1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

I want a "greener" Civ game

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by gettingfat, Dec 19, 2006.

  1. Julian Delphiki

    Julian Delphiki Anton's key

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2006
    Messages:
    2,738
    Location:
    Helsinki, Funland
    You must also be a lumbermill-hugger like i am ? :lol:
     
  2. Olleus

    Olleus Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 30, 2005
    Messages:
    6,478
    Location:
    England
    I am most certainly not a tree hugger, but I agree that chopping forests and jungle should have some draw backs. I think that every time you chop a forest/jungle there should be a tiny chance (5% ?) of the surounding tiles degenerating. grassland ->plain-> desert.

    This is to represent the benefits that forests give in stabilising the local climate and in absorbing resources. There are many examples in ancient history of climate being affected by largescale deforestation, north Africa during the Roman period and the Easter islands come to mind.

    What should NOT happen though is reforestation. Harvesting tree is represented by lumder mills, were small amounts of trees are continuously cut and replanted. Chopping means that you chop down huge amounts of forest very quickly.

    Also, leave Global Warming out of this. Its a recent phenomonen about which we know little and has no place in a game that covers 6000 years of history.
     
  3. kristopherb

    kristopherb Protective/Charismatic

    Joined:
    May 23, 2006
    Messages:
    2,210
    Location:
    British Empire Soul:Tesco
    global warming is something whic hthey should add in the expack,i dont know how to impliment it.
     
  4. Dread_Pirate

    Dread_Pirate Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2006
    Messages:
    9
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Civ4 is a game that attempts to simulate human history. We can argue back and forth about how successful or accurate it is.

    I'm always uncomfortable about using Slavery, but I don't deny that our ancestors used it.

    I'm uncomfortable about chopping down forests to give my civ an economic boost, but I know that it's part of history also.

    Why is the Amazon rainforest being cleared even now? Because the cleared land creates a greater economic benefit to the citizens of that civilization than the jungle (in the short term, anyway.....).

    Maybe the Environmentalism civic should operate the same way Emancipation does, causing unhappiness in civs that don't run with it. There's unhappiness here in Australia that our government hasn't signed the Kyoto Protocol, which has caused the government to make more environmentally friendly "noises".

    Another suggestion would be to have Environmentalism operate as a late game religion ( David Suzuki as a Great Prophet :) ). If you decide to chop a forest, be prepared for your citizens to react poorly.....
     
  5. Panda

    Panda Metal head

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2001
    Messages:
    2,725
    Location:
    Turku, Finland
    Are you honestly comparing SMAC's sci-fi plot to a stream-lined simulation of man's history? Because, that's sort of pointless.

    Present-day enviromentalism is, IMO, nowhere as powerful as it's counterpart in Civ4. If you want it to be even more powerful, it should be in the realm of Future Techs.
     
  6. Collier20

    Collier20 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    100
    In earlier civ games, I always had the problem of land becoming polluted and unworkable during the last years of the game. You could fix this problem with workings (which were otherwised idle by this point). In Civ 4, the only time pollution happens to me is when Monty nukes my second city (he is ALWAYS THE FIRST TO NUKE ME and he always nukes the second city I built). The US has several superfund sites across the US and I am sure other countries have similiar problems, so this isnt in the realm of fantasy. As for global warming, I would rather have other natural diasters added first (volcanos, hurricanes, earthquakes, droughts (could reduce farm output and turn grasslands into plains for a few turns).
     
  7. Crighton

    Crighton Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2006
    Messages:
    1,136
    I like the environment as a religion thought.
     
  8. funkymunky

    funkymunky Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2001
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Louisville, KY
    I think it would make sense if mines added -1 healthy to a city for each one within its radius. Historically (as is true today) mines are very unhealthy places to work, and alot of people died working in them, and they often affect the land in bad ways. I think this might help promote keeping trees for hammers, rather than cutting them down for mines.

    Also, maybe we can have -1 health in cities for certain techs, like combustion, industrialization, plastics, for example.

    So, so counter all these unhealthies, I think we should change recycling plants to give +3 health instead of removing city improvement unhealthiness, and then we can give environmentalism the ability to remove all unhealthiness from mines and buildings and the 'dirty' techs, and make it a high upkeep civic (enforcing environmental standards is expensive).

    Btw, I have to bring this up as someone said trees don't regulate weather, but they do have an effect. The evaporation of trees keeps surface tempuratures cooler than they normally would be without them, and the evaporation also feeds into the air to form clouds and rain. The amazon rain forests almost generates its own rain, in fact, and keeps the climate relatively stable (albeit warm); contrast that to deserts, where the temperatures can vary hugely between night and day.
     
  9. gettingfat

    gettingfat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2003
    Messages:
    1,417
    No, I basically just want to see a bit more thought given to this aspect (understanding the value of preserving the environment) by the game designer. Besides, Civ is not "a stream-lined simulation of man's history" as you described to start with. Sending a space-ship to Alpha Centauri in 2040 is in fact closer to a sci-fi plot than the idea of environmentalism in Civ 4 (which is an awkward idea to start with, to be honest).

    I am a game-player, a long-term Civ fan, not those environmentalism proponents. I don't want to see Civ4 turning into propaganda. But it doesn't take away the fact that this game is working under the premise that you can do whatever to damage your environment without significant negative consequence. I simply want to see a more balanced view, thereby giving the players more decisions to make.

