Ditch nuke caused "global warming/wasteland"
It's time to ditch this mechanic, Nuke's do not cause global warming, nor do they turn the world into a wasteland as illustrated in many games and movies.
However there are many fun and interesting effects nukes do have that could be put in to replace it. Radioactive pollution flowing down rivers and infiltrating traderoutes causing unhealthiness for example.
I would support the other post about just removing the global warming mechanic completely, it really doesn't add much to the game, and it was always primarily influenced by nukes anyway (*couph* well... at least in my games, lol)
a more comprehensive pollution mechanic could be added with diplomatic tiein's as well (not just for nukes, but industrial pollution as well). Oil drilling/spills, over fishing?, industrial river / lake pollution, ocean garbage. Theres a lot of very interesting gameplay and diplomatic options that could be pursued to replace the global warming mechanic completely. Ive always wanted to turn some underdog civilization into my personal garbage dump, just like Somalia!
I like the way the handled it in test of time. Nukes cause major pollution that has to be cleaned up and destroys improvements in squares Not to mention significantly reducing city population.
Officially, Somalia did it to themselves when they refused to let us do it to them. Excellent point about fallout, ground water dispersal.
Originally Posted by entelin
I have two words for you:
I think global warming/climate change has it's place in Civ 5. It's definately a hot debate on the cause (and even existence) of global warming. My view is this:
GIVE ME AN OPTION TO TURN OFF GLOBAL WARMING.
I don't mind having a global warming in the game, but in Civ IV it seemed entirely arbitrary. If two civilizations on another continent nuke each other, my lands turn from fertile grasslands to a desert. Ugh!
Originally Posted by tk436
And of course, if I have strong productivity cities, random squares in my lands turn to desert (even if the squares aren't in high productivity cities, and sometimes they even have food resources on them, too!).
So I'd just like to have an environmental mechanic that actually makes a little sense. I think the OP is definitely on the right track with his ideas with pollution and oil spills (it would be really cool to see your sea tiles get "ruined" with spills where all food and commerce is taken away from the tile until it's cleaned up with a work boat and quite a bit of money from your treasury).
Eh? Where do you get that idea from?!
Originally Posted by entelin
Please never get into a position of military power!
It seems this game mechanic is even more vital in Civ based on your post - to act as an education.
Nukes are the one thing GUARANTEED to cause wastelands.
- Flattened cities
- Detruction of all infrastructure
- Radiation poisononing of all plant and animal life wherever fallout drifts.
- Unable to consume anything that grows on (or feeds on) the radiated ground for decades because it will kill you (guaranteed cancer).
... I call that a wastland!
Please read up on the Chernobyl disaster to see what radiation does to life (and not even including the massive nuclear blast). The area can't be farmed for at least 200 YEARS because everything grown would be deadly for us to eat.
It's more a question of how many nukes you are talking about. A few of them going off, while definitely having a cataclysmic effect on those immediate areas, don't turn the entire world into a wasteland. Now, if you are talking about the WWIII full nuke scenario during the cold war with each side launching thousands of nuclear missles...then yeah, that would probably turn the world into a pretty inhospitable place.
Well, I think tundra turning into desert is too much, so is a town disappearing at once.
But for the general global climate changes (warming, cooling, ice ages) I think I have a solution. This is the following:
1) Determine a constant as the "climate change chance".
2) Every other turn test each tile against that chance by the number of similar tiles adjacent.
3) If the test is a failure, then that tile changes type.
Ice - Tundra - Grassland - Plains - Desert
Example: 1) Let it be 5% (too much)
2) This tile of Grassland is adjacent to 3 Plains. So I test against 15% (3*5%).
3) If I throw 16-100, then nothing. If 1-15 then that tile becomes Plains.
Climate change occurs because the chance in 1) is not the same in the two directions (it's easier to become desert than ice -- or vice versa).
Last edited by Marthieu du Blois; 05-06-2010 at 02:34 AM.
I think the real problem with the global warming in civ 4 is that the effects are irreversible. It would make sense that with sufficient technology and cost you should be able to reverse these problems.
I love the idea of fallout going down rivers and harming trade.
Also, tk436, you can turn off global warming in Civ 4 by manipulating some of the xml files. I don't remember how I did this, but I'm sure you could find it through google.
