I have Civ 3 complete I'm trying to understand what global does in this game. I know in Civ 4 it's affect terrain tiles and what not but I can tell what the full effects are in this game. How far can it go? If I just contenously played the same game forever what would be the result?
What does Global Warming do in Civ 3?
- Thread starter Suisami
- Start date
Cyc
Looking for the door...
You would not be able to produce enough food to sustain your population. Your cities would reduce in size until the population became small enough to not create pollution. But they would not grow unless you removed the pollution. The manual describes what happens to the tiles if you don't clear the pollution quick enough.
Global warming will just occasionally change terrain squares, removing forests. No other real impact. You can always re-plant the forest if you want to.
That's different from pollution, which makes tiles unusable by the population until the pollution is cleaned by workers.
That's different from pollution, which makes tiles unusable by the population until the pollution is cleaned by workers.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
Apart from removing forests, it can turn a tundra into grassland, a grassland into plains and a plains into desert. In case the plains is near a river and gets turned, it becomes a floodplain rather than a desert, thus giving an actual advantage.
@Cyc: sorry, but you're quite off-mark this time
Cyc
Looking for the door...
@Cyc: sorry, but you're quite off-mark this time
'Fraid not, tRicky. Read the poorly written Opening Paragragh again.
How far can it go? If I just contenously played the same game forever what would be the result?
I covered the same bases you guys covered, but answered the poster's question a bit more precisely.
EDIT: And where did you get your info? Tundra is not affected by pollution, according to the editor.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
It seems to me that you're confusing global warming with pollution. Although i agree that it's poorly written, the OP asks about the effects of global warming. Pollution isn't even mentioned, and it is not a consequence of global warming (while the opposite, on certain conditions, may be true).
In the long run, the consequences are, to some extent, the ones you describe (starvation, cities dropping in size). But the rest of the advice is misleading. Cities tend to starve because the map, overall, tend to support less food production than before, and there's no way to 'clean' this effect (GW is irreversible, while a polluted tile can be restored).
The cities will drop in size not until they become too small to create pollution, but until a food excess is restored, by either reducing population or increasing irrigation. Pollution is a separate effect, caused by different conditions, although it may worsen the effects of global warming by itself, if neglected.
Ouch! You're right on this. Tundra tiles are not affected.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Ok, let's not mention pollution, then. Tell the poster what preceeds GW. What game feature can exacerbate the GW? What game feature, if held in check can completely eliminate GW. Never mind, I'l say it. Pollution. Plain and simple. The way you manage your cities is directly responsible for the inevitability of GW. I am not confusing pollution with Global Warning. I am talking about the direct cause of GW. Sorry if I didn't put it in words that you understand.
Thank you for agreeing with me, tRicky. As for the where you say the advice is misleading...
I said ~ 'Your cities would reduce in size until the population became small enough to not create pollution. But they would not grow unless you removed the pollution.' This is exactly what you are saying (now that I have brought it up). The city WILL reduce in size, and once it is too small to create pollution, you can clear that pollution so the city will have food sources. You can even irrigate it again to increase the food production. Will it be the same as before? YES! Unless of course you not very good at managing your nation and you let Global Warming occur in your cities. True, that the slovenly habits of the AI also affect the total Global Warming picture, but if you're as good as you indicate, you should be well on your way to a domination of the planet before the other nations can cause you much (if any at all) damage.Would you like to read that again or would you like me to read it to you. If the city does not have enough food to sustain itself, it will reduce in size (population) and most likely to a size where it is not creating pollution. This is a good thing. If the city doesn't shrink to a size where it is no longer creating pollution, then the lathargic player who's not cleaning up his pollution or building improvements to curtail it will have to deal with more pollution. So even if they do clean up some pollution to irrigate, more pollution will show up an nullify their work. The effects of GW can be irrigated, so you're not making much sense here. You would still have to cure the problem before you could hope to recuperate from it. I see your point about how in a nick-picking kind of way, you can disagree with me.For you, the game evidence of Global Warming is all that shoul be discussed here, but it's not. The poster asked 'How far can it go? If I just contenously played the same game forever what would be the result?' I answered the question in a short paragraph. I also wrote where more information could be found about GW.
