[GS] Climate Change adjustments look great

[Pietato]

Decreased emissions of units, longer but more powerful cycle, and more counters are O for O-some. Exactly what we were asking for.

I am curious about the tile yield removal, though. Does it mean only extra yields which disasters have given can be removed, or ANY yields can be removed? If the latter, I hope it has a heavy bias towards inland tiles and heat waves, etc.

Also, if there are more tiles which can be submerged, then the Flood Barrier needs a buff. Added yields to the city/tiles would be good.

 

[blackcatatonic]

Decreased emissions of units, longer but more powerful cycle, and more counters are O for O-some. Exactly what we were asking for.

I am curious about the tile yield removal, though. Does it mean only extra yields which disasters have given can be removed, or ANY yields can be removed? If the latter, I hope it has a heavy bias towards inland tiles and heat waves, etc.

Also, if there are more tiles which can be submerged, then the Flood Barrier needs a buff. Added yields to the city/tiles would be good.

My understanding (based on the first look video, not the livestream which I didn't see) is that it's yields given from previous disasters. In a way I'd prefer it if it were more random and could affect any tiles but I can understand why they took this approach.

I do very much like the sound of the new climate change/disaster adjustments. Though I'd still like earthquakes and tsunamis

 

[Pietato]

My understanding (based on the first look video, not the livestream which I didn't see) is that it's yields given from previous disasters. In a way I'd prefer it if it were more random and could affect any tiles but I can understand why they took this approach.

I do very much like the sound of the new climate change/disaster adjustments. Though I'd still like earthquakes and tsunamis

Yeah, earthquakes and tsunamis would be great. I could even add yields or whatever, like all the rest, which seems to be a sticking point with players for some reason.

Removing bonus yields is good, but what if there are none? Seems like it needs work.

 

[acluewithout]

They said they couldn't remove base yields because of coding limitations. Which is fair enough.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They said they couldn't remove base yields because of coding limitations. Which is fair enough.

Interesting that the system doesn't allow for adding negative numbers to the base yields.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I like what they've done. I like the fact that I can now scrub all the carbon regardless of the source. I'm inferring from the lack of anything being said that the severity of the crisis (I through VII) cannot be reverse and the polar ice caps cannot be refrozen via carbon removal. Perhaps a future patch?

 

[Pietato]

How do droughts work, then? They could extrapolate that to make the impact of climate change much more severe for inland cities.

 

[Takfloyd]

They said they couldn't remove base yields because of coding limitations. Which is fair enough.

They never said this. What they did was suggest that the lack of real desertification is because so much depends on adjacencies and matching improvements to terrain types, so changing tile types would be detrimental to the game design. Simply removing base yields wouldn't have been an issue, but they didn't choose to go with that.

Personally I think they should have said screw tile dependencies and just added desertification anyway.

 

[acluewithout]

They never said this. What they did was suggest that the lack of real desertification is because so much depends on adjacencies and matching improvements to terrain types, so changing tile types would be detrimental to the game design. Simply removing base yields wouldn't have been an issue, but they didn't choose to go with that.

Personally I think they should have said screw tile dependencies and just added desertification anyway.

I thought what I wrote was a good summary of what they said, but okay. Either way, sounds like the problem was it was too hard to implement.

 

[Leathaface]

Decreased emissions of units, longer but more powerful cycle, and more counters are O for O-some. Exactly what we were asking for.

I am curious about the tile yield removal, though. Does it mean only extra yields which disasters have given can be removed, or ANY yields can be removed? If the latter, I hope it has a heavy bias towards inland tiles and heat waves, etc.

Also, if there are more tiles which can be submerged, then the Flood Barrier needs a buff. Added yields to the city/tiles would be good.

I agree, coastal tiles get affected a lot. I want to see inland tiles take some punishment.

 

[Victoria]

that the severity of the crisis (I through VII) cannot be reverse

Correct, certainly at the moment I can scrub all carbon and still stay on level III, been tested and there is an xml file that states each sea level rise can only happen once. I suspect they will not change this.

I agree, coastal tiles get affected a lot. I want to see inland tiles take some punishment.

Yes, droughts affect food and the odd pop loss I am happy with, I may lose a plantation or camp but not districts. These cat5 hurricanes affect 19 tiles and are pretty devastating to coastal cities. Yes you can tone them down but not off.
A tornado only affects a few tiles and I just have not seen the devastation of losing every district and building within.
The recovery from this is just too long. The effect on your game too greatfor me. A late game city sure but a T80 city getting badly hit is just ugh.

