1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Recycling doesn't stop global warming: Shocking evidence!

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Unofficial Patches' started by Minor Annoyance, Jul 2, 2008.

  1. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    I modded the forge to give 99:yuck: and for recycling centres to be free for new cities. Then I crammed 18 civs into a duel sized map with all grasslands and no forest or jungles and start in the future era. I build my first city which has about 5:yuck: from population and everything else cancelled out by the recycling centre. I hit next turn, everyone else builds their first city and BAM! Six deserts. What madness is this! What demon clawed his way through the illusionary veil of a good an just world to abide such a scourge.:evil:
    I was originally looking into how environmentalism indirectly increases global warming. It gives more :health: which then allows you to have more :yuck: buildings which would increase global warming. I was going to change the civic to give health to :yuck: buildings to even it out. I tested it with the 99:yuck: forge and all economy civics giving 99:health: to the forge to see if the GW calculation uses the total health factor of a building or just what unhealthiness it gives. I was just the unhealthiness. I then went to test the recycling centres and... this happened. Recycling and environmentalism serve to increase global warming! Somewhere Al Gore vomits with rage. At best one would vomit with rage at such a revelation. :suicide:

    See for yourself. Download the CIV4BuildingInfos file here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=181793&d=1214986026
    and place it in D:\My Documents\My Games\Beyond the Sword\CustomAssets\xml\buildings
    Then set up the game like I did and watch the earth BURN!!! The horror! The HORROR!! Aaaaaaaarrrrgggghhhhh!!! [pissed]
    </scene>

    Seriously though, what's to be done?
     
  2. kazapp

    kazapp Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2006
    Messages:
    1,058
    You sure this is just a "Minor Annoyance" for you...?
     
  3. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    Hm. Using net unhealth (ie. :yuck: - :health: ) would also have weird effects - you could offset the greenhouse gas emissions by catching more fish!

    One possibility would be to, for each city, subtract a percentage of the :yuck: count for the purposes of global warming for each "green" factor present (say, -25% for Recycling Center, -25% for Mass Transit, -25% for running Environmentalism - numbers just for illustration).
     
  4. Woody1

    Woody1 Prince

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2002
    Messages:
    468
    Location:
    Texas
    Or, just edit out the stupid global warming completely. End of problem.

    There's way to much environmental crap in Civ 4. I noticed a "Earth Day" event the last game I played. Dreck.
     
  5. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    My idea was for it just to use the net health of the unhealthy buildings. Then I'd mod environmentalism to give +:health: to six unhealthy buildings instead of just the 6:health: overall. Then with the recycling centre you'd get the +6:health: it originally gave, although it would be odd seeing factories and forges giving positive :health:, I'd still think of it as the recycling centre and the civic doing the :health: even though it's attached to other things.
     
  6. Psyringe

    Psyringe Scout

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2001
    Messages:
    3,394
    Location:
    Berlin, Germany
    Solver, what's your take on global warming? Do you think it's something that the unofficial patch could/should deal with?

    Personally, I think so, because the current game mechanics don't work as intended imho. I can't imagine Firaxis intending the effect that recycling centers and green economy help to *increase* global warming because they allow for more unhealthiness in the cities.
     
  7. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    I don't think that Recycling Centers should have any impact on GW. Here's why.

    Under 3.13 (and indeed in previous versions of Civ IV) there was almost no reason to EVER build anything other than coal plants. Build 'em, then allieviate the health problems with Recycling centers. No reason to wait and pay extra for Hydro Plants, no reason to wait and risk meltdowns with nuke plants.

    Under the new 3.17 system, you can still use RC's to get rid of the unhealthiness impacts on population. But not the effects of global warming. So there is still a cost to building the coal plants (which remain cheap and have early availability). It isn't as cut-and-dried.

    Now, there may be some tweaking that needs to be done with this...I think it's a bit daft to have unhealthiness from drydocks or laboratories or perhaps unpowered factories count toward global warming. But I don't think that players should be allowed to use recycling centers as a get-out-of-jail-free card for global warming.
     
  8. DanF5771

    DanF5771 Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,194
    But Coal Plants add just 2 unhealthies per city, if your idea should keep me away from Coal Plants to decrease GW, they would need an even higher unhealthiness penalty, like 3 or 4.
    I think letting a RC halve a cities contribution to GW would be nice.
     
  9. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    That is a good point about the coal plants. maybe it should be changed so resources contribute to GW and then lower the impact so the buildings + resources would still have the same effect that it is now then move some of the :yuck: from coal plants to the coal resource.
     
  10. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
    If you think about it, it makes more sense for recycling centres to negate :yuck: from resources not buildings, there isn't enough :yuck: on resources so that would require moving some around, and that's more of a mod than a patch.
     
  11. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    I wish I could claim credit for this insight, but it actually came from Blake (all hail Blake!) in one of the Polycasts from last year.

    Interesting idea on having resources contributing to GW. (I confess ignorance on how it works now). So it's just the building unhealthiness, not the "power" unhealthiness contributing to GW now? Is that right?

    DanF: basically, you ARE getting +4 unhealthiness from your coal plants: 2 for the plant itself, and 2 when it's hooked up to a coal resource.

