Global Warming?

[Hurin]

For the record, here's my experience with global warming, meltdowns, and nukes.

I didn't see any global warming until one of my reactors melted down. Then I had a square or two of it turn up. But no big whoop.

After my diplomatic victory, however, I decided that I wanted to force my two remaining rivals into capitulation. So, I built about 10 ICBMs.

Launched them, conquered the cities (easy on Arhipalago -sp?- map that I got randomly).

Now, here's the interesting part. . . even after cleaning up all the fallout. . . there was no change in the rate at which global warming took place. I cleaned it all up and then just "ended turn" for about 200 turns. The rate never changed over all. Though it is "streaky" (might go a turn or three without any warming. But then you'll get a bunch, etc.).

I wondered if perhaps the global warming rate was so high because I was past the max turn limit and had already won. But, reading this, it appears that there is no undoing the "damage" done to the Global Warming rate by nukes. Boo!

Best,

H

[Dis]

Originally posted by Blake
Nuclear Meltdowns also cause global warming, the AI will build nuclear plants...

I certainly hope not. It would be nice to have a little bit of actual science in the game.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Bkeela


Thank goodness, for that is what spoilt the previous games.

yes but it would be nice to have a little bit of science in the games. nuclear wars do not cause global warming!!!

of course we've never actually had a nuclear war. . But I think research and analysis has concluded this. Even the nuclear winter theory isn't as severe as once believed. But there's really only one way to find that out for sure.

global warming should be tied to pollution, not nuke use. It's not like it's like civ3 with the whack-a-mole pollution. But there should be some consequences to very high production cities.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Hurin
For the record, here's my experience with global warming, meltdowns, and nukes.

I didn't see any global warming until one of my reactors melted down. Then I had a square or two of it turn up. But no big whoop.

After my diplomatic victory, however, I decided that I wanted to force my two remaining rivals into capitulation. So, I built about 10 ICBMs.

Launched them, conquered the cities (easy on Arhipalago -sp?- map that I got randomly).

Now, here's the interesting part. . . even after cleaning up all the fallout. . . there was no change in the rate at which global warming took place. I cleaned it all up and then just "ended turn" for about 200 turns. The rate never changed over all. Though it is "streaky" (might go a turn or three without any warming. But then you'll get a bunch, etc.).

I wondered if perhaps the global warming rate was so high because I was past the max turn limit and had already won. But, reading this, it appears that there is no undoing the "damage" done to the Global Warming rate by nukes. Boo!

Best,

H

that's because the Earth will require thousands of years to correct itself. just kidding of course. I'm sure if you played 40000 turns the rate would remain unchanged. I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to play the game that long.

protect the environment kids.

[Brael]

Going to mod my version whenever I think about it so that Nuclear meltdowns either don't happen or don't trigger global warming, honestly I would just rather play civ without it. Having your cities randomly made worse with no way to reverse it isn't very fun to me.

I can also confirm having nuclear plant meltdowns will cause global warming to begin, for that reason I don't even build them anymore (which I hate doing since I like getting all buildings made... eventually). I once had a game where I had 4 nuclear plant meltdowns inside of 5 turns. After I won the game I played it out a bit longer (it was a small/fast game, pangea... I actually circumnavigated without making a single ship that game) probally 300 turns with me as the only civ... anyways, I played on tropical and within those 300 turns half the continent was desert and my cities populations were cut in half. All caused by nuclear meltdowns only.

[Dis]

*sigh*

exactly my problem with the game.

I'm sure the russians (or ukranians) would love warmer winters because of Chernobyl, but it isn't going to happen.

[Blaupanzer]

Earlier Civs, especially Civ II, had lots of pollution to clean up. Not doing so in reasonable time led to an elaborate global warming process (grassland/swamps/jungle to plains, plains to desert, deforestation, and so forth. I like it as a penalty for mishandling nukes better. (You can prevent meltdowns by discovering fusion incidentally.)

Real life desertification to date has been based on misuse of water, especially ground water by the local population. While I don't dismiss the potential for coming catastrophe, history to date shows global warming effects to be the basis for models, not actual effects on the ground relating to fertility. Pollution has stunted forests, ruined drinking water, killed off species of frogs/birds/insects/fish, but global warming itself has not had these effects; not yet anyway.

[Blaupanzer]

Originally posted by Dis
*sigh* exactly my problem with the game.

I'm sure the russians (or ukranians) would love warmer winters because of Chernobyl, but it isn't going to happen.

Dis, the Ukrainians would get even colder winters and hotter summers if the global warming models are correct. The "average" temperature will rise, but the seasonal weather will get even more extreme. Also some years will be a lot wetter, while others will be a lot drier, floods followed by droughts. In those models, Chernobyl is a drop in the bucket.

In Civ IV, global warming is a punishment for nukes, not a result of long-term, widespread pollution. Given what a pain in the neck it was to spend the end game chasing pollution in earlier Civs, I think I prefer this solution.

[Prussia]

I think in real life there are other things than Nuclear waste that are causing global warming.

[Brael]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer


Dis, the Ukrainians would get even colder winters and hotter summers if the global warming models are correct. The "average" temperature will rise, but the seasonal weather will get even more extreme. Also some years will be a lot wetter, while others will be a lot drier, floods followed by droughts. In those models, Chernobyl is a drop in the bucket.

In Civ IV, global warming is a punishment for nukes, not a result of long-term, widespread pollution. Given what a pain in the neck it was to spend the end game chasing pollution in earlier Civs, I think I prefer this solution.

Which brings up the whole question, do nukes really need that punishment? They're expensive and can be mitigated to a huge extent.