Nuclear Winter

[Renobe]

It bothers me in no small way that political views would come into a game that people play to temporally to escape the real world. Namely the inaccuratly use of global warming in conjunction with the use of nuclear weapons. As a matter of fact the opposite would happen, it is called the Nuclear Winter. It would not affect small plots of land as portrayed in this game, but would have global effects. You can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

My point being introducing inaccurat information in promoting the the issue of global warming in the conscience of people.

 

[Willem]

Oh here we go again, yet another political discourse on the subject of Global Warming. Give it a rest already, this subject is coming up on almost a weekly basis. Why don't you just jump into an already existing thread, there's a few to choose from.

 

[bakshi]

Its a game. Are you going to say that building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is promoting inaccurate information in the conscience of people.

 

[King Kalmah]

Its a game. Are you going to say that building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is promoting inaccurate information in the conscience of people.

Wait!

That cannot be done?

sarcasm sucks on this thing....lol

 

[cardgame]

I think there's a mod or two that fixes GW or something...

also GW has been in Civ since at least civ2 in 1996, possibly in civ 1 too... long before it was a serious political issue.

 

[sabo]

As a matter of fact the opposite would happen, it is called the Nuclear Winter. It would not affect small plots of land as portrayed in this game, but would have global effects. You can read about it at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_winter

My point being introducing inaccurat information in promoting the the issue of global warming in the conscience of people.

You said it, Nuclear winter would mean "game over" if we used 'real life' examples it wouldn't be much of a game

 

[TheMeInTeam]

You said it, Nuclear winter would mean "game over" if we used 'real life' examples it wouldn't be much of a game

And yet, it would still fail less gameplay checks than current global warming, which is a guaranteed annoyance for games that last into modern eras.

 

[Renobe]

My reason for starting this thread was not to start a GW debat, but to point out a inaccurcy in the game. If the creator of this game decided that they desired nuclear weapons in the game they should be as accurate as possible. In regards to Sabo's comment, you could have placed in the game, that if you or AI escalates a nuclear war beyond the point of no return you would lose the game. This would have reflected the real world. If the game consist of human players, the nuke tec should not be possible.
It is really hard to have nuclear weapons in a game an still have a game.

 

[sabo]

Renobe:
As Sid once said, Civilization is not historically realistic, it's historically accurate.. (or something like that) meaning that it doesn't follow a chronological line, it represents what "could" happen.
It's like Willam and Baski says, it's a game. If it was realistic these things wouldn't happen - Lincoln should not start in the ancient age, battleships should not lose to caravels, and my favorite "Oh sure, lets have open borders and I will allow every friggin' combat unit you have to dance across my land to attack my neighbor with no reprecussions to myself". There are some pseudo historically accurate games out there "Europa Universalis, Hearts of Iron" etc. but none of them are much fun or easy to play. Firaxis made sure "playability" was in the equation when they made the game. If the nuke option bugs you so much you can vote nukes out at a UN resolution, which by the way isn't realistic either, isn't that right N. Korea and Iran?

 

[Willem]

My reason for starting this thread was not to start a GW debat, but to point out a inaccurcy in the game.

And the fact that you're the leader of a civilization for several thousand years is accurate? Nuclear Winter would have been a hassle to program in. You'd need to turn Tundra to Ice, Plains and Grassland to Tundra, Jungles to Grassland etc., etc. It was just easier to lump everything into one mechanism.

 

[Bostock]

Wait!

That cannot be done?

sarcasm sucks on this thing....lol

On the internet? Yes, sarcasm sucks here.

On the other hand, look on the bright side - there's no way for anyone to reach out and punch you in the face over the Internet! (Yet.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

And the fact that you're the leader of a civilization for several thousand years is accurate? Nuclear Winter would have been a hassle to program in. You'd need to turn Tundra to Ice, Plains and Grassland to Tundra, Jungles to Grassland etc., etc. It was just easier to lump everything into one mechanism.

It'd have been even easier to leave the mechanism out entirely.

It would also have been correct from virtually every objective measure of gameplay.

 

[PieceOfMind]

that political views would come into a game

This is an assumption. While it's certainly possible the mechanics of GW were more a sin of ignorance, it's up to you to decide whether you think it's that or actually political views creeping into the game.

GW was in Civ1, way before GW was an issue to most people let alone game developers.

All said, the GW mechanics in Civ4 are terrible - there's no doubt.

Your best bet to avoid political back and forths, which are possible in a thread like this, is to seek out the Global Warming mod for BtS. Its implementation of GW effects and nuclear winter are better in every way, including TMIT's famous gameplay checks.

 

[r_rolo1]

Its a game. Are you going to say that building a spaceship to Alpha Centauri is promoting inaccurate information in the conscience of people.

Atleast it is technically possible to make a ship to go to Alpha Centauri ... Nukes promoting GW is in the same bin than using a microwave to freeze things, and this regardless of how GW is implemented in game.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Atleast it is technically possible to make a ship to go to Alpha Centauri ... Nukes promoting GW is in the same bin than using a microwave to freeze things, and this regardless of how GW is implemented in game.

A microwave oven, if cold enough (and perhaps big enough), would freeze anything.

 

[r_rolo1]

A microwave oven, if cold enough (and perhaps big enough), would freeze anything.

Ok, as we are discussing semantics, let's go back to the physics Tell me exactly how to use the mechanics and the electronics of a properly assembled and operating microwave oven to freeze things and i'll tell you a way of nuke blasts causing global warming...

 

[bestrfcplayer]

Ummmmmmm.... Why is this hear?

 

[capnvonbaron]

Tell me exactly how to use the mechanics and the electronics of a properly assembled and operating microwave oven to freeze things and i'll tell you a way of nuke blasts causing global warming...

anti-microwaves, duh.

Or maybe inverse tachyons.

 

[Willem]

It'd have been even easier to leave the mechanism out entirely.

It would also have been correct from virtually every objective measure of gameplay.

Well granted that GW isn't all that good, I'd rather have that than no consequence to a nuclear war at all. That would hardly be realistic either. Maybe they should have gone with something like a +1 unhealthiness in every city at certain points. Maybe have a background guage that measured radiation, or maybe fallout, from each bomb dropped. Each time it reaches a certain level, global unhealthiness increases.

 

[Willem]

Atleast it is technically possible to make a ship to go to Alpha Centauri ...

A ship maybe, but not a crew of colonists. We're not even close to that kind of technology. The best we could do is send out a probe that would be nothing but scrap metal when it reached AC, having long exhausted the fuel it needed for it's systems.