. I'm not quite convinced that it isn't yet, and I say that 3.17 needs more testing/results as is before this decision is made. A single game where GW goes crazy does not constitute evidence that the GW system is no good -- occasionally this SHOULD happen if it's going to be a feature in the game.

2.) Tiles should not immediately go to desert. The transition should be in stages. I envision something similar to what Seven05's World Piece mod does. A continuum of:

Glacier --> Tundra --> Grassland --> Plains --> Desert (lose forest)

and: Ice --> Water

If a colder square is hit with GW, may be improved. But currently productive grassland squares should get worse, and Plains will become useless.

3.) I like the idea of Events being used as a supplement to the GW system, but they shouldn't replace it. (Again, Seven05's system does something similar).

4.) The unhealthiness from buildings such as Factories, Coal Plants, Ironworks, Industrial Parks should be included in the GW calculations. Recycling plants should not negate this effect. However, unhealthiness from buildings such as Drydocks or Laboratories should not count for GW. (Population, of course, should not count at all, as it is now.)

5.) I am thinking about whether or not use of the Environmentalism civic should alleviate GW in any way. It would make sense on the one hand...but on the other, I don't want to create an incentive for everyone to just jump into Environmentalism at the end of the game. I'm inclined to NOT have Environmentalism play a role unless someone has an idea on how to keep it balanced.

6.) And for those who can't stand the idea of GW, an off-switch for global warming in the Customize Game menu. Yes, if you hate it (and clearly some do,) just shut it off. BUT there will be a trade-off: no nukes. Part of the purpose of the GW mechanism is to provide a price to players using nukes too much. So if you don't want global warming, you can't have nukes, either.

Thoughts? (But only on the game...I don't care what you think about Global Warming, I am only interested in hearing intelligent thoughts on the Global Warming Mechanism in BtS.)

 

[r_rolo1]

I'm quite bittersweet about nukes having something to do with GW. It simply does not make any kind of sense ( I would understand fallout, but desert? ). Why not a nuke punitive game mechanic that has nothing to do with GW?

Rant over....

I already asked here for 1), 2) and 5). I definitely do not agree with 6) ( see above ) and IMHO pop should be included in GW calculations , as long as you factor preserves in some tortuous way ( not seeing a easy way )

And let us plant trees , even if you need Enviromentalism for that.....

 

[Woody1]

I totally agree with you about the need to represent reality as I indeed said in my post and I am all for that, but if you are implying that I am at all 'brainwashed' for stating the negatives you are sadly mistaken and clearly showing a lack of rational.

Okay, let's look at why you are brainwashed:

The negatives greatly outweight the positives.

There you go, stating opinion as fact. Brainwashed.

Making previously 'unlivable land' into 'livable land' is great, but making 'livable land' into 'unlivable land' is a disaster. It's the 'increased lack of' rather than the 'increased abundance' that is most poignant, anyone can see that.

There you go, stating opinion as fact. Brainwashed/

 

[jkp1187]

I'm quite bittersweet about nukes having something to do with GW. It simply does not make any kind of sense ( I would understand fallout, but desert? ). Why not a nuke punitive game mechanic that has nothing to do with GW?

Rant over....

I already asked here for 1), 2) and 5). I definitely do not agree with 6) ( see above ) and IMHO pop should be included in GW calculations , as long as you factor preserves in some tortuous way ( not seeing a easy way )

And let us plant trees , even if you need Enviromentalism for that.....

Rolo, what would be your alternative to nukes? If you wanted to go with TTAPS theories, for instance, you could always implement a nuclear winter mechanism purely for nukes (e.g., making tundra into glacier, grassland into tundra, etc.) I also think Seven05 included a 'fallout' effect where nuclear contamination would randomly spread downwind of the nuke explosion then eventually disappear.

I don't see why nukes couldn't be a part of a climate change system provided it was one that (a) had gradual changes (squares change in steps instead of all going to desert at once) and (b) didn't have a dramatic immediate effect. (I.e., one or two nukes going off shouldn't start a GW chain reaction). Would this, coupled with Seven05's fallout concept be more in line with your thinking?

 

[r_rolo1]

I would like a nuke mechanism that would spread fallout ( obviously scaled with the usage of nukes ) and that actually decreased GW ( all that dust in the air.... ). Like you said, something in line of the Seven05 implementation....

