Any sufficiently high temperature malfunction can result in a meltdown. A "grey goo" rogue nanites scenario can also be described as one.And microwave powerplant (space solar collectors beaming down energy)
I don't get why you want it back, its basically punishing for you building that building. When it was in place I ignored all nuclear buildings. And there was never a clear indication of how often it was going to happen.
Me too, btw. Also, the same logic kind of applies to burning forests and events that cause your buildings to burn without the option to repay to have it back. I mean, in the beginning of the game the burn building event, or the event that kills population (like hurricane or monsoon) is just crippling, and you can't do anything to mitigate it. Same thing with burning forest -- you might have a lumbermill that produces hammers for you, or you have a forest that you use to implement a culture that gives you a certain unit, and next second it's gone. At the same time you have an event that allows you to pay to replant a forest, but when you lose it via the burn mechanic, you have to wait an unknown amount of turns to get it back.
Yes it would.Well, I had 88 cities, each having 2000+ air pollution, mid-Atomic era. I also build almost every building, because I play for fun(except for Maginot Line, and the buildings that remove trade routes). My income was 700k per turn, so I didn't mind spamming rangers to suppress pollution. It wasn't enough though, some cities still had ~500 pollution, until I researched Ecology and Recycling
I'm about to enter Information Era, but my playstyle is very specific (I build most of the buildings, and intentionally switch civics sometimes to build civic-specific buildings, like Grand Manors, Art Patronages etc). Would my save be helpful? If so, which exact thread should I post to?
1. They are now national units. I'll increase their costs to match other space units buildable on Earth.
(but you could still make contact with them using Ishtar Gate / Marco Polo's Journey ).Yeah, space zones have to be in strict layers.Ah, that's too bad, I actually kinda liked the idea that there's a habitable planet in space, where "alien" civs develop on their own
Mechanism is here, but is currently unused - its simply too annoying.
You know hydroelectric dams have an unavoidable event that costs population? That Chemical Plants etc. ensure regular explosions? There is also the unavoidable "radioactive dust" "event" destroying improvements every other turn. Explain to me why nuclear power is singled out for rendering harmless.
Those are all optional - that is events can be turned off.
The idea is that if the micromanagement disturbs you - having to send out workers to upgrade those, then perhaps its not a good trait to pick. If it's not a drawback, then its not effective. There are other traits that can help to offset that penalty.
We've been considering doing a game option for that kind of thing for a while now. Bad things happen.
I put this as override in bad karma module
Is that normally on?I put this as override in bad karma module
I turned it on, and made sure that other things are off in it.
void CvCity::doMeltdown()
{
if (GC.getUSE_CAN_DO_MELTDOWN_CALLBACK() && Cy::call<bool>(PYGameModule, "doMeltdown", Cy::Args() << this))
{
return;
}
for (int iI = 0; iI < GC.getNumBuildingInfos(); iI++)
{
if (getNumBuilding((BuildingTypes)iI) > 0)
{
const int iOdds = GC.getBuildingInfo((BuildingTypes)iI).getNukeExplosionRand();
if (iOdds > 0 && GC.getGame().getSorenRandNum(1000, "Meltdown!!!") < iOdds)
{
if (getNumRealBuilding((BuildingTypes)iI) > 0)
{
setNumRealBuilding(((BuildingTypes)iI), 0);
}
plot()->nukeExplosion(1);
{
MEMORY_TRACK_EXEMPT();
CvWString szBuffer = gDLL->getText("TXT_KEY_MISC_MELTDOWN_CITY", getNameKey());
AddDLLMessage(getOwner(), false, GC.getEVENT_MESSAGE_TIME(), szBuffer, "AS2D_MELTDOWN", MESSAGE_TYPE_MINOR_EVENT,
ARTFILEMGR.getInterfaceArtInfo("INTERFACE_UNHEALTHY_PERSON")->getPath(), (ColorTypes)GC.getInfoTypeForString("COLOR_RED"), getX(), getY(), true, true);
}
break;
}
}
}
}I wonder if the text is accurate on that. If you set it higher is it less chance or more? I could look at the code to make sure later. I'm not against making it a much lower chance than it was previously set to. I'm just against its absolute removal. I'm also not against making it possible to keep it out of your game if you turn off the module. That seems fair to me. Overall I think this is a good solution. At least until we batch up a bunch of this stuff into an option.I turned it on, and made sure that other things are off in it.
Spoiler :
If I put <iNukeExplosionRand>1000</iNukeExplosionRand> then this meltdown chance text says .1000% each round
@Toffer90: what do you think about making the likelihoods of the forest change events rely on globals that can be thereafter easily adjusted, not only by us as modders, but also then by those who are disrupted enough that they could try to find a balance that's more appealing to them if they were willing to take that step into the realm of the simplest modding? Could help us dial it in over time as well.
