Disaster Model v1.1

[alms66]

Hi Richard,

I've read all the articles and I have to say, I've heard 95% of them. But the large post of theories and minor theories only help stress my initial point that we need to pick a theory and go with it. LGJ is right, people won't lynch us if we get it wrong. Your point about more randomness was great, and I'll include it. But there needs to be some "goal" to global warming, or it's just senseless random occurances.

Civ2 took the warming=more warming theory, and although they didn't do a great job on it, you always knew if you continued you would end up with a world of only swamp, desert and jungle. We need this sort of "goal", or conclusion to global warming, and the warming=cooling theory, to me, offers a more plausible conclusion. Even though it actually isn't the conclusion, because if you played long enough the cycle would loop again.

[Richard Bruns]

I should repeat that many of these theories apply only to the Earth because they are based on our wind and ocean currents. A planet with a different arrangement of landmasses and mountains would have different air and water currents, so their climate change could follow different patterns than ours.

From what I have read of the map generator model, it will have wind and ocean currents that affect climate. Whenever there is a certain amount temperature change, those currents could be randomly regenerated. This would take a bit of time, but it would only happen a couple times at most (hopefully).

I am working on an ecology/agriculture model that should be simple enough to run in the background without slowing things down. It uses the wind and water currents created by the map generator. If a temperature change altered these currents and the ecology model was recalculated, we would get random but realistic terrain and agricultural yield changes.

You are right about the need for an overall pattern. However, I don't think that we should choose a certain theory. Climate change on a world other than Earth would not necessarily follow predictions that work for Earth. For example, a change in the number of forests and volcanoes might result in an atmosphere with a slightly different composition, which could react differently to pollutants. And then there is the fact that we really don't know what will happen on Earth.

So here is what I suggest for the effects of atmospheric pollution:

At the beginning of the game, a temperature change theory is chosen at random (warming->cooling, cooling->oscillating, ect.) The player does not know what the theory is until they get a high tech level and commision a climate study. Global mean temperature change due to pollution follows that theory throughout the game.

Aside from changing temperature based on this model, pollution always causes negative effects due to ozone depletion.

The current chart for disaster effects due to temperature change is followed, with the added effect of changing sea levels at extreme temperatures. Additionally, a change of a few degrees will recalculate the wind and ocean currents, changing the terrain and greatly oncreasing the frequency of disasters for the next few turns.

What do you think of this system?

[alms66]

Richard,

First of all, I didn't remember seeing anything about wind/ocean currents in the map generator model (I guess I should read it again), so I had never considered that amount of detail. But you're right about the change of patterns and change of landforms would alter everything.

As for your proposal, the random theory thing might be a bit of a problem. I'm not positive on this, but that seems like alot of extra code for a model that probably half of the players will turn off anyway. And I had lumped the change in sea level with terrain changes, just so you know.

But if we are using wind/ocean currents, I'll need to re-read the map stuff, and re-work alot of the global warming anyway (I hadn't considered it before, so if we use that there are changes I'd like to make already), so let's just hold off discussing this further, until later. I'll probably get to it after the social model is up; from what Rodrigo and I discussed, that'll be about 2 weeks, although I haven't heard from him in a few days.

[Richard Bruns]

I don't understand how it would take a lot of extra code to do something like this:

Choose a number between 1 and 8, and choose X and Y randomly within a range of values.

Pollution Amount and Temperature Change:
1. 1 P equals +1 T
2. 1 P equals -1 T
3. 1 P equals +1 T, fall on
4. 1 P equals -1 T, fall on
5. 1 P equals +1 T, rise on
6. 1 P equals -1 T, rise on
7. 1 P equals +1 T, oscillator on
8. 1 P equals -1 T, oscillator on

Fall: If T is greater than X or less than Y, temperature decreases over time.

Rise: If T is greater than X or less than Y, temperature increases over time.

Oscillator: If T is greater than than X, temperature decreases over time. If T is less than Y, temperature increases over time.

There would always be one temperature effect chart, so the temperature is calculated and then the effect is calculated. As far as I can tell, we would only need to make one small chunk of code and run it at the beginning of the game. Are there any difficulties with this that I don't know about?

Any natural temperature changes that we include would not be enough to trigger the fall, rise, and oscillator functions, but they might make it easier for pollution to trigger them.

The reference to generating currents could have been an idea that won't be implemented for a while, if at all. I read it a while ago.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited April 07, 2000).]

