Global warming; does it matter?

[r_rolo1]

@frizzy

I do not disagree with you. My point was other ( and way OT ): show that the event that people think as the hallmark of non-state terrorism was considered by the governements of the NATO countries as a military attack to the United States by a third party. This implies that this third party governement and the actual perpetators of the event were considered a unity, in the same way we don't blame the ingame spy unit, but the enemy player ( whatever that is in this regard ) for the misdeeds the unit caused

@ PoM

Better said, there is no espionage mission called "Hijack civilian plane and crash it against city" . But 1 turn of anarchy is close enough

 

[frizzy]

What about if the existing GW mechanics in the game had instead been called something else related to the environment but not GW specifically. Suppose they called it salinity for example. People would complain about it being unrealistic but I doubt you'd get many complaining about it being a form of political bias.

Probably true. But if in succeeding versions of the game, the designers had made the effect of salinity more drastic and difficult to negate, even though players disliked the changes, then players might start to wonder why.

Few people complained about global warming when it had gradual and progressive consequences, not all of them bad, as in CivII. But, then again, some players ignored it as not worth the effort or expense of negating, and if they had sufficiently crappy terrain in their core, some players even welcomed it in some games (art imitates life, here, BTW). So, in response, the game designers made global warming effects more difficult to ignore, and more people complained, but it was still arguably realistic, etc. etc.

But even that wasn't enough. Now, global warming is simply punitive - with drastic consequences that are neither realistic nor fun for the player, and in many cases completely unrealistic, as in the connection between global warming and nuclear weapons, and as in now-completely-useless desert tiles appearing anywhere and everywhere being the only consequence of GW. It's almost as if the game designers are trying to both force the players to pay attention to global warming and to play the game a certain way to make sure global warming doesn't happen, whether the players like it or not and with no option to disable the global warming feature if they don't like it. Basically, the designers are cramming GW down our throats. Now, that's bound to raise questions about motives.

 

[r_rolo1]

Probably true. But if in succeeding versions of the game, the designers had made the effect of salinity more drastic and difficult to negate, even though players disliked the changes, then players might start to wonder why.

Few people complained about global warming when it had gradual and progressive consequences, not all of them bad, as in CivII. But, then again, some players ignored it as not worth the effort or expense of negating, and if they had sufficiently crappy terrain in their core, some players even welcomed it in some games (art imitates life, here, BTW). So, in response, the game designers made global warming effects more difficult to ignore, and more people complained, but it was still arguably realistic, etc. etc.

But even that wasn't enough. Now, global warming is simply punitive - with drastic consequences that are neither realistic nor fun for the player, and in many cases completely unrealistic, as in the connection between global warming and nuclear weapons, and as in now-completely-useless desert tiles appearing anywhere and everywhere being the only consequence of GW. It's almost as if the game designers are trying to both force the players to pay attention to global warming and to play the game a certain way to make sure global warming doesn't happen, whether the players like it or not and with no option to disable the global warming feature if they don't like it. Basically, the designers are cramming GW down our throats. Now, that's bound to raise questions about motives.

And to boot, the AI is coded like if the mechanic didn't existed. They will not count the number of nukes to avoid it, they will not save forests and they don't care a single bit about the unhealthiness they create. So in SP, as long as the game takes long enough ( and with the current AI, better or not ) there will be GW, regardless of how the player acts. Consciously or not, the coders made the game in a way that makes GW unavoidable in the long run, unrealistical in the effects and irreversible. That combined with other stuff in game ( like nuclear plants = nukes that give power and that will blow up eventually or the fact that the only living politician despicted in core game is Al Gore ) makes people wonder, with some reason, if there is not a political bias ....

 

[PieceOfMind]

It's not unusual for there to be game features that were just plain unfinished. rolo would be able to tell you about several parts of the game code that any reasonable coder would say was skeleton code, where the programmers probably intended to go back and fix later in development, but ran out of time. Since GW is probably the latest thing in the game that would require balancing, I'm not surprised that it was poorly tested (particularly for marathon which was added later) and doesn't work very well. Out of all the games I've played, very few have even gone to the point where GW was even a moderate issue.

Now, that's bound to raise questions about motives.