No. You're missing the point. I can keep pollution in check on my maps, and I haven't seen any Global Warming in I don't know how long. 10 years? Why would anyone let a normal/predictable game function like pollution get so far out of hand that it causes GW and reduces the nation's food supply? Unless maybe you like shooting yourself in the foot.
tR1cKy
taking over the world
Cyc, unless you are a kid (in which case you would be excused) i have to ask you to make an effort to have a more serious argumentation.
Trowing tantrums, twisting my words and pretending that different concepts are the same won't help you prove your point, nor would let you appear any smarter.
First part makes no sense. Second part is right. Third is plain and simply wrong. Even in the case in which you are able to clean all the pollution as soon as it appears, global warming will still manifest itself. All it takes is the presence of buildings that have the potential to generate pollution anywhere on the map, or the presence of metropolis.
Anything that will generate pollution icons in the city screen will give a kick to global warming, regardless of how much pollution is actually present on the map.
Nope. Certain factors are beyond your control: basically, how the AS manage their cities and their efficience in cleaning up their pollution. They basically suck at this, so even if you're flawless chances are that you will still experience global warming.
Which is not pollution. Again, it is the presence of both metropolis and buildings able to generate pollution.
This is just silly.
I don't.
Here you should be more accurate on what you mean.
If you're describing a process, then you're simply dead wrong. Cities would reduce in size until a food excess is restored, regardless of their potential to generate pollution.
If you're describing what could be the long lasting effect of a scenario in which the player neglects cleaning pollution, then it may or may not be true. If, say, a city has a coal plant, its population will never be small enough to negate pollution. Give it enough turns, lots of turns, and eventually all its tiles will become polluted.
Eventually, all the cities would become size 1, with all their radius polluted, but they would still be producing pollution, until, one day, the whole map becomes toxic.
Again, if you're describing a process, then it's simply untrue. The presence of pollution does not prevent a city from growing. A city can grow regardless of how much pollution is present in its radius, as long as it produces enough food to feed its citizens.
If you're describing the possible long-lasting effects of a sloppy playing, then it may as well be true.
No, it's not even close to what i am saying. Please.
This is misleading at its best. That's just not the way it works, nor it is the best way to tackle pollution and food shortages.
You don't have to wait for the city to be 'too small to produce pollution', supposing it is even possible. Pollution has to be cleared ASAP.
This is incorrect. Global warming is irreversible. What you can do, as long as it is possible, is to increase the amount of irrigation in an effort to compensate the loss of food support, but once a grassland will turn into a plain it will NEVER have the same food support as before.
Therefore, the answer is a resounding NO.
Once again, the behaviour of the AI can affect the impact of global warming as well, therefore, this statement is misleading, because it suggests that the behaviour of the human player is the only factor.
Please note that here you're contradicting yourself. Either the human player is the only factor in the impact of global warming or it is not.
Of course, you're right here and wrong before.
What if the player aims for a cultural victory, or a diplomatic victory, or a spaceship victory, or a histographic victory?
All of those scenarios involve playing well into the timeline in which global warming and pollution start kicking in, and without destroying the AS or crossing the domination limit, so we can assume that the AS are still present and can still influence the magnitude of global warming regardless how much good you are at managing cities.
Would you please stop being silly and address my points seriously, as i'm trying to do with you?
So far, this statement is correct.
Excuse me, but are we talking about a lethargic player who does not clean up pollution or about a conscious player who does? And if it's a conscious player, what prevents him to clean up again? Moreover, how exactly those statements of yours constitute a rebuttal of my words, which are:
You are disagreeing with me here? What is wrong and why? How the process you've just described is supposed to invalidate my claim? This is just beyond me.
Sorry, but it's you who's not making much sense here. Once again, global warming is IRREVERSIBLE. A grassland which turns into a plains will never have the same food potential. If the grassland was irrigated, even if you irrigate the resulting plains the food output would still be lower than before.
You can't "irrigate the effects of GW" (which doesn't make any sense per se), you can only try to compensate its damage by irrigating previously mined tiles.
And, once again, how this statement, apart of being wrong, should constitute a rebuttal of my claim?
