Global warming; does it matter?

[katipunero]

Point(s) well taken.

Global warming has effects that impact all civs, and pretty equally at that. Unless one civ is abusing it to make tiles useless while it runs a corporation, there is no net relative difference from global warming at all. Are you saying that corp-based global warming beatdowns affect the relative position of civs on a consistent basis before the game is decided? That's the only possible way it matters, and if you're saying that we must be playing very different games.

Founding key corporations gives the human player an edge late game against AI opponents, but i won't go so far as saying that getting and monopolizing key corporations like sid's sooshi before the onset of global warming is decisive of any game. The sushi powered surplus citizens who can now longer work tiles thanks to global warming may have some use as specialists but most of the time they're just out there to starve. Sushi helps grow a city even with scarce food resources, but the advantage is fleeting and almost useless especially against a desperate AI with the latest military technology knocking on your doors.

Random elements that are not reasonably determined by player actions are a bad thing for gameplay. Notice that some of the in-game events do not fail this test, but enough do so for random events to be my most hated game setting of all. It still bothers the hell out of me that they are allowable options in HoF while disabling tech trades or brokering isn't (the latter having far less impact on outcomes than huts or events, and being less random, in a setting that is supposed to make games comparable.....................................).

So far no one has started a thread on a possible high-level game that is built ground up on random events. Call it a random events gambit. It might require a mastery of all the 200 or so events and their triggers, plus tight gamestyle where the goal is to strike for the positive events and avoid the bad ones. I can't say I can trigger early random events on command but that might be a possiblity, and indeed i have tried.

Anyway adding more fake difficulty isn't the answer. Maybe as an option, but random elements that are not influenced by player actions don't have a place in the default game. They might have a place in the card game "war".

I admit the random event idea is poorly thought out not just for the reasons you've stated but also the fact that even if the entire global warming phenomena turns out to be one big misunderstanding with mother nature and with no artificial provenance the tiles would keep on turning to desert. But now seen purely of natural causes devoid of any human agency.

Now, if you really want to penalize a player for pollution beyond basic un-health, civ II had a workable model. Cities would pollute their surrounding land if they were too unhealthy. If you take away sea levels rising from that, you have a working model to penalize pollution, and you could logically tie it only to buildings/factors that make sense. That a better model in an older game was dropped in favor of complete and utter garbage is preposterous.

Localized population effects is good but that skirts the idea of global warming as a "global" problem. I haven't played civ2 though so i could be off target with this again.

On the whole, my take on global warming on civ is more likely the product of my confusion, because it is confusing really, nurtured by competing discussions in my environmental law classes. I just sit there and listen and then think of the many ways I can nuke enemy territories on civ. my professor is himself a bit wary and in fact has been more cautious lately after chairing/arbitrating key negotiating points in the uh not so successful copenhagen talks.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Localized population effects is good but that skirts the idea of global warming as a "global" problem.

There is such a thing as "acceptable deviation from reality" in gaming, and balancing gameplay is probably the #1 reason. It might be a global problem (which is actually debateable as I somehow doubt the state of Alaska and say Haiti or India are equally effected anyway) but penalizing the polluter is probably a better model. Especially because unlike global warming, pollution is a proven commodity with known causes.

Fireaxis dropped the ball on GW quite badly.

As for other random elements, the event triggers work in such a way that you don't even know if an event is POSSIBLE in a given game. And even when it is, there's no guarantee it would trigger. I'm sure that one can influence events towards the good to some extent, but not enough to mitigate the fake difficulty acceptably.

Some of the events aren't quite as broken. A lot of the quests are reasonable and a commerce boost here or a mine collapse there (after the first 2000 years or so) isn't anything major. Things that happen such as triple-forest-fire in the first 50 turns or disproportionate slave revolts can just be brutal though, not to mention events that are BROKEN OUTRIGHT like vedic aryans and other uprisings to a lesser extent. Their lack of balance and/or strategic depth really irks me, and they're done about as well as the vassal/capitulation mechanics (which are terrible).

 

[PieceOfMind]

Maybe the poster who called out specific politicians swung a little too far in that direction (as the tendency of that sort of thing to ignite unfavorable responses is quite high), but if anything the people accusing him of trolling are probably more guilty of that action.

