CO2 generation

[Abaxial]

It seems that just possessing one ironclad is enough to start generating CO2 even if it stays in harbour. Would it not make more sense to have units only generate CO2 when they actually move?

 

[Laurana Kanan]

No Resource Maintenance Cost for Inactive Units

 

[Arent11]

It seems that just possessing one ironclad is enough to start generating CO2 even if it stays in harbour. Would it not make more sense to have units only generate CO2 when they actually move?

It's absurd anyway. Civilization 1 had a nice and intuitive pollution model, including atomic bombs.

 

[Pietato]

It is pretty messed up that one Ironclad suddenly overwhelms the earth's ability to absorb carbon...

 

[Duuk]

It is pretty messed up that one Ironclad suddenly overwhelms the earth's ability to absorb carbon...

Which then sinks all coastal civilizations into the sea, much like how the American Civil War sank all of Florida and Cuba. RIP Cuba.

 

[Kryxal]

So the Cuban Missile Crisis happened because of a lack of ironclads?

 

[UWHabs]

What I don't like as much is in my current game, I built one coal plant to power my core 6-7 cities, and put a stock exchange in each one as the only building needing power. So we're talking about 7 stock exchanges, one factory, and one coal plant (and one ironclad from a GA). And because of that, my civ was already getting -5 diplomatic favour per turn. Kind of feels a little aggressive there, no? I fail to see how a half dozen stock exchanges suddenly makes me a pariah of pollution.

 

[Kwami]

I mean, one Ironclad isn't really one Ironclad any more than one Infantry is a single guy. Also, this is a game. We're not going to get accurate climate simulations. Some abstraction is necessary and welcome. If the specific numbers are off, then sure, let's tweak them.

But, remember that the only things in the entire game that cause CO2 emissions are units that consume certain resources, power plants, and railroads. Railroads don't contribute much, which means that the other two categories have to contribute quite a bit for the whole climate change idea to work. No, it's not realistic. Neither is anything else in the game.

 

[Socrates99]

Itd be nice if forests and rainforests had a little more effect on CO2 mitigation. Leaving forests and chopping like a madman doesn't seem to change much with climate change. Then if you know you're going to build a navy you aren't crippling yourself as long as your mindful about chopping. Could even plant some trees to help offset carbon emmissions.

 

[Archaelicos]

I mean, one Ironclad isn't really one Ironclad any more than one Infantry is a single guy. Also, this is a game. We're not going to get accurate climate simulations. Some abstraction is necessary and welcome. If the specific numbers are off, then sure, let's tweak them.

But, remember that the only things in the entire game that cause CO2 emissions are units that consume certain resources, power plants, and railroads. Railroads don't contribute much, which means that the other two categories have to contribute quite a bit for the whole climate change idea to work. No, it's not realistic. Neither is anything else in the game.

I don't mind that it's not realistic per se. I do mind that it's so badly tuned as to not be fun or interesting as a game mechanic. The fact that it's tuned in an extremely unrealistic direction is irrelevant. If was badly tuned in the other way, it be less annoying but even more pointless.

Further, since there's literally nothing that can be done about it until long, long after it has spiraled out of control, there's really no point in trying to prevent or even mitigate it once it starts. You just build your flood barriers and move on and pretend it's not happening. That doesn't really add anything to the game. In one game I played, I never built a single power plant and deleted every single unit, and set every city to carbon sequestration project, and I STILL could not stop it.

If they're trying to illustrate that global warming is an unsolvable problem that the world will continue to ignore even in the face of actual catastrophic flooding, mission accomplished. If the game mechanic serves some other purpose, such as ... making the game more fun or interesting, then swing-and-a-miss.

 

[Mikey1993]

I tend to ignore it and it has not yet had a game-changing impact on any match I've played, even the very long games. As someone said I just construct the flood barriers and whatever else you need to mitigate the effects of the disasters..and continue on.
Damn I sound so human

 

[UWHabs]

My problem with this is that since the game rules are "fixed", you basically have fore-knowledge of the future. Like, when cities were building coal plants and factories in the 1800, were they thinking, "hey, you know what, I think in 200 years this is going to raise the sea level by a couple inches and flood the coastlines"? I doubt it.

of course, this is also a game where it takes a team of workers about 10-15 years to clearcut the entire amazon, which also would cause all the cities nearby to grow very big very quickly, so it's not exactly built for realism.

But yeah, I think the idea of a form of climate change, and the notion that power has negative effects makes sense, the balance isn't quite right yet. Of course, my current game is my first one where I'm even really approaching it being a factor, and even then, I think I should be able to rush the cultural victory before it really comes into play.

 

[Abaxial]

Realism isn't really the issue. It is just not very good as a game mechanic. The game simply discourages you from ever building coal-consuming units at all, rather than encouraging you to use them in moderation. Why have coal-powered power stations in the game at all, if there is such a big penalty to using them?

 

[UWHabs]

Realism isn't really the issue. It is just not very good as a game mechanic. The game simply discourages you from ever building coal-consuming units at all, rather than encouraging you to use them in moderation. Why have coal-powered power stations in the game at all, if there is such a big penalty to using them?

Never mind that the balance for power is way off. Each tier 3 building consumes 3 power, so if a coal mine gives 3 per turn, each coal mine only provides power for 4 tier-3 buildings. That's without even spending any on units, where you will rarely want just 1 that uses it. Since each coal mine gives 3 coal per turn, a "typical" empire will probably only have about 3 coal sources, so you can basically only power 8 tier 3 buildings plus 3 ironclads before falling into negatives. Plus then you add in pollution/CO2, a penalty to diplomatic favour, the high cost to even build a coal plant, the small actual production output from them, and the marginal output at best from those tier 3 buildings relative to their cost, and yeah, it just turns what could be a great system for finding/exploiting resources and managing the whole interplay between various resource types vs the economy as a whole into just wanting to abandon that whole part of the system and just running campus projects in all your cities instead of actually doing anything else.

 

[Victoria]

The simplistic model in the game reflects the overall warming that Civilizations begin to consume.
Have you forgotten coal bunkers in every home that were then replaced by oil heaters before becoming electric/gas.
The cars that are run, the fast food that makes us fart and the huge population growth down to healthcare benefits that came on the same industrial train.
This simplistic model does just reflect the times.

However, by the time I get to coal I just do not need ironclads and by the time I get to tier 3 buildings that are useless to build anyway I barely have to click next turn until I get renewables so can happily skip the warming thing until/unless my infantrymen need to oil their hair. Why in God’s name should my infantrymen need oil their hair?

Anyway, basically I disagree, the mechanics are right with regard to CO2 generation by design or accident. It does not mean it makes the game more playable which maybe is what the issue is. I personally hate hurricanes that come in the same box of toys and flood plains that have never flooded (why in God’s name is it a flood plain then?)

 

[Duuk]

I love that the solution is "Ignore the entire Industrial Era or win the game before you hit it."

Dear Firaxis, you broke your game.

 

[Victoria]

Dear Firaxis, you broke your game.

To break it, it had to work first. Culture and science accelerates too rapidly Later game, mainly due to CS.

 

[Zenstrive]

That's why you beeline to computer after industrialization and steel, suzerain that CS that allow you to purchase city central buildings with faith, and buy flood barriers for every city (160 faiths only each) and then you go to town with CO2.

 

[Villager720]

That's why you beeline to computer after industrialization and steel, suzerain that CS that allow you to purchase city central buildings with faith, and buy flood barriers for every city (160 faiths only each) and then you go to town with CO2.

Historical accuracy has reached new heights!

 

[MrRadar]

To break it, it had to work first.

Yes, I quite agree that there hardly was a point in this game's history where it was "unbroken".

Before GS, Industrialisation was a lame duck, and I feel that post GS it was killed off completely, and it's corpse was hit with a brick and buried at sea. And the latest patch did almost nothing to make CO2 generation sensible. You can still sink the world by having just a handful of fuel consuming units and building railroads.

And IZs - what are they? Why would you ever need one? The most rubbish district, waste of space and production, why, as such, it is even in the game? This is so sad, I can't believe I'm writing this. By the time you'd have them up and complete with coal or other plants, be they with the most fabulous adjacency, you can be in democracy and run a dozen and a half +8 to +10 production trade routes to your allies at 0 emissions (!), and those routes will also bring you heaps of gold with which you'll further buy all the things you need and don't really need at a discount and yes, at 0 emissions again.

By going IZ with power plants you just help the world sink faster but have very little benefits you would normally expect from the Industrial Revolution. The share of the additional production brought in by the power in IZ in the whole production pie chart of a city is laughable and ridiculous, but CO2 emissions caused by it are like oh, boy, better start building your boat now. Carbon recapture and emission reduction from units techs come when most of the vulnerable tiles are already under water.