Disaster Model v1.1

[Lord God Jinnai]

On Defoliation:

I like Rich's approach except we shouldn't make a "pool" for the bordering regions because things don't ness change that quickly and in such a manner. FE a desert may increase in some areas, but not others. Also some things are harder to create than others. FE deserts are almost (but not quite) impossible to reclaim. While replanting forest can be done given enough time and little defoliation.

Global Warming:
Acturally we do know. Temp will eventually bounce around over time, that is a given, whether it is in clash's time scale may not happen.

Sure nothing we do will be perfect, as for being outdated, well maybe, it could. Anyway I believe we should go with the best data we have available which is theory I explained (its been gaining support much faster than any other theory perhaps because there was proof that something similar happened in our history, not prehisotic times.

Anyway the chart shouldn't matter what type of planet your on so long as it obeys the laws of physics as we know them. Some things may be "greyed out" if it is picked on the chart as randomly occuring.

[Richard Bruns]

We wouldn't be tracking vegetation for the disaster model alone. The stuff that grows on the terrain will affect your civilization in many important ways. Everything from economic activity to military campaigns is greatly affected by the vegetation of the land. If we have a relatively static environment like Civ2, then we will be ignoring something that has had a huge impact on human history.

It doesn't have to take a lot of clock cycles to change the vegetation. Natural changes only have to be checked for about once every 20 to 40 turns, and rather than checking every tile, we only have to test the borders of two different terrain types. So, all of the plains tiles that lie next to a desert would be lumped together and given one test, and if the test showed a change, they would be turned into desert.

Human induced changes only have to be checked for about every five to ten turns, and only in areas that were recently altered somehow. For example, it would do a quick deforestation check seven turns after people started using a forested area. If the check showed that so many trees had been used, the terrain would become plains. If the check showed that the forest was not being cut down too fast, it would stay the same.

Regardless of the result, it would not check again until another big change hit the tile. If the conditions stay the same, so would the terrain (barring any natural changes). It would only run the check after something major happened. So if it remained a forest and a lot more people moved in, it would check deforestation again. If it had turned into a plains and everyone suddenly moved out, it would do a check after this event to see if it changed back into a forest.

I really think that it would be good to make a dynamic landscape. Aside from the fact that vegetation changes have had big effects on human civilizations, a realistic modeling of the environment would make players feel like they were interacting with a real, living world, rather than a static gameboard.

And this system could be turned off for multiplayer games. Clash's modular design should allow players to turn options like these on and off without affecting anything else.

[alms66]

Global Warming:

I originally was leaning towards the warming=cooling theory but the comment made by LGJ "whether it is in clash's time scale may not happen.", makes me favor Richard's idea. After all most of the theories are long term. And that long term amount of time won't be covered in the game. One thing that all the theories agree on is that sporadic things will happen as globabl warming sets in. Some say it will take only 100 years to take full effect, while others say 1000 years or even longer. And since we really don't know exactly how things will occur, maybe sheer randomness is the best solution.

Another benefit of the randomness is ...well...randomness. Players will be taken by surprise and completely unprepared for some things, which is always good, keeps them on their toes.

While, in real life, I still support the warming=cooling theory, some people who are less informed on the subject may get that "What the ----" feeling when global warming causes an Ice age.

I don't object to discussing it further, and I definately would like more opinions (maybe we should do a poll?), but I'm just trying to reach a conclusion here.

One last thing about defoliation/limited resources...there was some discussion on this in the map model thread, maybe we should move that part of the discussion there, or even a new thread.

[This message has been edited by Toubabo_Koomi (edited April 02, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

I originally was leaning towards the warming=cooling theory but the comment made by LGJ "whether it is in clash's time scale may not happen.", makes me favor Richard's idea. After all most of the theories are long term. And that long term amount of time won't be covered in the game. One thing that all the theories agree on is that sporadic things will happen as globabl warming sets in. Some say it will take only 100 years to take full effect, while others say 1000 years or even longer. And since we really don't know exactly how things will occur, maybe sheer randomness is the best solution.
-----
Actually the effects take at most 300 years. depending on when it starts it could effect the earth in clash very soon. don't foget we will have people playing beyond 2050 with far-future techs.

I just think there needs to be a trend. Sure IRL there is randomness, but scientific data allows us to make descions about what will happen, whether it is right or wrong. The player would then have no way of doing this and they may also decide to continue the trend in hopes that the randomness will help them or hurt their enimes more, not worried about the effects.

[Richard Bruns]

I couldn't find any old threads that deal with the topic we are discussing, so I'll start a new one.