Spoiler off topic :

I assume you're talking about my post TMIT since I said he was trolling. Bringing into the discussion a heavily politicised (and in parts plain false) and biased viewpoint that does not flow on from the existing discussion and intends to incite other politically charged reactions is IMO trolling.

I don't really want to post my political belief here but may I remind you that before a few years ago climate change was not political (or at least not as much as it is now). When politicians start talking about it and it creeps into policy it obviously becomes political and views are likely to polarise.

But it cannot be denied that the topic of a changing climate has been discussed in the scientific community since at least the 70s and it would be quite ignorant to believe it is some sort of conspiracy conjured up by X politician in the US in the past several years.

The reason I remind you that it was not as big a political issue a few years back is that when Civ4 was being developed it was probably quite innocent that they decided to put GW in the game. I'd hazard a guess that no one in Firaxis is a climate scientist so I can see how global warming ended up being a fantasy mechanic. But please, they weren't trying to push some hidden agenda, spreading propaganda in a video game. It was just poorly implemented and in the end a pretty bad gameplay feature.

By insisting they are pushing a political message only emphasises your opposition to the perceived political message. It is only in the light of recent political events that you can have such a strong opposition to that message. I think you'd be hard pressed finding any complaints from 2006 about the GW feature being a political biased message.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

By insisting they are pushing a political message only emphasises your opposition to the perceived political message.

You are mistaken. First of all, climate change in some form was known since whenever we became aware of the ice age. That is most certainly drastic global warming!

However, fireaxis chose to place drastic climate change into the game as a direct and acute influence of human beings, and they deliberately chose that alternative out of at least several viable alternatives to punish pollution. I can give them a pass on making it trigger due to stupid factors (the way AI picks UN resolutions, the capitulation mechanics, event triggers, war target mechanics etc. are also based on stupid factors so at least here they're not showing bias!). I can not give them a pass on including an aspect that was not a factor historically and then running wild with its causes. Fantasy mechanics that are not balanced shouldn't even be considered in this game, let alone actually included.

Edit: Fireaxis is not stupid. Complaints about pollution and civ climate change are not new. They date back to at least civ II (over 10 years!). They took that and made the effects IRREVERSIBLE and dropped the value of an affected tile further. They deliberately *increased* the level of frustration with this mechanic compared to earlier games, and I'm not sure it's less insulting to say that was innocent...that would be some serious idiocy on their part. I'd much rather buy the "deliberate bias" argument, seeing as how they are quite capable of making great games overall, including this one.

I think you'd be hard pressed finding any complaints from 2006 about the GW feature being a political biased message.

Vanilla GW was different! Also, marathon (where GW is most obscene) wasn't around instantly either. Considering that GW has been on the political scene in a material respect (enough for me to have been heavily taught it even in the 90's) even before 2006, I'd say you're reaching a bit. Nor can you say a lack of posts on the matter in 06 is telling, given the variance in the mechanic and the vastly more pressing issues that needed to be addressed at the time.

If GW were the only issue here, your argument might be a little more plausible. However, the bias against all things nuclear is also pretty outlandish, plus a few issues with civics....

These factors reek. It's possible that there wasn't any bias there, just as its possible smoking won't reduce someone's life span, but neither argument is standing on very firm ground!

 

[Camikaze]

I have to disagree that global warming should not be a significant factor in the game. Firstly, it's a scientific issue, not a political one. And secondly, the game goes to 2050. Meaning, it goes into the future to a limited extent. And what is expected to be a major issue doing untold damage to the world in the next forty years? Global warming. Now, I agree that Firaxis dropped the ball in the way they implemented global warming, but they did not drop the ball sheerly by attempting to put it in there. Whether you disagree with the scientific evidence or not for whatever reasons, Firaxis cannot be blamed for attempting to implement something in the game which is expected to be a major, major issue for part of the time scale of the game; a part that takes up forty turns, forty turns that will be quite crucial should you make it to that stage.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You are mistaken. First of all, climate change in some form was known since whenever we became aware of the ice age. That is most certainly drastic global warming!

How does that follow from the statement you quoted me on? You say I'm mistaken about something and then write a few things I agree with so I'm not sure what you think I was mistaken about.

