Realistic climate simulation for Civ VII

[martindo]

There is a very interesting 55-minute lecture by planetary geologist Dan Britt given in 2012 which views the issue in geological time:

He brings necessary perspective to the “dire” aspect of hype: sea level has risen and fallen many times in millions of years. The real issue is not “Will Miami ever be under sea level?” but “Do we want it to happen in the near future?”

At least watch the first 5 minutes, then go back to it when you have time.

 

[pokiehl]

differences in architecture, flora, fauna, etc. most of it would be cosmetic, but a good chunk of it would be vital- like altering yields of certain or all crops, disadvantages for units not accustomed to the climate, and so on and so forth. allow minmaxing of climate to make the civilization you want.

I don’t understand how “minmaxing climate” could be a part of a realistic climate simulation. I also think this sounds like a lot of work for something you think would only be cosmetic.

I think the addition of natural disasters was a great idea for civ 6 and I’d like to see additional content added along those lines. Weather could be an interesting addition.

 

[Patine]

Alpha Centauri had surprise geological changes "at random" and IIRC Civ 3 (and earlier versions?) generated pollution if you had too many factories (burning coal) -- it would affect food production.

Civ2 has a system where if pollution generated high enough, certain squares turned to swamp or desert. This was exacerbated by the use of nuclear weapons. Pollution, and it's effects, could be toggled for scenario making (and very few fanmade custom scenarios include it).

 

[Patine]

Several sources indicate a mile-high ice sheet over most of US and Canada, esp the western part. So how exactly did people migrate south via land? Walk on the ice sheet? "Hey, honey, I'll hike down to the ocean and catch some fish for dinner!"

A lot of these theories don't fit well with each other. Many pieces of the puzzle are still missing. When Bering Sea was low, the adjacent part (now Russia) was "polar desert" and the ice sheet blocked land migration south. So were the original Settlers trapped in Alaska for a couple centuries while the ice sheet melted and the sea rose?

Perhaps they got in boats, like a northern version of the Polynesian migration?

If we're assuming the land bridge and ice barrier were exactly coterminous. What looks like a smidget on those prehistoric timecharts could be 500 years, for example, and a lot of migration could be done in that period.

 

[Patine]

I don’t understand how “minmaxing climate” could be a part of a realistic climate simulation. I also think this sounds like a lot of work for something you think would only be cosmetic.

I think the addition of natural disasters was a great idea for civ 6 and I’d like to see additional content added along those lines. Weather could be an interesting addition.

Environmental warfare, like in certain science-fiction.

 

[civilizationfanatic2000]

I don’t understand how “minmaxing climate” could be a part of a realistic climate simulation. I also think this sounds like a lot of work for something you think would only be cosmetic.

I think the addition of natural disasters was a great idea for civ 6 and I’d like to see additional content added along those lines. Weather could be an interesting addition.

You select the climates you want to make a certain type of civilization. Climate and geography makes civilizations develop differently from one another. The parts that aren't cosmetic would be hugely imoprtant.

eh, Buchi's idea is better anyway.

 

[Klaus Hergersheimer]

I believe in noticeable trade-offs. As in, chopping a lot of forests could lead to more floods and landslides or erosion of tiles somehow.
I don't like this curve ball thrown at me of rising sea levels destroying coastal tiles because I build like a couple of coal factories...

 

[Vahnstad]

Yes civ needs realistic climate simulation but i'm not convinced on realistic climate change simulation

Where it needs to be realistic is in map generation which often right now in civ 6 isn't really because the tiles are too small (and deserts and rainforests), or border each other or make no sense at all. A more intelligent climate simulation of the map i'm all in favour off.

Tiles randomly changing over time is a bit weird and the timescale of human civilisation is simply too small and civ 6 already does it kind of allright, pollution mechanics definitely make sense though. In terms of climate change, the climate always has changed, it's never really stable, in fact it cooled down down till industrialization started compared to early Holocene which according to the Milankovich cycles make sense and the Sahara wasn't always a desert too, in fact The ancient Egyptian civilisation was created because of migrating people to the Nile area as the Sahara dried abruptly and intensively (though the process of that happened in waves). Look up green sahara or neolithic subpluvial on google if you want to learn about it more in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period

Since industrialization started, Earth warmed at an unprecedented rate, however changing tiles or making sea levels rise is a bit weird (and also random for gameplay).

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Alpha Centauri had surprise geological changes "at random" and IIRC Civ 3 (and earlier versions?) generated pollution if you had too many factories (burning coal) -- it would affect food production.

Alpha Centauri had verticality, the map was absolutely stunning for its times! Too bad civ 3 didn't follow that example otherwise we would have had a masterpiece even more radical that what it is already! If THAT kind of terrain manipulation is ensued in Civ 7... HK could find itself in BIG trouble as the most beautiful (not necessarily realistic) good looking 4X.
I sincerely DOUBT ARA will get verticality WITH water and ice, shifting SAND... etc... this is the ultimate GOAL to me...
Match an historically accurate game with an accurate realistic rendition of the world, which is also a lot more electricity shaped than SCIENCE wants us to believe.