Well, it much depends on what problem you're talking about (GW? pollution? pollution potential?) and what cure you would suggest to tackle it.
I disagree with you because i see big flaws in what you're saying here.
It's not necessary at all to nitpick.
I stick to the topic. The OP asked specifically about global warming. Driving the focus to the pollution issue, which can exacerbate global warming if neglected but it's not its main cause, seems misleading to me.
In regard to global warming.
You may have been good to entirely avoid global warming at all during your whole Civ carrer, but this hardly constitutes good advice.
If the game goes on past a certain phase, then pollution becomes a necessary evil, and therefore some global warming events are to be expected.
If you want to be fast and efficient during the industrials and the modern age, you're likely to require some plants, and they produce pollution. You're also getting benefits from expanding some cities to metropolis, and this also means pollution.
Keeping one's own entire empire to a state in which the pollution potential is zero is a medicine far worse than the illness it is supposed to cure. You would do much better in having enough spare workers and tackle pollution events as soon as they happen. The loss, if any, is minimal.
Eventually, due to the pollution potential a few global warming events would also happen, but the loss is likely to be minimal. How many turns would your projected victory date be delayed because of those events? One, two? You would lose far more turns by crippling your empire to a point in which pollution and global warming would not occur at all.
Trowing tantrums, twisting my words and pretending that different concepts are the same won't help you prove your point, nor would let you appear any smarter.
First part makes no sense. Second part is right. Third is plain and simply wrong. Even in the case in which you are able to clean all the pollution as soon as it appears, global warming will still manifest itself. All it takes is the presence of buildings that have the potential to generate pollution anywhere on the map, or the presence of metropolis.
Anything that will generate pollution icons in the city screen will give a kick to global warming, regardless of how much pollution is actually present on the map.
Nope. Certain factors are beyond your control: basically, how the AS manage their cities and their efficience in cleaning up their pollution. They basically suck at this, so even if you're flawless chances are that you will still experience global warming.
Which is not pollution. Again, it is the presence of both metropolis and buildings able to generate pollution.
This is just silly.
I don't.
As for the where you say the advice is misleading...
Here you should be more accurate on what you mean.
If you're describing a process, then you're simply dead wrong. Cities would reduce in size until a food excess is restored, regardless of their potential to generate pollution.
If you're describing what could be the long lasting effect of a scenario in which the player neglects cleaning pollution, then it may or may not be true. If, say, a city has a coal plant, its population will never be small enough to negate pollution. Give it enough turns, lots of turns, and eventually all its tiles will become polluted.
Eventually, all the cities would become size 1, with all their radius polluted, but they would still be producing pollution, until, one day, the whole map becomes toxic.
Again, if you're describing a process, then it's simply untrue. The presence of pollution does not prevent a city from growing. A city can grow regardless of how much pollution is present in its radius, as long as it produces enough food to feed its citizens.
If you're describing the possible long-lasting effects of a sloppy playing, then it may as well be true.
No, it's not even close to what i am saying. Please.
This is misleading at its best. That's just not the way it works, nor it is the best way to tackle pollution and food shortages.
You don't have to wait for the city to be 'too small to produce pollution', supposing it is even possible. Pollution has to be cleared ASAP.
This is incorrect. Global warming is irreversible. What you can do, as long as it is possible, is to increase the amount of irrigation in an effort to compensate the loss of food support, but once a grassland will turn into a plain it will NEVER have the same food support as before.
Therefore, the answer is a resounding NO.
Once again, the behaviour of the AI can affect the impact of global warming as well, therefore, this statement is misleading, because it suggests that the behaviour of the human player is the only factor.
Please note that here you're contradicting yourself. Either the human player is the only factor in the impact of global warming or it is not.
Of course, you're right here and wrong before.
What if the player aims for a cultural victory, or a diplomatic victory, or a spaceship victory, or a histographic victory?
All of those scenarios involve playing well into the timeline in which global warming and pollution start kicking in, and without destroying the AS or crossing the domination limit, so we can assume that the AS are still present and can still influence the magnitude of global warming regardless how much good you are at managing cities.
Would you please stop being silly and address my points seriously, as i'm trying to do with you?
So far, this statement is correct.
