I want a "greener" Civ game

[Immaculate]

Someone mentioned a desalinization plant. And thats a really good idea. It should do absolutely nothing for the tile its on (so its not really workable), but it should start an irrigation chain. It would solve that pesky problem of having hills/mountains/desert between your irrigation and the place you need food, and by making it a late-game tech, you could avoid its overuse early on (basically, it would strengthen the Farm/Specialist economy just when it needs a boost).

But this idea also leads to other ideas. There should be other worker improvements in the game that don't necessarily increase the value of the tile, but DO have an effect on local development. Maybe something like dams. You could build on on both sides of a river tile and generate mad commerce for local towns and cottage-based squares (as well as windmills and workshops, etc) but the downstream river would disappear. I am sure there are other opportunities that could be developed.

 

[kristopherb]

how about a new "managed forest" plants forest +2

 

[Collier20]

While I was getting my ass kicked one game, I went into world builder and noticed that you could plant forests over farms and the farms would not be destroyed. I tried it on every tile and in world builder you could put forests on the same square as plantations, towns, pastures, and everything else. IF you could use your workers to replant forests without destroying improvements, this would be a massive advantage an Environmental civilization (probably too good).

Since someone else brought up new tile improvements, what about building green houses on desert tiles. I heard that Israel grows most of its produce in green houses. Can anyone from Israel confirm this?

 

[Julian Delphiki]

how about a new "managed forest" plants forest +2

This would work; transform that old, old (6000~bc) natural forest to modern, abused production forest (hey, in Finland something like 5% of the forest we got left are natural, which are constantly getting transformed to production even if we do have lots, lots and lots of forests left - just not natural). Get added hammers, but lose these the Environmentalism "we enjoy our natural parks bonus" + keep the health. Just make it fast to change from existing forest (like 1 worker turn) or make it different enough from lumbermills health + hammer bonuses to make it viable.

 

[Welnic]

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?

They still count for the health bonus, so I would think that they would have to count for the happy bonus also. I've only ever run it for the health boost so I didn't notice the happy part. As far as I know the only change other than the extra hammers is that if the forest is on a river you now get 1 commerce.

 

[siggboy]

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

Excuse me? You have to go out of State Property, which I'm usually not willing to do.

Environmentalism is a huge civic for the OCC or scenarios in which you decide to have only a handful of huge cities (similar to OCC).

--Sigi

 

[siggboy]

Someone mentioned a desalinization plant. And thats a really good idea. It should do absolutely nothing for the tile its on (so its not really workable), but it should start an irrigation chain. It would solve that pesky problem of having hills/mountains/desert between your irrigation and the place you need food, and by making it a late-game tech, you could avoid its overuse early on (basically, it would strengthen the Farm/Specialist economy just when it needs a boost).

Then you would also have to nerf Biology because it eliminates the need for irrigations chains completely at the moment...

--Sigi

 

[ArmorPierce]

Just wanted to comment on the comment that global warming has never hurt anyone
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece
For the first time in history, a inhabited island has been taken underneath the waters due to global warming.

 

[Kushluk]

A tile with a lumber mill on it should be cutting down the forrest on it's tile, replanting it, then cutting it out again. Seems logicalé to me.

 

[napoleonbee]

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

sweet jesus L-O-L, do they still educate kids beyond grade 2 these days?

 

[Crighton]

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.

I think you've seen this movie one too many times.

 

[Overcast32]

Just adjust your play style then. It's open for you to develop

I never cut all the trees from my cities. I only would in a very rare occasion that there's only 1 or 2 tree tiles and I simply just have to use those areas. They are just too beneficial in late game for that health bonus, IMO. Plus, I simply can't stand barren territory.

I do cut jungle asap, as it's unhealthy for the cities and the quicker I whack the Jungle the more time the forests have to expand.

In the game I played last night I had a moderately small continent. I developed the shore lines and left the wooded center alone. I had one worker non-stop clearing jungle. By the time I was thinking of building in the middle the forests had completely taken over the empty areas that were formerly jungle.

