Are our Engineers destroying the ecology?

[harperbruce]

Peace be to all beings!

I'm playing a game now where I've had to clear land by draining swamps around several cities I've captured, or blow down mountains into hillside, then run irrigation through the converted square. (Otherwise the food situation would get hopeless.) Now, though, it occurs to me...every time I do this, I'm messing with the ecology! I'm destroying entire ecosystems and microclimes every time I irrigate a swamp to remove it.

There's gonna be the Dickens to pay from my Department of the Environment before long if I keep doing this. I strongly encourage all of you to Think Before You Engineer; the paperwork you save may be your own....

 

[Pariah]

Hey, it's only a simulated world, and a crude one at that! But you've got a point: ecological concerns, and the rights of wildlife, are a massive concern in today's governmental decision-making.

I'm hoping that in Civilization IV, and other future games of the type, environmental issues will be a bigger factor - more than just pollution reducing productivity or the threat of global warming. Maybe destroying a forest or jungle will produce extra unhappiness, and there could be Environmental Advisor (even if only in the Modern Age). Unmodified, highly biodiverse terrain close to Modern cities might even gain trade value through ecotourism, just as one can profit from building Nature Preserves in Call to Power II.

I think the ideal virtual-world game would have dynamic populations of animals as well as cities and armies. Check out my SimEarth thread on the "All Other Games" forum: there's a game where maintaining biodiversity on a civilized, hi-tech planet was one of the real challenges.

 

[Chieftess]

I remember hoping (and reading about other people hoping) for that feature back when Civ3 was announced. It would be nice to see deforestation affect the surrounding land. Maybe, clearing tons of jungle Could effect the ecology. Of course, this is Sid Meier's Civilization, and not Sim Life/Earth.

 

[harperbruce]

Myself, I think that trying to include more ambitious environmental rules would add more complexity to an already involved game in any version -- a game that tends now to turn into 5-10 minute management sessions per turn as your empire gets larger.

The focus in Civ is on the influences of government and the humanities in the shaping of a world, and how different combinations could affect the path history takes. In games like this, you have to draw the line somewhere between accuracy and abstraction, so that it's a game, i.e. it plays enjoyably enough to draw you back again and again, and not a long lesson in history and micro-management. A memorable example of trying to tie in all historical effects on an event was SPI's The Campaign for North Africa,, a game from the wargame boom of the 80s. So many extra rules were added in, such as for evaporation and spillage in the desert heat, that the games ceased being playable, and became a pure simulation of the historical situation. Even a basic scenario, according to a review book I have, could take a full 24 hours of play time. Civ2, OTOH, makes compromises at many levels, and abstracts many concepts of historical cause and effect. But it does it in a way that still gets across the theory of the designers on the effects of cultural/scientific developement on civilization, and pulls it off very well. The proof is that we're still playing the silly thing, even after the mechanics and graphics have been supposedly "superceded" by other systems.

Having said all the above, I wonder if RULES.TXT could be goosed to allow a greater environmental emphasis; like increasing penalties or speeding up the effects of pollution to cause skull-squares.

 

[Zwelgje]

It would be nice if you pollute too much the specials (whale, fish, game etc.) would die. It's a punishment and I think not too hard to program into the game.

 

[ElephantU]

We could terraform the Poles into CO2-trap Forests and Jungles in compensation for our terra-forming - after all, they have found fossils of ferns down there...

 

[covok48]

Geeze what do you want CIV to be? Real life?

Keep it simple or you'll further alienate gamers and lose your fan base.

 

[ElephantU]

How about a GOTM with a "no terrain changes" rule (excluding roads and irrigation)?

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by Zwelgje
It would be nice if you pollute too much the specials (whale, fish, game etc.) would die. It's a punishment and I think not too hard to program into the game.

That's a great idea; animal populations, though, are more likely to die out through over-exploitation than pollution.

Perhaps individual cities should be required to sacrifice something in order to keep those resources (i.e, use them sustainably). A charge of 1 or more trade arrows per turn, dependent on population, would account for limiting fishing quotas &/or paying anti-poaching rangers to protect game. Of course, this charge wouldn't be introduced until the city reached a certain size. It would be up to the user whether to invest in sustainability, or sacrifice the special resources in exchange for a few turns of maximum profit.

Geeze what do you want CIV to be? Real life? Keep it simple or you'll further alienate gamers and lose you fan base.

It's too complicated already for a lot of people's liking. I know several guys who gave up on Civ3 and Call to Power because they wanted a purely military strategy game. Charges for sustainabilty, and making wildlife a factor in terrain value, are very minor additions to a vastly intricate management system.

 

[dylandlr]

Hmmmm ..... verrrry stimulating.....

This is the first time I have thought of trying Civ3 again. The evironmental penalties, as I recall, were serious. (Although I didn't care for the rest of the game.)

