Global warming - a suggestion

[Ahriman]

Please don't tell me to "read up on it" as if I'm an idiot.

Deforestation plays a part in desertification along with overgrazing and too high population levels in marginal areas.

Yes, in marginal areas. BUT IT DIDN'T TURN EUROPE OR CHINA OR EAST COAST US INTO A FREAKIN' DESERT!

You seem to be missing the point. Its not that deforestation doesn't have minor consequences. Its that these consequences haven't had a major impact on the major civilizations of the world. Unlike, say, industrialization (the industrial revolution is represented by.... 1 factory building, and railroads) or fertilizer or farm mechanization (not represented in the game - unless you assume that's the biology tech bonus?), or medicine that actually works (represented in the game by... 1 hospital building), and so forth.

Its a minor issue.

The claim made above "his happens almost everywhere that the deforestation occurs" is just total BS, whether there is "immediate planting" or not.

 

[Thormodr]

Perhaps getting into too much realism here with this discussion. Civ5 doesn't need that much realism. Civ4 had ways of giving +health effects of forest I think are a decent incentive for keeping forests. Although I'd bump up the health benefit even more. Aside from that, I don't see how including deforestation mechanics into the global warming mechanism is needed.

Agreed. It doesn't have to have any big mechanisms behind it. I'd prefer subtle bonuses in keeping forests around and more beneficial random events.

Overgrazing, population increase and the chopping down of forests does lead to desertification. However, that wouldn't be very fun in the game I think.
Just like the reason they removed pollution.

It would be nice to be able to replant trees though. China was proactive in this over 1500 years ago. It wouldn't have to be too high of a tech level in my opinion.

 

[StittsvilleJame]

I don't like global warming. It's bad enough it's happening in real life, no need to depress me while I play civ too.

 

[Thormodr]

Please don't tell me to "read up on it" as if I'm an idiot.



Yes, in marginal areas. BUT IT DIDN'T TURN EUROPE OR CHINA OR EAST COAST US INTO A FREAKIN' DESERT!

You seem to be missing the point. Its not that deforestation doesn't have minor consequences. Its that these consequences haven't had a major impact on the major civilizations of the world. Unlike, say, industrialization (the industrial revolution is represented by.... 1 factory building, and railroads) or fertilizer or farm mechanization (not represented in the game - unless you assume that's the biology tech bonus?), or medicine that actually works (represented in the game by... 1 hospital building), and so forth.

Its a minor issue.

The claim made above "his happens almost everywhere that the deforestation occurs" is just total BS, whether there is "immediate planting" or not.

I didn't tell you to read anything. No need to shout and insult. Thank you.

North East China has always been considered marginal and deforestation made it even more so. Hence the big problems China is having today. Perhaps you missed the part where China is now 1/3 desert.

Deforestation has had major consequences for the Maya for example who very likely will be in ciV in an expansion. It also had a significant effect on Ancient Rome and Greece.

I am sure you are well aware that North Africa used to export timber for use in the Roman Empire. When the area was deforested it dried up and became a wasteland.

It's not a minor issue. Deforestation has had significant effects on societies in the past. I do think they need to model deforestation better, that's all. No need to get upset.

 

[Ahriman]

North East China has always been considered marginal and deforestation made it even more so.

Manchuria has managed to support a pretty large population.
And perhaps you missed the part where the (once-forested) coastal plain of China has some of the highest agricultural reasons on earth.

The gobi desert and Xinjiang have been marginal for ages, nothing to do with human-caused deforestation.

Europe was once completely forested, and yet massive deforestation did not turn it into a desert.

North Africa once had forest, and is now arid, but there is no proof that this was caused by climate change. Until recent decades, humanity has not had the ability to cause major climate change. Major climate change has happened, but nothing to do with what we had.
Its much more likely that climate change to north africa and fertile crescent increased deforestation (less rainfall means less regrowth) than the other way around.

There are a few cases where environmental devastation, and even deforestation, have had major impacts on populations, mostly from soil erosion/fertility loss reducing agricultural yields, causing famine.
But it is the exception, not the norm.

It has not had anything like the level of impact on humanity as have the actual things that we use mechanics in the game to model. like the industrial revolution, or the agricultural revolution, or the green revolution, or the Enlightenment, and so forth.