In regards to motives, I know that when I was younger the teaching of basic ideas relating to global warming (e.g. in the science classroom) were just like any other scientific topic, including evolution. If you believe a game feature to be accurate because of a scientific theory (which you know little about), it's not necessarily trying to cram GW down someone's throat but just trying to do what most people would agree is realistic. That said, they stuffed up pretty badly in that regard - in general warming should imply less land being desert but an ignorant layman might think "global warming means getting hotter. A desert is hot (even though not all deserts are hot!) and so GW must mean turning things to desert."

 

[frizzy]

[Aside: actually, the game lampoons Al Gore]

Yeah, but the game designers aren't ignorant, and they've got plenty of input and information to work with, and years to figure this stuff out. If they're being deliberately obtuse... then, back to motive.

 

[Willem]

civ 1, actually.

I realize that now. I wasn't too sure about it at the time, it's been awhile since I played it. But I did remember it from Civ 2.

 

[r_rolo1]

It's not unusual for there to be game features that were just plain unfinished. rolo would be able to tell you about several parts of the game code that any reasonable coder would say was skeleton code, where the programmers probably intended to go back and fix later in development, but ran out of time. Since GW is probably the latest thing in the game that would require balancing, I'm not surprised that it was poorly tested (particularly for marathon which was added later) and doesn't work very well. Out of all the games I've played, very few have even gone to the point where GW was even a moderate issue.

Yes I can tell you about some parts of the code that were left in skeleton state, some that were obviously not tested enough ( events are probably the hallmark of this one ) and others that were simply not well thought on ( like the refusal to vassal from a AI when you are also fighting someone more powerful than them ). But GW has a diferent story: it was already changed since it got out in Civ IV, but the changes , consciously or not ( I vote on the not in this one, but that is only my opinion ), made GW even more unavoidable than it was before, because before those changes , passing the nuke ban resolution and carefully control the uranium resources was normally more than enough to prevent GW... Note that I am not stating frizzy position that the coders wanted to throw GW down our throats, but their actions all combined made that GW is unavoidable and irreversible in SP. And that it can be justly ( not necessarilly truthfully, though ) argued that this points to a political bias...

On your personal expience and GW, let me rephrase what you said to represent better what it is really behind those words: "my gameplay style and the settings I choose make that GW is a minor concern for me". This is most likely true, but that doesn't invalidate the Mad Max styled maps that sometimes pop in this forums, especially one that TMIT posted not long ago, where he was forced to use nukes heavily to decimate big AI stacks ...

 

[PieceOfMind]

"my gameplay style and the settings I choose make that GW is a minor concern for me"

True. ^^

In particular, I usually play ancient starts and not marathon speed.

 

[romulus010]

So do they have pollution in Civ IV?

 

[cardgame]

no, just unhealthiness.

 

[shannontreacy]

Thank you for the replies; too many to reply individually so I'll just add a couple of points and then finish. Before going any further I played another game (ancient, settler and marathon); the randam map placed myself on a very large land mass which covered most of the world. I then conquered most of the rivals on this land mass and built with global warming in mind. I didn't build coal fired stations and waited for the tech to build hydro and nuk stations. I kept all forests and most of the jungles under my control, which was nine tenths mine. As before I played on after gaining a space race victory and soon experienced global warming. This time I did not nuke the American civ and only started to experience the warming after one nuclear meltdown. This shows me that the GW effect in the game is flawed and is doesn't matter if you try to look after the planet eviroment, so when I play the game in future I will not take any notice and will build coal fire stations and cut down most forests/jungles as the outcome is no different.

The point of playing on after my victories was to learn how to play (I am a newbie) and what each unit was capable of without losing the victory in the game itself.

 

[r_rolo1]

You play vanilla, right? In vanilla GW is simply a function of nuke blasts and nuke plants meltdowns ( 20 in global terms , to be precise ). You are right in that point: In vanilla, warlords and BtS up to 3.13 patch , GW has 0 to do with how bad you treat the enviroment. After BtS 3.13 things are a little more complex and it is possible that your behaviour could had avoided GW to strike, but simply because you said you controlled most of the planet area. If you had let the chopping lover AI grab that land you would be in a hopeless position in this regard...

 

[fenrus]

I think they should find a way to separate unhealthy and pollution. I mean, just cuz I have a Cow for dinner doesn't mean it negates the air from the coal plant that is beside my house. I think in Civ 2 pollution was related to Production/Shields and population size, which I think does make sense. I think as a city as more uncontained pollution, it should be subject to more random events, ie. hurricanes, floods, droughts, severe winters, contaminated water supplies. And add in some for pollution, and maybe an "environment" slider too.