I find the trick of keeping a number of forest tiles near my cities to be a fun challenge. Eventually, I did plop a city down right in the middle of that forest. Put up a number of lumber mills, and used the banana resource there. The city was quite healthy indeed, although production wasn't too huge. I did make one path to it, and put a Hamlet there as well. As it was positioned dead center of the continent, I made it my capital city too. The other towns had the rest covered anyway. It looked quite cool

Actually, I left too many trees I think as my overall production was a bit on the 'shy' end when Napoleon came rampaging through my area. First time I've dealt with him in 'warlords' and he's a lot different than he used to be, hehe.

But ya - in Alpha Centauri you could plant a forest. And later once you got the tech, you could plant the fungus too (the natural foliage of the planet). It worked well, IMO

I don't always play the Americans - but I am American and Conservative too But you'll never catch me littering, dumping oil from a car into a sewer or cutting down a tree without an absolute need. I HATE when people cut trees for no reason. I did find a little maple growing in the back yard last year, I mowed around it - and put a stake next to it so my son wouldn't mow it over either. Then I put a bit of miracle grow on the thing, I'm hoping it will go from the 'weed' stage to 'little tree' stage this spring. I'd love nothing more that to just surround my house with trees.

So regardless of what everyone else does, nature is *everyone's* job to keep up. I'm doing my part and I'm not an 'eco-nut'.

 

[Crighton]

On the above thought, a good size tree on your property can add up to $20k to your property value (assuming it looks like a good tree and all)

 

[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...

Now here I am, quoting myself
It's just that I had an idea about further diversification of workshops and lumbermills: what about doing so, that each workshop would increase base city production when producing military units, but would decrease both health and happiness? Balancing it would be tricky, though. My initial thought was something like increase by 10% and happiness+health decrease 0.5...but perhaps the latter should be cumulative or smth.

That sort of thing might make sense + it would allow for further specialization of cities...

 

[Donny]

I've thought about it for a while and this seems ok with me, but probably I overlooked alot:

Environmentalism (medium upkeep):

* +2 from each forest instead of +1 from every 2 forests

* +2 happiness from jungle, +1 happiness from forest (in city radius)

* Double production speed of Granary, Grocer, Harbor, Hospital, Hydro Plant, Recycling Center and Supermarket.

* penalty for civs without environmentalism (like emancipation)

* Workers can plant forests, but:
- A forest can only be created next to another forest (like irrigation)
- Planting a forest removes all improvements on a tile (not roads or railroads)
- Forests can't be planted on tiles that normally don't grow forests
- Forests can't be planted on tundra (otherwise forests on tundra are always best)
- For balance reasons, the nearest city loses the amount of shields it would gain from chopping the same forest. If the amount of shields is 0, the city must first work for the forest before anything else.
- I don't know what to do with the "camp" improvement that doesn't require a forest chop because it would always be better to plant a forest, and then rebuild the camp, alow it or not?


General: (not connected with environmentalism)
Negative effects for chopping a jungle tile:
x % chance of the tile becoming a desert (plains would still be better than jungle)
or
x % chance of upsetting a native tribe -> same effect as getting barbarians from a goody hut.

Again, these are just some ideas, don't flame me if some of them aren't worked out well.

 

[Overcast32]

I've thought about it for a while and this seems ok with me, but probably I overlooked alot:

Environmentalism (medium upkeep):

* +2 from each forest instead of +1 from every 2 forests

* +2 happiness from jungle, +1 happiness from forest (in city radius)

* Double production speed of Granary, Grocer, Harbor, Hospital, Hydro Plant, Recycling Center and Supermarket.

* penalty for civs without environmentalism (like emancipation)

* Workers can plant forests, but:
- A forest can only be created next to another forest (like irrigation)
- Planting a forest removes all improvements on a tile (not roads or railroads)
- Forests can't be planted on tiles that normally don't grow forests
- Forests can't be planted on tundra (otherwise forests on tundra are always best)
- For balance reasons, the nearest city loses the amount of shields it would gain from chopping the same forest. If the amount of shields is 0, the city must first work for the forest before anything else.
- I don't know what to do with the "camp" improvement that doesn't require a forest chop because it would always be better to plant a forest, and then rebuild the camp, alow it or not?


General: (not connected with environmentalism)
Negative effects for chopping a jungle tile:
x % chance of the tile becoming a desert (plains would still be better than jungle)
or
x % chance of upsetting a native tribe -> same effect as getting barbarians from a goody hut.