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: Let's keep the personal attacks out of this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[r_rolo1]

I have to disagree that global warming should not be a significant factor in the game. Firstly, it's a scientific issue, not a political one. And secondly, the game goes to 2050. Meaning, it goes into the future to a limited extent. And what is expected to be a major issue doing untold damage to the world in the next forty years? Global warming. Now, I agree that Firaxis dropped the ball in the way they implemented global warming, but they did not drop the ball sheerly by attempting to put it in there. Whether you disagree with the scientific evidence or not for whatever reasons, Firaxis cannot be blamed for attempting to implement something in the game which is expected to be a major, major issue for part of the time scale of the game; a part that takes up forty turns, forty turns that will be quite crucial should you make it to that stage.

Sorry, but that is a twisted line of argument at best. Following that line of reasoning, if Firaxis had called the metals discovery in mines or the forest/jungle spread Global Warming , it would be OK ... A liitle far away of what happens in RL, but as the name is in there ...

As it is now, Global warming in game looks like the plot of a old pulp sci-fi novel I read ( can't remember the name ) where a alien race scouted planets where inteligent races could appear and putted there a planet buster to take the planet down where signs of inteligence reached a certain level ( a kind of Clarke's 2001 in reverse ). In this case firaxis decided that huge boxes filled with sand programmed to drop on random points ( as long as they aren't ocean, coast , ice or tundra ) when the planet gets industrialized enough would fill that plot very nicely

 

[Willem]

Let's see...maybe because political beliefs by the programmers are the only reason it's in the game, maybe?

As mentioned, GW has been a game mechanic since Civ 1. There's nothing political about it's inclusion in the game at all, it's no different than Unhappiness or Unhealthiness. Kindly post your political views in the Off-Topic forum where it belongs. Another thread ruined by the political fanatics.

 

[playshogi]

GW wasn't a noticeable problem, even in games where I was going for time victory, until the 3.17 patch. That's when it got ridiculous. So, the complaints really started very late in the game's development. Nowadays, I play with the HOF-Buffy Mod which, I think, causes the terrain to cycle rather than going to desert right away. Example, grassland becomes plains, ice becomes tundra, water ice can melt, and so on.

 

[PieceOfMind]

As mentioned, GW has been a game mechanic since Civ 1. There's nothing political about it's inclusion in the game at all, it's no different than Unhappiness or Unhealthiness. Kindly post your political views in the Off-Topic forum where it belongs. Another thread ruined by the political fanatics.

It seems the inevitable fate of any GW thread.

I apologise to all if I helped to pull the thread off topic but I did my best to keep my political opinions out of here.

On topic again, I suppose the Global Warming mod is out of the question because it is BtS only? I think it is coming under active development again and while it is not yet working as well as it should be, it has already been included in BUFFY I believe.

Regardless of political views, most would agree the mod's design makes global warming a more realistic and more enjoyable (or maybe just less painful!) gameplay feature.

 

[ezwip]

edited to...


In future, you might like to think about what you post before you post. It doesn't surprise me at all you felt the need to call me a douche.
Moderator Action: Warned for trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

I only changed it because I had originally posted from work. I figured that since you are pretending to have some type of authority and fulfilling your wishful fantasy that you would probably contact them and complain. This is what happens when you give a kid authority in a game forum. I'm sorry that you don't like my opinion on a topic titled global warming. As was previously stated they coded the game this way. It's their own fault it becomes a political conversation. The game starts in 4000 BC and at no point is there cooling. My reponse pretty much summed up his question. There is no way to undo it because Firaxis was pushing a political viewpoint.

Moderator Action: Warned - Trolling.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[PieceOfMind]

I'll leave the earlier part of your post alone... The rest I will respond to as an off topic note:

Spoiler off topic :

By the way, I can look past the flaming and can see you are looking for some discourse - something I am happy to respond to.

I'm sorry that you don't like my opinion on a topic titled global warming. As was previously stated they coded the game this way. It's their own fault it becomes a political conversation.

While true I don't "like" your opinion, that is not what I took issue with. It was your desire to introduce an extremely political view (even naming a politician) that was unrelated to the existing discussion, and one that you knew a lot of people would disagree with. Just because it falls under the very broad topic of "global warming" doesn't mean it fits in by the way. Regardless of whether I agree with or disagree with your political views though, they don't belong in the Civ4 forum and it's better for all concerned to limit politically charged discussions to the appropriate forums, including Off Topic. I admit I probably would not be as fast to call out someone on politically charged posts if they were more aligned with my own views - that's just human nature I guess.