[alms66]

Actually choosing the theory would be the easy part. It's just a random generator that picks the theory to run in the game. The extra code would come from the effects each different theory would have. FE the warming=warming theory couldn't use the same effects that the warming=cooling theory uses. The reason being that warming=warming would be similar to civ2 in respect to the terrain changes, while the warming=cooling would be during the warming phase but would then change during the cooling.

Here's how I envision it (assuming use of wind/ocean currents, with a good climate model):

-There is still the global pool for pollution
-There are still thresholds, but rather than follow a bunch of strict charts, passing a threshold now only triggers increases in temperature, disease and increases in radiation (from depleted O-zone).
-The climate model would take input from the disaster model when thresholds are passed. The climate model would then be "in charge" of what happens to terrain, disaster frequency, etc. This would all be based off of landmass, landform, wind/ocean current, etc., as you stated. And of course the model would be constantly trying to rebalance itself back to it's starting levels, which means eventually all the pollution would disappear (as long as people aren't still polluting) and temp. would return to normal.
-The climate model would update itself, then send output to the disaster model and any other affected by climate.

With a good climate model, the increased temp. would cause complex changes throughout the world that would continue to effect the game until the world could regain it's natural stability. If there's one thing all theories agree on, it's that the Earth will find its way back to that natural balance, given enough time. So with a good climate model (one that takes input from all the sources, landform, cloud-cover, landmass, currents, etc. & sends good output to the disaster model and the others it affects), there is no need for theories. The computer will be making one up as it goes along. The "theory" would never be the same from game to game, and it will seem realistic.

[Richard Bruns]

A good climate model would be fun, but it would probably take up way too much processor time, as well as being very difficult to program. We will have to cut corners for this feature of the game, because it really isn't vital.

I don't see how the different theories need individual effects charts. We only need one chart that has temperature and effects. The different theories would change temperature in a different way based on a simple equation linking pollution to temperature.

The planet will recover from pollution, but it would take thousands of years to do so. The game won't last that long.

[alms66]

Ok, I've completely updated the Disaster Model, except for the Global Warming stuff and the ecology model (since it's still fairly new and may change again), with all that has been discussed. I won't be posting the updated version (at least til some of the Global Warming issues have been solved) so I'll just summarize below:

But first LGJ, I have two questions for you, since you brought this up, did you want hurricane death to be a minimum variance of 0-.01% or 0-1%, after the discovery of meteorology (or a certain level of it)? The reason I'm asking is that you wrote both in two different places; either way is fine with me, I'll just make it whatever you suggest. And second, on disaster affecting research, isn't that the government's (i.e. the player's) choice whether or not to "beef up" R&D of techs that may help prevent disasters (or reduce their effects)? I know that some techs will come from the people, but again isn't it the people's choice whether or not to research this?

Now as for Global Warming, it definately needs to be discussed more, but keeping Richard's ecology model in mind while the discussions rage. I don't have anything to throw into the discussion yet, so I'll try to recap all agreements here:

1. random effects are a must
2. o-zone depletion must be tracked
3. as o-zone is depleted, the earth will warm...then what? do we use the random theories picked at the start of the game, as Richard suggested? This may be the best choice to keep everyone happy, and as a bonus would add to the replay value, as Global Warming will not always have the same predictable effect.
4. there should be some way to reverse the Warming, though slowly, whether natural (real slow) or man-induced, or even a combination of both

This is just what's been agreed upon so you don't have to go back and re-read everything.

Does anyone have a reliable source to get the average Earth temp. from? I pulled 84 off of a web page, but I've visited many others and nearly all have different numbers.

Now let the next stage of discussion begin.

[Mark_Everson]

Hey TK:

I may be misreading it because of your condensing things, but it looks to me like you think of ozone depletion and global warming are closely related. They in fact are not. Although some of ozone-depleting species like CFCs are also greenhouse gases, their effect as greenhouse gases is rather small IIRC. I like the idea of picking random theories at the beginning also...

[alms66]

Mark,

Yeah, it is written that way...but that's not what I meant.

IIRC? I don't think I've ever seen that one before

[Mark_Everson]

Thanks,

IIRC = if I recall correctly

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: But first LGJ, I have two questions for you, since you brought this up, did you want hurricane death to be a minimum variance of 0-.01% or 0-1%, after the discovery of meteorology (or a certain level of it)? The reason I'm asking is that you wrote both in two different places; either way is fine with me, I'll just make it whatever you suggest. And second, on disaster affecting research, isn't that the government's (i.e. the player's) choice whether or not to "beef up" R&D of techs that may help prevent disasters (or reduce their effects)? I know that some techs will come from the people, but again isn't it the people's choice whether or not to research this?

