19-01-2003 07:00									#1
	Civ3 encourages the destruction of the rainforests Got spare money?

Jungles are one of the most useless terrain types in civ. Are there really any good reasons not to cut them down to make a mine or irrigation?

Civ3 underestimates the value of jungles and rainforests IMO.

maybe firaxis got a nice little reward from the cattle lobby, who knows

What do you think of these ideas:

- jungle tiles should yield at least one trade
- there should be some kind of environmental consequense of chopping down too much jungle.

	19-01-2003 07:08									#2
	Get a bigger avatar today!

There should certainly a trade bonus for having jungles. Some of the best cures for medicine are found in jungles. the research benefits are good, and many exoctic fruits are found there.

	19-01-2003 07:23									#3
	Inflate your Upload Space

also, clearing jungles should make your people unhappy. eg one happy citizen made unhappy in the city closest to the jungle. perhaps only in the modern era.

	19-01-2003 07:49									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

If I had my way, I would take out global warming and communism, so there.

	19-01-2003 08:33									#5
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Why not make jungles fight global warming?

	19-01-2003 09:33									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

'If I had my way, I would take out global warming and communism, so there'

Aye!! down with the commie's!

	19-01-2003 13:08									#7
	Remove this text

yes! jungles should fight global warming!!!

	19-01-2003 14:56									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Rubber to disappear forever if chopping down too many jungle tiles!

	19-01-2003 15:03									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Datajack Franit, good idea. All resources should only appear in tiles which actually have the correct terrain type, and disappear as soon as that terrain is chopped off. Thus, rubber would disappear unless it is in jungle, game should disappear if the forest is cut down, and so on.

	19-01-2003 15:27									#10
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

yeah. rubber comes from trees, it wouldn't make sense to find it in grasslands.

	19-01-2003 15:29									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Some of the best cures for medicine are found in jungles

exactly. still I get "your people are dying from disease in the jungle" messages. firaxis hates jungles methinks

	19-01-2003 15:40									#12
	Remove this text

Rubber from cleared jungle = plantations.

At least, that's how I look at it.

	19-01-2003 16:04									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

What do you want? A civ that hardly reaches its productivity potential while being ecologically sensitive, or a civ that rules the world with its powerful economy at the expense of some enviromental destruction? That is an interesting question.

If the game could provide some benefits for being ecologically sensitive, then I would happily try to preserve some forests or jungles (plus, these terrain types are good for defense). You could say that less production = less polution, therefore less global warming. But the effects of pollution and global warming are manageable within the game, or, when those effects start to harm your country, you're already close to winning the game.

No, I will chop down all jungles that I find, thank you very much.

	19-01-2003 21:57									#14
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Rubber plantations and jungles are two separate things. One is cultivated and the other is naturally growing and untamed. The destroying of jungles in the game does emulate modern times well.

Today, we do not get a big bang from jungles other than tearing them down, thus the reason they are disappearring. Capitalism rules the world after all, even in communist countries (just the currency is different in a matter of speaking).

Disease is a major problem in jungles and I think Firaxis did a good job of including this into the game. I just wished disease played a bigger part in the game. After all, the European Crusades were a major cause of the "Black Death" rolling across Europe. As the forces returned home, they brought rats, which in turn brought the plague. Europe was desimated. I can't remember the exactlyloss, but either 1/3 or 2/3's of the population was wiped out.

Natural disasters are also missing, such as floods. When the Yellow River in China flooded 1897, the river completely changed its route to the sea by thousands of miles. Pompii was completely destroyed by a volcano. These events would cause millions to perish.

The disappearance of the jungle does make many unhappy in ones civilization as well as in other civilizations. The destruction of forrests and jungles should add to a civilizations global unhappiness factor. Thus, adding fuel to the fire between civilizations, creating instability. Possibly creating revolts in cities near the destruction.

Obviously, there are things I feel are missing, but I am still thrilled with the game.

	19-01-2003 23:36									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I thought about allowing troops to BURN forests and jungles to cause vasts fires throughout the continent and destroy all the crops

	20-01-2003 00:40									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by Datajack Franit I thought about allowing troops to BURN forests and jungles to cause vasts fires throughout the continent and destroy all the crops

I like this idea. Sort of like Grants and Shermans strategies of burning everything not needed as they marched through the US Confederacy. Better yet, the Russians scortched earth policy as Napolean marched to Moskow(Moskba).

It has been suggested in another thread that supply lines be incorparted into the game. This is not a bad idea, but its implimentation can only occur after the creation of gunpowerder. After all, the concept that is missing from Civ3 is the that units require certain things to maintain their health; food, water, the ability to get home/morale and in modern times, resupply of munitions. Allowing destruction of resources and food would directly affect the health of units moving through another civilaztions country side.

	20-01-2003 04:55									#17
	Kill the jungles! Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Maybe Firaxis should include a new unit, the eco-freak, to fight global warming. I would build one of those units and then send them off to the jungle to fight the good fight.

	20-01-2003 05:12									#18
	Support Apolyton

Clear cutting the jungle is very realistic from a RR point of view. But yes setting aside land for National Parks that give a Civ culture would have been kinda of cool. But why is everyone so quick to preserve jungles.

