Vegetation, Climate, Ecology, and Pollution

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: 2) Terrain Basin: Depressions in the landscape. Only these squares can possibly become wetlands or lakes. Flat Rolling Hills Mountains

Wetlands can occur on flat land if they are sea level. Florida is a very good example of this. As is Louisiana to a lesser extent (well before the levees were put in).

Also i think you should add into the specials trenches for both oceans and inland.

quote: Once a source is determined, the river flows downwards via the lowest possible route. The volume/turn is not much in the first square, and increases lineary until a basin (big enough, if the river will continue flowing) or sea/ocean is reached (we might put a limit on ). Rivers reaching the Ice cap become glaciers = ice covered terrain, so effectively they just stop. The terrain of the squares the river flows through becomes on level less rough (fe hills->rolling). If the river meets another, then its volume/turn is added to the second river downstream. The first river stops there (in the second river). If a river meets itself, it forms a BIG lake or sea.

One thing to add to this is that often rivers in deserts may disappear before they ever reach the coast or form a lake. Also many rivers go underground.

quote: To generate the PBM, we need three things: * Climate: already assigned, represents temperature * Moisture: use a temporary value. It is determined by -- Rivers : the squares with a river are much moister, those adjacent very little (eg. Nile), according to volume water/year. -- Water currents: warm currents cause more evaporation, the condensation causes preciptiation. Cold water causes less evaporation. -- Air currents: rain shadows -- Climate: atmospheric convection cycles: T: large bonus, CT, SA: small bonus, WT: no bonus, A: small penalty, ST: large penalty * Terrain: already assigned: rougher terrain means smaller PBM

Don't know if you were going to put this here, but pollution and human habitation should impact this.

quote: Some important species: rats (spread of diseases, damage vulnerable ecosystems, eat supplies), cats, dogs cotton, silkworm, sheep, flax, rubber, hardwood, fur animals spices, sugar cane, coffee, tea, tobacco, cocoa; olives, figs, dates, wine, bananas, peanuts horse, camel (cold deserts), dromedary (hot deserts), donkey (mules are infertile crossbreeds) cereals, maize, potatoes, rice; onions, beans, soya beans, peas, lentils

Insects should be added, but also how are we going to deal with evolution of new animals/plants. I don't want to do much, but even within human history there have been new species created, or maybe you could say sub-species moreso (Dogs and Cattle and some plants being the only truly new species).

quote: EXPLOITATION ------------ Farming and Fishing essentially force the ecosystem to turn part of its Biomass into products usable by humans. Farming is impossible in certain Terrain : Mountains, Hills (except with terracing) Farming is impossible in certain Climates : Arctic, limited in Sub-Arctic Farming is impossible in certain Vegetation types: Wasteland, Desert, Forest, Climax Forest

Ok the last two are wrong in some cases.

In the summer, sub-artic can grow some of the biggest crops in the world if its in the polar regions, of course that is only for 2-4 months.

Farming is possible in Deserts and Forests (atleast rainforest). Deserts if there is irrigation are among the best places for farming because the nutrients there don't get used up.

As to the rainforest, many natives in Brazil are semi-nomadic and do some farming there, but it is not standard western farming. In fact, many S.A. countries a pursuing this avenue because it can be used much longer than the traditional method of farming.

quote: Intensive hunting This is usually done by commercial hunters. They can hunt a special of fur animals, or of especially abundant or easy to catch birds (dodo) until it disappears (usually within a few years). They can also intensively hunt a terrain for meat, furs, ivory,.. . The PBM is then decreases a certain number, and intensive hunting is then impossible. The specials could be exploited for a longer time, but only -very- carefully. (examples: Bizon, many North American fur animals).

Should add fishing to this.

[Mark_Everson]

Uh, I would really not like to get into lots of detail on animal species as we have discussed many months ago. At least I think we need to keep the realism in check in this area. My proposal is we only worry about species that are specials in the econ model and have clear economic uses. I think the player will get rather little out of the rest. Evolution of things like draft animals can I believe be adequately handled in the tech model, using Techs like Draft Animals. Its simple and already has code to support it.

