Suggestion regarding late-game global warming
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:52 pm
Currently, global warming is produced by increases in greenhouse gases emitted due to the economy and spoils priorities. The amount of CO2 (the main greenhouse gas) emitted can be reduced through the civilian fusion reactors project and the clean energy technology, which both decrease the amount emitted by 50%. However, this doesn't mean CO2 emissions drop to 0 once both are researched, either because the reductions are multiplicative or because resource regions increase emissions and only oil resource regions can be eliminated. Since a significant part of greenhouse gases comes from not-energy-generation processes (such as raising cattle or producing concrete) that seems reasonable and coherent with reality.
In game, global warming mainly affects gdp growth (slightly) and a small group of events and thus can be largely ignored in the lategame (aside from trying to avoid using spoils). But with most of Earth under my control, I wanted to try and revert (or at least limit) the warming, more as a part of roleplay than as something actually necessary since the effects by that point were negligible. What I found was that it was unfeasible. Even with all techs researched and investing more than twice as much into wellfare than into economy (after taking org-station-tech multipliers into account and with not a single point into spoils in all of Earth), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere kept growing at a rate of about 1-2 ppm a year.
Assuming this is not a bug/unintended behaviour, I consider that should be changed for two reasons. First and more relevant for most players, the environmental effects of wellfare function more as a noobtrap than as an actual mechanic, since it doesn't have a meaningful impact (even if no one else is running spoils). Second, because it prevents stopping/reverting global warming even after the technology, the energy and the political and economic resources necessary are present.
My suggestion would be two-fold. Some technologies which currently provide a +5% to wellfare investment (such as carbon capture technologies) could instead increase the reduction provided by wellfare investment, making combating global warming increasingly viable. Second, countries at 1 inequality (the minimal inequality allowed in-game) should have a greater amount of their wellfare investments impact greenhouse gases the same way countries at 0 unrest have greater miltech increases (because less investment is going towards fighting inequality/unrest). That way, late game meganations that invest greatly into wellfare won't waste most of their investment.
Is there something I have missed? Even if you don't agree wiith my observations, knowing you have read my comment would be meaningful.
In game, global warming mainly affects gdp growth (slightly) and a small group of events and thus can be largely ignored in the lategame (aside from trying to avoid using spoils). But with most of Earth under my control, I wanted to try and revert (or at least limit) the warming, more as a part of roleplay than as something actually necessary since the effects by that point were negligible. What I found was that it was unfeasible. Even with all techs researched and investing more than twice as much into wellfare than into economy (after taking org-station-tech multipliers into account and with not a single point into spoils in all of Earth), the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere kept growing at a rate of about 1-2 ppm a year.
Assuming this is not a bug/unintended behaviour, I consider that should be changed for two reasons. First and more relevant for most players, the environmental effects of wellfare function more as a noobtrap than as an actual mechanic, since it doesn't have a meaningful impact (even if no one else is running spoils). Second, because it prevents stopping/reverting global warming even after the technology, the energy and the political and economic resources necessary are present.
My suggestion would be two-fold. Some technologies which currently provide a +5% to wellfare investment (such as carbon capture technologies) could instead increase the reduction provided by wellfare investment, making combating global warming increasingly viable. Second, countries at 1 inequality (the minimal inequality allowed in-game) should have a greater amount of their wellfare investments impact greenhouse gases the same way countries at 0 unrest have greater miltech increases (because less investment is going towards fighting inequality/unrest). That way, late game meganations that invest greatly into wellfare won't waste most of their investment.
Is there something I have missed? Even if you don't agree wiith my observations, knowing you have read my comment would be meaningful.