    Some posters kept mentioning they use lumber mills and said they come early. No they don't come early. Many games are decided before the discovery of replaceable part. Even after the discovery, both a mine or lumber mill on a grass hill gives you one food + 3 hammers, both give the 4th hammer with railroad. The advantage of a lumber mill over mine is to preserve the health factor from the forest; the advantage of a mine over lumber mill is you get the additional hammer for a couple hundred turns before replacement part + the 30 hammers from chopping + 1 gold before railroad if the hill is next to river. I'll say in most cases we know what to choose.

    Some posters mentioned the game promotes slavery so massive deforestation is also OK. Personally, I think the game just gives too much credit to slavery (as well as hereditary ruling). By combining slavery and hereditary ruling, you can whip whatever you want and both low maintainence. History is at least partly driven by the economy. If slavery is that cost effective, it is hard to explain why civs like Chinese switched to serfdom so early. Two wrongs do not make one right. Maybe they should also tone down slavery a bit, I guess.
     
  10. Tavenier

    Tavenier Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2003
    Messages:
    822
    Location:
    Netherlands
    I think reforesting should be enabled. But only quite late in the game, in the period where people started to think about that forests are needed for earths survival and stuff like that. There will hardly be any exploits about it that late in the game, because by then you will have such a big industry, you don't need the chopping as much as you need the health benefits.
     
  11. kcbrett5

    kcbrett5 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2006
    Messages:
    267

    So just because the earth went through an ice age in the past you are willing to sit back and do nothing to prevent it from going through another ice age in the future unless someone offers you a good explanation? Are you in the igloo building or parka business?

    For the first time in the history of the earth, there exists a species with the power to transform the landscape and climate of the earth. We are negatively affecting the climate by pumping the atmosphere full of greenhouse gases. We can stop doing it if we want to. But it would cost precious american corporations money. So rather then spend the money to stop polluting those same companies spend their money on congressmen to get them to vote against clean water, clean air, etc.

    I do not want to live through an ice age. I am imagining that ice from the north pole to florida would be fairly unpleasant. And just think, when the ice covers all of the continental US, Mexico and Cuba can finally get their revenge on our foolish american policies. Mexico can build a wall to keep us from crossing the border and Cuba can turn back our refugee boats before they hit their coast. Ah glorious Irony.
     
  12. Collier20

    Collier20 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    100

    Did you not see the Day After Tomorrow?
     
  13. Point13

    Point13 Like a ton of bricks!

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2004
    Messages:
    536
    Location:
    Birmingham, AL
    And that high upkeep!

    coughstatepropertycough
     
  14. GenericKen

    GenericKen Not at all suspicious

    Joined:
    Sep 2, 2005
    Messages:
    202
    The trouble with implementing polution is that it was outright one of the least fun parts of CivIII. Players don't like getting penalized randomly, nor do they like to micromanage away little orange blotches on their land.

    To make chopping more interesting, environmentalism should be boosted.
     
  15. Tee Kay

    Tee Kay Just a passenger

    Joined:
    Aug 21, 2005
    Messages:
    21,831
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Personally I rarely chop forests, mainly because I can't plant them again. I personally think forests and jungles should be made more productive, tree planting should be allowed and Environmentalism moved to Scientific Method. Global warming should effect the late game more, and Environmentalism should generate 1 gold for forests and jungles (remove the health benefit). Oh, and when a hydro plant is build in a city the unhealthiness from an existing coal plant should be cancelled out.
     
  16. Collier20

    Collier20 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2006
    Messages:
    100
    Once Ivory and Whale becomes obsolete, you should be able to build a game reserve over the resource. It wouldn't provide addition happiness for your Civilization, but would provide a massive amount of gold (as much as a town or even more). Game reserves can also be built on jungles, but do not provide as much of a bonus.

    Bring back the solar power plant.

    Add a desalinization plant. Would provide a freshwater source and allow islands to get the +1 food bonus on farms.
     
  17. BundtCake

    BundtCake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2006
    Messages:
    43
    Quote:
    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.


    Allow a UN resolution on carbon credits - depending on your net pollution / absorbtion of pollution you could sell or buy credits as you see fit ;)

    This is actually something that I'm disappointed in - there seems to be sooooo much focus on the early stages of the game that in the later stages of the game tech progress is summed up by "Future tech". C'mon, there's enough different technology out there to give the players some interesting choices in research. Maybe something where you could research "Future Farm Tech" to produce one more food from each farm, or "Future Commerce Tech" to get one more gold out of a city, same thing with hammers.

    'Cake
     
  18. Nikis-Knight

    Nikis-Knight Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 22, 2005
    Messages:
    5,636
    Location:
    Orange County, CA
    Agreed, but that's because they give too little credit to regicide and revolution.

    Though, I'm happy to keep those things in a mod, like global warming, to keep the game more playable.
     
  19. Xanikk999

    Xanikk999 History junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 9, 2005
    Messages:
    11,232
    Location:
    Fairfax county VA, USA
    The OPs statement is rather silly. He calls himself a tree hugger but wants a greener game despite how history has changed this planet? :lol:
     
  20. Reprisal

    Reprisal Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 6, 2002
    Messages:
    217
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    I wouldn't mind seeing a few more options like planting trees. Being able to get a bit more use out of the tundra squares would be quite helpful.

    Slightly tangentially, do forests that are improved with a lumbermill still count for the purposes of the happiness from Environmentalism?
     

Share This Page