Everything in the models should be able to answer the question "Will the player derive fun from this aspect of the model?" with yes. If we take the 'complete world simulator' route we will never get to a game IMO.

[Simon Loverix]

LGJ:

'Wetlands can occur on flat land if they are sea level. Florida is a very good example of this. As is Louisiana to a lesser extent (well before the levees were put in).'

I was thinking of 'basin' as a depression in the landscape, so if a basin was near an ocean or other wet square it would become wetland. FE The terrain gained from the sea by the Dutch (up till now) would be considered basin.

'Also i think you should add into the specials trenches for both oceans and inland.'

Here also I thought basin might cover this. But it could as well be put in the specials if that's more practical.

'One thing to add to this is that often rivers in deserts may disappear before they ever reach the coast or form a lake. Also many rivers go underground.'

Surely. Where they go underground they would add to the ground water reserves.

Since wet terrain seems problematic, if propose another categorisation.

Terrain: (Trench?,) Basin, Flat, Rolling, Hilly, Mountainous
Climate: A, SA, CT, WT, ST, T
Vegetation: W, D(also ice desert?), LC, HC, LF, F, CF
+
Water: Ice, Ocean, Sea, Lake, River, Source/Wetland

If there's much water in the terrain, one of these is applies.

'Don't know if you were going to put this here, but pollution and human habitation should impact this.'

Basically, permanent damage means adjust the PBM, temporary damage means adjust the BM. I have sketched out pollution and will post it. I don't know when, since the barbarian Deadlines are heading for my border and I have to stop them before letting myself in with the more pleasant aspects of civilized life .

'Insects should be added, but also how are we going to deal with evolution of new animals/plants. I don't want to do much, but even within human history there have been new species created, or maybe you could say sub-species moreso (Dogs and Cattle and some plants being the only truly new species).'

Farming is impossible in certain Climates : Arctic, limited in Sub-Arctic
Farming is impossible in certain Vegetation types: Wasteland, Desert, Forest, Climax Forest
[/QUOTE]
Ok the last two are wrong in some cases.

'In the summer, sub-artic can grow some of the biggest crops in the world if its in the polar regions, of course that is only for 2-4 months.'

I meant the average production for a year.

'Farming is possible in Deserts and Forests (atleast rainforest). Deserts if there is irrigation are among the best places for farming because the nutrients there don't get used up.'

Well, if desert squares are irrigated, the PBM goes up, and then they are able to support more vegetation (exactly how much depending on the circumstances).

'As to the rainforest, many natives in Brazil are semi-nomadic and do some farming there, but it is not standard western farming. In fact, many S.A. countries a pursuing this avenue because it can be used much longer than the traditional method of farming.'

I thought mainly of the classic intensive farming methods. Those tribes use other food production 'technology' in game terms, with less limits to terrain but probably also less productive.

'Should add fishing to this.'

Fishing has been proven to be more sustainable than hunting. Most likely because fish doesn't share living space with humans like land animals. Maybe hunting and fishing need a variable in the production equation that shows how much % of the land is still usable as habitat for the species.
You can go out hunting in a city but it won't be worth the effort .

[Simon Loverix]

Mark:

Those species are specials of provinces, they can be left out without causing problems.

[Lord God Jinnai]

quote: 'Wetlands can occur on flat land if they are sea level. Florida is a very good example of this. As is Louisiana to a lesser extent (well before the levees were put in).' I was thinking of 'basin' as a depression in the landscape, so if a basin was near an ocean or other wet square it would become wetland. FE The terrain gained from the sea by the Dutch (up till now) would be considered basin.

The problem here is that the terrain doesn't have to have a concave time of nature. It can be sea level, flat and still be considered wetland area. True these are rarer, but when they appear they are on a much broader scale (Southern Florida is the best example of this).

quote: 'As to the rainforest, many natives in Brazil are semi-nomadic and do some farming there, but it is not standard western farming. In fact, many S.A. countries a pursuing this avenue because it can be used much longer than the traditional method of farming.' I thought mainly of the classic intensive farming methods. Those tribes use other food production 'technology' in game terms, with less limits to terrain but probably also less productive.

