[GS] The Climate Change is Irrelevant in My Game

[Tech Osen]

If the main focus is going to be flooding it needs to affect maybe three times more times to actually feel like it's something to worry about. Or also maybe not broadcast what the tiles are in advance so it's so easy to play around (or only let you see that with a certain tech).

Well, IRL early people could also sea if the lands were low. The issue is of course that we know climat change is coming in the game and you can't erase that knowledge.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

I started an "icebreaker" GS game using Trajan with the intent of exploring the new GS mechanics, specifically climate change. The problem is I can't break any ice! No matter what I do the temperature just doesn't go up. I have built what I consider to be more than a few coal fired power plants as well as extensive railroad networks. Nearly nothing.

I was wondering if others were having the same issues.

Spoiler CO2 Levels :

View attachment 518058

Spoiler CO2 Contributions :

View attachment 518059

I have included the save, check it yourself if you're a denier .

I finished by "ice breaker" game and changed my vote from "Yes, nearly nothing or irrelevant." to "Yes, but climate change is somewhat problematic." While the mechanic didn't manifest s quickly as I would have imagined with all the coal fired power plants and railroads I had built, it certainly did come. And it came on fast! As I avoided the coast it was still by and large irrelevant though. Those early game floods though, LOOK OUT! Here are the before and after climate change screens:

Spoiler T208 :

Spoiler T238 :

In my games it's the AI that's blowing out CO2 like there is no tomorrow. I had a one tile island with oil around it, got the barrier up two turns before it would be washed away, glad I checked that one on time.

All ice is gone and water at max now. That's on a standard size continents map with high sea level.​

I remember hearing somewhere that city centers can't be submerged.​

 

[Socrates99]

Just watched a review where the host played a multiplayer game and they all kind of ignored climate change. It looked pretty devastating for some of them. No cities lost but there were disappearing districts that looked like a major bummer. The AI used to be pretty "meh" when it came to improving things, maybe it's just not so pronounced in single player. It might be possible to tilt it by putting industrial civs in the game like Germany, Scotland, Aztec, and maybe Japan?

 

[BarbarianHunter]

Just watched a review where the host played a multiplayer game and they all kind of ignored climate change. It looked pretty devastating for some of them. No cities lost but there were disappearing districts that looked like a major bummer. The AI used to be pretty "meh" when it came to improving things, maybe it's just not so pronounced in single player. It might be possible to tilt it by putting industrial civs in the game like Germany, Scotland, Aztec, and maybe Japan?

LOL. From the 10 or so multiplayer matches I've watched, many appear to be coastal city fanatics. Maybe because of the harbors and lack of trading with the AI? Anyway, an inland Germany with a Hansa in every city with a small map with online speed sounds like a possible tilt maneuver.

 

[TheDisco]

I finished by "ice breaker" game and changed my vote from "Yes, nearly nothing or irrelevant." to "Yes, but climate change is somewhat problematic." While the mechanic didn't manifest s quickly as I would have imagined with all the coal fired power plants and railroads I had built, it certainly did come. And it came on fast! As I avoided the coast it was still by and large irrelevant though. Those early game floods though, LOOK OUT! Here are the before and after climate change screens:

Spoiler T208 :

View attachment 518193

Spoiler T238 :

View attachment 518194

I remember hearing somewhere that city centers can't be submerged.​

So only 1635 AD and already 2.5 meters of sea level rise? If this level of hyper-sensitivity can't be tuned down I'm certainly not buying this expansion. We've been burning CO2 and deforesting for the last 100 years and have less than 10% of that level of rise. So if I set disasters to Level 1 will it be a bit more sane then the default level 2?

 

[Leathaface]

In my games it's the AI that's blowing out CO2 like there is no tomorrow. I had a one tile island with oil around it, got the barrier up two turns before it would be washed away, glad I checked that one on time.
All ice is gone and water at max now. That's on a standard size continents map with high sea level.

Has your game been impacted much with water at max level?

 

[DemonMaster]

So only 1635 AD and already 2.5 meters of sea level rise? If this level of hyper-sensitivity can't be tuned down I'm certainly not buying this expansion. We've been burning CO2 and deforesting for the last 100 years and have less than 10% of that level of rise. So if I set disasters to Level 1 will it be a bit more sane then the default level 2?

