No Global Warming Option

[ostrander-bellepoint]

I really hate it in Civ II when my nice tidy map that I've worked so hard to build up is destroyed by global warming, particularly when it is due to some other civ's pollution. I hope that Civ III will have the option to eliminate this menace.

[Inverse Icarus]

no. global warming should be in, even more so now.

with the free passage agreements, you could clean up your neighbor's pollution.

in a game of diplomacy and trade, as this appears to be shaping into, pollution could even be used as a bargaining chip.

"We will not clean our pollution unless you pau us 20 gold per turn for our efforts"

[TechWins]

This sounds like a good option.

[Seeker]

Just like real world....(Kyoto negotiations...)

American civ is refusing to upgrade all their Power Plants to Solar and Nuclear....

Will EU give George Bush tribute in Gold?

[ancient]

i dont like it either, but i think it may be necesary, and realistic in the game, bu you should have orginizations in the game which can be agains things such as pollution, nuclear weapons, over production of arm, in adition to trade coalitions..

[Inverse Icarus]

well, if global warming is removed, than the only thing pollution does is lower foodstuffs / production / trade.

well, IMHO, that isn't enough.

without global warming, pollution could just be LEFT in areas, like on a jungle square, if t happened to land there.

and then what if u nuked an entire civ, say 20 cities, and didnt even bother moving in with troops?

they'd starve, and you'd be sitting pretty.

i don't like the idea of using a ton of nukes and having NO consequences.

[Your.Master]

I agree with UberKrux. While I hate the times when Global warming comes with a passion and it frustrates me to no end (especially when it happens BEFORE any Nuclear War) it is an extreme restraint on people. You don't pollute like crazy or proliferate Nuclear Weapons because the map will turn against you and suddenly your prairie provinces become Arabian-like desert nomads. It was the -ULTIMATE- restriction in Civ, aside from the impossible. I don't think there should even be an option on this one, because while usually I'm all for stupid options I'll never use, this will degenerate the game and overall I expect there will be less fun had.

In fact, I think Global Warming should be worse, but with more preventative measures (perhaps an anti-pollution or at least anti-global warming wonder).

[jackazzstudent]

Originally posted by Seeker
Just like real world....(Kyoto negotiations...)

American civ is refusing to upgrade all their Power Plants to Solar and Nuclear....

Will EU give George Bush tribute in Gold?

Or how about . . .

American civ refuses to upgrade Power Plants and then the EU civ criticizes it, regardless of the fact that no major industrialized nation on the friggin planet (EU or not) has made the same committment.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest

Adam

PS Hate to beat a dead horse, but if you're gonna say EU countries have made a committment, then it should've been ratified, not in word.

[ostrander-bellepoint]

I think some of you may misunderstand what I'm saying. I only want the option to choose global warming or no global warming. Naturally the default would be set to global warming.

[tniem]

Originally posted by ostrander-bellepoint
I think some of you may misunderstand what I'm saying. I only want the option to choose global warming or no global warming. Naturally the default would be set to global warming.

I think most people understood you and are telling you that they don't agree with you. They and I guess I am included believe that people will turn global warming off simply because it will make things easier for the player. So, they believe that it should be left on to challenge us and give us another thing to think through and plan for.

Then, most people went farther and began discussing ideally what problems global warming would force us to confront. Personally I believe that most of the problems with global warming will not occur until after the time frame of Civ III and may be it shouldn't have that big of impact on the game. But I certainly like many of the diplomatic ideas that are being floated.

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by jackazzstudent


Or how about . . .

American civ refuses to upgrade Power Plants and then the EU civ criticizes it, regardless of the fact that no major industrialized nation on the friggin planet (EU or not) has made the same committment.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest

Adam

PS Hate to beat a dead horse, but if you're gonna say EU countries have made a committment, then it should've been ratified, not in word.

jackazz
are you aware of the us share of world energy consumption?
why is it that you want to give example when it comes to droping laser guided bombs from 20000 ft but you are very reluctant when it comes to fixing a USD 1000 filter on the top of the chimney.
man, it really does not take much. have you took a look at the size of european cars and american cars or compared the petrol prices?
pollution should be in, full force, with severe diplo penalties for big polluters, pact or no pact. after all, pollution does not recognize borders....

[Mavas]

Give it up LaRusso.
The American addition of Civ III will have no global warming. Remember the game has to be fun, Americans have to winnnn, they want to believe what they want - they are free and brave - and will be allowed to start in 4000 BC with four settlers and an Abrahams tank.