Excuse me, but are we talking about a lethargic player who does not clean up pollution or about a conscious player who does? And if it's a conscious player, what prevents him to clean up again? Moreover, how exactly those statements of yours constitute a rebuttal of my words, which are:
tR1cKy said:
You are disagreeing with me here? What is wrong and why? How the process you've just described is supposed to invalidate my claim? This is just beyond me.
Sorry, but it's you who's not making much sense here. Once again, global warming is IRREVERSIBLE. A grassland which turns into a plains will never have the same food potential. If the grassland was irrigated, even if you irrigate the resulting plains the food output would still be lower than before.
You can't "irrigate the effects of GW" (which doesn't make any sense per se), you can only try to compensate its damage by irrigating previously mined tiles.
And, once again, how this statement, apart of being wrong, should constitute a rebuttal of my claim?
Well, it much depends on what problem you're talking about (GW? pollution? pollution potential?) and what cure you would suggest to tackle it.
I disagree with you because i see big flaws in what you're saying here.
It's not necessary at all to nitpick.
I stick to the topic. The OP asked specifically about global warming. Driving the focus to the pollution issue, which can exacerbate global warming if neglected but it's not its main cause, seems misleading to me.
In regard to global warming.
You may have been good to entirely avoid global warming at all during your whole Civ carrer, but this hardly constitutes good advice.
If the game goes on past a certain phase, then pollution becomes a necessary evil, and therefore some global warming events are to be expected.
If you want to be fast and efficient during the industrials and the modern age, you're likely to require some plants, and they produce pollution. You're also getting benefits from expanding some cities to metropolis, and this also means pollution.
Keeping one's own entire empire to a state in which the pollution potential is zero is a medicine far worse than the illness it is supposed to cure. You would do much better in having enough spare workers and tackle pollution events as soon as they happen. The loss, if any, is minimal.
Eventually, due to the pollution potential a few global warming events would also happen, but the loss is likely to be minimal. How many turns would your projected victory date be delayed because of those events? One, two? You would lose far more turns by crippling your empire to a point in which pollution and global warming would not occur at all.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Here I was, tRicky, thinking you were worthy of having a discussion with. My mistake. You obviously only want to hear what you want to hear.
I play huge Maps, I try to get as many cities to size 30 as I can. That is a common goal. I clean pollution, I build improvements that limit pollution, I build Factories and an occaisional Coal Plant on the coast. I play well into the Modern Age every game. I try for Culture Victories. I launch from the planet. And I never see the effects of Global Warming.
You on the other hand try to end your games as quickly as possible. So your experiences are not the same as mine. Yet you come back with these bizzare statements about what you believe I said.
Are you just looking for trouble?
I play huge Maps, I try to get as many cities to size 30 as I can. That is a common goal. I clean pollution, I build improvements that limit pollution, I build Factories and an occaisional Coal Plant on the coast. I play well into the Modern Age every game. I try for Culture Victories. I launch from the planet. And I never see the effects of Global Warming.
You on the other hand try to end your games as quickly as possible. So your experiences are not the same as mine. Yet you come back with these bizzare statements about what you believe I said.
Are you just looking for trouble?
I'm at a bit of a loss as to the reason for this rather odd debate that has sprung up here, it seems to be fully fledged nit-pick session. The nit that I'd like to pick is these sentences as these relate to most of my games:
This is incorrect because if you are attempting the earliest possible victory then it's highly unlikely you would even need any Industrial Age techs and excluding the Shakespeare Wonder there's no way you can cause pollution prior to the Industrial Age.
And, even if you yourself enter the Industrial Age ahead of the AI civs, there's not necessarily any speed advantage to be gained by building Factories and Hospitals because, at that point, Unique Unit Knights/Cavalry are still the quickest attacking units and you already should have enough to do the job. Only by some very niche and specific scenario would going to all the polava of Hospitals and Factories (which can even reduce your army size due to the additional costs of the buildings) actually 'save' you 'a few turns' and, for the most part, unless you're desperate for a Hall of Fame game result, is certainly not worth the additional game-time Irritations involved in this process versus a couple of extra turns.
