Damaging terrain

[Trifna]

Just thinking to the possibility of damaging terrain... Like destroying a forest and its wild inhabitants with some weapons. I guess people wouldn't like it alot but, it is a war reality and is realistic.

So, you could, with militaristic ways, destroy a forest and its ressources. It IS something use these days. Just think at USA that destroyed petroleum ressources in the Irak-Koweit war. War, since a long time, sometimes had many influences on natural ressources.

[The Andy-Man]

and dont forget the vietnamese forests that were bombed to ashes.

i like it, and it is a side effect of heavy bombardment that some fertile terrain will be turned into a muddy swamp (WW1)

[red_jon]

This is a good idea, like cold, icy terrain would be damaging, like the German losses when they tried invading Russia (many froze).

[Christantine The Great]

That's not what they're saying. The idea was that you damage terrain, not the other way around. If any terrain even scratches a hoplite's sandial...

[Inverse Icarus]

lol, there seems to be two threads here

yes, i think harsh terrain should hurt units.

and also, yes i think if you bombard a hill long enough, it could cave in and coal would be unreachable.

[Urban Ranger]

You are talking about a square that's 200 miles to one side, making it 40,000 square miles? Do you know how big that area is? You want to damage this square with a few foot soldiers? I don't think anybody pocess the means before Modern Age.


Andy-Man,

No those forests were not bombed to ashes. Heard of Agent Orange?


red_jon,

Good idea. Realistic, even.

[red_jon]

Oops, I misread it

[Earthling7]

Ancient battles rarely had environmental impact. But since the times of the 30 years war (1618-1648), people have burned plantations, destroying whole countries. Since Napoleon, and especially since WWI, environmental disasters have been a side effect of war.

[Dauphin]

Thread #1

How long are these side effects though. With the exception of the "weapons of mass destruction" there is a pretty quick recovery rate.

Whilst smaller weapons have an effect they will only be short term. To use the examples so far given

if you bombard a hill long enough, it could cave in and coal would be unreachable.

This would be a short term effect, equivalent to pillaging a mine. Give it a few years and you build a new one.

Just think at USA that destroyed petroleum ressources in the Irak-Koweit war

The resources destroyed were those that had been extracted, the tanks that stored the oil, not the terrain that still possessed the resource. Kuwait still has oil in ground that it can use.

But since the times of the 30 years war (1618-1648), people have burned plantations, destroying whole countries. Since Napoleon, and especially since WWI, environmental disasters have been a side effect of war

Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements?

and dont forget the vietnamese forests that were bombed to ashes.

What percentage of forest was destroyed by herbicide? I doubt that it was that high a percentage. I agree with UR on this issue, the tiles are very big and only major impacts will have a lasting effect.

Thread #2

I do like the idea of units being damaged by terrain, and the length of supply routes across a terrain type.

[Earthling7]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements?

No, it's a case of pillaging the tile. As this would only happen in modern times, I would imagine the tile being black for, say, 5-10 years?

I understand that the impact of a rifleman attacking another rifleman would be limited, but if units are stacked it would be different. A battle of at least 15 (mechanised) units (combined) would be considered a major one and would produce a black tile.

[Sliparac]

Originally posted by Earthling7


No, it's a case of pillaging the tile. As this would only happen in modern times, I would imagine the tile being black for, say, 5-10 years?

I understand that the impact of a rifleman attacking another rifleman would be limited, but if units are stacked it would be different. A battle of at least 15 (mechanised) units (combined) would be considered a major one and would produce a black tile.

A black tile
Isn't that a bit... extreme?
I like the idea of being able to damage terrain but I think it should just cause the terrain to give less resources for a number of years.

[Earthling7]

Sliparac, true enough. The point is simply, the damage of war goes further than destroy a farm and leave a green meadow, filled with birds and butterflies.

[crmeyer]

I believe that Big Crunch has this right. Damage should be to tile improvements ... not to the actual terrain in the tile.

[jdd2007]

thread one- sounds ok, but make it clear that no archer-phalanx conflict should do anything. just lots of tanks, artillery and bombardment.

thread two- NO NO NO. the effect of icy terrain is already taken into account by the defensive bonus.

[Dauphin]

thread two- NO NO NO. the effect of icy terrain is already taken into account by the defensive bonus.

What about if an elephant unit passes through the himilayas, or a rifleman unit passes through the Sahara?

Surely there will be damage to the unit?!?

