Pollution problem

[WhiteElephants]

In case this develops into a debate we, the lurkers, are going to need to know the difficulty level of the game, the factions planet rating, and whether or not tree farms of hybrid forests are in place.

[Fitz]

I will do a test when I get time (Saturday if I'm lucky) on the Scenario Editor, and post the EXACT results, along with any personal conclusions.

In the mean time, unless A_S does it first, I don't really want to debate it with him. He has a tendency to stick to his guns when all he has backing it up are personal opinions. So do I. Doesn't make for a very productive debate, does it now?

Edit: If I can figure out how, I'll also put some saved game files from the results on my homepage. I figure to run it foward a turn or two to make sure it doesn't need an end turn to change the global eco-damage.
------------------
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before."
[This message has been edited by Fitz (edited August 10, 2000).]

[Adam_Smith]

First I want to say that the reputation for being unflexable is more of a rumor (lack of a better word). People started saying this, because I am correct more often than they are and then my reputation started. From there most people just take it as fact with no experience to support. It's true that there are miscommunications that take place and then battle lines get drawn for bad reason, but I don't just take a stand without reason.

I've already stated that I don't know any thing for sure about ecodamage. The formula says that global ecodamage is reduced from Centauri Preserve facilities, and my experience seems to agree with that. However, one can't really be sure because there are so many factors which go into the equation. If you want to do some tests, Fitz, good for you. I'm glad. I'll be just as interested, and open minded, as everyone else.

[Fitz]

I still disagree with you about the connection between global eco-damage and base eco-damage flowing in the diretion of base eco-damage, Adam_Smith. But not having tested it (still haven't found the time yet) I won't bother to argue it (yet). Given wnueberts result when he sold all his Centauri Preserves (ie - no effect on one base) I may or may not be correct. It may have been necessary for him to let it go to the next turn for a true test. It does seem to confirm my suspicions that the two eco-damage ratings are one way or unrelated. In which case, building a borehole outside of a base radii has -0- effect on any base eco-damages. It will affect global eco-damage though.

Also, as far as I know, nerve gassing aliens causes -0- eco-damage. I do lots of it all the time, and never seem to get bad results.

[Adam_Smith]

You didn't read the fromula then.

[Fitz]

::sigh:: A_S, the formula is refering to the eco-damage for a base. There is no reference that Centauri Preserves (etc.)reduce global eco-damage (other than it's effect on base eco-damage), and no reference that having one in one base reduces eco-damage in other bases.

My personal belief (unproven) is that global eco-damage is determined from base eco-damage of all factions, and nothing else, and that there is no feedback in the other direction (from global to base). In other words, I don't agree that flooding reduces base eco-damage (eg that planet burns off ecodamage), or that having a Centauri preserve in one base has any affect on other bases, or that your factions bases have higher eco-damage if other factions are producing lots of damage.

[Fitz]

Just pulling your leg Adam_Smith

I do want to do some tests, mainly because nothing I've read about the Centauri Preserves, etc., says anything other than it reduces the base eco-damage for that specific base.

------------------
"When choosing between two evils, I always like to try the one I've never tried before."

[Basil]

Direct quotes from Prima's Strategy Guide:

% chance for ecological damage = Modifications * Diff * Techs * (3-Planet) * Life/300

Modifications = (Enhancements/8) + (Minerals/Goodfacs) + (Major Atrocities * 5) - 16 - Previous

Goodfacs = 1 + (total number of Centauri Preserves, Temples of Planet and Nanoreplicators you have)

End of quotes. I am reasonably sure that it does not say this anywhere in the documentation that comes with Alpha Centauri, I remember being very surprised when I read it in the Strategy Guide.

Now on the one hand this is clear enough, on the other there are at least two errors in the formulae:

[*]Ecological damage does not decrease to 0 when your planet rating is 3[*]Ecological damage seems to go down as you get more technologies, whereas this formula indicates that it goes up with additional technologies (as it does in Civ)[*]And of course Prima's guide is not current with SMACX or any patch[/list]
Since reading this, I've always responded to ecodamage problems at high-mineral bases by building Centauri Preserves at small bases, and I've always found that the ecodamage problem goes away after a few turns. But I've never tested it scientifically.

[This message has been edited by Basil (edited August 12, 2000).]

[Adam_Smith]

There is a general agreement that the formula states that ecodamage is controlled globally by Centauri Preserves and other facilities.

True, it's not well worded, but if you read the whole formula you should get that idea. Look what it says for Tree Farms and Hybrid forest. Those control ecodamage locally. Now look at what it says for Centauri Preserves etc...

[Fitz]

Interesting. I always read it to mean divide minerals by one if nothing in that base, 2 if a preserve, 3 if preserve & replicator, 4 if all three facilities, but all specific to that base. I never would have thought it mean't globally.