As for the Opening Post on this thread then the answer is pretty easy:
Each turn the programme will make a random 'roll' to decide if there's going to be any global warming. The percentage chance increases based on the quantity of Yellow Triangles in all the city screens and Pollution Tiles that might have been caused by Volcanoes or Nuclear Bombs or City excess.
But when the random roll does provide Global Warming it's effects are so small and ineffective as to be virtually non-existent in a real sense. A couple of squares will alter what they produce and then you have to wait for the next 'roll' to come along and do a couple more Tiles.
Quite soon after purchasing this game I tried to force Global Warming to see how bad it could get, but after 50-100 turns of pressing 'End Turn' the net result was so pathetic that I calculated that waiting for a 'radical' change to take place would require the most immense amount of 'End Turning' as to be almost impossible. You could get the same result simply by starting on an Arid, Cold, 3 Billion Year Old map and save yourself all the 'End Turning'.
Water levels neither rise nor fall and the shapes of the landmasses are unchangeable.
This is incorrect because if you are attempting the earliest possible victory then it's highly unlikely you would even need any Industrial Age techs and excluding the Shakespeare Wonder there's no way you can cause pollution prior to the Industrial Age.
And, even if you yourself enter the Industrial Age ahead of the AI civs, there's not necessarily any speed advantage to be gained by building Factories and Hospitals because, at that point, Unique Unit Knights/Cavalry are still the quickest attacking units and you already should have enough to do the job. Only by some very niche and specific scenario would going to all the polava of Hospitals and Factories (which can even reduce your army size due to the additional costs of the buildings) actually 'save' you 'a few turns' and, for the most part, unless you're desperate for a Hall of Fame game result, is certainly not worth the additional game-time Irritations involved in this process versus a couple of extra turns.
As for the Opening Post on this thread then the answer is pretty easy:
Each turn the programme will make a random 'roll' to decide if there's going to be any global warming. The percentage chance increases based on the quantity of Yellow Triangles in all the city screens and Pollution Tiles that might have been caused by Volcanoes or Nuclear Bombs or City excess.
But when the random roll does provide Global Warming it's effects are so small and ineffective as to be virtually non-existent in a real sense. A couple of squares will alter what they produce and then you have to wait for the next 'roll' to come along and do a couple more Tiles.
Quite soon after purchasing this game I tried to force Global Warming to see how bad it could get, but after 50-100 turns of pressing 'End Turn' the net result was so pathetic that I calculated that waiting for a 'radical' change to take place would require the most immense amount of 'End Turning' as to be almost impossible. You could get the same result simply by starting on an Arid, Cold, 3 Billion Year Old map and save yourself all the 'End Turning'.
Water levels neither rise nor fall and the shapes of the landmasses are unchangeable.
MPK
prince
= I thought this was the final and simple answer, or should have been . think it was thread 3 ? .....
maurcus
Warlord
- Joined
- May 24, 2012
- Messages
- 245
I once played a game where I had a city in the middle of the hills and about 15 turns into nuclear Armageddon global warming started. 50 turns of nuclear war and my city had 4 tiles of coast around it. I'm not sure it always works like that but that's how it happened in my game, I cant remember if it was a mod or not.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
= I thought this was the final and simple answer, or should have been . think it was thread 3 ? .....
Yeah, if you read the OP like tRicky reads the OP that would be a great answer. But the poster didn't ask for a defiition of GW. The poster asked what would hapen if he ignored conditions and kept on playing forever. That's what I was addressing. Ask any of these players who have experimented with GW if there was any orange pollution or poison on the map. Ask them if this caused any kind of food shortage. Did my answer adress any of that? Yes it did. I also gave the poster somewhere to go to find out all the acdemia on how tiles change. MysteryX's answer was incomplete, in that there are other changes. Grassland to Plains, Plains to desert, (NOT Tundra to Grassland), AND deforestation.
I am not the one nit-picking here, Buttercup. BTW, your answer doesn't address the poster's question either.
GW is the result of a player's game strategy. One can tend to their cities, building improvements to slow pollution, and clearing pollution with Workers, or ignore the situation and go straight to GW. I would suppose most land somewhere in between and just use workers on a "whack-a-mole" strategy for cleaning pollution. It's a lifestyle, if you will, this game strategy. Compare it to someone who smokes cigarettes. The tar they put in their lungs is the orange pollution that appears in the game. You build up years of tar in the lungs, and you will start to feel the effects. Cancer could be seen as the GW in the game. But if you don't smoke (or even quit smoking), you greatly reduce your chances of getting lung Cancer. It's a lifestyle choice.
That's all I'm saying. GW is the result of poor city maintenace, yours and the AIs. Pollution build up leads to GW.
I get "GW", too, and I minimize the number of factories, clean up pollution ASAP (numerous workers doing cleanup at each site - 2 turns, 3 max). I also build Mass Transit and Recycling Center as soon as I can, in all cities. I also plant forests wherever I can without restricting the use of the land for food production. I think that's supposed to help.
I've never seen "GW" go farther than a tile going one degradation. I have no idea what would happen if I let it stay that way and kept playing the game after someone wins. I don't see it as a very important part of the game.
I've never seen "GW" go farther than a tile going one degradation. I have no idea what would happen if I let it stay that way and kept playing the game after someone wins. I don't see it as a very important part of the game.
to answer the OP:
Marshes will turn into sea, jungles and forests will turn to plains and grass and grass into plains and plains will turn into deserts.
If the new grass turns into plains and the plains into deserts again - I think it will.
So in the end you will have one big desert with, tundras, hills and mountains and some floodplains where rivers flow. The only place where you can live is around rivers. The Civs with the flood plains will buy all the luxuries that the ones without the flood plains have. Their civs will exist on 1 population cities.
You'll be playing on an irrigated moon. Imagine the north of Africa - all over the world.
Marshes will turn into sea, jungles and forests will turn to plains and grass and grass into plains and plains will turn into deserts.
If the new grass turns into plains and the plains into deserts again - I think it will.
So in the end you will have one big desert with, tundras, hills and mountains and some floodplains where rivers flow. The only place where you can live is around rivers. The Civs with the flood plains will buy all the luxuries that the ones without the flood plains have. Their civs will exist on 1 population cities.
You'll be playing on an irrigated moon. Imagine the north of Africa - all over the world.
CELTICEMPIRE
Zulu Conqueror
Do the mountains stay?
tR1cKy
taking over the world
Cyc, what's wrong with you?
Sometimes you are a good advisor to the newbies, and some other times you behave as if you were the next buttercup: you post claims that are bound to be challenged and when it happens you just can't stand to see them challenged. You throw tantrums, attack the messenger, appeal to a self-appointed authority, twist words, climb mirrors... anything it takes to not concede that you've been wrong.
I have bad news for you: sometimes, somewhere, it may happen that you are wrong on something. Live with it.
To me, this reply of yours is just a silly attempt at lording me about Civ3. The whole meaning of it may be summed up with "i know better than you, therefore your points aren't even worth being discussed, i am right and you are wrong, period"
Well, i have more bad news for you: you're no lord here.
If you want to prove me wrong, you have to point out where and why i am wrong. If you don't have the time, the will or the necessary arguments, then conceding the point and staying shut may be a better course of action than pretending that i am not worth a reply and that you are right just because of your self-appointed authority, without even addressing a single objection of mine.
This is not personal, the problem i have here is with some of your claims about pollution and global warming that i consider, to a certain extent, inaccurate and misleading.
You pretend that pollution is the primary cause of global warming. This is akin to stating that the chimpanzee is the ancestor of Homo Sapiens, which is flat out wrong. What really happens is that the chimp and the human have a common ancestor. Similarly, pollution and global warming have a common root cause, that is the amount of pollution points on the map.
I'll explain this concept better, for the sake of the less experienced (i don't expect, at this point, that you would be willing to give any credit to my explanation). The pollution points correspond to the pollution icons that appear on the bottom of the city screen, each of them counting as a pollution point.
Pollution points come from two sources: buildings (factory, coal plant, iron works, airport, manifacturing plant) and population (1 per pop over 12, as far as i know, with a minimum of 2). Some building do reduce pollution points: a mass transit system will reduce the amount generated by its population to the minimum value of 2, while a recycling center do negate the pollution points generated by buildings.