And its not like it transforms large swathes of the world into desert.

Nor has over-grazing; its expanded the borders of deserts a little, but not on a major regional-level change that changing hexes terrain value would entail.

Non-human caused climate shifts have had *much* larger impacts on humanity than any environmental consequences caused by humans (again, until modern times). And we don't bother modeling that in the game.

 

[Thormodr]

On the contrary, deforestation is and was a big problem in Europe.

They were in part "saved" by the Black Death which killed about 1/3 of the population and allowed the forests to regrow somewhat. It was wasn't as good as the old growth forests and its biodiversity but it still staved off disaster at the time.

Ironically enough, coal saved Europe from environmental disaster.

As well as this, obtaining wood (for ship building) as well as new crops from the New World kept Europe from destroying itself.

Without that you'd have seen a much different Europe then you see today. In essence, Europe was lucky.

Historian Norman F. Cantor describes how in the late medieval period, coal was the new alternative fuel to save the society from overuse of the dominant fuel, wood:

Europeans had lived in the midst of vast forests throughout the earlier medieval centuries. After 1250 they became so skilled at deforestation that by 1500AD they were running short of wood for heating and cooking.They were faced with a nutritional decline because of the elimination of the generous supply of wild game that had inhabited the now-disappearing forests,which throughout medieval times had provided the staple of their carnivorous high-protein diet.By 1500 Europe was on the edge of a fuel and nutritional disaster, [from ]which it was saved in the sixteenth century only by the burning of soft coal and the cultivation of potatoes and maize.

http://www.docstoc.com/docs/6026176/Deforestation

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry to keep this thread rooted in reality, but as an agricultural scientist, I can say that deforestation can be a significant contributor to desertification-in several key ways:

1. Forests are a major factor in land-based water cycles via evapo-transpiration. Removal of trees has been found to reduce rainfall in a number of independent studies.

2. Tree roots (due largely to their depth) are able to keep salts from rising up through the water table & wrecking top-soil. If top soil becomes too salty, its ability to support anything but the most hardy plant life is lost.

3. Trees also are much better at holding soil together-& providing wind breaks-than grasses or scrub. These are of course important factors in preventing soil erosion. Lose the trees & you can lose extremely valuable top soil.

So you see how, in 3 ways, trees can prevent viable agricultural land from turning into desert!

 

[Thormodr]

Untold tens of millions of people have been killed by the Yellow River in large part because of deforestation. I'd say that's pretty significant.

China's Loess Plateau was cleared of forest millennia ago. Since then it has been eroding, creating dramatic incised valleys, and providing the sediment that gives the Yellow River its yellow color and that causes the flooding of the river in the lower reaches (hence the river's nickname 'China's sorrow').

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deforestation

Ancient deforestation created a big problem and modern deforestation made it worse. One million dead is pretty significant.

The Huang He or Yellow River in China is often called “China’s Sorrow”.

Flooding has been a problem for years, but with deforestation of the mountains in the north, the flood lines have widened and changed the course of the river several times.

The worst, most sorrowful flood on record happened in 1931.

The waters began to rise in July, and by November of that year, more than 40,000 square miles had been flooded, leaving 80 million people homeless, and from disease, famine, and drowning, close to one million dead.

http://www.bigsiteofamazingfacts.com/why-do-the-chinese-call-the-yellow-river-in-china-chinas-sorrow

I think they should have more beneficial effects for leaving some forests around. Perhaps increased crop yields for farms or less chance of flood type random events.

Perhaps increase the bonuses for forests somehow.

I'm not saying it has to be big or overwhelming but it'd be nice to see it modeled a little better.

 

[whats a navy]

Can you guys just stop arguing. It needs to calm down a bit considering that you guys are debating on essentially how much forests should get a bonus in ciV. This is CFC, not CNN.

 

[Thormodr]

Can you guys just stop arguing. It needs to calm down a bit considering that you guys are debating on essentially how much forests should get a bonus in ciV. This is CFC, not CNN.

There is no problem here. The debate is actually about how deforestation is actually a "minor" problem. I think it is a big problem that has plagued mankind throughout the ages. I think it could be modeled a little better in the Civ series that's all.