Adam.
I don't care anymore if the US is in a treaty or not, the US just doesn't understand treaties (treaties derives from treat, which is similar to a sweet, guess most think that the Kyoto treaty is some sort of Japanese M&M), treaties hurt the freedom of some Americans (kind'a like being married, for 50% of Americans), Americans want to move forward (kind'a nice way how George puts it when he cancels a treaty). Guess a number of Indian tribes would have a word to say on treaties with the US - then it was Go West, now it is Move Forward. Treaties with the US appear to be on par with those that Adolf used to make with the English and Russians some 60 years back. Should you be around in 60 years Adam, I'm sure you won't consider you may have been wrong on this one, back in 2001 - you are a true American. Chances are you would say: "I didn't know". That's what people here say when you bring up Adolf; of course "I didn't know" is as an excuse for "I didn't care" - always works.

Here are some figures for Germany, you know, where people drive BMW and Mercedes and speak Polish.

1990 986,6
1992 901,4 - 8,6%
1994 876,8 - 11,1%
1996 898,2 - 9,0%
1998 857,2 - 13,1%

2005 Goal - 25%

...U.S. greenhouse gases in 1998 increased by 0.2% compared with 1997, the lowest growth rate since the beginning of the 1990s. However, total emissions of
1,803 million metric tons of carbon equivalent were 10% higher than in 1990...

Europe does not have to ratify Kyoto, it has already finished the game, and is now eagerly awaiting to play Civ III with global warming.

[fittstim]

Czolem Mavas!!!

Nie wialem ze Niemców mowia po polska...

Anyway I wholeheartedly support keeping the global warming. It'll be too tempting to turn off global warming and then, as everyone pointed out, the game becomes too off-balance.

I hate the damn barbarians even more but there's no way of removing them from the game. At best one can reduce their presence but they will always be hidden in those lovely huts.

Jackazz Adam: I'm not bashing Americans but you have to face facts, the energy consumption of the US and Canada is absurd. You live in Texas for God's sake!!! A desert environment with scant water. I'm sure your AC is cranked up as you read this. But anyway, it had nothing to do with the EU's (non) ratification of the Kyoto protocol which prompted GWB to officially kill the treaty, but it did have everything to do with the US energy policy.

Mavas: No need to bash Americans. George W. causes untold embarrassment everytime he opens his mouth. But you are totally misled about America and Americans. As in Germany (and Poland and Sweden), the people aren't the ones making the decisions. It's the "elected" representatives. In the US, it's the energy industry (Bush and Cheney are both in their pockets) which is directing the US energy policy. The Americans as a people are just as interested and/or apathetic about Global Warming as your average German, Pole or Swede. And yes, I'm speaking from direct experience.

[Recurve]

It's tempting to join the fray, but I won't!

I'm guilty of triggering global warming myself on the odd occasion, sometimes deliberately to set other nations back a few years!

Originally posted by UberKruX
in a game of diplomacy and trade, as this appears to be shaping into, pollution could even be used as a bargaining chip.

Too true. If the cleaner civs don't like it, they can always contribute cash towards my Recycling Plants (or at the very least give me the relevant technology).

[LaRusso]

Originally posted by fittstim
As in Germany (and Poland and Sweden), the people aren't the ones making the decisions. It's the "elected" representatives. In the US, it's the energy industry (Bush and Cheney are both in their pockets) which is directing the US energy policy. The Americans as a people are just as interested and/or apathetic about Global Warming as your average German, Pole or Swede. And yes, I'm speaking from direct experience.

Well, we like to think that people visiting these forums are interested in life's many ways and well informed
Then again, as rightly pointed out, every time you build a house in the desert with and AC you DO contribute to reckless energy consumption. Just like you do when you buy SUV to take your kids to school 3 blocks away. Just like you do when you keep petrol prices ridiculously low and stimulate consumption.

You may say people are not interested, but that does not exculpate them. After all, they make everyday choices that benefit them in the short term and, only occassionally, they look at the big picture (mortgage, loan, etc.). Why on earth should individuals actually get some CREDIT for being egoistic and happily accepting the system as it is.

NB to add insult to injury i have just read that al gore won the rererererecount (IHT) or at least should have had. not that i care about that wooden plank

[LaRusso]

global warming is really a must and should be even more severe. that would really give a 'responsible' feel to one's civilization and is really a great counterbalance to exponentially growing power at the endgame.

[fittstim]

Agreed!

For a nice little jab at Bush and his energy policy, check out:

http://www.theonion.com/onion3724/bu...to_remove.html

[Adm.Naismith]

Global warming must be in

Just in case someone miss my point in the past (my inflated ego would suffer, you know ) about game ending:

... if one of the available end game will be to survive as long as possible to an Armageddon magnitude disaster (total nuke exchange, unstoppable pollution and climate change, earth hit by asteroid, invasion by an alien force - using same alien race of SMACX, etc.) a later end of game will have the taste of an hopeless fight for all mankind survival.