Also put techs that clean up pollution far away from Industrialism. Just like Europe was a polluted mess during the Industrial Revolution, it would be a while the tech was available to keep things clean.

Nukes should affect globally, though not sure how. Though, it's so easy to throw nukes around in this game which makes handling consequences tricky.

 

[Larsenex]

I was going to add to this but changed my mind as I am reminded that this is a game forum. Oh well.


Thanks

 

[jwez11007]

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.

There is no such thing as an issue that isn't political. Science is inherently political as it is currently pursued in the U.S. and around the world. I know this is slightly more off topic than this thread has already gotten, but as a sudent who has been involved with a number of research groups and who has heard stories from friends in many different fields, it always bugs me when people think scientists are above ulterior motives and that any "scientific findings" should be treated with immediate and unquestioning respect(which is an ironically unscientific approach). The fact of the matter is scientists have to earn their money, usually through grants, which are given them by a number of sources most of which can trace their money back to political organizations.

In regards to the actual issue of global warming in Civ IV, I agree whole heartedly with TMIT's response. It is an annoying game mechanic that thankfully doesn't influence too many of my games (mostly small, ancient starts), but when it does it is an annoyance that serves no practical purpose in any late game scenario (corporate abuse aside). Even if they left a global warming mechanic in the game I would much more have prefered to see some ways to manage/influence it. As has been pointed out, the fact that environmentalism can contribute to global warming is ridiculous...even if most outspoken environmentalists are more often than not doing just that.

 

[Nares]

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.

In the seventies, it was global cooling.

In the 2000s, it's global warming.

The obvious answer is that we need more data.

The last thing we need to do is start entertaining notions about long-shot attempts at "correcting" the climate, only to find that we compound a swing in the natural cycle with disastrous results.

 

[PieceOfMind]

In the seventies, it was global cooling.

In the 2000s, it's global warming.

The obvious answer is that we need more data.

The last thing we need to do is start entertaining notions about long-shot attempts at "correcting" the climate, only to find that we compound a swing in the natural cycle with disastrous results.

I would have said it was in the 90s it was "global warming".

I think it was some point in the 2000s it became "climate change".

To my knowledge, most of the proposed course of action to address climate change are not "corrective" (except perhaps of human behaviour) of the climate. Rather, they try to reduce human influence on the equation. If we actually wanted to cause global cooling (regardless of whether global warming is happening or not), possibly to prevent global warming, an inexpensive solution would be to pump aerosols into the atmosphere. I can't imagine it getting any kind of political approval easily though.

Try this nasa article (http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/Aerosols/) for a short read.

 

[r_rolo1]

Or we could use some of the surplus nukes we have and nuke some country with big cities, like , let's say, Australia [/sarcasm] In the end the nuclear winter scenario is nothing more than nukes provoking fires hot enough to blow dust and ash to the strastosphere and thus creating the aerosols scenario you linked ...

Oh wait , but that is not the exact oposite of what happens in game?

 

[Camikaze]

There is no such thing as an issue that isn't political. Science is inherently political as it is currently pursued in the U.S. and around the world. I know this is slightly more off topic than this thread has already gotten, but as a sudent who has been involved with a number of research groups and who has heard stories from friends in many different fields, it always bugs me when people think scientists are above ulterior motives and that any "scientific findings" should be treated with immediate and unquestioning respect(which is an ironically unscientific approach). The fact of the matter is scientists have to earn their money, usually through grants, which are given them by a number of sources most of which can trace their money back to political organizations.

I'll rephrase; Firaxis were not trying to make a political statement by implementing some sort of global warming mechanism. It's fair to say that they were basing their implementation on scientific consensus. Sure, the issue is politicised, but that actual issue itself is scientific in nature, and Firaxis were going with the broad scientific consensus.

 

[r_rolo1]

I don't recall that the "scientific consensus" ( whatever that is ) in this area includes nukes producing GW and GW being irreversible. In the end , this what I said some pages ago: terrorism is in game but Firaxis called it espionage and events, Global warming is not on the game, but there is a mechanism to punish nukers ( and more recently unhealthiness producers ) that has that name. Atleast Firaxis is guilty of hipocrisy....