07-04-2000 02:17									#31
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Hi Richard,

I've read all the articles and I have to say, I've heard 95% of them. But the large post of theories and minor theories only help stress my initial point that we need to pick a theory and go with it. LGJ is right, people won't lynch us if we get it wrong. Your point about more randomness was great, and I'll include it. But there needs to be some "goal" to global warming, or it's just senseless random occurances.

Civ2 took the warming=more warming theory, and although they didn't do a great job on it, you always knew if you continued you would end up with a world of only swamp, desert and jungle. We need this sort of "goal", or conclusion to global warming, and the warming=cooling theory, to me, offers a more plausible conclusion. Even though it actually isn't the conclusion, because if you played long enough the cycle would loop again.

	07-04-2000 22:44									#32
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I should repeat that many of these theories apply only to the Earth because they are based on our wind and ocean currents. A planet with a different arrangement of landmasses and mountains would have different air and water currents, so their climate change could follow different patterns than ours.

From what I have read of the map generator model, it will have wind and ocean currents that affect climate. Whenever there is a certain amount temperature change, those currents could be randomly regenerated. This would take a bit of time, but it would only happen a couple times at most (hopefully).

I am working on an ecology/agriculture model that should be simple enough to run in the background without slowing things down. It uses the wind and water currents created by the map generator. If a temperature change altered these currents and the ecology model was recalculated, we would get random but realistic terrain and agricultural yield changes.

You are right about the need for an overall pattern. However, I don't think that we should choose a certain theory. Climate change on a world other than Earth would not necessarily follow predictions that work for Earth. For example, a change in the number of forests and volcanoes might result in an atmosphere with a slightly different composition, which could react differently to pollutants. And then there is the fact that we really don't know what will happen on Earth.

So here is what I suggest for the effects of atmospheric pollution:

At the beginning of the game, a temperature change theory is chosen at random (warming->cooling, cooling->oscillating, ect.) The player does not know what the theory is until they get a high tech level and commision a climate study. Global mean temperature change due to pollution follows that theory throughout the game.

Aside from changing temperature based on this model, pollution always causes negative effects due to ozone depletion.

The current chart for disaster effects due to temperature change is followed, with the added effect of changing sea levels at extreme temperatures. Additionally, a change of a few degrees will recalculate the wind and ocean currents, changing the terrain and greatly oncreasing the frequency of disasters for the next few turns.

What do you think of this system?

	08-04-2000 03:17									#33
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Richard,

First of all, I didn't remember seeing anything about wind/ocean currents in the map generator model (I guess I should read it again), so I had never considered that amount of detail. But you're right about the change of patterns and change of landforms would alter everything.

As for your proposal, the random theory thing might be a bit of a problem. I'm not positive on this, but that seems like alot of extra code for a model that probably half of the players will turn off anyway. And I had lumped the change in sea level with terrain changes, just so you know.

But if we are using wind/ocean currents, I'll need to re-read the map stuff, and re-work alot of the global warming anyway (I hadn't considered it before, so if we use that there are changes I'd like to make already), so let's just hold off discussing this further, until later. I'll probably get to it after the social model is up; from what Rodrigo and I discussed, that'll be about 2 weeks, although I haven't heard from him in a few days.

	08-04-2000 07:02									#34
	Remove this text

I don't understand how it would take a lot of extra code to do something like this:

Choose a number between 1 and 8, and choose X and Y randomly within a range of values.

Pollution Amount and Temperature Change:
1. 1 P equals +1 T
2. 1 P equals -1 T
3. 1 P equals +1 T, fall on
4. 1 P equals -1 T, fall on
5. 1 P equals +1 T, rise on
6. 1 P equals -1 T, rise on
7. 1 P equals +1 T, oscillator on
8. 1 P equals -1 T, oscillator on

Fall: If T is greater than X or less than Y, temperature decreases over time.

Rise: If T is greater than X or less than Y, temperature increases over time.

Oscillator: If T is greater than than X, temperature decreases over time. If T is less than Y, temperature increases over time.