I think you've misread the OP's suggestion. There is already radioactive fallout in the surrounding areas where nukes hit. He's talking about plains turning into deserts because someone else used nukes halfway around the world.
Originally Posted by MrFusion
Using your example, Chernobyl had a lot of radioactive fallout in the area around the accident. The Amazon rain forest didn't suddenly disappear because of it. And even then, the Ukraine didn't turn into a desert because of Chernobyl.
The global warming mechanism in Civ IV really didn't make any sense.
I didn't misread it.
Originally Posted by Old School Role-Player
The whole poing of Civ's "nukes damage other tiles across the world" dynamic is to simulate the devastating radioactive particles that are thrown into the atmosphere with each blast. This is the worst possible pollution you can have, is highly mobile and so can spread a deadly poison for thousands of miles across the globe. This is what the game is simulating.
The OP is asking that Nukes are treated as simply isolated big bombs without the cumulative worldwide pollution. This is wrong. They are certainly internationally damaging events - the effects of which are long-term.
Ah, okay. Then I disagree. Yes, the fallout does spread across the world--much more diluted the further you go. But I really don't think the OP thinks that nukes should be big bombs at all.
Originally Posted by MrFusion
Let me break it down, and what I just don't understand: Montezuma nukes Washington. Philadelphia loses half its troops, half its population, half of the improvements around the city. All 9 squares (Civ IV, obviously) are radioactive. Washington now sends his workers out to clean up the fallout and rebuild the improvements. It takes a total of 10 turns to bring everything back to normal. I'm halfway around the world, on the other hand. After Washington and Montezuma have their nuclear exchange with each other, suddenly my lands start turning to desert! Washington restores his nuked lands in 10 turns, but my lands are permanently and irrevocably destroyed? Please tell me hat that even makes sense, much less is fair.
The idea of global warming is just that--global. So why does the mechanism in Civ IV make it so local? How do they account for a 3 degree change in global temperature? At best, it could turn a few ice squares into tundra or water squares. Until they can come up with a global warming mechanic that makes sense, I say leave it out.
I wouldn't effect other continents, but it could have a profound effect on the entire content involved in the war. It would have to be a significant exchange, but potentially the dust in the atmosphere from the explosions can block storm fronts on the coast. You'll end up in a situation with all bodies of water inland drying up very quickly, due to no rainfall, while the coast gets pounded from near permanent monsoon conditions, due to the storms inability to move inland. Couple of nasty decisions on where to live. It'd certainly make your coastal cities the only ones viable and even those miserable at best.
Nukes should never create desert tiles. But enough nukes should be able to cause nuclear winter.
Also I think the Neutron bomb should be in. No Rads (to short term to be represented in the Civ time scale) and no infrastructure damage.
OK, but why do you want the game to simulate that? Is that any fun at all?
Originally Posted by MrFusion
Yes - because Civ is loosely based on reality - where nukes are not supposed to be actually used at all!
Originally Posted by eireksten
The power of nuclear weapons lies not in their use, but in the threat of their use. They are, bizarrely, seen as peace-keepers, not a serious tactical option. The fact is that they are too powerful, too damaging to the whole world and result in self-destruction to anyone that uses them. The only exception to this was the very first use of the hydrogen bombs on Japan in WW2 - because only one side possessed them. These first nukes were "weak" compared to modern ones - yet turned two entire cities to dust. They changed the world. As soon as potential enemies also had nukes - neither could actually use them without BOTH sides getting wiped out. The result is a stand off - the Cold War.
I think Civ is actually far too forgiving to players who use nukes in the game. It's perfectly fair for Civ to remind us that once we go to nuclear war - the entire planet loses. The environmental damage and long term threat to life is FAR worse than a few desert tiles appearing. A full scale nuclear war is essentially, the end of all civilisation.
It takes a lot of nukes to have a profound impact to the continent or world. Wasn't until the Soviets developed ICBM's and created a huge stockpile that MAD came around and nuclear war was determined to be unwinnable. So incorporate that into the game. Give us a reason to build nukes even if we're not going to use them.