It can be what happens after the launch of Starship Unity to Alpha Centauri (optional, for players who hate SF ending). While the starship is your seed of hope for the future (mankind will come back, at the end of SMAC 2 ), you boldly face the flood till the game over. Move your cities, raise up your defence, mutate and adapt... your dead will be sure, but how greatness to the end!

Then, collect your ego bit by bit and start a new Civ game...

Some films and games play with bad, dark end, with plenty of success. A friend of mine think "Fallout" sad end is one of the best in game history (and some game magazines ranked it the same)
As an optional ending, don't you feel the challenge to push far some turn more an inevitable "game over"?
Looking at some President about "unnedeed limiting to global warming" misure it seems to me a dark end is the most likely in Civ history

Just for note, last time I posted this suggestion I was wondering about a way to end a game without the Civ2 "game ended: want to play some more turns without points counting?".

It's not anything Firaxis can't add as a last minute tweaking to Civ III, because is built on already existing game element, so I feel safe to mentioning it again

[Mavas]

Some months ago someone suggested that pollution caused by nuclear warfare (nuclear winter) ought to be separated from pollution caused by production and population (global warming). If you ended up with both kinds of pollution on your map they would balance each other out in a way, while you were still stuck with reduced production per square. Don't know who suggested this (anybody remember?), but I kind of like this idea and don't think that it would worsen things on the micro-management/decision scale.


… Mavas: No need to bash Americans…

Sorry fittstim - you are right, my best friend is American, but then again, maybe he doesn't count cause he moved to Norway, smart man.

Anyway, I thought that current political events ABM and Kyoto treaties were fitting seamlessly with the suggestion above of possible nuclear winter and global warming.


…George W. causes untold embarrassment everytime he opens his mouth…

I had just heard him (the I'm going to visit the EU chaps speech) - then I read Adam's post - then something in me snapped (guess I am still too tired after playing Civ II into the night). Adam's post reminded me of an American university student who asked me (in Boston) if they speak Polish in The Netherlands - so I just played around a bit on that theme. I know they speak German in Germany and that of course only Americans know how to build a real BMW.


…you are totally misled about America and Americans. As in Germany (and Poland and Sweden), the people aren't the ones making the decisions…

The last 10 years I worked in six countries (yes also the US) so I have experienced some peoples and some of their politics - I agree with you on this. However, this doesn't mean that I need to refrain from commenting on people who clinch on to silly arguments to pamper their view. I perfectly know that if Adam did some research and would opt for a greener president (candidate) next time, his dimple would not be counted, or if so, that the USSC would veto his vote because there is no green in the Stars and Stripes - their logic is obvious…

[ancient]

im all for bashing americans, boy we sure are stupid some times...

[Mahdimael]

Heh, of course, some of us would say that we did opt for a greener president, but that's neither here nor there.

Don't lump all Americans together. For all the conservatives, there are also liberals. Most Americans don't mind making a small sacrifice for cleaner air and water.

It's really sad that we Americans can't have a mainstream political party that isn't as extreme as both the Republicans and the Democrats.

The Republicans want to live in the 50s, where pollution and environmental issues "didn't exist", with the Red Menace and the USA was the last bastion of freedom. The Democrats have a government program for everything, but at least they're able to deal with the real world.

America isn't Europe. Even when we're trying to be liberal, we're not close to Europeans. There's a number of reasons why, but it can be basically summed up by the ideal of American independence: we don't want people to tell us what to do. Will it change? I have no idea.

[jackazzstudent]

Hello all,

I really didn't mean to piss anyone off, I just read the comment on GW and the treaty and I too snapped. Its irritating to always have people criticizing the country in which you live and love. I am all for rational environmental policy. I think Europeans (sorry to generalize) should realize that things in America revolve so heavily around enery and production that even small changes in fuel prices can major economic downturns (sound familiar). Ratifying treaties such as the Kyoto Treaty (admittingly I not too familiar with) cause repercussions within our economy. Its difficult for leaders, who are more interested in reelection than anything else, to commit to policies that negatively affect the economy, which effects jobs . . . and so forth. The EU should give us time to make the change slowly because worldwide recession would result from rapid increases in enery costs passed on to the consumer. Besides, we need big factories to build our bombs so we can show off So hopefully we can find a common ground (in the forums as well as in the world) and not resort to flaming all Americans for the actions of their officials.

Well, about the menu option to turn off global warming . . . I'm against it. Pollution is an important aspect of the game, and not having it ruins the balance of the game.