The total sum of pollution points generated on the whole world gives the magnitude of the two phenomena: the higher this number, the more likely it is to have random tiles to become polluted and global warming event to occur.
About global warming, i actually have some doubts on one particular aspect. From reports i've read on the Apolython forum, i suspect that, for the sake of calculating the magnitude of global warming, the number of pollution points is actually summed up turn after turn, thus causing global warming to never go down, but only to stay at the same level in the best possible case or to worsen up otherwise.
Anyway, the implication is that both those phenomena are bound to occur at some point. All it takes is a city becoming a metropolis or a polluting building being built by someone, somewhere. Pretending to negate them with a "conscious" management of one own's empire is just wishful thinking, and even if it could be achieved it wouldn't be worth it, because the self-imposed limitations would hamper the potential of said empire in a far worse way. It makes sense to just accept the fact, limit the pollution points to a reasonable level and be ready to clear the damage or to adjust the tile improvements around cities.
Therefore, your claim that the human player, by the way it manages its empire, is directly responsible for the occurence of pollution and global warming is incorrect as well. It is responsible only in part. The other part is beyond its control.
More could be said about your lack of consistency. Is the human player the sole responsible of pollution or not? Do the AIs play a role or not? Is the role of the AIs relevant or irrelevant? You can't have both ways. Please take a stand. This inconsistency would do no good to those who seek advice.
Finally, i have a question:
What is it even supposed to mean? What is the nature of those "troubles" you suggest i'm seeking?
Sometimes you are a good advisor to the newbies, and some other times you behave as if you were the next buttercup: you post claims that are bound to be challenged and when it happens you just can't stand to see them challenged. You throw tantrums, attack the messenger, appeal to a self-appointed authority, twist words, climb mirrors... anything it takes to not concede that you've been wrong.
I have bad news for you: sometimes, somewhere, it may happen that you are wrong on something. Live with it.
To me, this reply of yours is just a silly attempt at lording me about Civ3. The whole meaning of it may be summed up with "i know better than you, therefore your points aren't even worth being discussed, i am right and you are wrong, period"
Well, i have more bad news for you: you're no lord here.
If you want to prove me wrong, you have to point out where and why i am wrong. If you don't have the time, the will or the necessary arguments, then conceding the point and staying shut may be a better course of action than pretending that i am not worth a reply and that you are right just because of your self-appointed authority, without even addressing a single objection of mine.
This is not personal, the problem i have here is with some of your claims about pollution and global warming that i consider, to a certain extent, inaccurate and misleading.
You pretend that pollution is the primary cause of global warming. This is akin to stating that the chimpanzee is the ancestor of Homo Sapiens, which is flat out wrong. What really happens is that the chimp and the human have a common ancestor. Similarly, pollution and global warming have a common root cause, that is the amount of pollution points on the map.
I'll explain this concept better, for the sake of the less experienced (i don't expect, at this point, that you would be willing to give any credit to my explanation). The pollution points correspond to the pollution icons that appear on the bottom of the city screen, each of them counting as a pollution point.
Pollution points come from two sources: buildings (factory, coal plant, iron works, airport, manifacturing plant) and population (1 per pop over 12, as far as i know, with a minimum of 2). Some building do reduce pollution points: a mass transit system will reduce the amount generated by its population to the minimum value of 2, while a recycling center do negate the pollution points generated by buildings.
The total sum of pollution points generated on the whole world gives the magnitude of the two phenomena: the higher this number, the more likely it is to have random tiles to become polluted and global warming event to occur.
About global warming, i actually have some doubts on one particular aspect. From reports i've read on the Apolython forum, i suspect that, for the sake of calculating the magnitude of global warming, the number of pollution points is actually summed up turn after turn, thus causing global warming to never go down, but only to stay at the same level in the best possible case or to worsen up otherwise.
Anyway, the implication is that both those phenomena are bound to occur at some point. All it takes is a city becoming a metropolis or a polluting building being built by someone, somewhere. Pretending to negate them with a "conscious" management of one own's empire is just wishful thinking, and even if it could be achieved it wouldn't be worth it, because the self-imposed limitations would hamper the potential of said empire in a far worse way. It makes sense to just accept the fact, limit the pollution points to a reasonable level and be ready to clear the damage or to adjust the tile improvements around cities.
