[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Glaciars

[Andrew McGuinness <andrew_mcguinness@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Anecdoter@xxxxxxx wrote:

> In a message dated 1/4/00 12:54:46 AM Eastern Standard Time,
> dwp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
>
> > The scale is wrong.  One freeciv square represents a _large_
> >  area.  For most maps realistic glaciers would correspond to
> >  one or few squares only.
>
>     There have been some rather large glaciers in the past.  During the last
> ice age, a single glacier covered all of canada and most of the upper
> midwest.  I think there is a miscommunication, perhaps the original poster
> meant an ice age - that is at least how I took it.  Maybe the
> miscommunication is between myself and the original poster... ;->
> >
> >  Also historically it seems a bit iffy.  How many historical
> >  civilisations were disrupted or threatened by glaciers??
>
>     That is true, however, how many  civilizations were around when the last
> glaciers were active?  The last glaciers receeded roughly 11000 years before
> the advent of written records.   We have been fortunate enough not to have
> had an ice age for quite some time.   However, some civ game worlds may not
> be quite so lucky.
> >
> >  Now an ice age or other global climate change (other than
> >  current pollution-induced global warming), that could be
> >  interesting...   (Or really _fast_ continental drift :-)
>
> I agree, they would definetly be challenges that empires would have to face.
> Also, it would an extra dimension to the game so players could worry about
> something else other than destroying each other.
> >
> >
>
> -- David
>
> >
>

I think climate change is a great idea.  Small / local climate change is
something *every* historical civilisation has had to deal with.  Something like
the civ2 global-warming, but less severe - one in ten jungle to grassland,
grassland to plains, plains to desert, that kind of thing.  Perhaps localised
to one hemisphere or continent.

Set at a realistic level and frequency, it would dominate the game (at the
earlier stages) - for a more conventional game, you would have to make it rarer
and less severe than history would suggest.

For it to be usable, you would have to make sure there wasn't a long-term trend
making the land better or worse.

I'm spinning off on a tangent now, but again, for realism, there should be a
lot of forest and jungle in the early game - most historical ancient
civilisations have had to clear land for farming.  This
brings us back to the discussions a week or two ago about the cost
of settlers and the different roles of settlers.  Clearing a patch
of forest is an easier job than irrigating some grassland, but I
don't think the default settings are done that way.

All these are adjustable by existing server options, anyway.

Andrew McGuinness    andrew_mcguinness@xxxxxxxxxxx    Luton, UK