Global Warming II

[xobsidianx]

Help! How do I get rid of global warming in smacx? I've played with the numbers in the world builder in alphax but it didn't help. Does someone know what value to set these numbers so gw is out of the game or another way to remove it. Thanks.

To the developers of smacx 2 (if ever) please give us an option to play without global warming.

[Static Universe]

Re: Global Warming II

Originally posted by xobsidianx
Help! How do I get rid of global warming in smacx? I've played with the numbers in the world builder in alphax but it didn't help. Does someone know what value to set these numbers so gw is out of the game or another way to remove it. Thanks.

To the developers of smacx 2 (if ever) please give us an option to play without global warming.

In alphax.txt in your Alpha Centauri folder, under the #RULES heading, you can change the lin that says:

1, 1 ; Numerator/Denominator for frequency of global warming (1,2 would be "half" normal warming).

to

1, 100 ; Numerator/Denominator for frequency of global warming (1,2 would be "half" normal warming).


This won't eliminate it completely, but will probably never bother you either. If it does, raise 100 to a higher number.

I've never tried it myself of course, because I like global warming.

[Flubber]

I like global warming too but merely wish there was a way to preserve existing coastline by building floodwalls or something. Too often you are left with the choice of seeing your coastal square slide between the waves or raising it with the consequence of raising one or more sea squares to become land as well.

If the terraforming model allowed you the choice to do 500m raises, even within the existing model, that would be ideal. All those 10 m squares could safely go up without ruining all the nearby lands

[Gibsie]

On the subject, how does global warming work? I read that sea levels were due to rise 66 metres in the next 20 metres, and it all happened in one go after about that long... is that how it always is? Seems kinda dumb to me.

Plus a smelly enemy capital (without pressure dome) that should have been sunk wasn't, instead they raised the land about 700 metres, although I saw no formers (and didn't know you could modify base squares)...

[Flubber]

I'm not certain exactly when the land drops so I am no help on your first question.

On raising base squares, it is possible by raising adjacent tiles. Since elevation is ranked

1-999
1000-1999
2000-2999
3000+


where adjacent tiles MUST have elevations of the same rank or one rank higher or lower. Therefore if you have a base tile at 50 m and an adjacent tile at 1140m, raising the adjacent tile which brings it above 2000m) will have the effect of raising that base tile to some elevation above 1000m so as not to violate the above principle. I have never tested or noted the exact elevations but the general rule has always heldtrue in my games.

It is therefore most efficient when raising land to not terraform the low squares but instead to pick a couple of the higher tiles and "pull the peaks". It does cost a llittle more in energy credits but has a greater effect in a shorter time

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Gibsie

Plus a smelly enemy capital (without pressure dome) that should have been sunk wasn't, instead they raised the land about 700 metres, although I saw no formers (and didn't know you could modify base squares)...

The raising/lowering of ocean levels is really weird in how it plays out. I haven't noticed any uniformity at all, say where if levels rise 66 meters over 20 years, it subtracts 3.3 meters from every tile every year.

Instead it seems to randomly pick squares and drops them the whole 66 at least. Threatened squares don't always seem to be the first to go. I've seen the middle of a continent disappear before the coastlines.

The same is true for the solar shade, where it will produce mountains out of formerly low terrain. Going from level 1 to level 3 is considerably more than 333 meters, if you ask me.

I think the game would have been improved by a pollution report screen, since ecodamge is such a major component of the game. Having to scroll trough your bases to find out where your ecodamage is is pretty annoying. Or an option in Best Bases to show you the most polluting one (Worst Bases? ).

I think I read someone on the forum recommend moving the Genejack Factory lower in the tech tree so the AI will get an early pop before it builds the ecodamage control facilities*.

This makes sense given the ecodame formula in

http://apolyton.net/misc/column/175_ecodamage.shtml

and lowering the number of pops in the later game will keep the global warming down.


* I must have read it because I know I didn't think of it.

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Static23


The raising/lowering of ocean levels is really weird in how it plays out. I haven't noticed any uniformity at all, say where if levels rise 66 meters over 20 years, it subtracts 3.3 meters from every tile every year.

I agree. That definitely does NOT happen.

Originally posted by Static23

Instead it seems to randomly pick squares and drops them the whole 66 at least. Threatened squares don't always seem to be the first to go. I've seen the middle of a continent disappear before the coastlines.

I disagree. Those interior square were also endangered if you check carefully. Land far, far into the interior can be and often is a lowland that is quite vulnerable to sea rises.

