Are Factories nerfed too much.

[Stylesrj]

But our modern society isn't pumping out tons of pollution like in the Industrial Revolution. We've gone a long way from that. So why can't there be some sort of regulation in modern times for Free Market? Environmentalism is not the answer...

Tell me, do factories still pump mercury and other toxins into our atmosphere, or is it just carbons?

 

[mikesonic]

Normally i still build factory in most cities,but i seldom build coal plant .My strategy is that as soon as I have oil to build railway with, i will trade away all my coal to AI to avoid the unhealthness it caused due to factory and 2 more from coal plant which will be replaced by 3 gorges dam later.

Of course, your ironworks city will not be so efficient since you don't have coal access. But the additional health in all your cities worth the price of 50%more production in 1 city IMHO.And aroud that time, normally you can handle additional 2~3 unhealthness,but not 5~7 of them. so trading away coal and not building coal plant are my choice.

I am normally on a CE and always try to get Kremelin to buy cheaper infrastructure&unit anyway so production are not my priority.I normally use Mansa Musa because of his spi/fin trait, which means I can freely switch to nationalism to draft the units,especially when i can draft rifle,which is the best unit you can draft at the cost of 1 pop,so my army are still decent although i don't prioritized production too much.

For the same reason I almost never build industrious park cause the pollution is too ridiculous, 1 free engineer is too small a profit for it.

 

[onedreamer]

They didn't nerf Factories, they buffed Health (Hospitals, Expansive Trait, etc.)

Exactly. I for one am glad that they made (un)health a bit more significant.

 

[magicalsushi]

In my opinion, I just find Environmentalism the one where hippies take control and basically everything is restricted because it hurts mother nature. I do not see Environmentalism as today's society. Our society today is a free market with government regulation at key points, which also includes environment.

I don't want to go overboard with saving the environment, but I don't find it right to see in a modern society, that the Free Market is still pumping out lots of pollution.

That's down to a problem with game modelling. The economic civics are too extreme. I think this is mainly to keep things simple (which is fair enough). Still, in real world, there is no developed country, not even the US, that does not use a mixed economy in practice. Real life economies are far more sophisticated than "we're either patriotic capitalists, godless commies or hippie eco-freaks", which is how most people seem to interpet the Civ 4 civics (there's also protectionism, aka mercantilism, which genuinely doesn't have a place in a modern economy but unfortunately is still partly used by almost everyone).

My interpretation is different. As I said, extremist economies just don't work; all but the poorest modern economies are mixed. I believe the economic civics in the game also represent mixed economies, just with different focusses. The Civilopedia makes it clear that state property does not necessarily mean the state owns your food and clothes, it could just mean the state owns all the houses and factories. Free market doesn't have to mean unrestrained capitalism, it could just mean an economy with very limited government intervention. Similarly, I don't believe environmentalism necessarily means your citizens are all insane hippies; I interpret it as an ordinary mixed economy with particularly strict environmental standards.

Why should free market get an environmental bonus? If you want your economy to provide significant focus on the environment, you should be using environmentalism. Okay, so modern economies with a free market focus tend not to *completely* neglect the environment. That's represented in the game by the ability to build things like public transport. This part of the game makes perfect sense to me. You can have a free market and get a commerce bonus, but you'll need to invest in ecologically-sound infrastructure or face a health penalty. Modern free market economies don't suffer from pollution, but that's only because they invest in methods to reduce it. The pollution in real life countries didn't just disappear magically when we realised it was bad; we had to actually invest in stuff, just like in the game. Alternatively, you can run environmentalism, however politically distasteful you may find it in real life; you lose your commerce bonus because the environmental restrictions are tighter, but experience less pressure to build health-boosting buildings.

Even if environmentalism represents today's regulations on industry, I'm still not adopting it. I can always get more health resources or increase food production to counteract sickness

Sure, I'm not saying it's necessarily worthwhile in game terms. I don't see why your real life beliefs should influence your strategic choices in the game though. I don't believe slavery is ethical, but that certainly doesn't stop me cracking the whip in the game. I believe in free speech, but I'll happily run bureaucracy instead if it suits me to do so. I don't see what my real life preferences have to do with an imaginary game world. I just want to win.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

But our modern society isn't pumping out tons of pollution like in the Industrial Revolution. We've gone a long way from that. So why can't there be some sort of regulation in modern times for Free Market? Environmentalism is not the answer...

