Why is this ModMod Not in C2C Already?

[Thunderbrd]

The biggest late-game balance issue I experience is that production is too low, starting around the Atomic Era.

Is production too low or are costs too high? One must always wonder - like the chicken or the egg sort of thing. My last cost chart is much more forgiving on production costs so once completely implemented throughout both units (units already completed) AND buildings (in process, about 2/5ths of the way through the core normal buildings so far - LONG process) then you may find the production might not be as far off.

That said, it's as you say, there's many ways to add more at this stage. Lots of techs that could be used to introduce buffs for production. I'm just advising not to go overboard before the recosting is complete as the late game is getting a fairly dramatic reduction in costs from the last chart version.

The +100 Air actually needs to be a -100 Air pollution.

I'm pretty sure it was intended that it would clean water pollution at the cost of worsening air pollution. It cleans twice as much water pollution as it gives in air pollution. There should be a similar building to switch the other way, and if both are built, then you've got a profit of 100 cleaner on both ends. I'm not sure it's intended that both can be built in the city, as it's meant to be a severe response mechanism, that puts you somewhat out of the frying pan and into the fire so to speak.

Fire, I think is an appropriate answer to why this is as well. The reason is how the 'scrubbing' takes place is fire based so puts a good portion of the ground toxins into the sky. This is pretty common reality for our cleanup efforts, that one type of cleanup tends to gradually create a problem to address in the other type. Incinerators are great examples... they pretty much get rid of most landfill needs but then pollutes the air significantly, even with all the reburning we do to minimize the impact. Of course, we often get some energy from them too, and the alternative of burning a fossil fuel wouldn't usually be much better.

But once you've built up so much air pollution in the atmosphere, you're GOING to start feeling some real real bad effects! It's possibly already too late to save our planet from what we've already done... quite likely really that we'll all learn to live in artificial bubbles here on Earth before we ever start colonizing space much. Perhaps that practice on our home ground will finally give us the manufacturing infrastructure to really support space colonization and will therefore be a blessing in hellish disguise. Gotta feel bad for the wilderness as it slowly and painfully dies off though.

If Aesthetics Tradition Is Not available to get, then it needs to be figured out how Any AI or player can get it in the late game.

As I noted in that thread, I'd like to see workers get a buildup to enable them to do some cleanup. I think it would be helpfull to have workers be capable of doing something truly usefull when they aren't needed for anything else. It should be a very gradual buildup though, perhaps very tech restricted so that only the later techs really enable them to be much more than a small drop in a bucket with it.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm pretty sure it was intended that it would clean water pollution at the cost of worsening air pollution. It cleans twice as much water pollution as it gives in air pollution.

Oh I'm sure it was but the timing is terrible and the "cost of worsening Air" negates the water improvement. There are More Bad Air "disasters" with stronger effects than there are Water. And If I'm not mistaken these Disaster chains add up and not just replace.

 

[JosEPh_II]

It's possibly already too late to save our planet from what we've already done... quite likely really that we'll all learn to live in artificial bubbles here on Earth before we ever start colonizing space much. Perhaps that practice on our home ground will finally give us the manufacturing infrastructure to really support space colonization and will therefore be a blessing in hellish disguise. Gotta feel bad for the wilderness as it slowly and painfully dies off though.

Subjective Philosophical opinion of course.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Oh I'm sure it was but the timing is terrible and the "cost of worsening Air" negates the water improvement. There are More Bad Air "disasters" with stronger effects than there are Water. And If I'm not mistaken these Disaster chains add up and not just replace.

I've long felt that those need to be on a global, rather than local measurement. There's a way to do that but it would take some restructuring. Air shouldn't SEEM so dangerous as it really is, even if far worse.

Subjective Philosophical opinion of course.

I don't mean to be rude but what a Climate Change denier must understand is that the science is not subjective nor is it a commercial conspiracy. The conspiracy is, as it always is, coming from those with lots of money who can buy media influence and want to convince people to think of things in a more convenient way that suits their objectives, where beliefs that support them will lead to profits that support them. The investment is already in fossil fuels. It is a risk and costs more to have to shift how we do things over to more sustainable and harder to justify charging for energy sources.

The most powerful wealthy in the world have a LOT to gain by pulling the wool over people's eyes. So they've done ALL they can to create propaganda to spread a dramatically devious lie that there's no such thing as Global Warming, which flies in the face of nearly every single validated scientific conclusion that has researched the issue.

