Option I'd kill for: Global Warming

[Ball Lightning]

There are plenty of things humans can do, as cars, aviation, industry and power take most of the CO2 emmition, then if we use solar power, geothermal, hydro, wind and tidle then youu are emmiting less CO2 which traps heat increasing temperature, and if you use hybrid cars you also emmit less CO2. So you can do something.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Climate change has no game play impact what so ever.

But the desertification in the game is random, so GW could possibly destroy your GP farm if its food sources turn to desert. Seems like a pretty big impact to me.

 

[dh_epic]

I think what bothers me the most about the climate change debate are the people who insist that it's not happening at all, or who insist that it's somehow going to cause less problems if we do nothing. That is the viewpoint that is so obviously and purely political. They don't like that the issue is starting to make inroads into one party, and so instead of offering their own solution, they try to make it go away.

Any other viewpoint on ANYTHING will have political aspects, and pointing it out doesn't make you clever. Is slavery a moral human rights issue or is it politics? Is abortion a moral or political issue? Is gay marriage? The minimum wage? World war 2? If you answered "both", you get a pat on the head. If you insisted that some are more political than others, you're probably some kind of partisan hack.

Democrats can often be cowards. And I tend to hate a lot of Green types who want to go live in the trees or something. But Republicans, Conservatives, and what have you... I would have more respect for them if they started from the premise that human beings are causing climate change, even if we can't predict how fast or severe it will be. Then we can get down to debating solutions on their own merits. I'd, too, like to think that there's some better way than a gas tax, or a straight smackdown on all industry.

 

[dh_epic]

But the desertification in the game is random, so GW could possibly destroy your GP farm if its food sources turn to desert. Seems like a pretty big impact to me.

Except it impacts everyone relatively equally. It can't stop you from winning. It can only slow down everyone's economy, and add 10 turns to the inevitable. As far as games go, equal impact on all players is no impact at all.

 

[Kissamies]

Well, technically the bigger portion of the globe you control, the more likely the random effect is going to hit on your tile, but I see your point. Generally the global warming should be a global problem affecting everyone, though. Health is the local part of it.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Except it impacts everyone relatively equally. It can't stop you from winning. It can only slow down everyone's economy, and add 10 turns to the inevitable. As far as games go, equal impact on all players is no impact at all.

See, dh_epic, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent; however, it's obvious that this kind of schematic is already in the game in other forms, for better or worse.

Maintenance is the best example. It's radically different from previous Civs for a reason: the designers wanted to stop the infinite city sprawl (ICS) and rapid expansion (REX) that were characteristic of earlier games. But in the process, they did exactly what you say GW does--maintenance doesn't stop sprawl (as land is still ultimately the most important factor in the game), it just slows everybody's expansion down. In fact, you could argue it even helps the computer a bit on higher levels because the AI gets more bonuses and can deal with the issue faster.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. You probably don't agree with the maintenance system either. (I'm not even sure I do.)

[Post 1900]

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

I have no doubt that climate change is happening, the weather here in Saskatchewan has been especially bizzare the last few years. However, it isn't necissaraly caused by humans. We had this discussion with a science teacher in school, this could be a totally normal phase the Earth is going through.

However, I love to hate humanity and just thinking about the greenhouse gases we're putting into the atmosphere, I tend to think that we are the problem.

 

[bonafide11]

I have no doubt that Global Warming is taking place in real life, but the Global Warming effect in Civilization is so generic, random, and boring. It's an idea they must have tossed in at the end and haven't so far considered it any further. The random and frequent spots of Global Warming and the lack of any way to prevent it makes it rather pointless, it doesn't even work like global warming should. Perhaps it should cause a temporary reduction in some food tiles... but not just random desert tiles.

 

[PimpyMicPimp]

^ Agreed. The way it's handle in Civ IV is just stupid.

 

[dh_epic]

See, dh_epic, I understand exactly where you're coming from, and I agree to an extent; however, it's obvious that this kind of schematic is already in the game in other forms, for better or worse.

Maintenance is the best example. It's radically different from previous Civs for a reason: the designers wanted to stop the infinite city sprawl (ICS) and rapid expansion (REX) that were characteristic of earlier games. But in the process, they did exactly what you say GW does--maintenance doesn't stop sprawl (as land is still ultimately the most important factor in the game), it just slows everybody's expansion down. In fact, you could argue it even helps the computer a bit on higher levels because the AI gets more bonuses and can deal with the issue faster.

Just thought I'd throw this out there. You probably don't agree with the maintenance system either. (I'm not even sure I do.)

The thing is that maintenance doesn't punish all players equally. It's an equal obstacle for all players, but there are many ways around it: trade for extra gold, build fewer cities, lower your science rate, unlock more trade routes, change civics, build more economic improvements, build more cottages...

Global warming. Get this. Your economy is roaring. You're polluting, but you're building the biggest army, with the best infrastructure. You destroy someone in a nuclear war. And, for all your sins, each player loses a few productive tiles as they become desert? Punishing everyone isn't going to change the behavior of the sinner. And if you're so big that "random desert tiles" affects you more than anyone else, then you're so big that you've basically won the game anyway -- nuking the world was worth it.