So your saying they would just have a lower farming technology then or what?

quote: 'Should add fishing to this.' Fishing has been proven to be more sustainable than hunting. Most likely because fish doesn't share living space with humans like land animals. Maybe hunting and fishing need a variable in the production equation that shows how much % of the land is still usable as habitat for the species. You can go out hunting in a city but it won't be worth the effort .

True that is more sustainable, but within the last century we have seen that it is very easy to over long periods of time to overfish an area. When the first pioneers came to the Americas and the fishing trollers went out they would often catch so many fish they threw many of them back because they could not support them. Today, that is never the case. The nets are larger and the catches are smaller. The results are the same as overhunting or overhavesting lumber, it may just take longer to see the results.

Also one thing on the pollution part your drafting up is that irrigation should slowly over long period of time make the soil less productive do to salt buildup (even freshwater has salts in it).

[Simon Loverix]

quote: The problem here is that the terrain doesn't have to have a concave time of nature. It can be sea level, flat and still be considered wetland area. True these are rarer, but when they appear they are on a much broader scale (Southern Florida is the best example of this).

That's right. I considered them the same in order to keep the number of different terrains low, since coastal and inland wetland are physically similar, with the same effects on movement etc. We can separate them as two different types, however.
Water: Ice, Ocean, Sea, Lake, River, Coastal Wetland, Inland Wetland

quote: So your saying they would just have a lower farming technology then or what?

Other farming methods. They do not face the restrictions in vegetation and can get more out of the land, but the maximum possible yield is bigger with traditional farming.

quote: True that is more sustainable, but within the last century we have seen that it is very easy to over long periods of time to overfish an area. When the first pioneers came to the Americas and the fishing trollers went out they would often catch so many fish they threw many of them back because they could not support them. Today, that is never the case. The nets are larger and the catches are smaller. The results are the same as overhunting or overhavesting lumber, it may just take longer to see the results. Also one thing on the pollution part your drafting up is that irrigation should slowly over long period of time make the soil less productive do to salt buildup (even freshwater has salts in it).

I agree. Are we going to give the fishable squares a higher PBM or regeneration rate, count the fishing grounds as specials that can be depleted (just like minerals) or something else?

Salt buildup: With a BM starting at fe 60 and the PBM (or BM?) decreasing 1 or 2 each year, it will take 30 years to reduce the land to desert, after the PBM has catched up with the BM when going down. Is this reasonable? The PBM values will need to be shifted anyway, and may be split up between sites.

Sites:
the PBM value represents only the strength of the ecology and the suitability of the land, while farming sites represent technological advancement as well as the value of the land itself. A give piece of land would then have different ratings according to the civ it belongs to. The sites number could be put in a technology variable of the civ, but I don't think it belongs in the terrain.


[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 24, 2001).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

This is both to Mark and to Simon, but on differnent points:

First to mark: Is there anyway you can seperate out from the econ model just the agricultural section and post it somewhere?

To Simon: Another thing that is important with reguards to farming is that certain crops either enrich or deplete the soil. This is very imporatant and right now I can see no way around atleast doing some kind of different crops used because of this. Even with fertilizer, there is only so many years you can farm before a feild cannot produce and becomes a desert, yet the year before you could have had a descent harvest if you used fertilizer.

[Mark_Everson]

quote: Originally posted by Lord God Jinnai on 04-24-2001 06:42 PM Is there anyway you can seperate out from the econ model just the agricultural section and post it somewhere?

Not easily. A quick skim of the web page for economics ( http://clash.apolyton.net/models/Model-Economic.shtml ), followed by a search on Agriculture and/or farming would probably get an interested individual most of what they should know. The most important section on the econ model to read would be:

Overview
A Few More Specifics
How much is produced?
and
Production Function

[Simon Loverix]

LGJ: I thought different farming methods also included different crops. FE the three-field system uses 2/3 of the land instead of 1/2 because the crops are different in that system, and deplete different nutrients. Exactly what crops are used is less important, since a moderately good set of crops was/is probably available everywhere. They will be inevitably be different in different climates anyway.