You have but to simply take a moment to read and understand the science for yourself and you'll see that, far from there being anything 'fishy' with these scientific conclusions, the scientific community is actually being incredibly hesitant to raise the alarm as loudly as it should be. The truth is there's probably no hope for the world already because there's no known way to reverse the trend. We're talking about a pendulum that swings slowly but once it starts to really be FELT, it's already waaaaaay too late to do anything about it.

We've filled the atmosphere with a very dramatic change, filling the sky with CO2 emissions that act as a blanket. The ice records show that every time CO2 levels have been high, the average temperature across the globe has gone up at a precisely reactive rate. As life captures that CO2 and stores it in plant matter that decays and deposits that CO2 back into the Earth, storing it away from the atmosphere, the planet cools.

What we have done with modern industry is dig all that stored CO2 up and set it on fire, sending it back into the atmosphere at as fast a rate as we possibly can. Every measurement shows the Earth's average global temperature is reacting to that. Everywhere there are large amounts of ice, we are seeing massive meltoffs every year that never recover.

When you look at the charts showing CO2 levels over the last few hundred centuries, with an understanding of what CO2 in the atmosphere means to global warming, you'll soon be sitting on a brick. It's obvious we're in deep trouble.

We've pushed the CO2 levels in the atmosphere to far higher than all ice capture measurements show the Earth has ever been at in measurable history, going back through multiple ice ages.

We've further proven in smaller scale models that high CO2 levels are a cause and not a result of warming. It takes some time for the planet to react to having this 'blanket', years perhaps.

But that's partially because as the ice melts further, it loses its own regulatory effect on the atmospheric global temperature. Once the ice is gone, we'll start feeling it exponentially more and more every year and it won't take long, based on the predictions based on CO2 levels and the corresponding global temperatures at those times, for Earth to reach global temperatures it has not known since before life began here.

There are models that show a possibility for a deep freeze to take place during this process due to major global oceanic current and jet stream changes, but if the CO2 stays in place, all this really amounts to is the sudden release of a lot of stored cooling systems and that will eventually be, again overwhelmed.

The damage we've done to the chemical balances in our atmosphere is already far beyond the imaginable, but it sure is reassuring to believe that all these independently verified scientists are all part of some clever conspiracy to drive a new industry that is going to replace a firmly entrenched financial empire that is fueled primarily by fossil fuels, one of the most profitable enterprises ever conceived by man. It's a nice security blanket but does that REALLY make more sense? Or is someone manipulating you? Someone who's afraid of losing their profits by the barrel?

Sorry bro, I respect your reasons for your conclusions, but to me, this is not debatable... that we have killed the natural balance in the atmosphere and are on the track to a total meltdown is an established fact as hard as a fact can be established, as plain as the Earth is round.

We need another scientific miracle of discovery that goes far beyond simply stopping the pouring of more CO2 into the atmosphere... we need to find a way to pull it OUT as fast or faster than we've been able to send it all up in smoke. And we need it relatively soon, within the next decade or two.

This is not a left/right issue but it demands a different way forward than absolute industrial deregulation which flies in the face of the idealisms of the Republican right. It is truly, simply, inconvenient for them politically. So it's been a brilliant move for them to float the rumor that it's all hogwash. Tell you what... if it was hogwash, the military wouldn't be preparing for it as an inevitability, but they sure are...

 

[raxo2222]

Subjective Philosophical opinion of course.

Well we are sending a lot of CO2 into air, that was locked out as carbon compounds for millions of years.
Without CO2 and other greenhouse gases Earth average temperature would be at around -17 Celsius.

 

[JosEPh_II]

Nice derail for the thread and the real subject in game brought up.

Not here to debate this. Here to fix game buildings that are out of balance. Unless it is your "Plan" to have the game end in a global disaster? And if so then why bother with the last 3-4 Eras? I'm here to balance the game play.

 

[Hydromancerx]

Well I think the Earth has gone through many warming and cooling cycles in the past. However the big difference is that there is rampant habitat loss. Without natural ecosystems to help bring back things to equilibrium, we are in a great deal of trouble. We as humans also have the potential to undo it all as well. I do not think we are too far gone. And while many species will be lost due to this period in human history I suspect that we will make our own new species to populate future ecosystems to help bring back the balance. Note this balance will be human-centric, but that is to be excepted from us since we have been doing such ever since we shaped the environment to suit us.

