Announcement

**DirkZelwis** · April 25, 2000, 11:33

Hello!
I'd agree with desertification (is that a real word?), floods, etc. Don't forget vulcanoes! I don't agree with Ice Age, Nature is not fast. I think in the 6000 years Civ2 lasts, Africa and America drifted apart some mere metres (continantal drift it's called, I think). Again, no continent-wide changes, small changes yes.
Bye, Dirk
"Dirks and Daggers."

**Patriqvium** · April 25, 2000, 14:35

Even more Finns arriving these days...

Otso, I think your idea works in theory, but imagine it in action- the result would be a chaos where square types change every 10 turns, causing starving et cetera which would be extremely irritating to take care of... Maybe there would be some way to make this idea work?

Az · April 26, 2000, 05:56

I actually think that the changes in the tiles is the right thing but these changes should be really slow and small scale . also there should be a Geological and Meteorological like if near the beach there are plains and later hills the plains should bew grassland , ( there is an explanation for this , the clounds from the sea rise , and as they rise they lose temperature . when they lose temprature , the air's ability to contain water falls and the rains begin. but when the clouds start getting down from the other side of the hills the start gaining temprature and the rains stop ). because of this there should be a desert there or ( if a river passes there ) plains. so THIS is much more important than minor changes in tiles .

also those climatic rules can create unsteady earth tiles , like grasslands that can pass , during rainy years into swaps . or during draughts into plain tiles .

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .

**Adm.Naismith** · April 26, 2000, 10:55

IMHO there is no meaning to implement truly geological events (continent shift, ice age, etc. because of the timescale of the game.

I'm for the idea of implementing some (faster) effect as desertification (north Africa and south of Italy had more food (grain) production during Roman age, where now they are more limited.

Some global change will put more pressure on the player to look at, as the high production vs. pollution/global warming problem.

To model this maybe we also need a more gentle step from enough food/starving people, one where (as in some big city in the world) there are lot of unhappy people because of poor food distribution. That will press the player to take care of proper city development and proper trade to let his/her megalopolis survive.

About Vulcano or Major Earthquakes, I think some can be put on the "Natural Disaster" list, if any, but I'm more for make room to disaster that a player can try to counter (or make it) because of playing actions: forest destructions, pollution, nuclear fallout and the like (with all the know effects).

A game modelling (with appropriate limits) the difficult choices of balancing a world can stay more interesting also if your Civ is already number one, because you need to exercise your diplomacy to influence other country into sustainable development (as in Tokyo conference in real world).

**MidKnight Lament** · April 26, 2000, 20:00

I agree about the natural distasters. Most should be counterable in some way. Even if only to diminish their impact. And it's important that there are disasters from the modern age onwards that are a result of mankind's manipulation of the earth.

- MKL

**Ramses100** · April 27, 2000, 07:13

I think natural fenomena should be included. Off the 7 wonders of the world only one remains, because the others were destroyed by earthquakes. So in the early ages the right thing would be to build for instance the great library, only to see it crumble to dust 5 turns later. Many great civilizations have fanished because of climate changes. This has also been one of the major reasons to go to war. In later ages it is very reasonable to suggest civs going to war over oil, or water. Am I making any sence?

**Maniac** · April 28, 2000, 15:15

Indeed, you shouldn't underestimate the effect of natural and climactic disasters.

For one, earthquakes are very important. Many of the civilizations and cities around the Eastern Mediterranean Sea declined that way, direct or indirect.
The most known example is Troy. There was indeed around -1250 a war between Mycene and Troy, but the Greeks weren't able to conquer the city. It's only after there was an earthquake (and not a Troyan Horse) that they were able to do that.

For vulcanoes and flood waves is the Minoan culture a perfect example.

And about planet/continent-wide climactic changes, I think to remember correctly that there was such a change (it became warmer and drier) around 3000 BC, which caused the Germans, or whatever they were called at that moment, in Scandinavia to move South, which caused a migration of Celt-like people whole the way through Europe. A certain tribe even reached Egypt where it was finally defeated. So yes, climate, even 'small' changes, can cause big changes in history.

PS1: I'm sure there are many other examples of each.
PS2: Small climactic changes could be perfectly imitated by the everythingx10 system, if somebody still knows it around here.

**Otso Vuorio** · April 29, 2000, 03:07

I think we can forget the whole idea of moving continents and. I haven't even think of it. Dalgetti mentoned somekind of little moving of landscape, but I think it's not necessary.
Adm.Naismith, DirkZelwis, Dalgetti, MKL,Ramses100, Patriqvium and M@ni@, thanks for your encouraging comments.
The zones of different flora (as we have here on Earth) would be realistic, and Dalgetti's comment on the influence of rain on the landscape is important.

Maybe The Ice Age isn't so good idea, but what about adding some kind of small "Ice Age", as there was in The Europe in the late 16th century, to civ3 when playing in the difficult level? It would make the game much more challenging. Comments plz.

[This message has been edited by Otso Vuorio (edited May 02, 2000).]

Az · April 29, 2000, 06:47

Otso Vuorio : you know , that sound like a nice idea .adding it as another challenge for the harder levels of the game . but the large scale ice age shouldn't exist , coz they happen once a few million years and civ covers .... ok I think I 've got kinda of Idea : civ should give the option covering from 10000 BC ! and then the ancient techs should be researched in a harder way . and that also makes sence ; as punlished in the **Tech tree** :
"...city walls [6000 BC]...."

as you can see many improvements were there in very ancient times .... so if you can prolongue it would be nice : also there are many evidences of Civization and medditiranean climate in the Sahara desert ... so we could show plains and oasises there at the beginning and let them gradually transfer into deserts .... and withdrawing ice capes all over the mountains ....that would , of course , make map making much harder .. but that's reality ...

P.S. I should really stop making all these
"....." right ? comment this too... ... ...

------------------
-------------------
Enslave the enemy .
[This message has been edited by Dalgetti (edited April 29, 2000).]

**Stuff2** · April 29, 2000, 11:27

A better idea is to separate terrain from vegitation. It would be much more realistic.

**Otso Vuorio** · May 2, 2000, 07:03

Dalgetti, now you're talking!
But maybe 10000BC is too early time to start the game. The game would grow longer...And some people think it's too long already.
Well...This matter should be examined carefuly.

Announcement

Ice Age and changing terrains in Civilization 3

Ice Age and changing terrains in Civilization 3

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment