I want a "greener" Civ game

[gettingfat]

OK, I'm not a typical "tree-hugger". Still, I find it a bit uncomfortable seeing the game has been promoting an environmental-unfriendly playing style:

• Chopping forests are generally good
• Chop every forest outside the fat crosses does not lead to health problem
• Replace the forests on hills with mines will give you productivity and no harm.
• Jungles are unhealthy and unproductive. Cut them down ASAP.
• Tree planting is not a possibility
• Environmentalism is the most useless civic.
• You can industrialize every city and you know there is no consequence. The magical recycling plant will take care of all pollution.
• Global warming is basically a non-factor. As long as you don't start a major nuke war, at most only a couple of plains will turn into desert in the last few rounds. No big deal.

I miss how in Alpha Centauri you can play like a druid and still stand a chance

 

[salty mud]

Environmentalism is the most useless civic

What? It's amazing! The extra health and happiness is a god-send!

 

[gdgrimm]

OK, I'm not a typical "tree-hugger". Still, I find it a bit uncomfortable seeing the game has been promoting an environmental-unfriendly playing style:

• 
  [1]Chopping forests are generally good
  [2]Chop every forest outside the fat crosses does not lead to health problem
  [3]Replace the forests on hills with mines will give you productivity and no harm.
  [4]Jungles are unhealthy and unproductive. Cut them down ASAP.
  [5]Tree planting is not a possibility
  [6]Environmentalism is the most useless civic.
  [7]You can industrialize every city and you know there is no consequence. The magical recycling plant will take care of all pollution.
  [8]Global warming is basically a non-factor. As long as you don't start a major nuke war, at most only a couple of plains will turn into desert in the last few rounds. No big deal.

I miss how in Alpha Centauri you can play like a druid and still stand a chance

1) Short term, yes. Long term, no. Of course, if you don't survive the short term, who cares about the long term. That's basically the way reality works, also.
2) True (assuming you never settle near the clearcut area). But you don't get as much benefit from it, either, and it reduces the regrow chances.
3) You do lose the health benefit.
4) True.
5) As long as they allow any advantage from chopping, they can't allow reseeding, since that would provide all the short term benefit (throughout the entire game) without having to suffer the long term hit. It's way to easy to abuse.
6) I've used a few times. The game has to make it to the long term, and I have to have a need for the large populations that it can help generate. So I usually only see it in games where I have a medium/small empire and am trying to win by Diplomacy or Culture.
7) Recycling Plants are really late in coming. But I agree that it would make more sense for them to act like Aqueducts (+2 ) rather than the current effect that is potentially +4 (or more).
8) Agreed. And that's pretty realistic, too.

SMAC had that whole native life plot tangent that was really cool. But it doesn't really fit in Civ.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

Civ, like life, is a game of hard choices. It no more promotes forrest chopping than beating slaves to death, but the options are there, with benefits and drawbacks.

My pet peeve is basically the opposite of one of yours, (although I don't feel strongly enough to really complain): In every civic category human freedom is the final level, enforcable by UN resolutions; emancipation, republic, universal sufferage, free religion. Except labor, in which case free markets are edged out by environmentalism.

 

[ZB2]

The only way to combat the mass deforestation in game is to make forest tiles give more hammers/food/commerce as you collect certain technologies

Early (1000bc) woodcutting was crude with metal axes, but modern cutting yeilds (working the tile) better productivity. and some forests have exotic hardwood which was/is a lucrative commodity (commerce)

There is several techs in the game already that can give forests a tile boost and thus a nice tile to keep, and eventually outwieghing chopping in late game, as late game is far more fun.

And plant a forest should definetly be an option.

 

[Crighton]

Environmentalism itself is a later stage development both in real life and in the game.

Forests & Furry Things:
I keep usuable forests for lumber mills, which since the forest never goes away after the lumbermill is built does imply that the forest itself is a renewable resource handed down through eons from one generat to the next which strikes me as very environmentaly friendly.

