Tweet
.
The thing is, they did already eliminate micromanagement from the pollution equation, and civ 4 went backwards...
Civ 3 was such a horrible game, that I won't even go into that here, but civ 2 was the original basis for much of what came later.
It was much different and better than the first civ, and had a greater influence on civnet, alpha centauri and civ4 than civ I did imho.
Civ 2 did had the 'whack a mole' pollution solving methed described above where workers spent time removing pollution.
It was horrendous micro, and so was removed for alpha centauri.
Alpha centauri had a global method of climate change from pollution which was far better, and removed the micro worker based pollution removal.
Oceans would rise at certain levels of global warming in alpha centauri, rather than randomly turning squares to desert.
Civ 4 changed the pollution to global warming dynamic which alpha centauri used into the unhealthy system.
That's fine, I don't mind global warming being replaced by the unhealthy system.
What does bother me is that they wanted to keep global warming in, and instead of pollution, tied it to nukes, which makes no sense.
Why didn't they keep the alpha centauri non-micro solution?
At the very least, they could have changed nuclear to provide unhealthy just like pollution.
If nuclear plants provided 1 unhealthy than it would be a viable alternative to the coal plant.
Coal - cheapest to build, earliest to tech, 2 unhealthy.
Nuclear - more expensive to build, and later to tech too.
Of course, hydo is the best solution with 0 unhealthy, but it comes so much later in the tech tree (depending on how early you got factories, it could be hundreds of years before you get plastics).
I usually get factories before I even get scientific method or steel...
I don't think it's good tactics to wait that long for hydro or 3gorges and losing the massive production boost you could be getting from the earlier coal or nuclear plants which is as much as the forge and factory combined.
If nuclear gave 1 unhealthy, than it would compare with the coal and sometimes you'd build coal and sometimes nuclear, rather than always coal plants like the system encourages now.
In cities without health concerns such as those on rivers without flood plains, you could build the cheaper, earlier, and unhealthier coal plants while on cities with health concerns such as flood plains, inland grasslands, etc. you could wait for the later and more expensive nuclear plants which could give 1 less unhealthy.
.
The thing is, they did already eliminate micromanagement from the pollution equation, and civ 4 went backwards...
Civ 3 was such a horrible game, that I won't even go into that here, but civ 2 was the original basis for much of what came later.
It was much different and better than the first civ, and had a greater influence on civnet, alpha centauri and civ4 than civ I did imho.
Civ 2 did had the 'whack a mole' pollution solving methed described above where workers spent time removing pollution.
It was horrendous micro, and so was removed for alpha centauri.
Alpha centauri had a global method of climate change from pollution which was far better, and removed the micro worker based pollution removal.
Oceans would rise at certain levels of global warming in alpha centauri, rather than randomly turning squares to desert.
Civ 4 changed the pollution to global warming dynamic which alpha centauri used into the unhealthy system.
That's fine, I don't mind global warming being replaced by the unhealthy system.
What does bother me is that they wanted to keep global warming in, and instead of pollution, tied it to nukes, which makes no sense.
Why didn't they keep the alpha centauri non-micro solution?
At the very least, they could have changed nuclear to provide unhealthy just like pollution.
If nuclear plants provided 1 unhealthy than it would be a viable alternative to the coal plant.
Coal - cheapest to build, earliest to tech, 2 unhealthy.
Nuclear - more expensive to build, and later to tech too.
Of course, hydo is the best solution with 0 unhealthy, but it comes so much later in the tech tree (depending on how early you got factories, it could be hundreds of years before you get plastics).
I usually get factories before I even get scientific method or steel...
I don't think it's good tactics to wait that long for hydro or 3gorges and losing the massive production boost you could be getting from the earlier coal or nuclear plants which is as much as the forge and factory combined.
If nuclear gave 1 unhealthy, than it would compare with the coal and sometimes you'd build coal and sometimes nuclear, rather than always coal plants like the system encourages now.
In cities without health concerns such as those on rivers without flood plains, you could build the cheaper, earlier, and unhealthier coal plants while on cities with health concerns such as flood plains, inland grasslands, etc. you could wait for the later and more expensive nuclear plants which could give 1 less unhealthy.
.
sobrano was driving at modifying selected files of course. But wodan11 is ever the practical soul. 
Comment