[Sliparac]

Big Crunch,

" But since the times of the 30 years war (1618-1648), people have burned plantations, destroying whole countries. Since Napoleon, and especially since WWI, environmental disasters have been a side effect of war

Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements? "

Sometimes, but can't just turn a battlefield into farmland.
After ww1/2, entire farmlands were unusable for many years because:

- the terrain had changed due to the fighting (there's still alot of craters from ww2 where I live), the germans also altered the terrain(= they digged large holes) to build bases/ammo depots in, which have now become "lakes"

- there was (and still is btw) ALOT of unexploded ammunition, which is extremely dangerous and costly to remove, especially with chemical ammunition

- the terrain was polluted and unsafe to grow crops on

- rivers, who used to supply water to farmlands, were also polluted

The Nato attack on Serbia is one of the greatest environmental disasters of Europe...

Earthling7,

Just trying to make the idea more acceptable to those that oppose it

[Trifna]

"Isn't it just a case of pillaging tile improvements? "

Not exactly the pillaging I saw in Civ I-II. We are talking of affecting tiles also here. Disturbing ecosystems, having pollution consequences (like by throwing a nuke one some ecological ressources), destroying mines (of course, it could normally be rebuilt), making so much holes somewhere that it can hardly be used for crops (like WWII), etc.



"The resources destroyed were those that had been extracted, the tanks that stored the oil, not the terrain that still possessed the resource. Kuwait still has oil in ground that it can use."

Of course. I didn't meant to say that at any time, bombarding would destroy all the ressources. I'm only proposing a possible effect on ressources by military ways.



"The Nato attack on Serbia is one of the greatest environmental disasters of Europe..."

Well I suppose we have annother perfect exemple here. I also know that some invaders, knowing the wont stay long, try to take all the forest to sell it and things like that (like presently in Indonesia if I'm not mistaken).



And of course, not all units could have the same consequences. I think it'd be hard for an archer to do big damage to a petroleum ressource... But a bomber can enflame it, etc. Gotta put it realistic to be good and correctly implemented.

[Dauphin]

Silparac, I find it hard to believe that an area 200x200 miles would become completely affected.

Damage done would be a local affect and not be noticed on the large scale. What difference does not being able to use a few square miles of land that are now lakes make, for example?

The building of new homes and buildings should have an equally detrimental effect on that basis. Are we going to introduce urban sprawl as a problem aswell?

On the large scale I don't think the standard military action should effect the environment. Or if it did that it would be a very short term affect.

[jdd2007]

What about if an elephant unit passes through the himilayas, or a rifleman unit passes through the Sahara?

true ... but the damage must be minute at first and every turn they are in the bad terrain it gets worse.

[colossus]

I agree with UR that a tile is too large for a unit to damage.

Just consider deforestation. Modern weapons are not that fit for deforestation. Tanks, bombers, or even foot soldiers may inflict heavy damages in a localized area, but these units need lots of supply and cannot 'fight' the forest over long hours. And, unlike lumberjacks, they do it inefficiently(consider how diificult bombing a forest into ashes compared to cutting them). Most important, they have to stay in for years to make the effects apparent, which is impossible.

The physical damages done by WW2 were repaired in a few years. But the environmental damages done by human activities were staying in for years, perhaps hundreds of years. Desertfied areas, deforested plains, abadoned mines, to name a few, are still quite impossible to convert back to former fertile, resourceful areas.

[Trifna]

Bombers don't destroy the amazone forest in one turn. But with many attacks, they do make big damage, damaga that DOES influence ecosystems, national production, pollution, etc.

To anyone who wants to argue on this, I would propose to make a parallel to reality. Kosovo, Viet Nam, WWII, etc.

It's even written in my history volume that one of things that caused problems after WWII is that all these bunkers and holes made of huge agricultural fields a No Man's Land, and after war, a no agriculture land. In many war, there have been consequences on fields. No one can say that USA's attacks on Kuweit didn't caused problem on petroleum ressources... Of course, they didn't put all ressources out! Kuweit has a big proportion of international ressources!! But it did destroyed a part, plus the infrastructures.

[Ozymandous]

Originally posted by Trifna
No one can say that USA's attacks on Kuweit didn't caused problem on petroleum ressources... Of course, they didn't put all ressources out! Kuweit has a big proportion of international ressources!! But it did destroyed a part, plus the infrastructures.

Well, when I was in northern Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq during the GUlf war I saw plenty of buring petroleum, but ALL of them I saw were started by the IRAQI army, not the US. Sure we destroyed a lot of the Iraqi army's stuff, I know I blew, burned and otherwise destroyed lot's but the Petroleum resources you keep mentioning were done by Iraqi, not US. Who do you think turned on all the oil pumps and discharged hundreds of millions of gallons/barrels of oil into the Gulf to try to thwart a US invasion? (Hint, it wasn't the US).

With the scale of things in the Civ series it is very unrealistic that you would destroy resources like this very quickly, but I could see these resources being used up over time ala Silver in Colonization.