    I had some other thoughts on the subject after hearing people's complaints in various threads....I posted them in one of those other threads. For those who are interested, here they are:




     
  12. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario
  13. DanF5771

    DanF5771 Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,194
    Yeah, I was wrong, but it seems you are too.
    Because the fossil fuels burning, CO2 puffing Coal Plants do not contribute to Global Warming at all! :lol::crazyeye::lol: :confused:

    They just don't have native unhealthiness (in contrast to Forges, Labs, Drydocks, ...) which is the only unhealthiness considered in pCity->getBuildingBadHealth() during the calculation of a city's contribution to GW. All their unhealthiness comes from the dirty power provided by the Coal resource (2:yuck: from base power & another 2:yuck: from dirty power, which is omitted when the city has access to clean power).

    So as it is implemented now, building Coal Plants everywhere (as usual) does not increase GW.

    Should definitely be changed.
     
  14. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

    I'm pretty sure Coal Plants have a permanent +2 unhealthiness attached to them regardless of power supply.

    Although it would make more sense for unhealthiness from power to have more of an impact on GW calculations than just the building's base unhealthiness.
     
  15. DanF5771

    DanF5771 Emperor

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2008
    Messages:
    1,194
    Here is an overview of the industrial buildings and their health effects (from buildings XML):


    Only the Factory and the Industrial Park have permanent unhealthiness.

    So a city with a Forge, a Factory and Coal Plant but without Coal (no power) has just +2:yuck: from Forge/Factory:


    Same city with Coal +4:yuck: from dirty power +2:yuck: Coal-unhealthiness from Factory:


    Same city with Coal but also a Hydro Plant (clean power):
     
  16. jkp1187

    jkp1187 Unindicted Co-Conspirator

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Location:
    Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
    Well, I gladly stand corrected. :)

    So the power unhealthiness doesn't count at all for GW? If so, that definitely needs to be changed.
     
  17. Dresden

    Dresden Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2008
    Messages:
    1,081
    It's interesting and strange to me that some buildings irreversibly contribute to global warming, but coal plants and the use of coal and oil resources do not.

    For what it's worth, I did some testing on this (BTS 3.17 with Solver's 0.19 patch) and I suspect that if one wanted to make recycling centers counteract the global warming effects of building pollution, it would actually be pretty easy. The getBuildingBadHealth() function results don't change with the building of a recycling center, but the totalBadBuildingHealth() function does reflect the recycling center's effect.

    See the following image comparing the results of the calls to the Python versions of those two functions before and after a recycling center is built:



    Note that following the building of a Recycling Center, the value of getBuildingBadHealth() (highlighted with a yellow box) does not change from -4; however, the value of totalBadBuildingHealth() (highlighted with a green box) does become zero and the overall sum of building-related health values improves from +2 to +6.

    So I assume that having the global warming function call pCity->totalBadBuildingHealth() instead of the current getBuildingBadHealth() should allow recycling centers to counteract building pollution in the global warming calculation too. However, I do understand the point brought up by jkp1187 that recycling centers shouldn't provide a "get out of jail free" card and the changelog as posted in http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=6939035&postcount=2 doesn't specifically mention any positive benefit from Recycling Centers so this is probably the intended behavior even if it might be confusing.

    Anyhow, some random fairly simple ideas which occurred to me regarding the chances for Global Warming:

    Making Recycling Centers Effective
    Have the global warming function use the average of getBuildingBadHealth() and totalBadBuildingHealth(). Prior to Ecology the global warming chances would be the same as they are now since both values would be the same, but Recycling Centers could then cut the global-warming impact of unhealthy buildings in half; you don't get a free pass but you do get a bit of a break. And you can tweak the calculation and the weighting factor to balance it out if that's too good of an impact.

    Putting Power into the Equation
    Instead of (or in addition to) building-related unhealthiness, link global warming to power. If the global warming function used getPowerBadHealth() instead then you'd get -4 with dirty power (the same number as a city with forge, factory, & industrial park with the current mechanics) and -2 with clean power; this makes more sense to me from a "reality" standpoint. And, similar to the above, you can reduce, but not eliminate, the global-warming impact with "greener" infrastructure.

    Giving Environmentalism an Impact
    I think that Environmentalism as a civic really should have some positive effect regarding GW since it's supposed to represent a national commitment to ecologically sound choices. One way to do this is to get a ratio such as total population (or number) of cities in environmental civs / total world population (or number of cities) and then use that ratio as part of a weighting factor to reduce GW chances. As a rough example, with a global Enviro weight of 40%, then the chance of GW could be cut by 40% if the entire world was environmental but only by 20% if half the world was environmental. Obviously those numbers are just for illustration.
     
  18. Spitefire

    Spitefire Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2007
    Messages:
    340
    If you are retooling and you dont mind takeing requests, a method to reverse the damage would be nice. (i dont particularly like the end of the world ideaology behind the GW feature)

    Thank you for takeing the time to read my request.
     
  19. Minor Annoyance

    Minor Annoyance Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2007
    Messages:
    2,247
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Hamilton, Ontario

Share This Page