Watch up Thunderbolt project, Wal Thornill, Albert Halven, on YT to get the full EU picture...

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Full koppen climate simulation. Everything that could possibly go into determining the climate of a world- C02 level, axial tilt, everything. Realistic biomes, too. Actually, you could add elevation too.

Alpha Centaury maps had elevation. Hopefully something on those premises will get ground up..

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Yes civ needs realistic climate simulation but i'm not convinced on realistic climate change simulation

Where it needs to be realistic is in map generation which often right now in civ 6 isn't really because the tiles are too small (and deserts and rainforests), or border each other or make no sense at all. A more intelligent climate simulation of the map i'm all in favour off.

Tiles randomly changing over time is a bit weird and the timescale of human civilisation is simply too small and civ 6 already does it kind of allright, pollution mechanics definitely make sense though. In terms of climate change, the climate always has changed, it's never really stable, in fact it cooled down down till industrialization started compared to early Holocene which according to the Milankovich cycles make sense and the Sahara wasn't always a desert too, in fact The ancient Egyptian civilisation was created because of migrating people to the Nile area as the Sahara dried abruptly and intensively (though the process of that happened in waves). Look up green sahara or neolithic subpluvial on google if you want to learn about it more in depth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/African_humid_period

Since industrialization started, Earth warmed at an unprecedented rate, however changing tiles or making sea levels rise is a bit weird (and also random for gameplay).

Lookup Electric Universe theory. YT channel Thunderbolts of the gods.
There is one lecture, from 2016, which explains how Sun solar maximums relates to increased Magnetism, which leads to increased storms,
whilst Solar minimum translates to increased electricity, droughts and ...earthquakes???

There's just a lot about climate change we are still guessing...

 

[Marla_Singer]

Varying terrains accross the time definitely makes sense, even more so if the beginning of the game would be advanced to 10,000 BCE.

However, we should be cautious with the fact that city (and district placements) are very strategic for the player. And as such, if a perfectly placed city suddenly gets flooded, that could be game-breaking for the player. Sid Meier and other Civ game designers often say that players dislike negative features, I believe that is particularly true in case they cannot be predicted. If you know that in not caring about happiness your city it will end up rioting, than you're ready to accept the negative consequence, because you didn't do what was needed. However, if your best city gets wiped out by a volcanic eruption that you couldn't predict, then you'll get pissed as your whole game will be ruined.

So if you could "predict" that waters will lower or elevate, or that terrain will get drier or colder, you're more ready to accept it. The question is how can you do that without making it feel weird (like the plains tile telling you it will become a desert in 1500 CE).

 

[Lazy sweeper]

Varying terrains accross the time definitely makes sense, even more so if the beginning of the game would be advanced to 10,000 BCE.

However, we should be cautious with the fact that city (and district placements) are very strategic for the player. And as such, if a perfectly placed city suddenly gets flooded, that could be game-breaking for the player. Sid Meier and other Civ game designers often say that players dislike negative features, I believe that is particularly true in case they cannot be predicted. If you know that in not caring about happiness your city it will end up rioting, than you're ready to accept the negative consequence, because you didn't do what was needed. However, if your best city gets wiped out by a volcanic eruption that you couldn't predict, then you'll get pissed as your whole game will be ruined.

So if you could "predict" that waters will lower or elevate, or that terrain will get drier or colder, you're more ready to accept it. The question is how can you do that without making it feel weird (like the plains tile telling you it will become a desert in 1500 CE).

I would combat prediction with civ unique traits.
Any desert civ should be able to thrive in Desert environment, possibly able to build wells, and find 'subterranean' rivers like elephants do.
Any mountain civ will be able to build cities on top of mountains, thus preventing any possible 'flood' scenario possible, but not volcanic eruptions,
which by some extent, are more deadly globally, as dust could freeze climate for years, leading to crop failures, starvation, than direct incineration as Pompeii.
Any Oceanic civs, should be able to 'float' its cities in place (Civ Beyond Earth Sea civ) and move them on water, untill it find shallow waters.
All non extremes specific civs (Romans, England, etc) would have an harder time preventing natural catastrophes, but governments of various kinds which are more complex
than tribal council, usually has various way of coping with rebels with various degrees of success. More all-around cultures, should naturally have more access to complex
economies, and with that, scripture, literature, phylosophy, and by extent of communication, governments techs.

Romans funded Palmyra. Palmyra was dead in the Desert after not a long time after it was funded. It was kept alive only by means of advanced caravans trading.
As soon as trading ended, Palmyra was lost. Rome was not a Desert civ and non Desert civs should all have a hard time building cities in the Desert as Desert civs
building cities on top of mountains, or 'on' water or 'icy snow' or tundra.