Again, these are just some ideas, don't flame me if some of them aren't worked out well.

Not a flame!!

I don't think there should be a penalty for *not* adapting the Civic though, and I don't see where it could possibly benefit production at all - hamper it - possibly.... Although - if the option to plant forests was implemented, I could see it giving a bonus there.

I like the improved health from the forests, although I can't see jungle really making people 'happy' or 'healthy' in any regard, forests should do both, perhaps +1 happiness in all cases and with Environmentalism and additional +1 health. I can see why it actually reduces health. Although I would really like to see jungle give some sort of bonus... Even if it continues to cause a bit of unhealthiness...

I guess, hmm - for the particular Civic - sure, yah - maybe it could generate some happiness. Actually for Environmentalism, I'd think any *natural* tile should generate a bit of happiness, really. Even tundra.

As for a downside to chopping... hmm. What if it opened up a possibility for a number of turns of sickness, regardless of other modifiers on the city and reduced population by 1? I mean - after all, many formerly unheard of diseases are found in Jungles - I think that's the idea of their detriment to health. But perhaps even chopping them could open up a risk of 'plague'. But then, that's kinda missing from the game overall too - no rampant plagues

I think the downside to chopping forests is that it makes my map look like an industrial complex. I like the green!

 

[GenericKen]

The trouble I've found with enviornmentalism is that you rarely need the extra happiness (or if you do, you don't really need 6 faces worth of it, you'd generally only need 1 or 2 unless you've been completely neglecting your cities).

Here's an idea to make environmentalism give a bigger payoff:

1) Cap the growth curve at the top end of city populations (city growth at pop 20+ should all cost the same amount of food).
2) Nerf the market/grocer happiness/healthfulness bonuses of resources 5-8. Conquest is already exponential enough; it shouldn't let your cities grow arbitrarily large.

Thus, extremely large cities in the late mid-game will require culture slider adjustment to keep entirely happy and healthy, UNLESS you drop into environmentalism, which could help set off WLTKDs to offset the high maintenance cost.


And optionally:
3) Remove the game rule that halves the chance for forest to regrow over roads. It's an arbitrary rule that's not intuitive and not documented anywhere. It'd be nice to discourage players from roading every tile, but this game rule only punishes certain, very rare playstyles for doing so.

4) Revamp some of the more useless wonders to operate off of total population count. Maybe a national wonder to give +1 gold per citizen in the city. Just add *some* sort of mid-late game reward for growing and maintaining unhappy citizens other than slavery fodder. Players otherwise have no use for cities over 20 pop and little incentive to avoid state prop. unless they're running a specialist economy into the late game.

 

[tomart]

I never cut all the trees from my cities. I only would in a very rare occasion that there's only 1 or 2 tree tiles and I simply just have to use those areas. They are just too beneficial in late game for that health bonus, IMO. Plus, I simply can't stand barren territory.

I am American and Conservative too But you'll never catch me littering, dumping oil from a car into a sewer or cutting down a tree without an absolute need. I HATE when people cut trees for no reason. ... I'd love nothing more that to just surround my house with trees.

So regardless of what everyone else does, nature is *everyone's* job to keep up. I'm doing my part and I'm not an 'eco-nut'.

Good for you! I think it's just part of taking care of our home, in our own best interest. To me, "Conservative" is about conserving what's good, and most emphatically NOT chopping it down for so-called "development"...
I grew up on a farm, with some forest round the edges, so that's home to me; and it wasn't just my imagination that the air was fresher there.

Do they still teach children that we get our oxygen (absolutely essential to human life) from trees, which take in the carbon dioxide we breathe out, in a symbiotic cycle that's been going on a few million years, and continues to keep us alive? When I read posts like #10 of this thread, I begin to wonder.

One thread here was persuading us to chop everything and spam cottages, but I'm glad I saved some forests for Lumbermills.