 

[ER5013]

So, what are some other main buildings that are poorly balanced?

 

[JosEPh_II]

@DH,
Thank you for the outline.

@Team,
We have a later game building called Ground Scrubbers. It costs 100 and reduces Water Pollution by 200 (which at it time in the game is Good), But.... for some reason the maker decided that it should also give a +100 to Air pollution (this is very bad). It is buildings such as this one that I want to change immediately. The +100 Air actually needs to be a -100 Air pollution.

After some more digging in looking in the "files" I noticed that Pollution(s) is also based on the Old 0-1000 scale. For example at level 600 you have at least 4 (and probsbly more) of the 23 possible "bad boy" Pollution buildings come into play. Very similar to the way Pests were originally set up. Most of them dog piling on at a particularly narrow range. So the cumulative effect of this narrow range introduction overwhelms the capacity to fight back with Anti-pollution methods or buildings. And the levels these "bad boys" give is astronomical compared to any means that are used for recovery.

That Ground Scrubber should never give +100 Air pollution, +20 tops but I say None. And so far I've not found any building that cleans Air like This Ground Scrubber cleans soil. We need the bldgs like what Master of Orion II used once we hit space travel. Buildings like Atmospheric Renewer (if I've got the name right) there others of this type like Pollution Processors. Similar to this Ground Scrubber but reduces All pollution by a percentage.

This tailspin effect, if not brought under better controls, will continue to cause the type of end game we saw in StrategyOnly's save game and similarly by Thomas' save game that I use from his bug report.

And for gameplay purposes for this Mod I can not agree T-brd with your assessment about our present day methods of pollution control. It can be a model up to a point. After that it can not allow the game to implode upon itself in a speeding death spiral. Especially because the tools to fight it were never added or at worst never finished.

Unless of course you want to make a New Victory Condition, something like, Beat the Black Skies and Conquer the Global Warming Before 2050AD. With the Condition that if these 2 pollution levels are over 600 each then you Lose immediately upon Reaching a set date (2050AD), then Game Over. Your Warfare goal would be against mounting Pollution pressures.

Any way Pollution is next on the List.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Global disaster should well be difficult to avoid from this and other sources but not impossible. The going theory some scientists floated long ago that still has held true to this day, surprisingly considering how many tremendous challenges we've already faced and overcome, is that the growth of the population is also our savior as it gives more opportunities for the gifted minds that can solve the real issues to be born.

This translates perfectly into civ terms - aka such global disaster is unavoidable unless we get enough technology to address it properly. Yes, Air pollution should be impossible to keep from becoming a true hellish disaster, but around the time it peaks, those who still survive should be able to reach the techs that allow us to survive longer at first, and then eventually to reverse the damage, proving that we are now finally capable of terraforming other planets and we are finally ready to confidently spread out into a universe of planets where each and every one is uniquely hostile, but tameable due to our new technologies learned on, what was for a time, a naturally hostile home planet.

Sure, we COULD have avoided the problem by having the foresight and wisdom to have head it off before it ever became an issue, but those nations that have this kind of restraint are NOT likely to survive the competition from those willing to burn the earth like an engine being constantly fueled by nitrous bursts, those putting the power they can have in the present ahead of the global health of the future.

It's already been shown that those who learned how to live in harmony with the Earth were never going to be prepared to face those who carelessly ravaged the planet for all the resources and land they could command. Believe me, those chickens WILL come home to roost.

@Toffer: You and I should talk outside the forums. Incredible insight dude.

 

[Thunderbrd]

You ninja'd me!

And for gameplay purposes for this Mod I can not agree T-brd with your assessment about our present day methods of pollution control. It can be a model up to a point. After that it can not allow the game to implode upon itself in a speeding death spiral. Especially because the tools to fight it were never added or at worst never finished.

Well, the late game is not fleshed out right, you're correct about that. As stated above, it's important to eventually give us the tools to survive, then fix the situation. And if those aren't in place yet, then there's lots of buildings yet to be made that need to be. I don't believe that the Arcology shields have been quite given their due yet in this effort either. (They should really be put in place mostly not as a nuclear shielding, which they are, but also as a means to allow a filtered clean air environment for the citizenry.)

And the techs and methods to clean the skies are not well developed in the game yet either.

I also agree with your assessment about the operational scale being insufficient.

