No Global Warming Option

[ostrander-bellepoint]

I really hate it in Civ II when my nice tidy map that I've worked so hard to build up is destroyed by global warming, particularly when it is due to some other civ's pollution. I hope that Civ III will have the option to eliminate this menace.

[Inverse Icarus]

no. global warming should be in, even more so now.

with the free passage agreements, you could clean up your neighbor's pollution.

in a game of diplomacy and trade, as this appears to be shaping into, pollution could even be used as a bargaining chip.

"We will not clean our pollution unless you pau us 20 gold per turn for our efforts"

[TechWins]

This sounds like a good option.

[Seeker]

Just like real world....(Kyoto negotiations...)

American civ is refusing to upgrade all their Power Plants to Solar and Nuclear....

Will EU give George Bush tribute in Gold?

[ancient]

i dont like it either, but i think it may be necesary, and realistic in the game, bu you should have orginizations in the game which can be agains things such as pollution, nuclear weapons, over production of arm, in adition to trade coalitions..

[Inverse Icarus]

well, if global warming is removed, than the only thing pollution does is lower foodstuffs / production / trade.

well, IMHO, that isn't enough.

without global warming, pollution could just be LEFT in areas, like on a jungle square, if t happened to land there.

and then what if u nuked an entire civ, say 20 cities, and didnt even bother moving in with troops?

they'd starve, and you'd be sitting pretty.

i don't like the idea of using a ton of nukes and having NO consequences.

[Your.Master]

I agree with UberKrux. While I hate the times when Global warming comes with a passion and it frustrates me to no end (especially when it happens BEFORE any Nuclear War) it is an extreme restraint on people. You don't pollute like crazy or proliferate Nuclear Weapons because the map will turn against you and suddenly your prairie provinces become Arabian-like desert nomads. It was the -ULTIMATE- restriction in Civ, aside from the impossible. I don't think there should even be an option on this one, because while usually I'm all for stupid options I'll never use, this will degenerate the game and overall I expect there will be less fun had.

In fact, I think Global Warming should be worse, but with more preventative measures (perhaps an anti-pollution or at least anti-global warming wonder).

[jackazzstudent]

Originally posted by Seeker
Just like real world....(Kyoto negotiations...)

American civ is refusing to upgrade all their Power Plants to Solar and Nuclear....

Will EU give George Bush tribute in Gold?

Or how about . . .

American civ refuses to upgrade Power Plants and then the EU civ criticizes it, regardless of the fact that no major industrialized nation on the friggin planet (EU or not) has made the same committment.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest

Adam

PS Hate to beat a dead horse, but if you're gonna say EU countries have made a committment, then it should've been ratified, not in word.

[ostrander-bellepoint]

I think some of you may misunderstand what I'm saying. I only want the option to choose global warming or no global warming. Naturally the default would be set to global warming.

[tniem]

Originally posted by ostrander-bellepoint
I think some of you may misunderstand what I'm saying. I only want the option to choose global warming or no global warming. Naturally the default would be set to global warming.

I think most people understood you and are telling you that they don't agree with you. They and I guess I am included believe that people will turn global warming off simply because it will make things easier for the player. So, they believe that it should be left on to challenge us and give us another thing to think through and plan for.

Then, most people went farther and began discussing ideally what problems global warming would force us to confront. Personally I believe that most of the problems with global warming will not occur until after the time frame of Civ III and may be it shouldn't have that big of impact on the game. But I certainly like many of the diplomatic ideas that are being floated.

[Fidel]

Originally posted by jackazzstudent


Or how about . . .

American civ refuses to upgrade Power Plants and then the EU civ criticizes it, regardless of the fact that no major industrialized nation on the friggin planet (EU or not) has made the same committment.

Sorry, just had to get that off my chest

Adam

PS Hate to beat a dead horse, but if you're gonna say EU countries have made a committment, then it should've been ratified, not in word.

jackazz
are you aware of the us share of world energy consumption?
why is it that you want to give example when it comes to droping laser guided bombs from 20000 ft but you are very reluctant when it comes to fixing a USD 1000 filter on the top of the chimney.
man, it really does not take much. have you took a look at the size of european cars and american cars or compared the petrol prices?
pollution should be in, full force, with severe diplo penalties for big polluters, pact or no pact. after all, pollution does not recognize borders....