The same could also be said about the whales and the deer and the elephants etc which despite millenia of harvesting never deplete.

Though I do believe you should (at some proportionate expense) be allowed to plant trees.

Jungles:
Useless since Rubber is no longer a commodity or requirement anymore. And given the sheer number of tropical diseases which can be named (ebola, etc) the negative health penalty is probably deserved.

Global Warming - another late stage actor, and largely irrelevant. Irritatingly attributed to Nukes (gues nobody ever heard of Nuclear Winter). An argument could be made for some cliamate variation parrellel to real life, the "little ice age" which occurred only a couple hundred years back for example (can't remember the century, please excuse).

 

[gettingfat]

Re. planting forests:

Certainly it can be exploited if it is allowed too early. However, I don't see why it can't be implemented in the late game, at least after the discovery of Biology. This fits the reality as people didn't fully realize the benefits of forestation till quite late.

In that stage of game, chopping does not help much anyway. Also, it's just technical to make it a long process, say 10-12 turns with 1 worker. If you are willing to do so much micromanagement to get that extra 30 hammers in modern era, good for you. This also gives the workers something to do.

By allowing re-forestation, it makes environmentalism a more serviceable civic. I'll even spice it up by giving a 10% bonus in production to the recycling plant when using environmentalism (that's the main purpose of recycling plant - to re-use resources, right?) but cap the happiness at say.. 10.

Another issue I forgot to mention in the original post is about the roads and railroad. Railroads generally cause substantial damages to environment. Right now, because workers tend to have nothing to do, we simply set them on automatic mode to build railroads. It helps the defenders in a war as well so everybody will say "why not?". In reality, we don't see railroads everywhere because of their building cost and their damage to natural environment.(Didn't the game designer brag about in Civ4 you don't build roads everywhere?) I suggest every railroad tile add 0.25 penalty to the health (can't be reduced by recycling plant), so people will pay a bit more discretion when building their spiderweb like extensive railroad network.

 

[Crighton]

That's a debatable idea, each tile theoretically equals a large sum of actual land and is only supposed to be representational. It would be logical that the railroads are only occupying small sections of a large area of land, etc etc.

Also, logically, the -.25 health penalty for railroads should also apply roads in general (ok maybe not so much back in the medieval times etc) but certainly once indurstiralization kicks in (and I'm not going to get into a debate about public vs private transportation, been there and back too many times).

The problem with the Recycling Plant (other than late stage acting) is that it doesn't actually recycle anything at all, one source of iron services an entire empire infinitely both in terms of time and utilization (there's no limit to how many cities can be building things that require iron).

But along your "greener" Civ thoughts, why do hospitals appear so late in the game? people have had at the very least medicine huts and apothocaries for just about forever.

 

[gettingfat]

The non-depletable resource is indeed a major issue. But I can't think of an easy way to fix it. Maybe somebody can think of a better way.

With respect to railroad. It's true minor railroads can be widespread, but major railroads are actually not that many. Building railroads, particularly in 1800's is a major project. Even now building a railroad on hilly areas still poses a challenge to the engineerers (The railroad to Tibet was just completed a few months ago, after so much planning). I think the benefit of railroads should be huge (in addition to the added hammers, I believe the trade route return should also improve) but the price should also be steep .

Giving health penalty to roads, even logical, may affect the gameplay a bit too much. Without building sufficient roads, it's so difficult to defend your land. I guess sometimes reality still need to give way to gameplay aspects.

Even "hospitals" in broad sense appeared quite early (I believe government-funded "hospitals" existed even earlier in China and Korea, but I'll leave it to the historians), the modern form of medicine that are based on scientific approach and the large-scale, well organized hospitals practising modern medicine did appear rather late (50 years ago you can still buy leeches and tons of folk stuff from the pharmacies in North America). My feeling is the game actually use groceries as the catchall for all these services before hospitals.