Unless of course you want to make a New Victory Condition, something like, Beat the Black Skies and Conquer the Global Warming Before 2050AD. With the Condition that if these 2 pollution levels are over 600 each then you Lose immediately upon Reaching a set date (2050AD), then Game Over. Your Warfare goal would be against mounting Pollution pressures.

It doesn't need to be a victory condition for it to be an intended game conflict. Differing conflicts should indeed be the central flavor of various eras. For example, the hostility of nature and how at odds with it Man is in the Prehistoric helps to explain why we go so overboard in trying to be its master now.

 

[Toffer90]

That Ground Scrubber should never give +100 Air pollution, +20 tops but I say None. And so far I've not found any building that cleans Air like This Ground Scrubber cleans soil. We need the bldgs like what Master of Orion II used once we hit space travel. Buildings like Atmospheric Renewer (if I've got the name right) there others of this type like Pollution Processors. Similar to this Ground Scrubber but reduces All pollution by a percentage.

It doesn't necessarily have to have a direct opposite building. We need to figure out ways to make it so that some cities may have a lot of ground pollution but still very little air pollution, while other cities may struggle with both; and to make it so that the AI should also be in this situation. We need to figure out a way to make it less attractive, or not possible at all, to have all kinds of factories, smelters and smithies in every single city.
We may also make changes elsewhere; like having water pol. per pop. be bigger than air pol. per pop.
Or balance the other buildings to accommodate the stats of the Ground Scrubber.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I'm more of a pessimist here.

Yes you are. And I wish you would not have posted any of this Hijacking, both you and T-brd. Completely Off the Rails.

Because it makes me want to ask some Hard questions that would only cause Severe dissension among us.

 

[Thunderbrd]

Completely Off the Rails.

It's not at all off the rails. We're talking about the intentions we have for these properties to model.

If you'd like to take the discussion to PMs, by all means start a discussion with Toffer and I to keep it from the main. You should probably add Hydro as well.

 

[JosEPh_II]

I don't mean to be rude but what a Climate Change denier must understand is that the science is not subjective nor is it a commercial conspiracy.

This IS Off the Rails. Just like the God vs Atheist "war" here in this forum a few years ago. And it Is very much Subjective whether you agree or not. Your's is Not the final answer here.

No I will not be discussing any of this in PMs. It is beyond Game play of the mod.

I came to expound on the Pollution Bldgs.
1. Is not Reef Bleaching a Water pollution? If it is then Why is it under Air pollution? Was wondering why Air had 13 "buildings" and Water only had 11.
2. The AIWeight for both Pollutions is only 1/3 what Crime's AIWeight is and only 1/2 what Disease's is. This must be corrected. Because at -50 vs -150 the AI is barely aware of a problem here.
3. The Diffusion rate for Adj back to City is at 20% vs Crimes 12%
4. The entry level for both Pollutions are Mirror Images of each other starting at 400 and in increments of 50 up to and including 950/1000. Considering Reef Bleaching to be in the wrong list. Range is 0-1000.
5. Each new "Building" introduced gives staggeringly high amounts making recovery impossible because by the time you add any Anti-pollution Bldgs or Units (and If any available to combat it) the Next level is already upon you.

More to come. (And I still have not finished the Individual Crime entry level adjustments as well!)

 

[Thunderbrd]

This IS Off the Rails. Just like the God vs Atheist "war" here in this forum a few years ago. And it Is very much Subjective whether you agree or not. Your's is Not the final answer here.

You're acting like this is faith based. There used to be a time when we all understood that faith only went as far as to extend past what has been proven. We have a HUGE body of objective proof of this subject. Just because you don't WANT to accept that it is independently, objectively validatable proof does not mean that it is not. If you argue against the existence of human-caused climate change you are arguing that the sky is green when we can all see plainly that it's blue. The only difference is the willingness to read and understand the scientific documentation that explains these conclusions vs the willingness to read and believe (despite a lack of any conclusive data or evidence - yes I've read the arguments and find them extremely lacking) propaganda sources that want you to live in a fantasy that it's all just a lie.

I'm probably unintentionally being offensive here. I'm sorry for that. It's just hard to understand how a guy with any intelligence like yourself can fall for this ruse. I'm trying to wake you up. You NEED to change your mind... this is not a philosophy, this is science. What differs science from philosophy is two things:
1) Science has an open mind and can change it's generally accepted opinion if new data shows that the current conclusions are incorrect.
2) It doesn't come up with conclusions that aren't validatable from numerous means and angles. It relies on objectivity, approaching the issue without pre-conceived conclusions. AKA, there is real evidence to support any scientific conclusions. This it is therefore (almost) immune to becoming a conclusion for the sake of propaganda. It is possible that some conclusions can be very wrong, yes, and accepted en masse because there are numerous blind spots in the data so far, but with this particular issue, there's as much observational evidence to suggest that it is as clear as the fact that we can build a car.