It is not random. From the limited testing I did, each tile dropped the same amount in the same year with one very important exception. If the resulting elevation would cause a tile to violate the ranking rule in my post above, it was pulled back up. Lets say a tile at 1010m was adjacent to a tile at 2500m and each experienced a 50 m drop. The result should be 960m and 2450m but this cannot happen so the lower tile will remain above 1000m.

The more interesting phenomenon is called "washing". Take the example above and make their starting elevations 10 m and 1500m. With the drop they would be minus 40 m and 1450 m. This is a difference of two ranks and therefore cannot occurr so the minus 40 square will immediately be back over sea level (not sure what elevation though) BUT the PROCESS OF GOING BELOW SEA LEVEL AND BACK WILL ELIMINATE ALL TERRRAFORMING

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Static23 [/SIZE
I think the game would have been improved by a pollution report screen, since ecodamge is such a major component of the game. Having to scroll trough your bases to find out where your ecodamage is is pretty annoying. Or an option in Best Bases to show you the most polluting one (Worst Bases? ).

This is also a pet peeve for me although I am more focused on endangered squares. I think it would be great if the main map view would show ALL the endangered squares instead of having to run the cursor over each square to see whats up.

To find the ecodamage causing bases I just usually go to F4 and then order my bases by mineral production. Its not foolproof since a 25 mineral base without a treefarm is more likely to be causing ecodamage than a 3o mineral base with one, but it does help

[Static Universe]

Originally posted by Flubber

It is not random. From the limited testing I did, each tile dropped the same amount in the same year with one very important exception.

That's makes a lot more sense than my "random" theory. I didn't realize the the different levels made a difference, so it sure looked random to me. I wonder if the reverse is true for the solar shade? Will land be pulled up if ocean levels drop?

The more interesting phenomenon is called "washing".
...
the PROCESS OF GOING BELOW SEA LEVEL AND BACK WILL ELIMINATE ALL TERRRAFORMING

Finally clears up the mystery of my disappearing forests!

[dworkin]

You should know which bases are the worst. They typically are the ones crammed with Secret Projects and firing up satelites as fast as they can find materials. If that doesn't help then quick burst of fungus growth is often a handy reminder.

I always thought the ocean rising/falling results were applied at the end of the period just like former actions are.

[Datajack Franit]

What's wrong with global warming? I like watching my cities floating in the ocean with their tachyon fields and kelp plantations all around them- I find it a really charming view

[xobsidianx]

Static 23

Thanks, it worked.

[Ned]

You might want to find and read an article I wrote on environmental damage. You can, if you want, build mineral production to the moon without ED simply by building Tree Farms, Hybrid Forests and Centauri preserves after the first fungal bloom. Each facility built adds one to the total ED level that one has to have before damage begins. This means that you can even sell the facilities and build them again to increase ED immunity. The effect is faction-wide.

[Kajak]

Ah!! washing, thanks Flubber,
I'm in a game now where a row of 5 tile in the interior "washed " my half dozen attempts to rise the level, included not only the improvements but also would instantly (?) disappear a fomer moved on the tile. I think I might have made it worse by trying to raise all the tiles around the washing group. It was very confusing, but then I just found out how to attack other satellites after 6 months of playing.

My impression from other tries at AC was that bore holes
would survive being drowed and then risen, (not washed). Would washing work differently in this particular case?

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Kajak
Ah!! washing, thanks Flubber,
I'm in a game now where a row of 5 tile in the interior "washed " my half dozen attempts to rise the level, included not only the improvements but also would instantly (?) disappear a fomer moved on the tile. I think I might have made it worse by trying to raise all the tiles around the washing group. It was very confusing, but then I just found out how to attack other satellites after 6 months of playing.

My impression from other tries at AC was that bore holes
would survive being drowed and then risen, (not washed). Would washing work differently in this particular case?

I don't know as I have never permitted a borehole to have this happen

You are correct in that units on the "washed" square are lost IIRC-- I sort of think of it as a flash flood

The solution is to raise the peaks-- trying to raise individual endangered squares is slow but if you can find an adjacent square that is over 1000m and raise it to over 2000 (using gang former tactics for speed), you have just effectively pulled a whole area out of danger-- raising a 2000m square up will have an influence over even a larger area so be careful that you note the sea squares that can become land -- You don't want to lose terraforming, units or starand your best port.

So my advice when facing sea rises is to note a few key squares to raise (name them as landmarks if you wish) and use a gang of 3 formers to raise a square quickly -- Then either raise it again if that has good consequences or move to the next square