Maybe this can work:
BM * (farming method factor) = number of sites ?

Pollution coming within a few days, I just had a test week at the univ.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Simon:

I think your site numbers may come out a bit high using the exact equation you have, but I think you're getting close! I'll copy a post from earlier in this thread here so its convenient for you to use. Its from my post of June 3 2000 if you want the context.

quote: Some numbers for sites... I think I've already given numbers for this in the discussions above. For the record (and this may change with playtesting) a lousy square (desert, tundra...) might have one agricultural site, steppe might have a few, rainfall agriculture-type squares would probably range from 5 to 20, and vastly productive agricultural lands like ancient Egypt might have something like 50 sites per square along the Nile. Irrigated desert agriculture poses a bit of a problem, since unless the irrigation is there, the lands almost useless. So I think we might need a special case to handle such lands. But for demo 5 I think we can't ignore the distinction and see how the system works in general. The rule of thumb is there should be as many sites as ancient agrictulture could support population over the area of the square. So if on average a square in China supported 30K people, then there should be 30 sites. The exception is lands where heavy investments in irrigation are required. There I would cut the pop number by 2/3 or so since the investments in irrigation will increase the yield above the usual amount just given the sites. Hope this is what you need... For resources I would just wing it for now. Sites will usually be in the range from 1-10.

[This message has been edited by Mark_Everson (edited April 27, 2001).]

[Lord God Jinnai]

Simon:

What you say is generally true, however, with the use of fertilizar, esp. industrial fertilizer many farmers would farm only 1 type of crop because its price was so high. Tobacco was an example of this and it depletes the soil rather quickly.

[Simon Loverix]

POLLUTION .
___________

Pollution is linked to resource extraction, production and consumption. The severity of the effects depends on the particular source of pollution. Basically, permanent damage is a penalty to the PBM while temporary damage is a penalty to the BM. The effects can be random, since pollution often has unexpected results. The environmental damage is always an instantaneous event. The recovery is handled with the normal ecology rules (BM regeneration).

See also disaster model. Toubabo_Koomi, can you comment?

There are three types of polllution: Gaseous, Liquid and Solid.

1. Gaseous
----------
- local effects: Large quantities of exhaust fumes and industrial pollution from smokestacks cause diseases, damage to infrastructure (soot) and acid rain.

- range effects: Part of the acid rain also occurs following any local wind current. If there is no wind, this part also occurs locally.

- global effects: All air pollution is recorded. If the total exceeds a certain fraction of the atmospheric volume, global warming may occur (possibly delayed). Also everywhere the chance to acquire cancer increases.

2. Liquid
---------
- Liquid pollution on land, ice and in wetlands is treated as solid pollution, except in wetlands that are the starting point of a river.

- river, source: If a square containing a river is polluted, next turn all squares downstream suffer.
(How much? 3 options: 1) total pollution / nr of river squares, 2) every square suffers from the total amount, 3) the effects decrease gradually downstream. The pollution ends up in a lake, sea or ocean and is processed as described below.)

- ocean, sea, lake: Immediate effects may occur. Apart from that, total pollution is recorded for each separate eco-province of water. If the total volume exceeds a certain fraction (based on PBM), permanent damage to the whole province occurs.

- If the all oceanic pollution exceeds a certain fraction (based on PBM) of the total oceanic volume, worldwide damage to the oceans could occur (massive fish starvation etc.).

3. Solid
--------
- Burned solid pollution is treated as gaseous pollution.

- Leaking solid pollution is treated as liquid pollution.

- Solid pollution causes immediate local temporary effects. It is also stored as a special and will do damage again with intervals, decreasing in amount each time until removed, recycled or depleted. (Alternately, it's also possible to have it cause permanent damage just once and disappear, as a simplified rule)

4. Special types
----------------
- Acid Rain: BM penalty; possibly PBM penalty; infrastructure damage (especially historical buildings made of limestone)

- Nuclear Explosion: BM=0; PBM reduced to 1/10 of its original value; the square now has a special: Radioactive Elements: decrease pop. growth, increase mortality rate (because of various cancers)

- Global Warming: adjust climatic zones according to chosen theory; re-generate ocean and wind currents and make appropriate adjustments.