 

[Duuk]

4.) The unhealthiness from buildings such as Factories, Coal Plants, Ironworks, Industrial Parks should be included in the GW calculations. Recycling plants should not negate this effect. However, unhealthiness from buildings such as Drydocks or Laboratories should not count for GW. (Population, of course, should not count at all, as it is now.)

My complaint with this is that GW is not counterable in the late game.

 

[Woody1]

My biggest gripe with GW in the game is that it adds ZERO gameplay. It's just an annoyance. Something Firaxis put in as an environmental political statement... nothing more.

 

[jkp1187]

I would like a nuke mechanism that would spread fallout ( obviously scaled with the usage of nukes ) and that actually decreased GW ( all that dust in the air.... ). Like you said, something in line of the Seven05 implementation....

This would be my ideal, but I think that getting it to work correctly may be a lot of effort, particularly if someone tried to implement it all at once.

I'd say it's better to go with nukes causing fallout and contributing to global warming now, then once this intermediate step is working (along with tweaks to GW effects from buildings/power discussed above) then think about implementing a 'nuclear winter' effect.

 

[r_rolo1]

I agree... well, dropping fallout will be easy to code and the GW effects are already there. The fine tuning will be the worst part..... is in the details, right ?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I do have an Ideal concept for "Global Warming" where it is self reversing... a "globally warmed" tile should be 'damaged' probably low food and then, after a certain amount of time repair itself.

Environmentalism/Ecology/Mass Transit would figure in strongly in my version, (it would count Total unhealth, and Recycling centers would remove Building polution, Mass Transit could reduce/remove resource Pollution, and Environmentalism would remove population pollution [under Environmentalism, other sources of unhealth would give you unhappiness as well])... Population pollution would count less

That way global warming would be far more common and far less annoying and the best way to deal with it would be to put Other civs into Environmentalism via the UN.

I mean if instead of a tile, it was a feature, like Forest/Jungle, that could be improved, but could Not be removed (except by waiting/time) and gave -1 food and -2 health?

 

[jkp1187]

I'm still not thrilled with the idea of making the Environmentalism civic more or less an automatic decision for players. And I'm not sure I'm on board with the concept of the 'damage' being reversible.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well if the 'damage' is common and only repaire by time (not the player.. no whack a mole) then it would still be a concern.

And I'd say Environmentalism should be "mandatory" to reduce "Global Warming" from Assembly Line to Ecology... at that point Global Warming could be reduced (but not eliminated) by recycling centers (and the tech itself).

so Global Warming would produce an Equilibrium level of tiles.

 

[Minor Annoyance]

I'm still not thrilled with the idea of making the Environmentalism civic more or less an automatic decision for players. And I'm not sure I'm on board with the concept of the 'damage' being reversible.

I'm sure there are plenty of players willing to roll the dice thinking maybe it won't be too bad, or maybe it will hurt others more than me.
Obviously people would assume environmentalism would help with GW rather than indirectly hurt so something has to change.

 

[jkp1187]

I'm sure there are plenty of players willing to roll the dice thinking maybe it won't be too bad, or maybe it will hurt others more than me.
Obviously people would assume environmentalism would help with GW rather than indirectly hurt so something has to change.

But why even bother? If someone builds the UN in the pre-Ecology era, in the vast majority of instances, even if I'd prefer to be running Merc, SP or FM, I'm not going to bother vetoing the resolution because there will be an anti-GW bonus for Environmentalism, so effectively Environmentalism WILL become the default modern-era economic civic. There's already a tendency for this to happen with the labor civic, true, but I don't think we need another situation like this.

I also don't agree that GW should be reversible. If the changes are done in steps on a tile (as opposed to immediately switching to desert), then the change will be manageable (and, in the colder climates, will be a bonus as tundra becomes grassland). I like the idea of tiles not necessarily being static for the entire game.

 

[Refar]

But why even bother? If someone builds the UN in the pre-Ecology era, in the vast majority of instances, even if I'd prefer to be running Merc, SP or FM, I'm not going to bother vetoing the resolution because there will be an anti-GW bonus for Environmentalism, so effectively Environmentalism WILL become the default modern-era economic civic. There's already a tendency for this to happen with the labor civic, true, but I don't think we need another situation like this.

This is however a different problem - to a part at least, of AI pushing dumb resolutions in the UN.

And with enviromantalism beeing usefull for GW there would be a sane explanation, why everyone and his dog puts global enviromentalism on the vote.

You could instead make Enviromentalism be more expensive to run, like increase corporate maintenance to 150 or something.