There would always be one temperature effect chart, so the temperature is calculated and then the effect is calculated. As far as I can tell, we would only need to make one small chunk of code and run it at the beginning of the game. Are there any difficulties with this that I don't know about?

Any natural temperature changes that we include would not be enough to trigger the fall, rise, and oscillator functions, but they might make it easier for pollution to trigger them.

The reference to generating currents could have been an idea that won't be implemented for a while, if at all. I read it a while ago.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited April 07, 2000).]

	08-04-2000 09:34									#35
	Tired of ads?

Actually choosing the theory would be the easy part. It's just a random generator that picks the theory to run in the game. The extra code would come from the effects each different theory would have. FE the warming=warming theory couldn't use the same effects that the warming=cooling theory uses. The reason being that warming=warming would be similar to civ2 in respect to the terrain changes, while the warming=cooling would be during the warming phase but would then change during the cooling.

Here's how I envision it (assuming use of wind/ocean currents, with a good climate model):

-There is still the global pool for pollution
-There are still thresholds, but rather than follow a bunch of strict charts, passing a threshold now only triggers increases in temperature, disease and increases in radiation (from depleted O-zone).
-The climate model would take input from the disaster model when thresholds are passed. The climate model would then be "in charge" of what happens to terrain, disaster frequency, etc. This would all be based off of landmass, landform, wind/ocean current, etc., as you stated. And of course the model would be constantly trying to rebalance itself back to it's starting levels, which means eventually all the pollution would disappear (as long as people aren't still polluting) and temp. would return to normal.
-The climate model would update itself, then send output to the disaster model and any other affected by climate.

With a good climate model, the increased temp. would cause complex changes throughout the world that would continue to effect the game until the world could regain it's natural stability. If there's one thing all theories agree on, it's that the Earth will find its way back to that natural balance, given enough time. So with a good climate model (one that takes input from all the sources, landform, cloud-cover, landmass, currents, etc. & sends good output to the disaster model and the others it affects), there is no need for theories. The computer will be making one up as it goes along. The "theory" would never be the same from game to game, and it will seem realistic.

	09-04-2000 02:47									#36
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

A good climate model would be fun, but it would probably take up way too much processor time, as well as being very difficult to program. We will have to cut corners for this feature of the game, because it really isn't vital.

I don't see how the different theories need individual effects charts. We only need one chart that has temperature and effects. The different theories would change temperature in a different way based on a simple equation linking pollution to temperature.

The planet will recover from pollution, but it would take thousands of years to do so. The game won't last that long.

	20-07-2000 06:04									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Ok, I've completely updated the Disaster Model, except for the Global Warming stuff and the ecology model (since it's still fairly new and may change again), with all that has been discussed. I won't be posting the updated version (at least til some of the Global Warming issues have been solved) so I'll just summarize below:

But first LGJ, I have two questions for you, since you brought this up, did you want hurricane death to be a minimum variance of 0-.01% or 0-1%, after the discovery of meteorology (or a certain level of it)? The reason I'm asking is that you wrote both in two different places; either way is fine with me, I'll just make it whatever you suggest. And second, on disaster affecting research, isn't that the government's (i.e. the player's) choice whether or not to "beef up" R&D of techs that may help prevent disasters (or reduce their effects)? I know that some techs will come from the people, but again isn't it the people's choice whether or not to research this?

Now as for Global Warming, it definately needs to be discussed more, but keeping Richard's ecology model in mind while the discussions rage. I don't have anything to throw into the discussion yet, so I'll try to recap all agreements here:

1. random effects are a must
2. o-zone depletion must be tracked
3. as o-zone is depleted, the earth will warm...then what? do we use the random theories picked at the start of the game, as Richard suggested? This may be the best choice to keep everyone happy, and as a bonus would add to the replay value, as Global Warming will not always have the same predictable effect.
4. there should be some way to reverse the Warming, though slowly, whether natural (real slow) or man-induced, or even a combination of both

This is just what's been agreed upon so you don't have to go back and re-read everything.

Does anyone have a reliable source to get the average Earth temp. from? I pulled 84 off of a web page, but I've visited many others and nearly all have different numbers.

Now let the next stage of discussion begin.