 

[Abaxial]

I didn't see anything about melting snow or tundra, which ought to occur. Also, there could be a matter of methane release from permafrost suddenly accelerating global warming. One reaches a tipping point at which the process becomes runaway, which is effectively game over for everyone.

Earthquakes and tsunamis would be difficult to implement in an accurate fashion. Would you have seismic zones? You would need some idea of plate boundaries in constructing the map. An earthquake could be the one disaster that destroys a wonder - not the pyramids, of course, but it was an earthquake that did for the Great Lighthouse, and also the Colossus IIRC. For tsunamis, you would have to be able to trace a path across a sea area, which might be difficult. Could be very extreme.

 

[Tech Osen]

Correct, certainly at the moment I can scrub all carbon and still stay on level III, been tested and there is an xml file that states each sea level rise can only happen once. I suspect they will not change this.

Yes, droughts affect food and the odd pop loss I am happy with, I may lose a plantation or camp but not districts. These cat5 hurricanes affect 19 tiles and are pretty devastating to coastal cities. Yes you can tone them down but not off.
A tornado only affects a few tiles and I just have not seen the devastation of losing every district and building within.
The recovery from this is just too long. The effect on your game too greatfor me. A late game city sure but a T80 city getting badly hit is just ugh.

This won't help at t80 but maybe they could give engineers the ability to repair districts and buildings for a charge.

 

[Pietato]

This won't help at t80 but maybe they could give engineers the ability to repair districts and buildings for a charge.

A buff to England (!), who currently sit at the bottom in England tier.

 

[Amrunril]

They never said this. What they did was suggest that the lack of real desertification is because so much depends on adjacencies and matching improvements to terrain types, so changing tile types would be detrimental to the game design. Simply removing base yields wouldn't have been an issue, but they didn't choose to go with that.

I actually would have argued that this is a perfect reason *to* incorporate changes in terrain type. Finding that your infrastructure is no longer matched to the environmental condition would be a perfect way for a civ to experience climate change (if, for instance, a city had grassland tiles transition to plains and found itself short of food). Experiencing the disappearance of natural features important to your culture and religion (if, for instance, you chose the faith from tundra pantheon, and your tundra started to disappear) would also be fitting.

Overall, though, I'd agree that this is an excellent set of balance changes, probably the best I've seen from Firaxis. Slower but more impactful climate change is exactly the direction the mechanic should go and unit-based emissions were the most problematic of the drivers. I do suspect the pacing changes may not go quite far enough, but it's probably better to look at this in future patches than to go too far at once and risk overshooting.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

They never said this. What they did was suggest that the lack of real desertification is because so much depends on adjacencies and matching improvements to terrain types, so changing tile types would be detrimental to the game design. Simply removing base yields wouldn't have been an issue, but they didn't choose to go with that.

Personally I think they should have said screw tile dependencies and just added desertification anyway.

I actually would have argued that this is a perfect reason *to* incorporate changes in terrain type. Finding that your infrastructure is no longer matched to the environmental condition would be a perfect way for a civ to experience climate change (if, for instance, a city had grassland tiles transition to plains and found itself short of food). Experiencing the disappearance of natural features important to your culture and religion (if, for instance, you chose the faith from tundra pantheon, and your tundra started to disappear) would also be fitting.

I agree with these comments. But by "detrimental to the game design" we need to recall that the core Civ 6 marketing premise is "win your way".

I suspect the dev team realized their original idea could undermine a player's position in a more meaningful way than a few flooded coastal tiles will. There may also be coding some coding issues related to correcting the yields from in place districts, improvements, wonders, etc. that would require more work than is economical for the dev team to undertake.

 

[HermannLombard]

How do droughts work, then? They could extrapolate that to make the impact of climate change much more severe for inland cities.

Droughts don't affect base yields, they only toast tile improvements.

 

[sonicmyst]

I don't want a tsunami implemented. Coastal civs are handicapped enough already.

As for inland disasters, I think a longer path to tornadoes and longer droughts should happen on higher climate change levels.

 

[Pietato]

Droughts don't affect base yields, they only toast tile improvements.

Pretty sure base food is reduced for the duration.

 

[Abaxial]

Last game I played, CO2 levels got up to Change level 2, mostly from coal, despite there being no coal-powered power stations on the map. So who was burning this coal? I assume it must have been ships. But ships only burn coal when they are actually active, not if they are holed up in port. If it is the case that (say) a battleship burns one coal every turn, that really ought to be changed to one coal every turn it moves, or one coal every turn it is not "sleeping".