I have a personal rule: any terrain my cities are not "exploiting" MUST NOT be developed. There is one exception: when barbarians persist in appearing in a certain undeveloped area I will build a SINGLE road through it to facilitate troop movement. As a result, I regularly have cities separated by totally undevelepod terrain (I'll even pillage developed terrain) but for the corners of connecting squares. {Yes, hexes would be amazing - but quadrants is what we have.)

Recently, I have been playing alot on world maps in standard Civ2, as well as many modern scenarios, and have felt a 'moral' imperative to protect certain parts of the world against development. (Besides, it can be quite pretty!) In my mind, I'm stopping eco-tourism and the like! (Try Livings's "Crises of the 'New World Order'" to really appreciate the cost of pollution.)

I am generally a total war-type player, predominantly as an Emperor, since Deity can be just too aggravating with regard to early expansion. Consequently, I am usually in Fundamentalist mode and am able to station some units along these roads to quickly intercept/interrupt the Barbarians. This is just not possible under any other government. (I have won [spaceship/conquest] at Deity, but never without nuking/being nuked and the inevitable global warming.)

Anyhow, I LOVE the idea of a price for renewable resources. I do not believe this is possible under Civ2 (or 3), but as I am beginning to consider writing my first scenario it is something I will attempt.

All suggestions/advice are welcome.

D

 

[Pariah]

I guess it might be possible to write events which change terrain in response to specific actions by the player. Or, if not, special terrain-based effects could be achieved by creating immobile units which look like certain kinds of terrain, belonging to Barbarians: these would appear, and prevent utilisation of special-resource squares, when the right conditions are met.

 

[ElephantU]

Amusing, how protective we are toward the environment, while we wipe out "Barbarians" without a thought and plot to exterminate whole civilizations...

...but it's just a game...

 

[covok48]

Sid Meier himself said (paraphrased of course) "When it is reality vs. fun...fun wins."

Slaughtering barbarians, exterminating civilizations, and developing land without environmental consequences is all part of the fun.

However, civ is heading toward the "realistic" direction. The same move that killed the SimCity series. Just keep it flakey yet fun.

 

[lord_yoshi]

Once played a European Map. 50 turns later, got to Comp (Russia)'s town. I looked and yelled "WHERE ARE THE FORESTS?", after seeing a massive orange/yellow space.

 

[dylandlr]

Originally posted by ElephantU
Amusing, how protective we are toward the environment, while we wipe out "Barbarians" without a thought and plot to exterminate whole civilizations...

...but it's just a game...

Well, those Barbarians, given a chance, would not only destroy my peace-loving engineers, but the terrain on which I've placed military units to impede eco-tourists and other forms of supposed Earth-loving elitists... (if only they could evolve cultures)...

...at the same time, it is a game of strategy and winning - but I can get emotional about the stupid AI that insists on attacking me even when I have 'countless' cities and it has only one or two; why can't it be 'appeased' with my gifts? Why must it it be destroyed in order to 'preserve peace'?
What do all these 'smilies' mean, anyway?

Besides, as the AI won't produce pollution, the entire responsibility falls upon the human player; I wonder if this reflects a normative socializing bias among C2's designers?

... Rather than rewriting the -.txt files, I aspire to a silly moral imperative in my gaming

D

there's supposed to be 'smilies'and other ironic hints, but I can't see them!!?

 

[Old n Slow]

Well some of us think that the ecology of empty sand and glacier ice are not too friendly for life as we know it -- any objecitions to modifying the icecaps?

 

[harperbruce]

Originally posted by dylandlr


Well, those Barbarians, given a chance, would not only destroy my peace-loving engineers, but the terrain on which I've placed military units to impede eco-tourists and other forms of supposed Earth-loving elitists... (if only they could evolve cultures)...

You mean, if only they could get a life?

 

[dylandlr]

u R clever

 

[Pariah]

Originally posted by dylandlr
Besides, as the AI won't produce pollution, the entire responsibility falls upon the human player; I wonder if this reflects a normative socializing bias among C2's designers?

Is that right? I'm sure I've seen pollution icons over AI territory in Civ2 - they certainly cause pollution when they use nukes!

In Call to Power, the AIs are usually the worst polluters. Capture one of their modern cities, and you'll spend a lot of public works money cleaning up the pollution in surrounding squares. The problem is, THEY never bother - nor do they ever seem to accept a "reduce pollution" pact.

 

[funxus]

Except when using nukes, the AI doesn't pollute (in 2.42 at least). Don't know what happens when the AI nukes the AI?

When automating your settlers/engineers, their highest priorities is to clean up pollution (IIRC from the few times I've used it). I remember seeing engineers moving a whole continent to clean up pollution. Since the automation is the same the AI uses, I'm surprised they don't prioritise pollution, but then I don't know anything about CtP...