[Richard Bruns]

Toubabo_Koomi's compromise for global warminf seems reasonable. Random vegetation changes mixed with increases in disease and disaster rates should be good.

[Lord God Jinnai]

First off, I think overall the compromise is fine.

Now then, just because a new theory later on may prove a theory wrong, doesn't mean we just blow conventional theory out the door though. We should use the most up-to-date realistic (as in possible to happen as apposed to just off the wall theories) that is available. Right now that is the warming leads to cooling and an ice age. If that changes b4 clash comes out and its not too hard to redo, then fine, change it. Remember though there has been a lot more study into the effects of pollution since the 1970s and newer theories are coming up less and less because the data available makes it hard to disprove those theories. That doesn't mean its impossible, but we shouldn't worry about that. Clash is made to perhaps simulate history [i]based on what we know of it.]/i] No ones (or virtually no one) is going to fault us if later something we have is disproven so long as it is based on the data available at the time. If someone were able to make clash in the early 1400's the Americas wouldn't exist!

Also if we keep track of temp as u said then as it cools disease will decrease (diasters can still increase and random changes can still happen), but food production will decrease drastically.

[alms66]

----
Also if we keep track of temp as u said then as it cools disease will decrease (diasters can still increase and random changes can still happen), but food production will decrease drastically.
----

That's what I was thinking about disease too, LGJ. But I was also thinking the disasters would go down too, because the climate would be returning to "normal" as the atmosphere cools (I mean we'd be decreasing from like 90 degrees). Also at first global warming may help the food production, but as too much radiation gets in, the tables would quickly turn. Then the food production would drop drastically (all that radiation is still getting in).

o.k., how about another idea? If we kept the current theory (warming=cooling), but rather than follow strict charts use random effects instead, would both of you (LGJ & Richard) be happy with that?

[Lord God Jinnai]

That sounds fine, but can you explain some more first.

[alms66]

Well rather that have +2% to hurricanes at level 1, there would be a random "roll" for what happens. Terrain could change, a disaster or disease could get a boost, Food production could increase, or anything else we put in the effects chart. There would be something like 50 or more effects so that we could have lots of variety.
Avg. temp. would be tracked and at 90 degrees the cooling cycle will begin. What happens on the cooling cycle isn't written yet but basically it would just take away all those effects of warming (except deathrate increases, and maybe others), change some terrain and lower food production.

This would give you the trend you want and give Richard the random effects he wants. Although Richard doesn't want any actual theories, we do need some kind of trend, other than things just keep getting worse.

[Lord God Jinnai]

These are not all the things that happen, but most of them:

Here's basically what the warming would do in short run, then long run (around the turning point):

- Increase occurance of distasters, except volcanoes and earthquakes (those have to do with mantle and core which pollution and such don't affect).
- These disasters should on average get more severe and last longer (if it has a time period of more than 1 turn, FE droughts)
- In the short run, most temperate and artic climates will benifit with food production, however only for about 20-40 years.
- In the long run all places will have lower crop production, less water. Also disease (except perhaps water-borne diseases in inland areas) will increase drastically.
- Changes in terrain types (from temperate to tropical, etc)
- increase in rainfall

As the cooling effect takes place what will happen (this is beyond the just returning to normal):

- Disease will decrease in most areas, except around the equator maybe, perhaps temporary increase as sick people who could normally survive die (the only good thing)
- Crop production will decrease even more drastically than before (drastically)
- Reversed changes in tiles (from deciduos to pine forests)
- Long term leads to lowering of ocean's water table and increase in glacier sizes.
- decrease in rainfall and in most disasters. Blizzards (which were not mentioned would increase).

***NOTE*** The decrease in temp is much quicker than the increase. This has been proven, its really not a theory. Anway it also lasts longer (snow reflects more sunlight than jungles and forest absorb)

[Richard Bruns]

Here is some stuff I found about climate change. The source is a collection of news briefs and summaries of article published in scientific journals. I'm not trying to prove anything; I tried to dig up all the useful information I could find.

According to this, some climate predictions might not be reliable. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0112075202.htm

This article shows that different parts of the planet are changing temperature at different rates, and some are even cooling. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0118080320.htm

As well as discussing the effects of warming on weather, this shows that basic climatic conditions were different in 4000 BC, which is in the timeframe of Clash. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111180607.htm

This discusses desertification, and shows another big climate change in Clash's timeframe. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712080500.htm

These articles include evidence for mostly random climate changes, and they show how ocean currents have a big impact on climate. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0420080212.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1025080116.htm

Effects of solar activity and wind patterns on climate: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0412075538.htm

This shows how warming can lead to more warming. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1112065837.htm

Temperature effects on plains and forests: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0814065032.htm

Effects of warming on disease: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310081157.htm

Effects of warming on plant growth: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1031072234.htm

Natural climate and groundwater fluctuations: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0211083523.htm

Clouds and climate changes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0306075941.htm

Climate predictions for northwest USA: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0128123041.htm

This interesting article discusses the effects of climate on ancient cultures. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0121163742.htm

These have reminded me of two things. First, the disaster model does not have sea levels changing as a consequence of temperature change. Second, are we tracking the amount of groundwater reserves? It is an important resource.

[Richard Bruns]

This article from Discover magazine is longer and more comprehensive. It discusses a lot of things that are relevant to our model.
What Drives Climate?
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited April 04, 2000).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

I've read all the articles and will post my comments on them. Don't read this unless you've read them as they may not make sence otherwise.

According to this, some climate predictions might not be reliable. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0112075202.htm
-----
I never said it was. It is a theory, the one however with the most evidence to back it up. The example of CO2, watervapor and plantlife forgets to mention that plants absorb CO2 returning it to the earth where it is once again locked up. I'm not saying the General Circulation Models are correct, but its among the better models to date. If they come up with better ones (or someone else does) by all means, i say use them.

This article shows that different parts of the planet are changing temperature at different rates, and some are even cooling. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0118080320.htm
-----
They do meantion that the planets getting warmer mainly in industrialized areas. Now they do say that gasses such as CO2 spread out across the globe, which it does, but not all gasses do. Many never make it that far or are simply too heavy. Also even though CO2 does spread out across the globe it will be more concentrated where its major sources come from, active volcanic areas and industrail areas.

As well as discussing the effects of warming on weather, this shows that basic climatic conditions were different in 4000 BC, which is in the timeframe of Clash. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0111180607.htm
-----
Interesting article, though i fail to see the reason for it since we prob won't be using El Nino/La Nina.

This discusses desertification, and shows another big climate change in Clash's timeframe. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712080500.htm
-----
Yep. That is compeletly likely. Quick changes in land and eniviroments have been proven beyond a doubt (ie they have happened within our lifetime). The best example is Califonia where every hundered or so years the 2 plates that slide along each other cause on to shift upward and forward causing a massive change in land, causing the coastline to push outward several miles. There are other less drastic changes. FE the Sahara desert is once again expanding at a rate of i think it is 10 feet per year.

These articles include evidence for mostly random climate changes, and they show how ocean currents have a big impact on climate. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0420080212.htm http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1025080116.htm
-----
Yes these are a couple articles probably based off of (or were based off of) the article i read. Why I believe this one over the others is because it doesn't solely focus on the gasses, but also on currents and geographics.

Effects of solar activity and wind patterns on climate: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0412075538.htm
-----
Yes I heard this stroy before, but like it said, increase in solar activity isn't major contendor in global warming, so then why would it be so in global cooling? Sure it would have impact, but its kinda hard to have it both ways.

This shows how warming can lead to more warming. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1112065837.htm
-----
Yea well I'll agree to that. 1 moderate volcanic blast puts out as much greehouse gasses as we have throughout all of our history.

Temperature effects on plains and forests: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0814065032.htm
-----
Again nothing here I find wrong and probably agree with. It may help with the tiles model, and maybe not.

Effects of warming on disease: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0310081157.htm
-----
A good article on the effects of carrier-driven diseases from non-humans to humans, but it doesn't help with other diseases. Although I'm pretty sure since diseases thrive in warm and hot temp (up to a certain point when they start dying off) that they increase because they become more active.

Effects of warming on plant growth: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...1031072234.htm
-----
Interesting but it makes sence. Those areas have to recuperate from there offset parameters do to El Nino so that's the best way to handle it is to reverse the trend.

Natural climate and groundwater fluctuations: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0211083523.htm
-----
Interesting, but we have something like this already incorperated, although not ness on global scale. I'm not sure we should either since there hasn't been yet a global drought or rainy time. Like several other articles mentioned climates vary for each region and having on place drier than usual will usually end up resulting in someplace wetter than usual if its on a global scale.

Clouds and climate changes: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0306075941.htm
-----
One thing on clouds and climate. The warmer it gets, the more cumulus clouds there are which cool down the earth more, the cooling it gets, the reverse, ie sirus clouds.

Didn't get to finish the rest. Gotta go soon. Anyway we can have several possible paths if u want, but i that may make things too complex.

Your ringht about the sea levels. They'll need to be put in there.

[Richard Bruns]

I am not saying that we should include everything in the articles, and I'm not trying to use them to make a statement. I just wanted to collect good information on the topic. I'll discuss some of the specifics after more people have had a chance to read them.