Global warming - a suggestion

[KrikkitTwo]

I don't think that 1-2 degree C changes would have 50-100% crop yield changes at any kind aggregate level.
For example:
http://www.ifpri.org/publication/climate-change-impact-agriculture-and-costs-adaptation

The state of the art research does suggest that there are important non-linearities in crop yields, and threshold barriers after which warming causes significant crop loss.
http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/15594.abstract
But it still takes a temperature change past the threshold level of ~6 degrees C to be able to get these kinds of changes. (Check the graphs on the top of the second page of the Schlenker - though beware because they're extrapolating out of sample.)

But from the effect of slight cooling (as long as you start below the threshold) on yield is minimal.

So I continue the point that technology is a far more important determinant of yields than temperature.

That is only looking at temperature in one location and not the effect that changing Global temperature would have on Precipitation/Wind/Cloud patterns.

If you have a 1 C change in temp, but that leads to changing currents such that the precipitation drops by 50%, you could take a 'grassland' and make it a 'plain'

Now I favor a system that works on a temporary basis rather than a permanent one, and is more generic than 'global warming' but having it in there would definitely be in an interesting issue.

 

[Ahriman]

but that leads to changing currents such that the precipitation drops by 50%

None of the climate models have changes this extreme for precipitation.

 

[Fife]

Kind of different from the original global warming but I think it would make a great addition. How about rising sea levels. Small islands begin to disapper. Also there should be a point where the world is so pollutted that the world becomes unlivable forcing the game to end... Like in Next War when you fire off one too many nukes.. Spolier!!! The earth crakes like an egg!

 

[Ahriman]

Kind of different from the original global warming but I think it would make a great addition. How about rising sea levels. Small islands begin to disapper.

Even a single tile in Civ represents a large amount of land. The only islands likely to disappear from sea level rise in the foreseeable future are those too small to ever be modeled in Civ.

 

[Fife]

By 2050, Bigger islands may have disappered... I just saying more pollution, more islands disapper. If there is a ton of pollution of course. More than the modern world produces. It could be avoided by the enviro civic.

 

[Ahriman]

By 2050, Bigger islands may have disappered...

Most sizeable islands are volcanic (as opposed to atolls) and have altitude of 100+ meters high. No climate change is going to make them disappear.

The kinds of islands that might feasibly disappear with a 2-3 meter sea level rise are the Maldives, Kiribati, Tokelau, Niue, etc.

Anything big enough to warrant a tile (Jamaica, Samoa, New Caledonia, Fiji, Hawaii, Cyprus, Malta) isn't going to disappear.

 

[Fife]

Well we could cut that... Bt what about the world becoming too polluted?

 

[Ahriman]

Pollution is modeled through health penalties. We saw in Civ2 and Civ3 how un-fun lategame pollution management can be if its modeled explicitly.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

None of the climate models have changes this extreme for precipitation.

None for Local Precipitation?? I'm pretty sure some areas would experience that severe a change (depending on the change in Global temperature being predicted)

In any case, that is a realism argument.

Having a negative impact on your neighbors (and vice versa) through a method other than war seems like an Excellent option for late game civ. Primarily it provides an additional component to interciv relations, it also acts as a negative feed back... Large civs suffer more so they have reason to restrain themselves, small civs suffer less so they don't.

 

[Ahriman]

None for Local Precipitation??

No 50% shifts in precipitation for anywhere at the scale of resolution of GCM models, yes.

We don't have good localization models, and really can't given that GCM models to a miserable job even for regional precipitation.

In any case, that is a realism argument.

The whole argument for including climate change was based on a realism argument, rather than a gameplay argument.
So yes, I use a realism argument to counter it.

Having a negative impact on your neighbors (and vice versa) through a method other than war seems like an Excellent option for late game civ.

I strongly disagree. Having your land suffer from pollution happening in countries on the other side of the world, where you can do nothing about it, sounds like the extreme definition of Not Fun.

Climate change mechanics force annoying MM city/improvement reoptimization, and the annoying feeling of helplessness.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I strongly disagree. Having your land suffer from pollution happening in countries on the other side of the world, where you can do nothing about it, sounds like the extreme definition of Not Fun.

Its the modern Era... you can do something about it (you can bomb them to the stone age or vote to force changes in the UN)
I'd agree if 'climate change' was something that was caused by civ actions in the Ancient Eras

Climate change mechanics force annoying MM city/improvement reoptimization

how?

, and the annoying feeling of helplessness.

how?

Those assume Specific 'climate change' mechanics.

The Only key gameplay aspect of 'climate change' is that something that benefits my civ has a cost spread to all civs.

The nature of the benefit+cost and the things that can be adjusted are details of the mechanics.

 

[Ahriman]

Its the modern Era... you can do something about it (you can bomb them to the stone age

If they're on the other side of the world, and it takes your transports 25 turns to get over there? Hardly.

And how do you even determine who is causing it? Its not like its a deliberate action taken by a single civ.

And I would be *amazed* if the diplomacy engine was capable of handling "pollute less" requirements. What is it going to do, make them build more health buildings?

how?

Because if food yield drops from the tiles you're working, you have to build more farms and/or reassign specialists in order to keep your population from starving.
Or at minimum, reallocate which tiles you're working.

how?

Because it is a mechanic that is just happening to your economy, and there is nothing you can do with your economy to stop it. Even if your economy is entirely green and non-polluting.
At least Civ3 pollution had something you could do about it. Insanely annoying, but you weren't helpless.

The Only key gameplay aspect of 'climate change' is that something that benefits my civ has a cost spread to all civs.

Exactly. And this is the key mechanic that isn't fun.
Pollution where the costs and benefits all fall within your civ is one thing.
But suffering the costs from something that some other civ does on the other side of the world? Not fun.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

If they're on the other side of the world, and it takes your transports 25 turns to get over there? Hardly.

you have bombers+nukes, and you should be a large scale civ by now.

And how do you even determine who is causing it? Its not like its a deliberate action taken by a single civ.

Everyone that is not Publically acting in a certain way

And I would be *amazed* if the diplomacy engine was capable of handling "pollute less" requirements. What is it going to do, make them build more health buildings?

The UN in Civ IV could force you to adopt civics, and you could request diplomatically that civs adopt certain civics... what if the "Environmentalism" civics only significant benefit was stopping 'global pollution' from that civ.

Because if food yield drops from the tiles you're working, you have to build more farms and/or reassign specialists in order to keep your population from starving.
Or at minimum, reallocate which tiles you're working.

If that is the result of global pollution.

Because it is a mechanic that is just happening to your economy, and there is nothing you can do with your economy to stop it. Even if your economy is entirely green and non-polluting.
At least Civ3 pollution had something you could do about it. Insanely annoying, but you weren't helpless.

Who said ou would be helpless... its just the tools you must use are 'diplomatic'

Exactly. And this is the key mechanic that isn't fun.
Pollution where the costs and benefits all fall within your civ is one thing.
But suffering the costs from something that some other civ does on the other side of the world? Not fun.

First of all... Modern Era... 'other side of the world' doesn't matter that much, you are talking to all of them.

Second... The 'cost spreading' means that you must 'deal' with other players, even on the other side of the world.

Essentially it puts the modern Era on two paths...
1. everyone goes polluting and it becomes a race to escape/dominate a dying world (probably a very Slowly dying world)... or find a technical solution.. ie if you reach sufficient technology then the problem gets solved.

2. everyone goes non-polluting and it becomes a struggle for power over this collective group