50 hiroshima sized nuclear weapons, could cause a nuclear winter by blocking out the sun so, 20 + modern ICBM's can block out the sun.
when that happens its over.
and global warming should be affected by power plants, and such, buildings that sue dirty electricity such as coal, oil and the like. that should cause global warming. and a 3 degree rise globablly would have huge problems for the rest of teh world
and nukes if they dont block out the sun there fallout and radioactivity destroys everything adn causes desertification. they do contribute to global warming
Global Warming Revision
I agree with Retsep in not making it permanent. From what I heard, it only takes several strategically-placed nukes to end life on this world as we know it, so going for "realism" in Civilization seems to be a bad idea if taken too extremely (I don't want a game I've been playing for months to suddenly end in one turn). Land improvement should be more advanced. Make it possible for workers to make the land more "fertile" (even if it takes 20 turns of work), and/or have a monetary requirement to improve it (on a similar note, since civilizations like the Inca and China have been able to set up "farms" on hillsides with terracing, some improvements should also be more widespread on where they can be built).
I spend hours of time making sure my cities have an total "even" amount of food production so that there's no starvation, so it's very vexing when a sudden nuclear missile volley permanently disrupts this perfectly constructed equilibrium in several of my cities each turn. Civilization III had a similar "land improvement" option with planting trees (which admittedly could be somewhat abused by constantly planting and cutting the trees for production points in the cities), but its a nice feeling to actually be able to have a positive effect on the environment when the reins of government are finally in your hands (and without a bunch of self-profiting politicians in your way). As others pointed out, it's a bit unfair for the civilization that was directly hit by the nuclear blast to only suffer temporary terrain damage, but a person elsewhere suffers permanently damaged terrain.
I really don't like that SSID or whatever it's called in civ4 only has 50% interception chance for nukes. Would like to see it raised up to 75 - 100% or a new type of aircraft designed to intercept nukes with a minimum of 75% chance of s success. And I hate nukes all together.
Chernobyl and a nuclear weapon a hugely different a nuclear pile is capable of putting out way way way more toxic waste and is much more hazardous than a nuclear explosion. a nuclear explosion will max block off an area from DEVELOPMENT it will not poison people that are in it for a short time, The one thing on earth that will create a wasteland are chemical/biological weapons + time.
Originally Posted by MrFusion
im pretty certain that we(the world) have detonated more than 20 hydrogen bombs and defiantly more than 50 nukes that number is probably in the triple digits? mabye your suggesting that global warming is caused by the ban of nuclear weapons testing?
Originally Posted by Prophet
nukes are not the most devestating weapons imaginable, things can be made that are worse.(imagine airborn killer aids or a virus that programs your cells to make VX)
one yor body cant make VX, because it is made with synthetic chemicals, and airborne aids is not possible because we cannot manipulate a virus, and it can only be spread through blood to blood contact and would not be aids anymore. plus we cannot manipulate a virus, tehy are smaller than a cell.
they also use rna to duplicate, adn we ahve almost no idea of how to manipulate their genome, plus working with that is impossible.
and thats just nto possible.
and the fact that we shot them at atolls is the reason that the sun is not blocked out.
its the fact that a city or 20 and the entire surronding area is turned to dust and goes into the air
we can totally manipulate viruses saying we cant is ridiculous, just last month phiser fired an employee after she was infected by and lab made varient of the hiv virus that apparently doesnt give you aids. the technology is there and countries have been making artificial viruses for a long time.
also you would be surprised what our cells can make if they can get algae to make ethanol and alchohol why not vx, because its artificial isnt a reason that it cannot be made biologically.
secondly atomic bombs while powerful are still dwarfed (at least in the area of cooling) by natural disasters like a certain volcano that is in the news right now.
what is VX, becasue i knwo for sure that it is not protein, or ethanol, it is highly synthetic chemcicals perfected after years of work.
also the idea of using airborne diseases or manipulating aids, to create an airborne contaiminent si dumb, it woukld come back to kill your own nation because of WIND!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
i never said it was possible but we dont fully understand the process of Genomes, and the liek, now maybe in top secret labs they do, but generally we are not 100% sure of their function, i never said it was not possible, just highly improbable, and if we are so advanced dont use aids use soemthing that just insta kills, instead of giving people the virus that takes years, at least in developed countries to destroy them just outright cause them to die, manipuklate their cells to instantly grow a cancerous body in their brain, or just ahve it create natural poisons, or shut down their heart