Complete.Org: Mailing Lists: Archives: freeciv-dev: January 2000:
[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goals
Home

[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goals

[Top] [All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index] [Thread Index]
To: stephenh@xxxxxxxxxxx
Cc: freeciv-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [Freeciv-Dev] Re: Goals
From: Anecdoter@xxxxxxx
Date: Tue, 4 Jan 2000 23:30:43 EST

In a message dated 1/4/00 12:43:14 AM Eastern Standard Time, 
stephenh@xxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> Anecdoter@xxxxxxx wrote:
>  > In a message dated 1/3/00 11:56:00 AM Eastern Standard Time,
>  > stuckey@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>  > > On Sun, Jan 02, 2000 at 01:18:51AM -0500, Anecdoter@xxxxxxx wrote:
>  > >  >     Global extinction - pollution and/or nuclear warefare has 
> destroyed
>  > > all
>  > >  > life on the entire planet.  Obviously, this is the worst possible 
> ending.
>  >
>  >     What if a requirement for this ending would be that half of all land
>  > squares would be polluted. I know this would not happen much and 
therefore
>  > this ending would not occure very often.  However, in games where the 
> players
>  > go "nuke crazy" and just start lobing missiles at each other, this ending
>  > would be very realistic and very probably to occur.   This ending would 
be 
> a
>  > "punishment" for using an excessive amount of nukes.
>  
>  Perhaps pollution that is not cleaned up within a certain number of
>  turns could start spreading to adjacent squares. Probably should only
>  apply if the source of the pollution is still present. I.E. if a city is
>  producing pollution over a certain level. I think this is reasonably
>  realistic since an area of land can only take so much pollution, but it
>  would only spread if more pollution was added. The effect of this rule
>  would be to further punish players who don't attempt to control
>  pollution, and therefore make the above ending more likely.
>  
>  Regards,
>  Steve Hodge
>  
    I for one really like this idea of having the pollution spread.   This is 
very realistic, considering that pollution tends to travel down rivers and 
streams, not to mention float through the air.   
    Also, having the gloabal extinction ending would be one step above Civ 
and Civ 2 - both of which have global warming.  One can logically conclude 
that after several climatic changes, species survial rates would plummet; 
hence, the global extinction ending.

Steve

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]