	20-07-2000 06:15									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Hey TK:

I may be misreading it because of your condensing things, but it looks to me like you think of ozone depletion and global warming are closely related. They in fact are not. Although some of ozone-depleting species like CFCs are also greenhouse gases, their effect as greenhouse gases is rather small IIRC. I like the idea of picking random theories at the beginning also...

	20-07-2000 07:00									#39
	Put an end to popups!

Mark,

Yeah, it is written that way...but that's not what I meant.

IIRC? I don't think I've ever seen that one before

	20-07-2000 07:07									#40
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Thanks,

IIRC = if I recall correctly

	28-07-2000 05:38									#42
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

The need for close cooperation between the Ecology and Disaster models became clear after after I read the recent disaster model update. If we do not work together closely, there will be a lot of duplicated effort and potential disagreements. Some of this was evident in the recent Disaster Model post.

For example, I have already dealt with pollution and radiation extensively in the Ecology model. Also, my proposals for water treatment in tiles would change the way droughts and floods are dealt with.

In addition to these major overlaps, there are a lot of minor things. My proposal for the map generation includes wind vectors that could be used for hurricane movement. I have proposed seven climate sones per hemisphere and the disaster model uses old data and is based on four climate zones per hemisphere.

If we do not resolve these issues now, the two models could lose all hope of working together. I have a proposal for splitting the responsibility so that the two models can work together without conflict or overlap.

Toubado_Koomi has a lot of good ideas for modeling the effects of disasters on the civilization, and I like his plans for this aspect of the model. The ecology model does a good job of modeling the natural environment, but I haven't done very well with modeling how these things affect the people.

So I propose that the ecology model be responsible for generating ecological changes and most natural disasters. The disaster model would then define how these changes and disasters affect the civilization. For issues where man impacts the environment, the disaster model would generate the change and the ecology model would define how the change affects the environment.

For example, the ecology model would generate a drought in an ecological province and define its severity using the NWR, PWR, and vegetation in the province. The disaster model would then take this drought and describe its effect on the people in the province and the civilization.

In the case of pollution, the disaster model would generate the pollution and define its severity. The ecology model would then model how this pollution changes the natural environment.

Global climate changes due to human activity would be a bit more complex. The initial climate change would be defined by the disaster model. The ecology model would then change the natural environment and generate disasters based in the climate change. The disaster model would then describe the impact of these disasters on the civs.

I think that this split would allow the two models to work together with few problems. The information traded between the models would be concise and easily understood, and each sphere of responsibility would be well defined.

If this is acceptable, I will create a third draft of the ecology model based on this new delegation of responsibility. I will add routines for generating disasters and take away the parts that describe how the changes affect the people.

If my ideas are not acceptable, we will need an alternative way to split responsibility between the two models. If you have a beter idea, please post it.

	28-07-2000 22:18									#44
	Remove this text

Richard,

That sounds real good, and is what I had in mind also. With the two models working together I think we can do a really good job on pollution, especially.

	29-07-2000 07:16									#45
	Remove this text

LGJ: I didn't know that. The ecology model also has water vectors, so we can use those instead.

Toubado_Koomi: I'm glad we agree. I'll start working on the revised Ecology model.

Pollution could be a bit tricky. Some of the effects of pollution, like the disease and unhappiness, are independent of the environment. Thus, the disaster model can handle these aspects from start to finish. The consequences of pollution affecting the natural environment would probably be a three step process like global climate changes.

It would probably be easier if the disaster model treats all changes the same way, no matter what caused the changes. If a land value decrease due to pollution is treated the same way as a decrease due to erosion, our jobs will be easier. This shouldn't be too much of a loss in accuracy.

So the basic process would go something like this:

1) Disaster model generates pollution and assigns severity values. Global climate change is also calculated. Direct effects of these are calculated and applied.

2) Ecology model makes changes to the environment due to the human influences calculated in step one. At the same time, all of the natural environmental change routines are run.

3) Disaster model decides how all environmental changes from step 2 affect the civ.

How does this sound?

