NP300
Prince
I have an idea to better model pollution. What if instead of having factories/power plants cause pollution just give them a "causes unhappiness" flag? It could be assumed that the pollution is cleaned up automatically and the only lasting effect is unhappiness.
This way players would have an incentive to build non-polluting plants, like hydro, or nuclear later on.
Maybe the factories could also slow down population growth to simulate their negative effects on health.
The negative happiness/growth effects could be strongest for coal plants, less for an oil plants, and zero for nuclear/hydro/solar. Although maybe in democracies nuclear plants could be set to cause a bit of unhappiness (but less than coal and no negative growth effects) to simulate anti-nuclear mentalities.
As a side note, I don't think nuclear plants ought to be more productive than coal plants as in civ3. A power plant is a power plant. And I don't think they should be required to be by water. Nuclear plants require water but so do coal plants. I also think the meltdown effect should be done away with. It is extremely unlikely to happen and even when it does it is nowhere as destructive as a nuclear bomb. In fact, pollution from coal plants has killed many more people than even the highest estimates of the deaths from the accident at chernobyl.
The nuclear plants should be more expensive to build than coal/oil but probably less so than hydro, as it is in real life. But the maintenance cost for nuclear (and maybe hydro too) should be lower than for coal/oil to simulate energy independence.
I would do away with solar plants since in real-life they are not very practical. A geothermal plant would be more believable and this could require a volcano nearby. If solar plants are retained they should probably require a desert tile.
This way players would have an incentive to build non-polluting plants, like hydro, or nuclear later on.
Maybe the factories could also slow down population growth to simulate their negative effects on health.
The negative happiness/growth effects could be strongest for coal plants, less for an oil plants, and zero for nuclear/hydro/solar. Although maybe in democracies nuclear plants could be set to cause a bit of unhappiness (but less than coal and no negative growth effects) to simulate anti-nuclear mentalities.
As a side note, I don't think nuclear plants ought to be more productive than coal plants as in civ3. A power plant is a power plant. And I don't think they should be required to be by water. Nuclear plants require water but so do coal plants. I also think the meltdown effect should be done away with. It is extremely unlikely to happen and even when it does it is nowhere as destructive as a nuclear bomb. In fact, pollution from coal plants has killed many more people than even the highest estimates of the deaths from the accident at chernobyl.
The nuclear plants should be more expensive to build than coal/oil but probably less so than hydro, as it is in real life. But the maintenance cost for nuclear (and maybe hydro too) should be lower than for coal/oil to simulate energy independence.
I would do away with solar plants since in real-life they are not very practical. A geothermal plant would be more believable and this could require a volcano nearby. If solar plants are retained they should probably require a desert tile.