What frustrates me is that anyone is allowing themselves to believe these terribly destructive lies that are trying to sway people to believe this isn't happening. It's the most evil lie you can possibly swallow because it serves only to justify our continued industrial irresponsibility, allowing us to hit the accelerator as we race towards a brick wall, rather than react when DRAMATIC reaction is absolutely necessary. I mean, even if it's not as bad as it seems to those of us who've looked at it enough to come to very dire conclusions, it certainly cannot hurt our society to become more environmentally responsible. It gets down to a basic fundamental moral conclusion, we need to stop littering the sea, the land, AND the sky... and if we care to be responsible to our planet in the least, it's not really that hard to make the changes we need to make, and might even benefit the working class more to do so than maintaining the polluting irresponsible status quo.

Please understand it's not personal, it's just not acceptable for anyone to believe otherwise because it will kill us all if we don't wake the f up.

 

[Thunderbrd]

To address the individual points:

1. Is not Reef Bleaching a Water pollution? If it is then Why is it under Air pollution? Was wondering why Air had 13 "buildings" and Water only had 11.

This is not happening globally because of water pollution, it's an effect of the rising global temperatures, which is an effect of the atmospheric carbon. It's not any poison in the water causing this, per se, just the warming. A quick read on the Great Barrier Reef should cover some info on this.

2. The AIWeight for both Pollutions is only 1/3 what Crime's AIWeight is and only 1/2 what Disease's is. This must be corrected. Because at -50 vs -150 the AI is barely aware of a problem here.

This is a difficult issue because you can end up with the AI totally freaking out about this issue when they can do very little about it that doesn't cause them to go totally broke (again real world for much of our recent past). They must react softly to the threat so that they continue to research as quickly as possible because the real answers should be available there rather than trying to over-invest into what little Park Rangers and Ecologists can do. This is one of the problems with crime when it gets too out of hand too... once it does they have to give up after a while, assuming that they just won't be able to overcome the problem until later techs enable more effective response. Unfortunately, late game crime is too unforgiving for that strategy - it will sink the whole ship if allowed to runaway with itself. It's good that it causes a ton of pain but the ton may be far too strong in that case.

3. The Diffusion rate for Adj back to City is at 20% vs Crimes 12%

A lot of diffusion seems legitimate for Pollution, particularly Air Pollution, because it really should spread very far out from any sources of it.

4. The entry level for both Pollutions are Mirror Images of each other starting at 400 and in increments of 50 up to and including 950/1000. Considering Reef Bleaching to be in the wrong list. Range is 0-1000.

5. Each new "Building" introduced gives staggeringly high amounts making recovery impossible because by the time you add any Anti-pollution Bldgs or Units (and If any available to combat it) the Next level is already upon you.

I strongly agree with you here. I don't think the range is even close to gradual enough, as stated earlier. I actually tried to identify that issue with Hydro long ago. So my position on that is pretty clear. The way it is now seems like it's pretty much all the bad effects at once or nothing.

Part of why our discussion hasn't been off the rails at all, I've used it to explain one perspective I have on this issue too... Climate Change takes a long time to show itself as a problem and once it is, it's got to be hard , almost impossible to turn it around (impossible until later techs anyhow), but what this means is that the first stage effects should be nearly negligible to the point that it can be believed by the people that it's not even an issue even when it's being experienced to a small degree so far. Then from there it should exponentially get more damaging and harder to recover from as, like many other properties, its effects should compound themselves, making it harder and harder to keep from worsening. Late game techs will give us the ability to overcome and eventually even reverse the massive damage it does.

 

[Toffer90]

To address the individual points:

This is not happening globally because of water pollution, it's an effect of the rising global temperatures, which is an effect of the atmospheric carbon. It's not any poison in the water causing this, per se, just the warming. A quick read on the Great Barrier Reef should cover some info on this.

Additionally:
Increasing ocean acidification due to rises in carbon dioxide levels exacerbates the bleaching effects of thermal stress.

