[Freeciv-Dev] Re: Glaciars

[Jason Todd <idjason@xxxxxxxx>]

Andrew McGuinness wrote:
> 
> 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

 What would be good IMHO is if clearing a forest gave you a fairly
big increase in the production of a city while it is being cleared,
say 4 to 8 per turn.