Adios amigos,

Adam

[tniem]

Originally posted by jackazzstudent
I really didn't mean to piss anyone off, I just read the comment on GW and the treaty and I too snapped. Its irritating to always have people criticizing the country in which you live and love. I am all for rational environmental policy. I think Europeans (sorry to generalize) should realize that things in America revolve so heavily around enery and production that even small changes in fuel prices can major economic downturns (sound familiar). Ratifying treaties such as the Kyoto Treaty (admittingly I not too familiar with) cause repercussions within our economy. Its difficult for leaders, who are more interested in reelection than anything else, to commit to policies that negatively affect the economy, which effects jobs . . . and so forth. The EU should give us time to make the change slowly because worldwide recession would result from rapid increases in enery costs passed on to the consumer. Besides, we need big factories to build our bombs so we can show off So hopefully we can find a common ground (in the forums as well as in the world) and not resort to flaming all Americans for the actions of their officials.

The problem with this post is that it is all wrong. If you recall, gas prices were at there highest last spring and summer and the economy was still going strong. It was actually the interest rate hikes over the late summer and fall that did the economy in (that and the uncertainty in a wacko election that no American can be proud of).

This summer gas prices how plummeted, I paid $1.25 for gas in Michigan, where a year ago the price was $2.25. And yet the economy is in a slump.

As for the time it would to take to implement Kyoto, the first implementation year to reduce emissions wasn't until 2008. I think 7 years before we would even have to start reducing emmisions is plenty of time from the EU, don't you?

Read the full Kyoto Protocol document for more information at http://www.unfccc.de/resource/docs/convkp/kpeng.html

I am sorry that I am so far off topic in terms of Civ III, but I thought I needed to add some facts to those that want to flame my nation's energy policies. We are wrong and should admit it. That would actually make us a stronger nation.

As for Civ III, keep global warming and allow energy and enviornmental issue to take place in diplomatic talks.

[Ari Rahikkala]

Well, programming in the option to turn off global warming would take pretty much as long as it took to write this post (about two IF statements, one flag to save into saved games, and one added menu item), so whether it be realistic and balance-destroying or not, it is easy to be implemented.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by LightEning
programming in the option to turn off global warming would take pretty much as long as it took to write this post (about two IF statements, one flag to save into saved games, and one added menu item), so whether it be realistic and balance-destroying or not, it is easy to be implemented.

Well, I'm not a C/C++ programmer, but I did my part of coding years ago. AFAIK is a bit more difficult than putting a couple of "IF" and a flag

Just consider that AI strategies MUST take into account if producing too much shields have global warming conseguence or not, every time it take a "shield production enhancing" decision, or must build "pollution reducing" facilities.

My fear with too much "options" is that, as long as they can fit more player taste, is quite unrealistic suppose every mix of options will be fully debugged and carefully balanced.

I wonder what can happen if, once set for "no global warming", the game will have a weak ending part, because of no challenge left after a production rush of tanks...

One-size-fits-all using Velcro straps is not for top fashion dressing, nor for top playable Civ game: if it doesn't fit my size, I'll live with it or I'll chose another game

[Ari Rahikkala]

With the level of the AI so far, do you think that Firaxis would even consider adding the ability for AI to consider that ?

Perhaps we make a compromise: A menu item for those who want to have an easy and non-legitimate game

And then see a Civ3 with a huge, mind-boggling array of choices that has took so much time for Firaxis to make that other parts of the game are left undone .

[Mavas]

I never saw production polution by the AI anyway - did I miss something?

[campmajor!]

Originally posted by jackazzstudent
Hello all,

Ratifying treaties such as the Kyoto Treaty (admittingly I not too familiar with) cause repercussions within our economy. Its difficult for leaders, who are more interested in reelection than anything else, to commit to policies that negatively affect the economy, which effects jobs . . . and so forth. The EU should give us time to make the change slowly because worldwide recession would result from rapid increases in enery costs passed on to the consumer.

It's all about priorities.....

[Mavas]

It's all about priorities.....

Which you can shift with taxes. To oversimplify...

say you pay (per month) 50 USD on petrol and 250 USD on income tax

government ups petrol prices so the same amount of gallons cost you 100 dollars and at the same time income tax comes down by 50 USD

In effect the government shifts taxing labour to taxing resources/pollution/energy.

This drives people to buy cars which use less fuel and companies to be economical with resources (and maybe less economical with employees) to stay competitive.

Do this in 5% steps per year and in 10 years - bingo!

...end of oversimplification.


And don't you Americans feel too guilty about an (on average) not so global environment friendly state of mind. Any European party that tries to push the above scenario in any European country will never poll over ca. 10%


This doesn't imply (in Civ terms) that I would like to see a splitting of tax rates other than treasury - science - and culture (is it?)

No word on splitting pollution anybody? Radioactive versus production waste?

[Provost Harrison]

Well yeah, it would be good to have an optional global warming option. It would be good for the game to be 'modular' so that you can add and remove features of the game as you require, to make the game easier and harder as required, in addition to the difficulty levels...