1> 0-1%...the former (0-.01% is too small and really unrealistic unless you have total control of the weather, in which case you'd not even let that hurricane form ness (unless it was for enviroemental reasons...even so it would be planned so no loss of life was done).
2> Yes and no. This depends on the type of government structure and how reasearch is done. Not all scientific research is done by the government, in fact until recently almost none was except for specific uses. Still many technologies are started by indivisuals or companies.

quote: Does anyone have a reliable source to get the average Earth temp. from? I pulled 84 off of a web page, but I've visited many others and nearly all have different numbers.

Try just going to someplace that would be reliable that's all i haveto say. Someplace that tracks this would be the best place, not a secondary source if possible.

Also since we're using this stuff, we should start making records of where we get this info if its not common knowledge.

[Richard Bruns]

The need for close cooperation between the Ecology and Disaster models became clear after after I read the recent disaster model update. If we do not work together closely, there will be a lot of duplicated effort and potential disagreements. Some of this was evident in the recent Disaster Model post.

For example, I have already dealt with pollution and radiation extensively in the Ecology model. Also, my proposals for water treatment in tiles would change the way droughts and floods are dealt with.

In addition to these major overlaps, there are a lot of minor things. My proposal for the map generation includes wind vectors that could be used for hurricane movement. I have proposed seven climate sones per hemisphere and the disaster model uses old data and is based on four climate zones per hemisphere.

If we do not resolve these issues now, the two models could lose all hope of working together. I have a proposal for splitting the responsibility so that the two models can work together without conflict or overlap.

Toubado_Koomi has a lot of good ideas for modeling the effects of disasters on the civilization, and I like his plans for this aspect of the model. The ecology model does a good job of modeling the natural environment, but I haven't done very well with modeling how these things affect the people.

So I propose that the ecology model be responsible for generating ecological changes and most natural disasters. The disaster model would then define how these changes and disasters affect the civilization. For issues where man impacts the environment, the disaster model would generate the change and the ecology model would define how the change affects the environment.

For example, the ecology model would generate a drought in an ecological province and define its severity using the NWR, PWR, and vegetation in the province. The disaster model would then take this drought and describe its effect on the people in the province and the civilization.

In the case of pollution, the disaster model would generate the pollution and define its severity. The ecology model would then model how this pollution changes the natural environment.

Global climate changes due to human activity would be a bit more complex. The initial climate change would be defined by the disaster model. The ecology model would then change the natural environment and generate disasters based in the climate change. The disaster model would then describe the impact of these disasters on the civs.

I think that this split would allow the two models to work together with few problems. The information traded between the models would be concise and easily understood, and each sphere of responsibility would be well defined.

If this is acceptable, I will create a third draft of the ecology model based on this new delegation of responsibility. I will add routines for generating disasters and take away the parts that describe how the changes affect the people.

If my ideas are not acceptable, we will need an alternative way to split responsibility between the two models. If you have a beter idea, please post it.

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: Originally posted by Richard Bruns on 07-27-2000 08:38 PM In addition to these major overlaps, there are a lot of minor things. My proposal for the map generation includes wind vectors that could be used for hurricane movement.

I thought you knew that the main driving force that determines a huricane's direction is not the wind currents, but the water currents.

[alms66]

Richard,

That sounds real good, and is what I had in mind also. With the two models working together I think we can do a really good job on pollution, especially.

[Richard Bruns]

LGJ: I didn't know that. The ecology model also has water vectors, so we can use those instead.

Toubado_Koomi: I'm glad we agree. I'll start working on the revised Ecology model.

Pollution could be a bit tricky. Some of the effects of pollution, like the disease and unhappiness, are independent of the environment. Thus, the disaster model can handle these aspects from start to finish. The consequences of pollution affecting the natural environment would probably be a three step process like global climate changes.

It would probably be easier if the disaster model treats all changes the same way, no matter what caused the changes. If a land value decrease due to pollution is treated the same way as a decrease due to erosion, our jobs will be easier. This shouldn't be too much of a loss in accuracy.

So the basic process would go something like this:

1) Disaster model generates pollution and assigns severity values. Global climate change is also calculated. Direct effects of these are calculated and applied.

2) Ecology model makes changes to the environment due to the human influences calculated in step one. At the same time, all of the natural environmental change routines are run.

3) Disaster model decides how all environmental changes from step 2 affect the civ.

How does this sound?