De-forestation - shouldn't it effect pollution?

[TETurkhan]

If one were to cut down all trees on a map, shouldn't that effect pollution or something? I tried to see if there was some way of making this impact the game, but couldn't find anything in the editor to do so.

Just a passing thought - destroy all forests in the world - figured there should be some effect...

I yeah I forgot this is just a game

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Thsi is what happened in Civ2 to me a few times, but it seems it is not implemented in Civ3. Somehow, it seems the industries do not like that concept

 

[Tassadar]

A.i. clear alomst every forest, i dont do that, a city size 12 need some hills or forest to produce shiled.

Pollution and global warming in my experience is cause by a.i.

They built hospital and increase city size to 20 and more, this give a lots of pollution and the damn a.i are not able to clean their own sh.t. They clean but not enough. So your tile began to change because of a.i pollution.

I declare war when this happen and i bombard city to destroy factory and reduce city size, then panzer raze,destroy,eradicate.

 

[Crow T Robot]

I had a game on a large or huge map and I owned a continent which was maybe 50% of the land mass. I planted *lots* of trees in those spots between city X's and other free spots and it *seemed* that global warming was slowed a lot.

When GW did begin, it struck a lot of the forests reverting them to plains or grassland which meant it was easy to replant them.

It might have just been coincidence or that the AIs left who were all crammed together like rats and fighting were less advanced and polluting less. But if and when I have extra workers, I have them replant forests . It might do nothing but until I know definatively that they dont impact GW, it doesnt hurt.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Tassadar: a mined plain gives the same as a forest, unitl rail, then it gives an additional food which the forest doesn't give.

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Tassadar: a mined plain gives the same as a forest, unitl rail, then it gives an additional food which the forest doesn't give.

An extra shield ( mine plain). Yes i know, but if you have lots of grassland then on non-shield one it s good to plant some forest, usualy after clearing jungle i will plant some forest, irrigate some grassland, mined shield grassland.

Definitively global warming is cause by a.i. as soon as they got hospital they built it and they icrease city size without any control. When global warming occur, send a few explorer into a.i. territory, you ll see several polluted tile. I much prefer to built a factory into my size 12 city ( only 2 pollution skull) then an hospital.

Hospital without mass transit create to much problem, you need hord of worker( 1 gold per turn) to clean. While a factory give you tremendous increase in production, and if you convert your production to wealth, then it is several more gold.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Tass: I agreee, if you have too much non-bonus grassland and are too far from railroad, then it is good to plant forests..... especially, since you can always cut them later

as for pollution: let it run for a while and clear it up - you have lots of slave workers after all...... you don't? what a peacefull player you are

I find that the cost for workers is far less than the added tax and research - after all, 1 more tile worked on a river gives you two to three commerce extra in a city with marketplace and Library......

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

to clarify again on pollution: I beeline for indutrialism, then for sanitation, build Hospitals right after Factories.

Later, i always find I get ahead in tech and productivity in the time after I ahve those two improvements in my major cities. The AIs simply stuff military units in between, and that costs them.

 

[Tassadar]

Killer, i use slave worker ( which i got after razing) to clean THEIR pollution , i am an environementalist warmonger, as soon as global warming occur, i go war, raze their city, clean their pollution.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Originally posted by Tassadar
Killer, i use slave worker ( which i got after razing) to clean THEIR pollution , i am an environementalist warmonger, as soon as global warming occur, i go war, raze their city, clean their pollution.

I harldy ever let the AI get that far - and if i do, they come fighting all the time,a nd i get sooooo bored with it I kill their Riflemen with Mdoern Armour.....

 

[The Templar]

An environmentalist warmorger, huh? Yeah, I've done that a few times also.
I think would have liked a a SMAC-like forestry system (a shining point in an otherwise dismal game). You know, plant/preserve forests, reduce pollution. The trees would act as carbon sinks to help reduce CO2 in the air, slowing global warming.

 

[DaDoo]

hrm

I only wish the forests in civ3 will reduce pollution... I always reserve 15-20 tiles somewhere in the middle of my empire to be forested and designated as the DaDoo National Park.

and watch it slowly turning to desert due to pollution..

 

[TETurkhan]

Killer, i use slave worker ( which i got after razing) to clean THEIR pollution , i am an environementalist warmonger, as soon as global warming occur, i go war, raze their city, clean their pollution.



That is too funny!


so then does the game factor in de-forestation?

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

tetrkhan: not to my knowledge (but who am I?)

 

[Venger]

Adding back the mining bonus for forests gets rid of the ridiculous deforestation in Civ3. As to reducing pollution - well, not sure how valid that is, trees don't really 'reduce' pollution. In fact, as forest burn they produce far more pollution than most industrial uses...

Venger

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

Venger: very good point (one i constantly harp on when discussing global warming) - the only forest reducing pollution (and not just storing CO2 for a few yearn) are those where the old wood falls into a swamp and gets stored there for long times.

To say this a litle clearer: the CO2 in circulaiton is added to by burning coal and oil and gas. To compensate, we need CO2 caught in wood that then can turn into coal, not be burnt, in microorganisms that can accumulate on the ocean fllor and turn to oil and gas, not be recycled by natural processes.....

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

and, to counter what the coal industires claim: CO2 is NOT fertilizer for trees - sure more CO2 means trees can grow faster, but only if they have enough water and soil. By global warming, we make climate zones move (northwards on the northern hemisphere, southwards on the southern), and these changes go too fast for the vegetation to follow. It takes tens of thousands of years for vegetation to grow in the Sahara - if the neighbouring areas dry out to fast, a lto of rain won't lead to forests in the Sahara - where should they come from???? And don't say man can plant them - that task is far too huge....

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by teturkhan
Killer, i use slave worker ( which i got after razing) to clean THEIR pollution , i am an environementalist warmonger, as soon as global warming occur, i go war, raze their city, clean their pollution.



That is too funny!


so then does the game factor in de-forestation?

If you are able to understand, you wont imagine thing like does deforestation cause global warming

I said global warming is because a.i not because deforestation.

I mean, what do you want more:rocket3:

 

[Park Ranger]

Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Venger: very good point (one i constantly harp on when discussing global warming) - the only forest reducing pollution (and not just storing CO2 for a few yearn) are those where the old wood falls into a swamp and gets stored there for long times.

Wish I could remember the exact process, but doesn't flooding of forests e.g by big hydro-electric dam projects lead to massive CO2 emissions? Not sure if this is distinct from "natural" swamps or not.

In any case recent studies suggest carbon sink effects of planting trees are not as great as assumed. I can provide sources later today if some are interested (I know a librarian who was just researching this question for someone).

MHO is CIV3 shouldn't provide players with a way to reduce atmospheric CO2 with any method other than reducing emissions themselves as long as in RL we have no way of doing so. And since we can't even decide (internationally) on how to best reduce emissions, the game should make it very difficult even to do that.

 

[Alpine Trooper]

Um, CO2 isn't the only thing getting pumped into the sky. Civilization is being realistic by not using the number of tress as an offset of pollution, <b>because the difference tress make is very small</b>. People in real life wonder why they have somg days everyday and blame it on the lack of tress. What an intelligent conclusion when North American forests have grown by 17 % as of the 80s I believe.