 

[Silver Marmot]

OK, I'm not a typical "tree-hugger". Still, I find it a bit uncomfortable seeing the game has been promoting an environmental-unfriendly playing style:

• Chopping forests are generally good
• Chop every forest outside the fat crosses does not lead to health problem
• Replace the forests on hills with mines will give you productivity and no harm.
• Jungles are unhealthy and unproductive. Cut them down ASAP.
• Tree planting is not a possibility
• Environmentalism is the most useless civic.
• You can industrialize every city and you know there is no consequence. The magical recycling plant will take care of all pollution.
• Global warming is basically a non-factor. As long as you don't start a major nuke war, at most only a couple of plains will turn into desert in the last few rounds. No big deal.

I miss how in Alpha Centauri you can play like a druid and still stand a chance

Sigh, another tree-hugger...

1) Chopping forests is good in real life. Trees don't strenghten industry when they sit in the ground their whole lives.

2) If you chop a tree a thousand miles away from a city, will that city experience health problems? Definitely not. Besides, this would enable other civs to chop trees directly outside your fat cross to cause you health problems, which would be unfair.

3) Mines are productive in real life. Forests are not (unless you cut them down)

4) They are indeed unhealthy. There are thousands of forms of cancer found in jungles.

5) That would mean that civs could plant trees and chop them over and over, which would be lame.

6) The recycling plant will not solve health problems in large cities on higher difficulty settings. If you play on settler, you hardly need any health-producing buildings at all.

7) Global warming hasn't done any harm in real life either.

 

[gettingfat]

Sigh, another tree-hugger...

1) Chopping forests is good in real life. Trees don't strenghten industry when they sit in the ground their whole lives.

2) If you chop a tree a thousand miles away from a city, will that city experience health problems? Definitely not. Besides, this would enable other civs to chop trees directly outside your fat cross to cause you health problems, which would be unfair.

3) Mines are productive in real life. Forests are not (unless you cut them down)

4) They are indeed unhealthy. There are thousands of forms of cancer found in jungles.

5) That would mean that civs could plant trees and chop them over and over, which would be lame.

6) The recycling plant will not solve health problems in large cities on higher difficulty settings. If you play on settler, you hardly need any health-producing buildings at all.

7) Global warming hasn't done any harm in real life either.

- Please don't label me as a "treehugger". In fact, I'd suggest you show a bit respect for people to start with. To me, a typical so-called "treehugger" is the type of person who care about trees more than human beings. I care about human beings more, just I think for human beings to have a bit breathing room on this planet, maybe we should give those trees a bit breathing room.

1)True, trees alive don't help industry. But I want to ask whether industry is the only thing that matters? I don't mind chopping some forests, but the game promotes an attitude to get rid of any existing forests and jungles on the planet for your "industry". Is that good? Like it or not, and believe it or not, we do need some forests alive, not chopped lumbers, to supply us oxygen, absorb the CO2, stabilize the weather, slow down desert expansion, reduce flooding.
2. If you chop a forest thousand miles away from your city, will it affect you? Probably not; If you massively remove the whole Amazon rainforest, will it affect you, I believe probably yes. Can you control other people from chopping their trees inside their countries? In the game definitely not, but the game tells you it's still beneficial, without any significant consequence, to take out any forests within your cultural border and not located within those fat crosses.
3. Mines are also a major source of pollution. In the game it does not show. When there is pros without cons, everybody will go for it. That's what I've been saying - the game promotes an environmental-hostile habit.
4. As a cancer researcher, I have no idea what you're talking about. Regardless, a few jungles left in a country won't get people cancer, as long as they are not right in the neigbourhood of a city. Massively eliminating all jungles may lead to long-term, subtly negative consequences.
5. We also farm corns, rice, wheat, then chop them over and over. Is that lame? At least farming forests still give us some trees at certain point.
6. Recycling plants will solve any negative health factor due to industrialization in the game, they can't solve problems due to the population. I have no idea why you mention the level of difficulty.
7. You probably don't have a heart attack or cancer right now, but is it wrong to suggest you eat less trans-fats, salt and avoid smoking to reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases or cancers?

Even we ignore all the scientific evidence like many US Republicans do (just happen they love to label anybody oppose them as "treehuggers"), I am getting 40 very soon. I remember the winters being colder when I was a kid. What is worse, the weather is getting very unstable. April is still cold and December is warm. And last but not least, I want my kids to have a chance seeing some forests and wildlifes. The game right now simply promotes an attitude to cottage every tile, chop any forest even far away, build railroads everywhere, getting 4 mines per city, and totally ignore the even slightest possible consequence of global warming.

 

[Yeekim]

I believe that trees should be replantable, perhaps with a certain late-game tech. (say: forestry - requires economics and replaceable parts). After all - forests ARE regenerating resource - at least temperate forest. Rainforests are, I believe, different, but these are represented by jungles anyway.

This might work sort of like cottages do - first you plant: say - 10 turns on normal speed. Then the trees need to grow for some time - say it takes 10 more turns till the forest is "ripe" and ready to be chopped again or numerous enough to support a lumbermill. However, this sort of thing would render workshops pretty useless... They might have a bit different benefits...

I also argue, that clearing jungles should give nearby city a one-time boost of food, just like chopping gives hammers. This would well represent nature of slash-and-burn agriculture and level out drawbacks of starting in the middle of jungle...

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

Certainly it can be exploited if it is allowed too early. However, I don't see why it can't be implemented in the late game, at least after the discovery of Biology. This fits the reality as people didn't fully realize the benefits of forestation till quite late.

In that stage of game, chopping does not help much anyway.

If I had the food, Id replant lots of forests so I could chop them to rush a late-game wonder (like three gorges, space elevator, un) to aid my win...or chop out ship pieces. You could chop rush whatever you liked in a couple turns. Sure you might lose some pop with less food, but you'd be replacing those forests with farms in only a couple turns. Then replant those forests, rinse and repeat. Now you have a much quicker ship to alpha centauri.

It could DEFINATELY be exploitable, especially since biology is possible around the same time as industrialization, early enough in the late game to be a factor.

About environmentalism...I wish it was more of an econmoic civic, maybe something like globalization, integrated market, or even some kind of "online" economy. Environmentalism Ive always seen as more of a social change and political change, not just a purely economic one. As for the civic, I never use it, BUT when it is put on us by the UN I dont really mind it. Usually I have a couple cities sick with pollution but no solution for it, having already traded for every health resource I can get my hands on, though I also generally skip the health buildings at the end-game unless the health is REALLY bad (ironworks city).

Even we ignore all the scientific evidence like many US Republicans do

Somehow I knew this would come politcal and someone would take the opportunity to make political pot shots. Sad.

The game right now simply promotes an attitude to cottage every tile, chop any forest even far away, build railroads everywhere, getting 4 mines per city, and totally ignore the even slightest possible consequence of global warming.

Sounds like modern society. And isnt civ a history simulator? Plus the effects of global warming are just starting to play out, and they are debated on whether the climate changes are natural or man-made. I definately think that global warming is real and a threat to the future...but its not a threat to the very immediate present.

Plus, on a purely gaming standpoint, I hated global warming in past civ games. There was absolutely nothing fun about it, it was inevitable, and you had to micromanage your workers at a time when I was just tired of telling them everything to do for the past several hours.

What could be alright is if there was some kind of random bonus and penalty based on climate. Like where some turns I would have a +1 food bonus from my farms for five turns because of a good harvest, and then other times I might have a -1 food bonus for a drought. And then make it as pollution goes up you'll get more of the random droughts. The only problem is since pollution is a world problem you could be as green as possible and still take the penalties...I would play the same game and assume that the late-game pollution problems were mostly inevitable, just like previous civs.

One thing that might make this work is if you could adjust pollution levels. Something where you could lower pollution and in turn increase happiness and health, but this would also lower hammers and commerce. Then there would be a game mechanic to deal with other civs and pollution...you could ask other civs to lower pollution, or demand it in tribute.

 

[SkippyT]

All agreed.
I'd like to add one thing though.

Chopping trees should be better for short terms and worse for long terms. It should give more hammers when chopped but it will have effect. Just how many examples are there that prove that chopping trees make the soil unfertile? Now, when they're chopping down the Amazon to get farms, they don't get anything from it! Farms in civ give +2 food (with biology) but the land of the Amazon is getting unfertile with the farms (-1 food in real life) because the trees gave the soil all the things it needed.
Maybe if you chop trees from plains the plains will be turned to desert (or tundra if close to one) and land that had jungle once that was cut down makes the land only produce 1 food and nothing more. (-1 food)

 

[Crighton]

1) . . . I don't mind chopping some forests, but the game promotes an attitude to get rid of any existing forests and jungles on the planet for your "industry".

Lumbermills aren't THAT far into the game, and given their excellent benefits, it hardly constitutes encouragment to go lumberjacking.

1) . . . we do need some forests alive, not chopped lumbers, to supply us oxygen, absorb the CO2,

True, but it begs the question of which plants convert CO2 to O2 the most efficient (I have yet to see any scientific evidence on this specific point).

1) . . . stabilize the weather,

Ah, no. A tree in Appalachia has zilch to do with a Hurricane in Charleston.

1) slow down desert expansion,

In some place places this is relevant, just not many (grass does far more for soil conservation in the grand scheme of things than forest).

1) . . . reduce flooding.

If you assume trees regulate the weather (they don't) then this could be true, though it's a reach.

3. Mines are also a major source of pollution. In the game it does not show. When there is pros without cons, everybody will go for it. That's what I've been saying - the game promotes an environmental-hostile habit.

I will agree with the pollution penalty, that there being none is unrealistic, I'll let others quibble on the specifics of what it should (something proportional to technology would be good; as tech progresses mines get healthier, etc).

"Environmental-hostile habit" that's whats going to get you called a tree hugger.

4. As a cancer researcher, I have no idea what you're talking about. Regardless, a few jungles left in a country won't get people cancer, as long as they are not right in the neigbourhood of a city. Massively eliminating all jungles may lead to long-term, subtly negative consequences.

That I'll grant you, though I'm not sure what being a cancer researcher has to do with anything (or how many cancers are in a jungle for that matter for the other guy, but w/e).

5. We also farm corns, rice, wheat, then chop them over and over. Is that lame? At least farming forests still give us some trees at certain point.

I agree, hence my love of Lumbermills

6. Recycling plants will solve any negative health factor due to industrialization in the game, they can't solve problems due to the population. I have no idea why you mention the level of difficulty.

The high difficulty levels demonstrate subtle differences rom lower levels in a much much more pronounced way.

7. You probably don't have a heart attack or cancer right now, but is it wrong to suggest you eat less trans-fats, salt and avoid smoking to reduce the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases or cancers?

(-This was refferencing a comment on Global Warming not doing any harm in real life either-)

I'm willing to go as far as to say: Yes, there is "Global Warming" and Yes the Cliamate is changing for the warmer. But that's it. I'm still waiting for an explanation on why there Earth went through several warming and cooling sessions in the past (cough Ice Ages cough). Besides it's hubis to think we can legislate the temperature of the planet.


@Yakeem

I think you made some good points. My roommate plays CIVIII and when he can he starts mass producing workers to plant trees then immediately chop them back down again. So some kind of fixed planting time, etc would be a good system to put in to it.

I further agree about the jungles providing a food bonus, that would at least give some positive to an otherwise almost useless tile.