- Volcano: The terrain of the square becomes mountainous; a Volcano geo-special is created; the BM is reduced to 0 and the BMP to desert or low cover at maximum; air pollution occurs.
Note that this is a very big volcano, one that affects 10,000 km²; we might leave it out or adjust its effects downwards.


ENVIRONMENTAL MANIPULATION.
___________________________

- Draining: reduces PBM a little and halves BM. However, the water disappears and the square becomes ordinary dry land as long as the draining is maintained. It still has its previous BM (up to its new PBM) and possibly still needs to be deforested to be suitable for farming

- Deforestation: reduces the BM to the level desired. Possibly reduces the PBM (erosion). Chance for this to happen, this is (BM reduction+ possible increase)/PBM, rises if the climate makes the soil vulnerable due to much rain or high temperature and wind (WT+1,ST+2,T+4) and when the terrain is steep (D-1,F=,R+1,H+2,M+4). Thus, cutting trees on a tropical mountain is most likely to reduce it to desert, while doing so in a cool temperate valley (depression) has a very low risk. Doing this in small steps reduces the risk somewhat, but increases it at vulnerable places.

- Construction:
* Roads: Road construction does not cause any changes (besides open space reduction), except in forests: climax forest is reduced to forest, forest has a chance to become light forest and light forest stays the same.

* Buildings: Either we could give the squares a rating (from uninhabited to metropolis) or keep record of the land use in 3 percentages: nature, settled, city. What these 3 mean needs to be discussed. FE, my country is (in the statistics) considered to be 99% city, but all I see when I look out of the window are fields and orchards. These data could be used for farming and hunting yields, health risks for the population, access to services, etc.
Note that farmland is considered high cover for vegetation purposes, and city is considered desert. So squares that are highly settled (>50% farmland) or urbanized (>50% city) are limited to light forest and low cover respectively.

- Burning: Causes air pollution and reduces BM to (almost) 0. Vegetation regenerates at normal rate. Additional measures like planting trees can speed this up.

- Farming: For food as well for other products:

BM ranges
0 waste 5 desert 15 low cover 30 high cover 60 light forest 120 forest 240 climax forest 480

sites based on BM
0 waste 1 desert 3 low cover 20 high cover 50 light forest 20 forest 10 climax forest 5

Produced Amount (Y) = A*L^a*R^b*K^c
A = 5 (production technology near subsistence level) L = 1 head (1000 people) R = 1 farm site K = 1 (representing farm tools) a = 0.5, b = 0.3, c = 0.2, which satisfies a+b+c = 1

Disastrous events etc. (fungus, rats, floods, army, ...) reduce the production after it is produced, so it is a loss and not just reduced production.

Each year,
BM = BM +fertilizer/manure +natural regeneration +river silt +... -produced amount


example: Cold Temperate, cycles:2 BM, regeneration: 2 BM, BM 35/48 PBM (alternate rotation)

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 0.5) = 18
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 0.5)) = 34
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

* Pesticide: adds a bonus to farming yields

Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 0.5 + 0.5 pesticide bonus) = 36
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 0.5)) = 34
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

* Fertilizer (chemical): adds a bonus to BM recovery, up to a limit, possibly solid pollution occurs, chance increases with amount used and with vulnerability of ecosystem (=low PBM)

(continuous use, primitive methods but with synth. fertilizer)
Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 1) = 36
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 1)) = 32
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 32 + 2 + 4 = 36.

* Fertilizer (natural): adds a bonus to BM recovery, up to a limit, degradation of soil may occur (PBM penalty), chance increases with amount used and with vulnerability of ecosystem (=low PBM)

(three field system)
Each turn 1 population point that is farming produces 36 * (farming tech factor 2/3) = 34
and causes a decrease in BM: 36 - (4 * (farming tech factor 2/3)) =
The Ecosystem regenerates 2: 34 + 2 = 36.

- mining:
* Shafts cause to change terrain and PBM only when collapsing. The storing and transport is heavy industrial activity and this may cause pollution. Also the risks associated with road construction normally apply (see above).

