The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
I really think you people are downgrading the effect a large-scaled nuclear exchange or very large meltdown would have on the environment.
When you launch a nuke at a city, you aren't just launching one nuke at one city, you are hitting a very large region with a very large barrage of nuclear weapons which, after their initial shock and heat-wave, will spread fall-out and other highly toxic materials into the atmosphere.
These things don't just disappear. In fact, they will linger and plague the environment by destroying highly important parts of ecosystem, polluting rivers lakes with radioactive elements, and literally destroying entire tracks of forests, crops, and whatever other biological creatures they come into contact with.
The same thing with a very, very severe nuclear plant catastrophe could happen and be even more intense because highly radioactive waste-material that was being stored could be released into the atmosphere and eventually find itself back on the surface. In short, the potential for destruction and havoc with the environment that radioactive materials can cause is hard to be downplayed as it does destroy biological organisms on contact, unlike hydrocarbons which only manage to heat up the atmosphere and destroy those oh-so-vulnerable polar bears.
Originally posted by Autotropx Sox
I really think you people are downgrading the effect a large-scaled nuclear exchange or very large meltdown would have on the environment.
When you launch a nuke at a city, you aren't just launching one nuke at one city, you are hitting a very large region with a very large barrage of nuclear weapons which, after their initial shock and heat-wave, will spread fall-out and other highly toxic materials into the atmosphere.
These things don't just disappear. In fact, they will linger and plague the environment by destroying highly important parts of ecosystem, polluting rivers lakes with radioactive elements, and literally destroying entire tracks of forests, crops, and whatever other biological creatures they come into contact with.
The same thing with a very, very severe nuclear plant catastrophe could happen and be even more intense because highly radioactive waste-material that was being stored could be released into the atmosphere and eventually find itself back on the surface. In short, the potential for destruction and havoc with the environment that radioactive materials can cause is hard to be downplayed as it does destroy biological organisms on contact, unlike hydrocarbons which only manage to heat up the atmosphere and destroy those oh-so-vulnerable polar bears.
The problem is that this level of meltdown has never happened. Therefore there is no evidence that it ever will, despite what the anti-nuclear power faction thinks they know. Which makes the effects of a meltdown in the game unrealistic. On a whole, it is an unbalanced, unrealistic game artifact that is merely a reflection the political bent of the game designers.
No, I don't want to risk the melt down. And, at this point in the game I rarely need the added production.
"What did you learn in school today, dear little boy of mine?
I learned our government must be strong. It's always right and never wrong,.....that's what I learned in school."
--- Tom Paxton song ('63)
Meltdowns have happened.
Chernobyl was as severe a catastrophe as you'll ever see happen.
It doesn't get any worse than that.
And yet, you don't see random desert squares popping up in Connecticut and California...
Many nuclear devices have been discharged on this earth by 7 different countries.
The USA has detonated over 100 devices in the nevada desert as well as Nagasaki and Hiroshima, France has blasted remote isles in the pacific doing tests, so has england, Russia, India, China, etc...
All those nukes going off and the meltdowns together don't even come close to the ecological damage done by the automobile, or the train, or the factory, or the mine, or the forge, or even the aerosol spray can.
That's reality.
The fantasies and what-if scenarios of nuclear fear mongering don't fit in what's supposed to be a historical game.
Alpha Centauri has a far better model for global warming than CivIV; they should have used that in this game.
Everything except the fungal pops, of course.
I didn't think it was that many either.
My guess at 100+ was a guess drawn from an article in MSNBC on the nuke test India did some years ago.
They had one of those inset timeline thingies on other nuclear testing.
The same year that India test was done, two underground tests were listed for the US.
I extrapolated 2 tests per year for 50+ years ~ 100+ tests...
1000-1200 is a lot; doesn't completely surprise me, you'd expect the number to be high, but it is a little startling.
Where did you check this out, if you don't mind my asking?
I totally believe you, I just want to read more about this stuff.
I think it was the movie "Trinity & Beyond - The Atomic Bomb Movie" (check amazon.com) where I learned about the number of tests. Great documovie, the explosions can be beautiful.
Chernoble is about the most severe meltdown you could really expect to have and the main effects that had on Russia were severe health issues in the area surrounding the plant. IMO a meltdown should not affect global warming at all, it should cause a permanent penalty to health and happyness for that city. Say -5 or so for both. As they are now in the game, they're pointless.
The other problem with meltdowns is that they affect your biggest cities. When Chernoble was built, it wasn't designed to provide power to the surrounding countryside. It provided power to Kiev and Moscow. Why didn't they build it one of those cities then? Because of the risk of meltdown, duh...
The whole model for power is kinda messed up in Civ IV. Most of the world's dams are built deep in the mountains, as far from cities as possible. Coal plants are built near coal mines as far from cities as possible. Nuclear plants, wind farms, even solar plants are built as far from cities as possible.
I understand that Civ has to be a fun game, and the idea of building a plant per city isn't terrible, but when there's a meltdown it should affect some square on the fringe of the city's radius, preferably a desert or tundra as that's where the plant would have actually been built.
I suspect the reason for meltdowns being so significant ... is that it makes for better gameplay. Nuke power plants have to have a drawback that is significant enough to make the choice between coal and nuclear power a true choice. If it's a minor drawback, like a few unhappy or unhealthy people, then it would have to be incredibly frequent (which then you'd all complain about just as much). Making a nuclear meltdown both rare and minor makes it entirely pointless - and makes the choice between coal and nuclear power plants no choice at all.
<Reverend> IRC is just multiplayer notepad.
I like your SNOOPY POSTER! - While you Wait quote.
Tweet
Comment