[Mavas]

Give it up LaRusso.
The American addition of Civ III will have no global warming. Remember the game has to be fun, Americans have to winnnn, they want to believe what they want - they are free and brave - and will be allowed to start in 4000 BC with four settlers and an Abrahams tank.

Adam.
I don't care anymore if the US is in a treaty or not, the US just doesn't understand treaties (treaties derives from treat, which is similar to a sweet, guess most think that the Kyoto treaty is some sort of Japanese M&M), treaties hurt the freedom of some Americans (kind'a like being married, for 50% of Americans), Americans want to move forward (kind'a nice way how George puts it when he cancels a treaty). Guess a number of Indian tribes would have a word to say on treaties with the US - then it was Go West, now it is Move Forward. Treaties with the US appear to be on par with those that Adolf used to make with the English and Russians some 60 years back. Should you be around in 60 years Adam, I'm sure you won't consider you may have been wrong on this one, back in 2001 - you are a true American. Chances are you would say: "I didn't know". That's what people here say when you bring up Adolf; of course "I didn't know" is as an excuse for "I didn't care" - always works.

Here are some figures for Germany, you know, where people drive BMW and Mercedes and speak Polish.

1990 986,6
1992 901,4 - 8,6%
1994 876,8 - 11,1%
1996 898,2 - 9,0%
1998 857,2 - 13,1%

2005 Goal - 25%

...U.S. greenhouse gases in 1998 increased by 0.2% compared with 1997, the lowest growth rate since the beginning of the 1990s. However, total emissions of
1,803 million metric tons of carbon equivalent were 10% higher than in 1990...

Europe does not have to ratify Kyoto, it has already finished the game, and is now eagerly awaiting to play Civ III with global warming.

[fittstim]

Let's not get mean now!!!

Czolem Mavas!!!

Nie wialem ze Niemców mowia po polska...

Anyway I wholeheartedly support keeping the global warming. It'll be too tempting to turn off global warming and then, as everyone pointed out, the game becomes too off-balance.

I hate the damn barbarians even more but there's no way of removing them from the game. At best one can reduce their presence but they will always be hidden in those lovely huts.

Jackazz Adam: I'm not bashing Americans but you have to face facts, the energy consumption of the US and Canada is absurd. You live in Texas for God's sake!!! A desert environment with scant water. I'm sure your AC is cranked up as you read this. But anyway, it had nothing to do with the EU's (non) ratification of the Kyoto protocol which prompted GWB to officially kill the treaty, but it did have everything to do with the US energy policy.

Mavas: No need to bash Americans. George W. causes untold embarrassment everytime he opens his mouth. But you are totally misled about America and Americans. As in Germany (and Poland and Sweden), the people aren't the ones making the decisions. It's the "elected" representatives. In the US, it's the energy industry (Bush and Cheney are both in their pockets) which is directing the US energy policy. The Americans as a people are just as interested and/or apathetic about Global Warming as your average German, Pole or Swede. And yes, I'm speaking from direct experience.

[Recurve]

It's tempting to join the fray, but I won't!

I'm guilty of triggering global warming myself on the odd occasion, sometimes deliberately to set other nations back a few years!

Originally posted by UberKruX
in a game of diplomacy and trade, as this appears to be shaping into, pollution could even be used as a bargaining chip.

Too true. If the cleaner civs don't like it, they can always contribute cash towards my Recycling Plants (or at the very least give me the relevant technology).

[Fidel]

Re: Let's not get mean now!!!

Originally posted by fittstim
As in Germany (and Poland and Sweden), the people aren't the ones making the decisions. It's the "elected" representatives. In the US, it's the energy industry (Bush and Cheney are both in their pockets) which is directing the US energy policy. The Americans as a people are just as interested and/or apathetic about Global Warming as your average German, Pole or Swede. And yes, I'm speaking from direct experience.

Well, we like to think that people visiting these forums are interested in life's many ways and well informed
Then again, as rightly pointed out, every time you build a house in the desert with and AC you DO contribute to reckless energy consumption. Just like you do when you buy SUV to take your kids to school 3 blocks away. Just like you do when you keep petrol prices ridiculously low and stimulate consumption.

You may say people are not interested, but that does not exculpate them. After all, they make everyday choices that benefit them in the short term and, only occassionally, they look at the big picture (mortgage, loan, etc.). Why on earth should individuals actually get some CREDIT for being egoistic and happily accepting the system as it is.

NB to add insult to injury i have just read that al gore won the rererererecount (IHT) or at least should have had. not that i care about that wooden plank