 

[JosEPh_II]

You're acting like this is faith based. There used to be a time when we all understood that faith only went as far as to extend past what has been proven. We have a HUGE body of objective proof of this subject. Just because you don't WANT to accept that it is independently, objectively validatable proof does not mean that it is not. If you argue against the existence of human-caused climate change you are arguing that the sky is green when we can all see plainly that it's blue. The only difference is the willingness to read and understand the scientific documentation that explains these conclusions vs the willingness to read and believe (despite a lack of any conclusive data or evidence - yes I've read the arguments and find them extremely lacking) propaganda sources that want you to live in a fantasy that it's all just a lie.

I'm probably unintentionally being offensive here. I'm sorry for that. It's just hard to understand how a guy with any intelligence like yourself can fall for this ruse. I'm trying to wake you up. You NEED to change your mind... this is not a philosophy, this is science. What differs science from philosophy is two things:
1) Science has an open mind and can change it's generally accepted opinion if new data shows that the current conclusions are incorrect.
2) It doesn't come up with conclusions that aren't validatable from numerous means and angles. It relies on objectivity, approaching the issue without pre-conceived conclusions. AKA, there is real evidence to support any scientific conclusions. This it is therefore (almost) immune to becoming a conclusion for the sake of propaganda. It is possible that some conclusions can be very wrong, yes, and accepted en masse because there are numerous blind spots in the data so far, but with this particular issue, there's as much observational evidence to suggest that it is as clear as the fact that we can build a car.

What frustrates me is that anyone is allowing themselves to believe these terribly destructive lies that are trying to sway people to believe this isn't happening. It's the most evil lie you can possibly swallow because it serves only to justify our continued industrial irresponsibility, allowing us to hit the accelerator as we race towards a brick wall, rather than react when DRAMATIC reaction is absolutely necessary. I mean, even if it's not as bad as it seems to those of us who've looked at it enough to come to very dire conclusions, it certainly cannot hurt our society to become more environmentally responsible. It gets down to a basic fundamental moral conclusion, we need to stop littering the sea, the land, AND the sky... and if we care to be responsible to our planet in the least, it's not really that hard to make the changes we need to make, and might even benefit the working class more to do so than maintaining the polluting irresponsible status quo.

Please understand it's not personal, it's just not acceptable for anyone to believe otherwise because it will kill us all if we don't wake the f up.

You make way too many presumptions on what I do or do not "believe" or accept as "fact". Just because I do not want to discuss it don't assume you know my stance.

There used to be a time when we all understood that faith only went as far as to extend past what has been proven.

Say what? Don't answer please!

Back On Topic:
So why have Reef Bleaching as an Air Pollution when we already have 3 Smog, 3 Ozone (which should cover RB), 3 Global Warming (which would also cover RB), plus another group which includes Acid rain, Toxic Atmosphere, and Blackened Skies. How much overkill is needed in a game?

 

[Thunderbrd]

You make way too many presumptions on what I do or do not "believe" or accept as "fact". Just because I do not want to discuss it don't assume you know my stance.

Fair enough. I'm sorry... I get really emotionally heated about this issue very quickly because we gain a lot to accept these scientific conclusions, including the opportunity to survive as a species, and we gain nothing for the majority of us to reject these conclusions. So even if I and the majority of the world's scientists are wrong, it can only be beneficial for us all to react and it could mean we all die if we don't. I care about my kid's futures, about our species and the many animal species that make this planet so amazing. It hurts to see some would risk all that to support those who would create policies that take the other path here. It's not you... it's just all the frustration I have with large segments of the most powerful elements among the human race as a whole. We should never have let it come to where we already are and it hurts me terribly to think of all the damage we've done. Again, sorry some of that got uncorked on you.

Say what? Don't answer please!

I just mean that faith can only be placed where answers are not derived from solid evidence already. That's the meaning of faith in the first place, the choice to believe something you cannot prove. When something CAN be proven but faith then discards that proof, faith, imo, is being twisted into something it was never supposed to be.

So why have Reef Bleaching as an Air Pollution when we already have 3 Smog, 3 Ozone (which should cover RB), 3 Global Warming (which would also cover RB), plus another group which includes Acid rain, Toxic Atmosphere, and Blackened Skies. How much overkill is needed in a game?

I suppose because it's what's happening and what the actual source is, so it's sharing some education on what damage we're doing to the planet. As for the game impact, it's been modeled as close to what the designer felt it should be to represent its Real World impact. If we look at the game balance now, there could be good cause to make some adjustments for that purpose.