That said, I guess it's fair that it's in there for tradition, and they ought to implement it correctly (which they haven't -- you're 100% right). But for all the difference it makes, they might as well take it out altogether. It only slows down the mop-up phase when it should be much faster.

 

[r_rolo1]

I'm still to see a ice tile became ocean due to GW in civ IV or a tundra became plains :if it is Global warming, it should happen even before grassland became desert. Now if we call it "Global punishment for using nuclear devices" it makes more sense. Civ III polution and GW system was dull and boring, but it made much more sense that this...

As a side note: why do people, when talking about RL GW only focus on CO2? There are 3 main greenhouse effect gases, water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide and CO2 is the the least potent one. As anyone can feel on a cloudy day, water vapour is a highly efficient greenhouse gas, but I never saw anybody saying " let's reduce water vapour emmisions because of the GW" or (on methane ) "let's reduce our steak consumptions because of the GW, because cows produce more methane than all the human activities together and methane is much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 ".
I wonder why this happens....

 

[AndrewDJ]

For my part, I've always hated the way global warming was implemented in Civ games. Nukes != Global Warming, if anything, Nukes = Global Cooling and Contamination. This brings back bad memories of CivIII's pollution . . .

 

[dutchking]

They should have a cold war scenario where the only units you have are nukes and you're at war with Russia/US...

 

[cybrxkhan]

^eh? what about Vietnam? we don't need nukes to win!!!

okay... maybe we do.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'm still to see a ice tile became ocean due to GW in civ IV or a tundra became plains :if it is Global warming, it should happen even before grassland became desert. Now if we call it "Global punishment for using nuclear devices" it makes more sense. Civ III polution and GW system was dull and boring, but it made much more sense that this...

As a side note: why do people, when talking about RL GW only focus on CO2? There are 3 main greenhouse effect gases, water vapour, methane and carbon dioxide and CO2 is the the least potent one. As anyone can feel on a cloudy day, water vapour is a highly efficient greenhouse gas, but I never saw anybody saying " let's reduce water vapour emmisions because of the GW" or (on methane ) "let's reduce our steak consumptions because of the GW, because cows produce more methane than all the human activities together and methane is much more powerful greenhouse gas than CO2 ".
I wonder why this happens....

Because the other ones are
Easier to reduce (Methane)
OR
Harder/Impossible to control (Water Vapor)

Methane produced can be reduced by 'cleaner' processes
CO2 on the other hand is produced Anytime you burn something for energy it is the 'cleanest' result of combustion.
Also we produce very large amounts of CO2 compared to methane. (even though it is more powerful)

Water Vapor is obviously far more dependent on the climate than human activity (although we do have an impact.)

So CO2 is the one that is talked about because
1. it is the biggest impact We make
2. it is the one that is going to be the most difficult (either in costly changes or in advanced technology) to solve


In civ though, I prefer my 'Env damage' model.

Something that can seriously affect one's plans for victory in the 1950-2050 period, starting off with losing access to key happy/health resources, and proceeding to a possibility of mass environmental collapse. (with -2 food on every tile only food resource tiles/Flood plains would give any food.) of course recovery happens, but only if action is taken.

 

[brianshapiro]

I hardly ever play long enough to reach global warming, because the mid game is so tedious. Especially since in the early part of the game around 1000-1500 time goes by so much quickly than it seems it should and you just get a limited amount of choices. Maybe I'm not 'playing the game right', but I still feel the game can be made a bit differently to balance this out and make it more fun.

 

[obscenename]

Because Nukes cause Global Warming, they don't cause extremely black soot to rise into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight back into outer space. Oh wait it does. Did every one forget about Nuclear Winter?

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Because Nukes cause Global Warming, they don't cause extremely black soot to rise into the atmosphere, which reflects sunlight back into outer space. Oh wait it does. Did every one forget about Nuclear Winter?

No, just Firaxis forgot about it. If anything, tiles should turn to ice from using nukes, not desert.

 

[dutchking]

I have no doubt that Global Warming is taking place in real life, but the Global Warming effect in Civilization is so generic, random, and boring. It's an idea they must have tossed in at the end and haven't so far considered it any further. The random and frequent spots of Global Warming and the lack of any way to prevent it makes it rather pointless, it doesn't even work like global warming should. Perhaps it should cause a temporary reduction in some food tiles... but not just random desert tiles.

Exactly, in real life, I think it's safe to say that global warming is occuring at the poles, melting the ice caps. It doesn't turn into desert does it? They should either get rid of it or improve it.

 

[Cryptoanarchist]

RE:CO2 I'm gonna hazard a guess and say that a large increase in the accumulation of CO2 will have an impact like a small increase in water vapour but in reality water vapour isn't increasing that much whereas CO2 is hence the focus on the latter.

(Btw I think the earths mean temperature would be below 0 without water vapour acting as a greenhouse gas but can't remember year 12 chem that well).