is there a point to reducing pollution?

[dreamvirus]

I think that if it were to affect culture it would never actually reduce a culture boundary except if you are competing with a neighbour culturally for a territory square. It would affect both the individual city score and the general score. This doesn't map perfectly into real life, but then what does in Civ3? The idea is just to provide an incentive for certain playing styles to take pre-emptive steps to reduce pollution, but leaving the option for other styles to ignore the problem and just deal with it using workers as normal. I think the idea of it reducing culture is actually more realistic than reducing population - I don't know if there's much evidence that pollution actually works to reduce population - and it would be hard to analyze, since all the biggest pollution centers are also all the biggest population centers - but it certainly reduces quality of life and culture.

 

[Qpdaj]

Originally posted by Roland Johansen
For the people who like to give some extra penalties to pollution:
in the editor, you can let factories and coal plants give a negative number of happy faces or culture. This can be offset by letting the recycling center and mass transit produce an equal number of positive happiness or culture.

That makes more sense than the current system. Lots of polution means the tree-huggers are unhappy (and burning SUV's), build recycling centers and mass transit, and then they're happy.

 

[microbe]

I thought I've found a better idea for pollution.

For each tile of pollution, the affected city will lose one food.

I think this is acceptable - it doesn't just take out one pop like decease which would be too radical, but still keep the "more pollution == less population" model. And if you have too much pollution, the city will starve and you will indeed lose pop.

But then again, we already lose one tile of food/production/income, so we already have it.

This idea is useless.

 

[warpstorm]

Actually if it didn't put a pollution tile on the ground but the 'triangles' did this it'd give a 'reasonable' pollution effect.

 

[Pounder]

Originally posted by warpstorm
Swamp turns to water last I checked. I mod jungle to go the swamp also and forest to jungle. You lose a lot of land if you don't deal with it.

I like that idea, I think I'll do the same.

Even if you clean up all your pollution, global warming still continues due to pollution in other territory. You still continue taking terrain hits.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Of course that means you can 'clean up' global warming by cutting down jungles, swamps, and forests.

 

[warpstorm]

Then it all turns to desert.

If you really want a wet world you could set grass to switch to marsh also.

Yes, you could drain the swamps, but it would just be a delaying action if you let it get at all out of hand.

To boot, marsh pretty much sucks even for the agriculturals.

 

[Kiech]

Shouldn't planting forests SLOW pollution?

Anyways, I agree, pollution is more of a whack-a-mole game than anything once your rails are up.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Actually, that brings up a question, can a city square suffer global warming.. if so what happens when a city square warms to a non city holding square?

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

City tiles suffer from global warming. There may or may not be a check for non city holding terrain. Only someone who has modded the game and run into the situation would be able to verify it doesn't. Otherwise you must assume it does.

If a river dries up or a fresh water lake disappears, the city will stop growing until you reduce it to 6 or less so you can build an aqueduct.