* Strip mining reduces the BM and PBM to 0. When the mining activities stop the PBM rises again to desert. Reforestation programs are possible with a better chance than in normal deserts because the climate probably was better before the mining started.


PBM CALCULATION:
________________
To generate the PBM, we need three things:

* Climate: already assigned, represents temperature
A: +0, SA: +15, CT: +30, WT: +60, ST: +120, T: +240

* Moisture:
-- Rivers : the squares with a river are much moister, those adjacent negligibly (eg. Nile), according to volume water/year: +50 to +200. Wetlands have a bonus in the same range.
-- Water currents: warm currents cause more evaporation, the condensation causes preciptiation. Cold water causes less evaporation: cold +0, warm +100 (not always 50, but depending on the strength of the current)
-- Air currents: rain shadows +50, dry slopes -50
-- Climate: atmospheric convection cycles: T: +140, CT, SA: +70, WT, A: -70, ST: -140

* Terrain: already assigned: Steeper terrain means smaller PBM (retaining moisture and accumulating soil is more difficult).
Depression +20, Flat +10, Rolling +0, Hilly -50, Mountain -100

Note: I winged the exact numbers so far, they can and should be adapted (to the economy mode FE). Also, they should be randomized a bit. However, the BM ranges for vegetation are also the number of years that vegetation needs to grow:

0 waste 5 desert 15 low cover 30 high cover 60 light forest 120 forest 240 climax forest 480

examples:
square along the Nile: SubTropical - Flat - River
PBM = 10 (base) + 120 (Subtropical Temperature) + 180 (Major River) +10 (flat)
- 140 (Subtropical Rainfall) = 320 - 140 = 180
This square could support forest type vegetation.

oasis in the sahara: SubTropical - Depression - Wetland
PBM = 10 (base) + 120 (Subtropical Temperature) + 90 (Wetland) +20 (Depression)
- 140 (Subtropical Rainfall) = 250 - 140 = 110
This square could support light forest type vegetation.


The procedure for PBM generation above won't work well enough . It's here anyway to get comments. I'll now be using a separate formula for each climate (based on the Köppen system), with the appropriate limitations.

[Simon Loverix]

Sorry, double post .
[This message has been edited by Simon Loverix (edited April 30, 2001).]

[LDiCesare]

I have one question about "pollution".
How do you consider useful/not useful fauna/flora?
For instance, in the sea, there is an increase in pollution, there can be an increase in the number of men-o-war, which means a shift in the BM, not a shrinking. So you have a difference between useful and useless biomass. Another example: Weed in channels. There are weed, imported from America, that proliferated a lot in Europe and tend to make channels hard to maintain.

[Mark_Everson]

Hi Simon! Thanks for the detailed model.

I have to admit that I have only had time to skim your post. I'll pretty much only comment on things that directly affect the agriculture sector. I just noticed now that you said some numbers were from 'wingging it' so I'll just give some initial ideas on those tentative numbers.

Drainage and deforestation look reasonable. I'm not sure about the buildings part, but there is lots of time to playtest effects of that sort...

Farming sites: "20 high cover 50 light forest 20 forest" I think the 20s are too big, and the 50 is Way too big. There are exceptions to a max of about 10-20 sites for ancient agriculture that I posted a few posts above. One is rice cultivation, and the other is irrigated land as in Egypt. But I think having large parts of the land with greater than 10 sites is just not going to work out. But I think every place that has forests having those large amounts of sites is extreme.

quote: BM = BM +fertilizer/manure +natural regeneration +river silt +... -produced amount

I really don't think we need to go to the level of separately keeping track of fertilizer, pesticides etc. This is IMO a detail that would hopelessly complicate the econ model, and doesn't really add anything for the player. Right now fertilizer is a part of agricultural Kapital which covers everything from plows to irrigation to fertilizer application. The effectiveness of this capital per unit labor and site is determined by the technology level for agricultural tech. I don't think the ecology model should require such detailed inputs as you have above to produce its result. Perhaps you can use some extrapolation from the farm kapital and agriculture tech numbers.