The game starts in 4000 BC and at no point is there cooling. My reponse pretty much summed up his question.

Well I think we both know your response went a bit further than that.

There is no way to undo it because Firaxis was pushing a political viewpoint.

TMIT seems to believe this as well. Believe it if you like. If you ask me, the fact you're actually taking such a passionate opposition to how it's presented in game suggests to me more that you think as it's presented in game is how those on the other side of the political debate believe GW to function. I'll tell you it would take a very ignorant person to believe the simple result of climate change is to convert random parts of the earth to desert.

If Firaxis are pushing a political viewpoint, as you say, how could you sum up in a sentence what that viewpoint is?

 

[Turner]

Moderator Action: That is enough with the personal attacks in this thread.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[TheMeInTeam]

As mentioned, GW has been a game mechanic since Civ 1. There's nothing political about it's inclusion in the game at all, it's no different than Unhappiness or Unhealthiness. Kindly post your political views in the Off-Topic forum where it belongs. Another thread ruined by the political fanatics.

What a joke. GW isn't comparable to any other game mechanic except nuclear reactor meltdowns. As Camikaze mentioned, global warming is reality. Its causality and the extent humans factor in is unknown. Both of those things are facts. But that's not how Fireaxis chose to represent it. Fireaxis chose to make global warming caused even by the presence of people and a couple forges. For a real life factor that remains largely unknown, fireaxis made humans the 100% determinant. They also did it in such a way that literally adds the smallest shred of gameplay value on the rare occasion it adds anything at all, other than annoyance and more calls on the RNG to slow between-turn times.

Yes, the game is to last another 40 yeas and yes, there are some sci-fi elements (working fusion and a ship that travels at or close to the speed of light). That doesn't give fireaxis a pass to throw in garbage of any kind.

Maybe it was just flagrant ignorance/stupidity on the company's part, but once again I *STRONGLY* doubt that. The more logical interpretation is bias, and given that there is a TREND of bias in the game, it isn't shocking that people realize a political factor.

Of course, I can't stop you from telling others how to post on the forum, but do kindly note that you are not in charge of it.

 

[Willem]

But that's not how Fireaxis chose to represent it. Fireaxis chose to make global warming caused even by the presence of people and a couple forges.

Which they have done since Civ 1, long before the Global Warming debate ever began. There's nothing political about it being in the game at all, it's always been there as a game mechanic.

 

[frizzy]

Yes, but why?

Has there ever been a poll here to determine if most players (read: Firaxis customers) even want it in the game? It seems to be widely reviled.

Maybe there should be a poll: Yes - keep GW/Yes - but fix or sumfink/No - hate it.

 

[kosiosko 1]

Yes, but why?

Has there ever been a poll here to determine if most players (read: Firaxis customers) even want it in the game? It seems to be widely reviled.

Maybe there should be a poll: Yes - keep GW/Yes - but fix or sumfink/No - hate it.

i hate it, but you need some consequences to all out nucular war and , massive hammer cities etc., they have their own penalities, health, degraded tiles, but GW adds that 'whoops' gone to far, which i think improves game play, i just don't think its right yet. Thats why i think this debate continues since civ 1.

 

[katipunero]

climate change is a better term to use in the next version of civ, imo. it has less a negative ring to it. but of course, as if that will likely inspire belief among players that game mechanics to all appearances and effects still exactly alike should make things any better by a mere difference in name.

Global warming needs a serious overhaul. I want my modern age turns of play to be more meaningful. I shouldn't be rewarded with a dying world after all the hours and teeth-gnashing I put into it's development. A World which I have painstakingly enriched with my presence since turn 1.

 

[ezwip]

If you want to edit my post and stick the word troll on it, then do me the common courtesy of not posting a big ass response to it. You're not a good moderator. Your moderator power doesn't scare me. You can go right ahead and ban me I really don't care.
Moderator Action: Warned for public discussion of moderator action. If you have a problem with a moderator action, the [rules]forum rules[/rules] explicitly state to take it up privately with the moderator. Posting publicly about it will do nothing to further your case, and only get you infracted for it.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889