Therefore, your claim that the human player, by the way it manages its empire, is directly responsible for the occurence of pollution and global warming is incorrect as well. It is responsible only in part. The other part is beyond its control.
More could be said about your lack of consistency. Is the human player the sole responsible of pollution or not? Do the AIs play a role or not? Is the role of the AIs relevant or irrelevant? You can't have both ways. Please take a stand. This inconsistency would do no good to those who seek advice.
Finally, i have a question:
Are you just looking for trouble?
What is it even supposed to mean? What is the nature of those "troubles" you suggest i'm seeking?
Fiddlin Nero
Prince
In PTW Global Warming is also caused by going above a certain number of cities which varies with at least map size. Is it the same in Conquests?
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Whatever, tRicky. Once again, you post things that make you appear you haven't even read my posts. So what's the point of discussion?
Here's the last line of my last post ~
"That's all I'm saying. GW is the result of poor city maintenace, yours and the AIs. Pollution build up leads to GW."
Why would you write something bizzare like ~
"More could be said about your lack of consistency. Is the human player the sole responsible of pollution or not? Do the AIs play a role or not? Is the role of the AIs relevant or irrelevant? You can't have both ways. Please take a stand. This inconsistency would do no good to those who seek advice."
Doesn't make sense. I don't see the point in discussing it further, especially as I have said similar things prior to that. You only hear what you want to hear.
The rest of your post basically agrees with what I've said. But listen. In the example I use about a smoking lifestyle, I talk about 3 things. The cigarettes, the tar in your lungs, and the Cancer. Ya with me so far? Good.
Now, you can buy a pack of cigarettes, put them in front of you and stare at them for years, and they won't give you Cancer. But if yu buy a pack everyday and smoke them, your lungs will be coated with pollution. This will probably give you Cancer. So are the cigarettes the cause of Cancer? Or is smoking the cause of Cancer. Just because you always carry around a pack of cigarettes does mean you're putting yourself at risk of lung cancer. You have to change your lifestyle and start participating in that nasty habit.
The Pollution shields you speak of cause pollution. Those Pollution you speak of are generated by population levels and pollution producing buildings. Too much pollution causes the Global Warming. By managing your cities to curtail rampant pollution, you can delay or even eliminate GW in your cities. I can't say GW doesn't happen in AI cities, as the AI does not report to me. But I can say it doesn't happen in my cities, because the game will report that to me.
Doesn't matter. You're not going to read this anyway. Say what you want.
Here's the last line of my last post ~
"That's all I'm saying. GW is the result of poor city maintenace, yours and the AIs. Pollution build up leads to GW."
Why would you write something bizzare like ~
"More could be said about your lack of consistency. Is the human player the sole responsible of pollution or not? Do the AIs play a role or not? Is the role of the AIs relevant or irrelevant? You can't have both ways. Please take a stand. This inconsistency would do no good to those who seek advice."
Doesn't make sense. I don't see the point in discussing it further, especially as I have said similar things prior to that. You only hear what you want to hear.
The rest of your post basically agrees with what I've said. But listen. In the example I use about a smoking lifestyle, I talk about 3 things. The cigarettes, the tar in your lungs, and the Cancer. Ya with me so far? Good.
Now, you can buy a pack of cigarettes, put them in front of you and stare at them for years, and they won't give you Cancer. But if yu buy a pack everyday and smoke them, your lungs will be coated with pollution. This will probably give you Cancer. So are the cigarettes the cause of Cancer? Or is smoking the cause of Cancer. Just because you always carry around a pack of cigarettes does mean you're putting yourself at risk of lung cancer. You have to change your lifestyle and start participating in that nasty habit.
The Pollution shields you speak of cause pollution. Those Pollution you speak of are generated by population levels and pollution producing buildings. Too much pollution causes the Global Warming. By managing your cities to curtail rampant pollution, you can delay or even eliminate GW in your cities. I can't say GW doesn't happen in AI cities, as the AI does not report to me. But I can say it doesn't happen in my cities, because the game will report that to me.
Doesn't matter. You're not going to read this anyway. Say what you want.
Similar threads