Deserts, Plains, Grasslands, and artic tundra are all important resources that should have preserves too.

	20-01-2003 05:33									#19
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Moskow(Moskba).

Moscow, Mockba, or Moskva (though Mosckva is acceptable too).

	20-01-2003 09:48									#20
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Jungles can provide food for a very small amount of people - this is represented in the game. They can also give gold from wood extraction. If you cut down trees in a controlled manner you wonīt get as much money than you would with "slash and burn". This could be represented by jungles giving 1 gold/turn, and 10 gold if chopped down, just like forests.

About biodiversity - when you discover genetics it would appear a kind of luxury/resource that would give a lot of gold and could only exist in standing jungles.

About rubber - Jungles provided rubber only for a brief timespan. Soon people get the tree and made plantations that had a bigger productivity and after that rubber was simply made from oil. Itīs absurd to think that you need jungles to make modern armor.

About happiness - in fact, the farther people are from the jungle thatīs being knocked off, the more unhappy they get. Not only with jungle, but with everything that regards ecology. American gets mad with people that destroy the jungles in amazonia and japonese that kill whales, but sustain that burning coal is vital for their economy. People who live in amazonia are very happy with the jobs and money they get by cutting down trees, and blame americans for global warming and japanese from killing whales. Japanese talk about how important they "research" on whales is, but get mad about america and amazonia.

	20-01-2003 11:16									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Odd American gets mad with people that destroy the jungles in amazonia and japonese that kill whales, but sustain that burning coal is vital for their economy.

In my experience, the people that get mad about deforestation are generally not the same people who defend the burning of coal. I don't think distance should be a factor, but perhaps technological advancement should be: People who depend on slash and burn economics for sustinance don't see the loss of rainforests as a problem, while those of us in developed countries who do not need to cut forests to make money are appalled by deforestation. Maybe the more advanced a civ is, the more they experience unhappiness with deforestation.

	20-01-2003 14:36									#22
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Keep in mind that Civ 3 is a GAME (!) -- also,
remember that representations of realtive time
and space are skewed to make it playable.

Could "chopping down" a forest/jungle in 3000 BC possibly be the same as in the 1800's AD? No more
so than it taking 100 years to move a swordsman
5 spaces.

-- G.

	20-01-2003 15:56									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by cyclotron7 People who depend on slash and burn economics for sustinance don't see the loss of rainforests as a problem, while those of us in developed countries who do not need to cut forests to make money are appalled by deforestation.

People in developed countries do not need to cut forests to make money because they already cut them down in the past, when they were developing their economies and their industrial power.

	20-01-2003 15:58									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I think that it would be good if jungle and forest squares reduced global warming. One Jungle square should count as 2 forest squares.
(1) It would give workers something to do in the modern age. rather than just clean up pollution they could be proactive and go and plant forests.
(2) It would provide a better alternative to simply producing less.

	20-01-2003 18:37									#25
	Re: Civ3 encourages the destruction of the rainforests Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: Originally posted by Gangerolf Jungles are one of the most useless terrain types in civ. Are there really any good reasons not to cut them down to make a mine or irrigation?

To answer your original question. There is no doubt there are strong economic incentives to destroy native habitats. This is not the fault of Civ3, but of the world.

I do like some of the suggestions to make native habitat have increasing value in the Modern Age, such as reducing Global Warming.

	20-01-2003 20:47									#26
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Didnīt forests help counter global warming? I had a game with lots of tundra. I covered all with forests, an after a couple of nuclear wars it was very helpful, since I had the red sun but not a tile of glassland was destroyed. It seems that global warming destroy the forests first, then go for converting grass-plains-desert.
Since I keep reforesting there were no problem with global warming.

It seems that some people tend to avoid to their responsabilities towards the environment. Brazil, whose actual biggest responsability is to keep Amazonia intact, has a vast majority that feels ultrajed by the destruction of something that is part of the national identity. But there are sectors (mostly the ones that takes decisions) that thinks: "Hey, if you mess up with the environment burning fossil fuel I have the right to mess up destroying this jungle! Itīs MY jungle ok?"

This sort of feeling seems to exist in the developed coutries as well. The majority of people are against burning fossil fuels but some people that takes decisions thinks: "Ahh this global warming stuff, itīs paranoia. Iīm too lazy to built a solar right now, just plop another coal plant."

About me? I just chop down that useless crap as soons as I can!

	20-01-2003 23:43									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Jungles & forests should be able to fight global warming,in this order:

-Planted forests help the least
-Planted Jungles are next up
-Virgin Forests (i.e. have been there since man first saw them)
-Virgin Jungles

	21-01-2003 01:49									#28
	Remove this text

Eh... the way they're designed in the game, jungles are basically useless. You're best off cutting them down, and re-foresting the area, if you feel bad about killing a tree or two.

	21-01-2003 10:03									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

IMO Trees are evil and must be hunted down and destroyed.

Amongst the things I needed to know that I learned from Civ and AOE

	21-01-2003 10:30									#30
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Warcraft, too. They just get in your way.