	29-07-2000 08:05									#46
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well hurricanes use both, but the main control mechanism for their paths is the ocean currents. They tend to seek out warm water.

	29-07-2000 09:13									#47
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Richard,

An example would help here, I think I know what you're saying but I'm not positive.

LGJ,

I don't know where u live, but I live in Louisiana, a hurricane "hotspot", therefore I kinda watch these things. And while water is a factor, it's more in the creation and strengthening, not where the hurricane will ultimately hit. The main driving force in it's final destination is the surrounding weather or pressures, the highs and Lows, I remember one hurricane (can't remember the exact name) that lingered in the same spot for a week because of a high that was positioned over LA, but when the high was replaced by a low, it moved in quick. But since we don't have that in the game, ocean currents are probably a good way to go, though they tend to travel in a North westerly direction - the hurricanes in this hemisphere tend to form off the coast of Africa as tropical depressions, then move across the Atlantic to the Gulf of Mexico following the Gulf stream (so you're right about ocean currents here, but not in final destination ), though in recent years some have hit much higher on the Atlantic coast (possibly a global warming thing, some predict). I really don't know about those in the Eastern Hemisphere, except they form in the Pacific and hit southeastern Asia, so they seem to follow the same Northwesterly pattern.

	13-08-2000 14:16									#48
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

LGJ, actually .01% is realistic, actually more than realistic. Most hurricanes currently in the U.S. kill less than 20 people, which is why I opted for 0%, though it is more than dependant on meteorology, I figured basing it on that would be the easiest way to go, except that I remember now, with the tech system I can base it off of any number of techs of any value I choose, so I'll probably do something like that, several techs of relatively high levels equals 0% casualties.

And, like I said, isn't that the people's choice whether or not to invest in more R&D of disaster-preventing techs? After all the people will have a choice in what they devolop right?, it won't be simple you do more of this you do more RP's in that right?

BTW, Richard,

Your post on July 27 2000, is what I meant by a good climate (ecology) model, and good disaster model working together, could create better results than a disaster model alone.

And I just watched a show on discovery channel about hurricanes which stated that wind is the driving force on where they go, I thought it was oceans, just like you LGJ, but maybe we were wrong. Although the point I mentioned about highs and lows still applies, it is mute from the Clash standpoint, so Richard may be right in using wind vectors instead of ocean currents.

	14-08-2000 09:48									#49
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Version three of the Ecology model will take longer than I thought. In addition to the changes I will make for the disaster model cooperation, there are the following issues to be worked out:

Month Based ecology model that includes seasonal variations (required because the game turns will last less than a year)

Lake and ocean farming

Increased farm sites with tech level

Swamp/Forest clearing system

Revised Water and Land calculations

Also, I will be switching to an object oriented model, which will take some more time to work out. This is especially true because I am in the middle of learning OO design techniques. So expect it to take a few more weeks, and I apologise in advance for the delay.
[This message has been edited by Richard Bruns (edited August 13, 2000).]

	14-08-2000 10:51									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

1. the tech levels wouldn't need to be higher than today's. Like I said currently, and as far back as I can remember, no hurricane has killed more than 50 people, but then again I'm just over 20 yrs old.

2. I don't know how old the show was, but it played only a few days ago, and I've never seen it before, which means it's probably fairly new, because when I do watch TV, I usually watch the discovery channel or TLC

	14-08-2000 11:35									#52
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

1. Well the thing is there is 3 reasons for this, 1 is the weather forcasting, but the major reason is good transportation system we have and good orgainizations (moreso than other places) of getting people out. If it weren't for highways, things would proabably be differnt. So you haveto remeber there are many factors in there.

2. Check that out if you can, that is important because i heard on another TLC program last year that they had recently gotten enough proof to 'prove that myth' wrong. This doesn't mean wind currents don't affect them, but for the most parts it doesn't. They use this from several sources. They say that hurricanes have typically gone completely differnt directions from wind currents after forming because they seem to follow the warm waters closely.

	15-08-2000 09:55									#53
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

1. I know, and eventually I'll get around to getting all the little variables in there.

2. I'll look into it, and let you know what I find.

	25-11-2000 01:40									#54
	Put an end to popups!

