Global Warming...how to remove?

[Snovvdog]

I never noticed big global warming effects, worst thing that happened to me was 1 or 2 plain tiles becoming a desert, I don't see the prob.
Nukes aren't fun anyway.

Chop less forests, make less factory's if you don't want global warming to strike at a large scale, I always leave forests alone from the around middle ages.

Oh and by the way: Nuclear plants don't cause global warming lol, only if they go boom.
Unless the creators of civ4 are stupid idiots and didn't learn at school that nuke plants don't chunk out co2, only nuclear waste, wich is usually buried underground but definatly doesn't contribute to global warming.

 

[eXcel]

Well the ideal system

Not Global Warming but (Ecological Damage)
...

See this is logical and believable, but the only thing I would recommend to change is that ecological damage has to be localized. If two civs go at it on the other side of the world and are nuking the crap out of each other, the damage should be only in their area... The range could obviously be larger than that of fallout.

 

[travathian]

See this is logical and believable, but the only thing I would recommend to change is that ecological damage has to be localized. If two civs go at it on the other side of the world and are nuking the crap out of each other, the damage should be only in their area... The range could obviously be larger than that of fallout.

Uh, its called global warming for a reason. I do think they need to separate global warming from a nuclear winter type effect. You start tossing lots and lots of nukes, global warming isn't a problem, its all the ash & dust in the upper atmosphere blocking light. This could have the effect of randomly removing food specials (corn, wheat, rice, etc) each turn while under a nuclear winter effect.

 

[A1CBOZ]

Uh, can't global warming spring up without a single nuke being fired? I can't believe people are complaining so much about this. All those factories not just in your cities but everyone elses are churning out a lot of crap.

I'm pretty sure that Global whining..er... warming, only starts when a nuke is detonated. Either a weapon or a plant melts down. I wouldn't mind there being two different effects, global warming from industrialism and all that, and then nuclear winter from nukes.

 

[CivDude86]

Cuz everyone loved the orange marmalade your cities tossed out in .

 

[zarik]

Goto your Civ4 file, Assets, XML, GlobalDefines.xml

you'll see this

	<Define>
		<DefineName>GLOBAL_WARMING_PROB</DefineName>
		<iDefineIntVal>20</iDefineIntVal>
	</Define>
	<Define>

Turn the 20 into a 0

I made this change to my Civ4 file, assets, xml, globaldefines.xml but I am still getting global warming from nukes. I tried to go into the BTS specific folder and make the same change there, but I cannot access the globaldefines.xml in the BTS folder. Can someone help explain what I'm doing wrong?

 

[Galatian]

Oh and by the way: Nuclear plants don't cause global warming lol, only if they go boom.
Unless the creators of civ4 are stupid idiots and didn't learn at school that nuke plants don't chunk out co2, only nuclear waste, wich is usually buried underground but definatly doesn't contribute to global warming.

Hmm that's a wrong statement. Just to extract the Uranium out of the ore you need a lot of energy and material and therefore you blow a lot of CO² and other green house gases into the air. But it is of course a lot less then with a coal plant

 

[Goldngram]

yeah Idealy then ice caps should melt causing the sea to rise causing the loss of coastal cities, not a checker board looking terrain with green and sand

 

[tatterdemalion]

Sid has always been more than a little preachy on some topics. Wrong audience too. Wonder how his reasoning goes? "Hmmm, maybe if I make CIV4 gameplay irritating it will make people in China, India, and Brazil use less fossil fuels?"

 

[Esckey]

Okay so should the globaldifinesxml be changed in the Assests or in the Costomassests?

 

[Ermelinho]

it´s worth thinkin about, but i´m not sure if understand everything you´re speaking of. i only know, that global warming sucks the way it is, especially in open-ending nextwar mod games. i palyed one game to the year 3020 (domination-victory only, on a huge world map) and i felt like palying dune at the end with my largest city having a population of 10 (coastal city). ingame you don´t get information about what causes global warming, and how to prevent the world from becoming a deserted planet. making the impact reversible is a good thing. furthermore i think forrests and jungles should be less vulnerable to the effects of global warming.

 

[FoxURA]

So what are the instructions for BtS Global Warming disable.

 

[Andy06r]

Check any of the 5 quotes in this thread for the instruction Fox ...

For those of you that don't know how global warming works, its not what you would think. Its an on-off toggle switch. Have you fired a nuke or had a nuke plant blow up? If no, no global warming (even if every nation is doing spacerace with as much unhealthiness as possible and you clearcut every forest). If one nuke blows or one nuke plant blows, then there is a chance every turn of your tiles burning up. Its annoying and doesn't make any sense - its just arbitrary and forced on you.

It actually ENCOURAGES coal plants because players don't want to risk the meltdown.

 

[BriGuy20]

I think it needs to be a sliding scale instead of a toggle. Maybe like Civ II (or was it I?) where it gives you a color-coded warning.

I don't know the mechanics now, but I think it needs to be based on net unhealthiness and how much of the forests you've cut down as well as nukes. I also think there should be an SDI-like project that EVERYONE can work on to combat it late in the game (solar shade or something), plus quests and a UN resolution to encourage reversal.

I also think it should (at its worst) melt polar ice and flood coastal tiles. I think once a certain number of coastal tiles are flooded it should toggle back off, since water is much better at holding heat than the air is.

 

[strijder20]

Hmm that's a wrong statement. Just to extract the Uranium out of the ore you need a lot of energy and material and therefore you blow a lot of CO² and other green house gases into the air. But it is of course a lot less then with a coal plant

I might be wrong, but can't you use power from a hydro/wind/existing nuclear plant to extract the ore? In that case, it wouldnt result in CO2.