Here's a completely Unscientific survey, simply taken from this short, 3-page thread:
As you can see, again and again, we're clearly in favor of planting trees:

And plant a forest should definetly be an option. - ZB2
I do believe you should (at some proportionate expense) be allowed to plant trees. - Crighton
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. - gettingfat
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. - Yeekim
...but i like the idea of tree planting... - kristopherb
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. - Tavenier
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. - taillesskangaru
I wouldn't mind seeing a few more options like planting trees. - Reprisal
Workers can plant forests, but: (list of restrictions follows) - Donny

Having been in the Civ3:Conquests public beta test, I've seen the kind of pressure the charge of "EXPLOIT!" puts on the game designers. So they simply removed our ability to plant forest. End of problem for them; beginning of problem for us.

To be fair, they put in a slight mechanism for automatic forest regrowth, but it's not nearly enough. And why can we build farms, plantations, pastures, etc wherever and whenever we want, but not forest (which happens to grow itself back, unlike all these others!) It makes no sense, which convinces me it's political ("an EXPLOIT!") rather than sensible.

[Thanks all, for letting me quote you.]

 

[Lord_Iggy]

On the above thought, a good size tree on your property can add up to $20k to your property value (assuming it looks like a good tree and all)

Sweet. I've got about 2000 trees on my lot.

 

[tomart]

Sigh, another tree-hugger....

Right off the bat, a belittling, condescending tone of contempt, combined with an avatar that suggests "Money is my bottom line; in fact my only line."

1) Chopping forests is good in real life.

Good short-term for the lumber company and its stockholders; bad for the forests, the animals, other plants, the whole ecosystem depending on that forest for life. Which happens to include human life: are you aware that we get our (absolutely essential) oxygen from trees, which take back the (poisonous) carbon dioxide we breathe out? It's an excellent arrangement worked out over millennia, which just happens to keep us alive; and which you should have learned about in school. But perhaps your lumber corporation "re-educated" you; it's a too-powerful, inhuman entity and doesn't care about our country or world long term, only immediate profits.

Trees don't strenghten industry when they sit in the ground their whole lives.

Yeah; so?
Oh! gee, how blind of me not to see that blatantly obvious, self-serving implication staring me in the face - that these trees were put there just for industry to destroy them for shareholders' short-term benefit!

2) If you chop a tree a thousand miles away from a city, will that city experience health problems? Definitely not.

Pardon me, but we're not talking about one tree, are we? Even one CivIV forest tile is an immense forest, which I and most climatologists would contend, has affects on humans.

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

Mines pollute in real life. Forests do not (unless you cut them down.)

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

???? Thanks for my best laugh all day. "Cancer??" If you'd said viruses, haemorrhagic fevers, or tropical diseases in general, I'd have to agree. But having no basis in fact, this statement appears to be another bogus, self-serving blurb to support complete rainforest destruction. As for cancer, I believe that the causes of most cancers will someday be found to be our industrial chemicals and pollutants, combined with modern food (over-)processing techniques eroding our health.

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

No, it would be a "lumber industry," which you were encouraging above; what happened to "Chopping forests is good in real life."? Were you meaning that you'd only chop once, and leave the land deforested and devastated, like strip-mining? THAT would be lame, even for your short-sighted logging operation.

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

Now here I could go ballistic. Scientists (meaning: intelligent people who are much better informed about this than our poster) (not to be belittling and condescending, of course! :wink: ) and millions of people who live just above sea level, all over the world, are suddenly meeting, pooling resources, learning, discussing the facts and exploring their options, because, Mr. Silver, when world sea level starts to rise, it'll be too late.* They'll lose their homes and ever-growing parts of their countries; they'll be trying to relocate - maybe to your town? Are you ready for hordes of foreigners to descend on your homeland, because the global warming you intentionally disdained and ignored (and helped cause! despite your denials) has flooded theirs?
No, I didn't think so.

*Turns out it's already too late. Thanks to ArmorPierce for bringing this to our attention:
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article2099971.ece

Then there are the climatic effects, which are already happening; disruptions of global weather patterns, increasing storm damage, drought, erratic and unpredictable storms? Perhaps you missed the stories about "El Nino" a few years ago, and how more and more frequently weather records are being broken?

Forgive me, but your post seems to have less to do with our game, than blatant corporate capitalist propaganda in favor of destroying our world, one ecosystem at a time. Seems to me, you hardly need to infiltrate a game site; you guys are winning already! Why rub it in?