Mr. Civtastic

About environmentalism...I wish it was more of an econmoic civic, maybe something like globalization, integrated market, or even some kind of "online" economy. Environmentalism Ive always seen as more of a social change and political change, not just a purely economic one. As for the civic, I never use it, BUT when it is put on us by the UN I dont really mind it. Usually I have a couple cities sick with pollution but no solution for it, having already traded for every health resource I can get my hands on, though I also generally skip the health buildings at the end-game unless the health is REALLY bad (ironworks city).

It's having it forced on you that bites (IMO). The globalization part is the UN esolution forcing everyone into free markets. There should be a government civic called Ecotopia (yes I harken back to Civ: Call to Power days). I'll let the name speak for itself.

Even we ignore all the scientific evidence like many US Republicans do

Somehow I knew this would come politcal and someone would take the opportunity to make political pot shots. Sad.

True.

What could be alright is if there was some kind of random bonus and penalty based on climate. Like where some turns I would have a +1 food bonus from my farms for five turns because of a good harvest, and then other times I might have a -1 food bonus for a drought. And then make it as pollution goes up you'll get more of the random droughts. The only problem is since pollution is a world problem you could be as green as possible and still take the penalties...I would play the same game and assume that the late-game pollution problems were mostly inevitable, just like previous civs.

Now that I think is a good idea. Would make things a little more difficult to micromanage the way some fanatics do but it certainly would add to the spice.

One thing that might make this work is if you could adjust pollution levels. Something where you could lower pollution and in turn increase happiness and health, but this would also lower hammers and commerce. Then there would be a game mechanic to deal with other civs and pollution...you could ask other civs to lower pollution, or demand it in tribute.

Now THAT is a good idea. No clue how to do it though.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

Hmm, i once played green/health variant in a game where i know that no one would be getting to space in time. I adopted env, build all the health buildings/recycling etc, etc on all cities. I just wanted to get my peoples life exceptancy (and approval rate) as high as possible in 2050-endgame stats. I think i got to 73 for life, 55~? for approval.

Later i learned that those numbers are almost like a roll of dice (whipping unhealthy/unhappy cities makes them go up) and have not tried this again. I would like to play "green" game every now and then, preserving the environment and still managing my empire to compete.

 

[sylvanllewelyn]

I have a much better suggestion as to how to treat environmentalism. Make it a high-cost civic that reduces trade and does nothing good. No sarcasm, deadly serious, BUT, and here's the catch:

Build in a mechanism where as soon as the first civ reaches the modern age, tiles next to deserts start to degrade slowly and coastlines start to turn into water. The slowing down of this process is a percentage of the number of civs running environmentalism, so world diplomacy will be a major issue. To make it even more complicated, you get an unhapiness penalty for running environmentalism (we want our disposibles!!!) for each other civ NOT running environmentalism, to a maximum of +6, creating a classical game-theory puzzle.

 

[kristopherb]

i see where you are coming from and cutting trees down is apart of human history(clearing the british ilse for land /rain forest) but i like the idea of tree planting (with paper?).

 

[Collier20]

At higher difficulty, when using a leader that is not expansive, I regrettably change to environmentalism (Happiness isnt a problem for me, because I spread religion like a rat spread the Black Death) Sure it doesnt seema as glamourous as SP, FT, and Mer, but if your city has major unhealthy issues, Enviromentalism provides for an additional two citizens. This is much better than Mer which only provides one extra specialist, but closes your borders.

I think the game is much greener than people think. Once I have electricity, I turn all of my mines (three hammers with railroads) into windmills (one food, one hammer, two gold). I never chop down forests in the tundra. Ivory, whale, and fur become obsolete.

 

[cabert]

it's a game!
It doesn't have to be green, because it's about history.
Do you think in 4000BC, pollution, weather modifications, ... were considered?

If you want a green game, play modern era starts.

Environnementalism should give some real kind of bonus though (right now it doesn't!)