The game year is irrelevant. What era is. The game usually progresses to fast, especially on higher difficulty levels.

 

[BarbarianHunter]

So only 1635 AD and already 2.5 meters of sea level rise? If this level of hyper-sensitivity can't be tuned down I'm certainly not buying this expansion. We've been burning CO2 and deforesting for the last 100 years and have less than 10% of that level of rise. So if I set disasters to Level 1 will it be a bit more sane then the default level 2?

I'd approximate the odds at around a snowballs chance in hell.
(warming pun intended)

 

[Sagax]

So only 1635 AD and already 2.5 meters of sea level rise? If this level of hyper-sensitivity can't be tuned down I'm certainly not buying this expansion. We've been burning CO2 and deforesting for the last 100 years and have less than 10% of that level of rise. So if I set disasters to Level 1 will it be a bit more sane then the default level 2?

In game years and water levels are irrelevant - they are not trying to reflect the scientifically accurate real world numbers.

From my understanding, only the tiles marked with the wave icon will potentially get flooded (see Settler Lens). If you settle accordingly, then you can pretty much pay zero attention to the rising sea levels. You also have flood barriers that negate this altogether at the expense of GPT - just make sure to build them preemptively.

 

[UncivilizedGuy]

I found it rather funny that one of the biggest contributors to climate change in my first game was the Maori. I was playing for a Religious victory and fell nearly two eras behind the leader. Global warming reached it’s maximum and there was nothing I could do stop the rising sea levels because I hadn’t unlocked flood barriers. I lost a few improvements and a district.

Interestingly the AI leader (Pericles) was the largest pollutor until he spammed wind and solar farms like crazy. Then suddenly I looked like the bad guy.

 

[NukeAJS]

In the games I played, there weren't many places in danger of flooding so climate change was a bit of a nothing burger.

 

[Troy Bruckner]

Global warming is a hoax for me so far. Even playing on marathon I got oil right after coal so there was no need to build coal plants and then I had solar and wind shortly after that.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Dams and Flood Barriers pretty much mean you can ignore rising sea levels. City states take it in the neck.
Can't even use firetuner to give them the barriers (oops there)

Carbon Capture is really slow if you've dumped 5000 and only get 50 back at a time

 

[Archon_Wing]

Well, as discussed in another thread, there's not much incentive to pollute either. Power is very weak atm.

 

[bravie]

hi all

in my game, forecast of storm,flooding... always 0% at start, is that normal?

 

[AriochIV]

Has your game been impacted much with water at max level?

You lose a few coastal tiles, but you can avoid putting anything important there, as these tiles are marked from the very start of the game (in the Settler lens and in the view where you're placing districts). The chance of storms and droughts increase, but by an insignificant amount.

Climate Change Phase VII and feeling fine.

 

[L4Psha]

There is also strange that temperature still rising, even after all rising stages, but the ice still won't melt completely. Always 85%. And with the temperature rising at 7-8 degrees the planet should be a real greeenhouse at some places, some will no doubt huge change in climate and seasons, but no, no effect. And still 85% of ice.

 

[Human Crouton]

Climate change will never matter in this game. Even if it had a more devastating effect, all it would do is slow all players down on their way to victory. Whoever is in first place when climate change hits, will still be in first place after it hits. The mechanic doesn't really do anything.

 

[NukeAJS]

Chopping woods and rainforest seem to be the biggest contributor to climate change. My first game I chopped everything and climate change got to max level very, very fast. In my second game I chopped almost nothing and the game finished with just level 3 climate change.

 

[SaiH]

I agree that the consequences are more or less inevitable but in the same time not very hurting when you dont place valuable districts on coastal lowlands.
I'd really like to see more information on how the climate is influenced. In the climate overview there is no indication that chopping woods has an impact. Also there is no overview on how your strategic ressources are spent e.g. how many units use how many resources and so on (this would be nice to have anyways and independent from the climate change mechanics).
I find it a bit strange that the main CO2 source are your units. If units should keep emitting CO2 in future balance patches there should at least be the possibility to immobilize them in forts, cities and encampments so that they don't consume any resources. This would also be nice in non climate change related strategic terms – if you don't have much oil you can at least build up a stockpile while a part of your units is immobilized. If you need them for a war you can mobilize them and use your accumulated oil for a while. In addition to that the CO2 emmissions are more closely related to actually using your units.