This looks like a good model, but keep in mind its not essential.

Global warming: I favor the idea of randomly determining a general trend (such as warming/cooling) that will shape the basic patterns. More miner results can be random(though most should be bad; you don’t want players wanting global warming!).

	08-08-2001 20:30									#56
	Back to landslides Suffering from ads?

Hi there,

I have read the earlier threads and I am under the impression that landslides will not be considered. If the reason is only gameplay considerations I have nothing to say about that, but I just want to point out that landslides are the main cause of loss of life and property damage in the world, every year and that has been true for all the history of mankind. Design codes are very likely to change in the next few years to reflect this, because of the attention brought to the subject recently.

One of the reasons that is so often overlooked is that landslides are usually overshadowed by their triggering factors... earthquakes, volcanoes, heavy rains, floods etc... Just think of the eruption of the "Nevado del Ruiz" in South America some years ago... most of the deaths and damage were due to the mudflows triggered by the eruption.

Another thing to remember is that landslides do not only occure in hilly terrains on land... most of them occur underwater and may actually be the direct cause of most tsunamis (although they may themselves be triggered by earthquakes and eruptions). The Egyptian cities they found submerged on the coast of the Nile delta last year most likely sunk because of some earthquake induced landslide (river deltas of very loose saturated sediments would be very succeptible to this).

And let us not forget that huge underwater landslides happen periodicaly near Hawai and bring huge tidal waves to devastate the western coast of America. Although this has not happened yet in documented history, the threat is always there... and it might be very much funt to model that in Clash

Anyways, I just thought I would add my two cents worth on this. If you do decide to model it, you can count on my to hunt down info to get a decent modelling withing game playability limits.

	08-08-2001 20:42									#57
	About Floods Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

Hi again,

I'm new to the world of Clash so I'm trying to get up to speed on the overall picture and hopefully I'll be able to be more than a nuisace to you. I just LOVE the work you have done so far.

Anyways, I was wondering if the Flood disasters will be affected by urbanisation, or in terms of the models, the amount of infrastructures present in an area. In real-life urbanisation will increase the impact of flodds since more water will go the river at a given time due to the combined effect of the lower retardation offered by the "smoother" surfaces and the lower absorbtion of the water by the ground. The probability of floods might also be increased since smaller rainfalls that would not cause floods in a natural environment would now create small ones.

If you are interested in modelling this (floods are point events and I don't think it would be too demanding computationally speaking) it might be nice to used a simplified version of the SCS (Soil Conservation Service) method of estimating ground infiltration to evaluate the impact of urbanisation on floods. It is a simple model that essentially works with multipliers on rainfall data based on a weighed average of ground usage.

Anyways, if this sounds interesting, just let me know and we can see how to apply it.

	09-08-2001 03:02									#58
	Increase Your PM Length

Hi Cid! Be welcome.

Toubabo_Koomi is Disaster model duke currently, but he has a busy real life.. Have a look at the relevant threads (these would be 'Terrain' and 'Ecology, Climate, Terrain, Pollution') and you can make your own specific proposal, keeping in mind what's in the models so far. You'll get a response.

(I'm summarizing the 'Ecology, Climate, Terrain, Pollution' thread and when that model is ready, it will be posted. Much of it is relevant to disasters.. )

	09-08-2001 06:07									#59
	Got spare money?

Thank you,


Will do. I just wanted to know how the general idea sounded to you guys before I started giving more detail.

I've been reading a lot in the last couple of days but I'll do a few more passes to make sure I'm not just repeating someone else's idea in another form (although it is not very easy, you guys have been very productive both in terms of ideas and in the amount of posts to browse through )

Julio Ángel

	10-08-2001 14:26									#60
	Increase the size of your Attachments

So far there's isn't a water rating for squares (only in the map generation), but I don't know yet if it is necessary to keep it during the whole game. There is a water type, however, going from ice cap over lake, sea and ocean to river and wetland.

Groundwater is also recorded as a simple mineral reserve.
I was also thinking of a total amount of water on the planet to base map generation on, but nothing irrevocable of course.