How about your opinion? Would you change what forests do in ciV in regards to bonuses or different effects?

 

[whats a navy]

Maybe somewhat but the formula worked in CIV so why not ciV. Maybe adding half a happy face or a whole one after a certain tech. The forests need to have better bonuses in the late game but early game they are fine how they are.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I wouldn't want to see deforestation have significant negative impacts untill much later in the game.

I think "Environmental Damage" would be fun if
1. It gave Civ A a reason not to want Civ B to use Nukes on Civ C
2. It gave Civ A a reason to be concerned with the internal 'social settings' of Civ B
3. It gives a benefit (late game) to forests that had been left around.
4. It was All Temporary effects that could be reversed with large scale 'macro' changes. (no whack-a-mole)

Particularly since the game will go a "little bit" into the future, I'd love to see the ability to force a "Environmental Collapse" late game, where populations drop significantly from the massive damage, and people are trying to leave/dominate the planet as fast as possible.


As for de/reforestation... I'd like to see Reforestation done something like towns were done in Civ IV.... If you want to Reforest a tile, you put an "improvement" on it that gives you nothing/almost nothing, but each turn you work it, it becomes closer to being a forest.

 

[civ_king]

It would be counter-able with an expensive reforestation project

 

[ori]

Moderator Action: please keep the discussion civilized

 

[civ_king]

I concur this is a CIVILIZATION forum

 

[Wolle68]

Particularly since the game will go a "little bit" into the future, I'd love to see the ability to force a "Environmental Collapse" late game, where populations drop significantly from the massive damage, and people are trying to leave/dominate the planet as fast as possible.

I would hate for the constant sense of progress throughout the game being suddenly turned around and turned into "we're all going to Hell in a hand-basket." I can see how this is realistic, but I don't think it will be fun. (Earlier Civs had some of this, and I didn't like it.)

As for de/reforestation... I'd like to see Reforestation done something like towns were done in Civ IV.... If you want to Reforest a tile, you put an "improvement" on it that gives you nothing/almost nothing, but each turn you work it, it becomes closer to being a forest.

I would like to see reforestation as well, as long as it's better balanced than Civ III. The slow growing forest idea is nice. The oak trees that were planted after the Danish fleet got destroyed in 1807, have just now been declared ready for logging to build a new fleet.

 

[Thormodr]

I would hate for the constant sense of progress throughout the game being suddenly turned around and turned into "we're all going to Hell in a hand-basket." I can see how this is realistic, but I don't think it will be fun. (Earlier Civs had some of this, and I didn't like it.)



I would like to see reforestation as well, as long as it's better balanced than Civ III. The slow growing forest idea is nice. The oak trees that were planted after the Danish fleet got destroyed in 1807, have just now been declared ready for logging to build a new fleet.

Funny story. I believe the French did the same thing.

 

[civ_king]

yep, the French did!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I would hate for the constant sense of progress throughout the game being suddenly turned around and turned into "we're all going to Hell in a hand-basket." I can see how this is realistic, but I don't think it will be fun. (Earlier Civs had some of this, and I didn't like it.)

Well I believe it should happen IF all the civs take certain paths, ie no civs advance in the ecology section of the social tree.

If Civ Do adopt sufficient ecology/ "civics" and/or build enough ecology buildings then the problem should never arise. (and even the Environmental collapse scenario should reverse itself given time and players adopting the proper actions)

 

[Camikaze]

Something that should probably be noted is that it doesn't matter whether or not you actually agree with AGW, it would be rather odd for the developers not to include a simulation of AGW, given that it is predicted to be one of the defining aspects of the next few decades, which are, if you make it that far in the game, crucial turns in the game. Leaving it out would be making a political statement; having it in in some form or another would be just following the crowd, not political at all.

Now, how should it be implemented? Well, firstly, if a game element is going to be good, it needs to have cause and effect. I'm not going to argue much about what the cause should be, although I think tying it to pollution would be best. It's the effect that is most concerning in Civ 4. It is completely random, and completely arbitrary. Random desertification? I mean, come on. It, firstly, needs to be a realistic effect, and secondly, it needs to be applied with some actual method, namely effecting those that have polluted. You must give the player some degree of control over whether they will suffer from such a game element or not.