Tell me, do factories still pump mercury and other toxins into our atmosphere, or is it just carbons?

Well because (in civ terms) you build Recycling Centers, Hydro Plants, Hospitals, Public Transit, etc.

Free Market works fine once you have had a chance to get to some of that late game Health...
Environmentalism is for the Industrial Era or when you can't get enough health resources (or when you are really pushing population limits)

[I had a Warlords game as the Japanese, I wiped out my one continental neighbor Korea.. and by the time I contacted the other continent, they didn't have anything left to trade with me... both Shale Plants and Environmentalism were Very useful.]

 

[lulu135]

But our modern society isn't pumping out tons of pollution like in the Industrial Revolution. We've gone a long way from that. So why can't there be some sort of regulation in modern times for Free Market? Environmentalism is not the answer...

Tell me, do factories still pump mercury and other toxins into our atmosphere, or is it just carbons?

What do you think the recycling center is for?

 

[OTAKUjbski]

I don't like the , either, but it makes total sense considering the other changes in BtS:

• Late-game + got super-buffed.
• Industrial-era + got super-buffed (Corporations).
• Levees make Factories even more awesome.
• SP + CS make Factories yet even more awesome.

I think it all balances out.


-- my 2

 

[Stylesrj]

A recycling centre does not remove airborne pollution. In fact, it creates its own because it is recycling things and things have to burn to be recycled!

So how a Recycling Centre removes all pollution from buildings is far beyond me. It should reduce the pollution from them in half or something to represent the industrial waste and garbage being recycled

Forges should also provide more but only if they have access to coal and with access to coal, they gain extra

 

[yatta77]

But our modern society isn't pumping out tons of pollution like in the Industrial Revolution. We've gone a long way from that. So why can't there be some sort of regulation in modern times for Free Market? Environmentalism is not the answer...

Tell me, do factories still pump mercury and other toxins into our atmosphere, or is it just carbons?

Uhm... I don't wanna go off-topic and (my bad) don't have a good enough english to explain myself well enough I guess.

But I think it is fair to say that today society (in real world) makes pollution like never before: global warming it is not a problem from industrial revolution; radioactive stuff from nuclear plants is something hard to get rid of, water has never been so pulluated than today, ... .

Since by definition free market needs producing more goods, make them as cheap as possible, and commercialize them more; and since producing (expecially trying to cut down the costs) and commercialising things does polluate, it is correct to me that in a game mechanic the civic "Free Market" increases the profits but doesn't give any health bonus; while a civic "Environmentalism", that reduces with environmentalism limitations the production/commerce freedom, sounds fair to me that gives a bonus in health instead. I'm not talking politics, I don't care whatever are people political thoughts, just want to compare the game civic options linking them to what I think they want to represent.

Beside that, in game this balancing works well to me: some games I use Mercantilism, some Free Market, some Environmentalism, ... which means they are balanced someway, and you must choose the best one based on your situation, which is always a good thing in my opinion. I see no reason to have in a strategy game an option obviously and always better than the others.

Just my opinion, I might be wrong, and I respect your different opinion (and mostly I really hope what I wrote makes sense in english forgive me if it doesn't ).

 

[Stylesrj]

We might be producing more pollution than before, but at least is isn't as harmful as the ones used in the Industrial Revolution. Back then, there were NO regulations for it. Entire ecosystems would die from it and when you pump things like mercury into the atmosphere, you can harm people.

At least these days it's CO2 gases and a bit of radiation (Nuclear Plants need a fixing. They don't melt down at the drop of a hat.)

Anyway, so Global Warming should be affected by factories, on top of the nuclear stuff...

 

[GenocideBringer]

Anyway, so Global Warming should be affected by factories, on top of the nuclear stuff...

Extremely arguable. Would cause too much political discussion over how much of an effect it should have.

 

[eXcel]

I think Coal and Oil have finally became unhealthy which I wanted. Those resources are bad for our environment and the cities are suffering for it.
However, what I do want is proper global warming. ...

I already have proper global warming, none, seeing as it doesn't exist.

 

[Stylesrj]

Yes, Global Warming is all a conspiracy started up by the Federal Government in order to scare the populace into buying war bonds.

Oh and it's also a collaboration done by the Liberal media!!

There is Global Warming. Whether or not we're responsible for it is up for debate, but the fact remains that temperatures around the globe are rising, thus Global Warming

 

[Ormur]

I think global warming could be in the game and somehow be influenced by the unhealthiness you have in your cities. Perhaps it might be possible to tie it to the random events making floods and forest fires more frequent in cities that have factories and coal plants, although that isn't exactly global warming.

Truly global warming could be implemented like it was in civ 3 but using total unhealthiness instead of pollution and making the threshold very high so it wouldn't kick in until the modern age or even later. It would of course have to be bigger for big maps, unhealthiness per tile perhaps.

Nuclear weapons should rather produce global cooling if used in large amounts if we want to be realistic.

I also agree that the present system of nuclear meltdown is flawed. Perhaps it would be better as it was in civ 3 where they could blow up in civil disorder. That would make you extra worried about angry citizens but nothing would happen to your happy cities.

 

[Stylesrj]

Now that's a system I like with nuke plants. Although it is quite powerful (ingame at least, realistic and good, but overpowered as there is little to no risk)

However, I really think there should also be an oil plant, for those who don't want to go nuclear and have no access to coal or a river.

 

[ezwip]

I don't believe slavery is ethical, but that certainly doesn't stop me cracking the whip in the game. I believe in free speech, but I'll happily run bureaucracy instead if it suits me to do so. I don't see what my real life preferences have to do with an imaginary game world. I just want to win.

I'll go from ruthless slave driver straight to reformed hippie.

 

[yatta77]

We might be producing more pollution than before, but at least is isn't as harmful as the ones used in the Industrial Revolution. Back then, there were NO regulations for it. Entire ecosystems would die from it and when you pump things like mercury into the atmosphere, you can harm people.

At least these days it's CO2 gases and a bit of radiation (Nuclear Plants need a fixing. They don't melt down at the drop of a hat.)

Uhm... I see what you mean, but sorry, I disagree with your conclusions (CO2 it is not even pollution to me, it's my breath. Modern industry pollution is something else...). But it is perfectly fair to me that people have different opinions than the one I have, and I respect them the way I wish mines to be respected.

Anyway, I think we are going off topic, so let's go back to the game mechanics. The way I see it, we have 4 civic (ehm... I'm watching The Simpsons lol):

- Free Market (Mongomery Burns): profit as the priority
- Environmentalism (Lisa Simpson): life quality as the priority
- SP (Skinner): low maintenance as the priority
- Mercantilism (Lovejoy - don't know the spelling -): I won't let you have profit while I do, I'll make my profit by myself and hope you won't so well.

Before BtS FM and SP were the more popular choices, and I guess to be right saying the strongest ones. Mercantilism in BtS gained some popularity for the corporations effects and with a SE in some cases could be really good; FM gained a reduced maintenance for corporations, to balance with SP new features about corporations. ENV didn't get any good bonus (some small bonus about Windmill and Forest Reserve, but nothing important) and corporations costs are even more, so this civic really needed a good reason to be choosed, other than the UN resolution.

Increasing the pollution in game makes the health bonus more valuable and in game mechanic terms the game more balanced: if you choose other than ENV you gain something at the cost of a reduced health, which is now more influential since the unhealthiness is raised compared to warlords. I think they improved the game mechanics this way, and I'm happy with the choice they made.

In conclusion I think factories aren't nerfed, but to get their bonuses in production now you must deal with:
OR a reduced health (since the bigger unhealthiness generated);
OR adopt the ENV civic (losing FM or SP or Mercantilism bonuses).

yatta77

 

[lulu135]

On the global warming subject, I think they should change it to "nuclear winder" and turn tiles into tundra. It would make it slightly less annoying in game terms since tundra is crappy, but still usable.

 

[Stylesrj]

Perhaps Global Warming can be created by factories, but to counter it, you use Nuclear Winter.

Wouldn't that be nice? You build a lot of factories and then you nuke everything to counter their effects!

 

[Psyringe]

Wouldn't that be nice? You build a lot of factories and then you nuke everything to counter their effects!

I thought about that when I wrote my first post in this thread, but decided that it sounded too gross to mention it.

"Congratulations, Montezuma! To protect the global climate, we have chosen you as the target of our new strategy to fight global warming. Please welcome our nukes."