View Full Version: Environment

Cyber Nations Forums > About Cyber Nations > Environment

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 514

Title: Environment


admin - March 16, 2006 11:28 PM (GMT)
Environment effects both your nations population happiness and population count. There are numerous variables in the environment bar which include some of the connected resources (coal/oil and uranium bring your environment down), a nations tech level, infrastructure to land ratio, military to population ratio, not having access to water, certain government types, your responses to the drug and immigration government policy questions, etc... The better your environment the more citizens you get and the happier your total population is.

Update: Since nations can never change their default resources as of 03/17/06 nations are no longer penalized for their default coal, oil, or uranium resources. Only if those resources are brought in through trades does the nation get the environment penalty.

bundesland - March 16, 2006 11:29 PM (GMT)
Why didn't it do anything for my environment when I bought .76 tech an hour ago?

Edward Kirnovsky - March 16, 2006 11:32 PM (GMT)
Because of adding environment, my pop went up +30 B) .

But my happiness went down 1.6??? :huh:

And what makes environment better?

IceDaemon Kurogasa - March 16, 2006 11:51 PM (GMT)
I think environment might be evil, bt I suppose it does add realism. Man now have to calc in even mor efactors for my puppy nation to consider as I grow.

Pius XIII - March 16, 2006 11:54 PM (GMT)
I don't think that environment should be so harsh, maybe a negative effect for low and a positive effect for high.

KZMN - March 17, 2006 12:16 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Pius XIII @ Mar 16 2006, 05:54 PM)
I don't think that environment should be so harsh, maybe a negative effect for low and a positive effect for high.

It isn't as harsh as it seems. Apparently there was also a bug with land that gave you an extra happiness boost.

Pius XIII - March 17, 2006 12:22 AM (GMT)
Ah, okay.

Edward Kirnovsky - March 17, 2006 12:27 AM (GMT)
What makes it go up???

Pius XIII - March 17, 2006 12:27 AM (GMT)
Water. Land. Tech. Not having too many soldiers. Not being in Anarchy. Not purchasing nuclear weapons.

VirusX999 - March 17, 2006 12:57 AM (GMT)
Maybe the environment plays too much a factor. Not everyone wants to be a tree hugger. Nor is it realistic, based on real world nations.

Bumpy - March 17, 2006 01:02 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (admin @ Mar 16 2006, 05:28 PM)
Environment effects both your nations population happiness and population count. There are numerous variables in the environment bar which include some of the connected resources (coal, oil, and uranium bring your environment down), a nations tech level, infrastructure to land ratio, military to population ratio, etc... The better your environment the more citizens you get and the happier your total population is.

So, a nations resources, which, being randomly assigned at nation creation, seem to be beyond player control, have an automatic impact on environment.

Does the negative impact depend upon production? or is trade in these commodities sufficient?

SocCarolina - March 17, 2006 01:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Bumpy @ Mar 16 2006, 08:02 PM)
QUOTE (admin @ Mar 16 2006, 05:28 PM)
Environment effects both your nations population happiness and population count. There are numerous variables in the environment bar which include some of the connected resources (coal, oil, and uranium bring your environment down), a nations tech level, infrastructure to land ratio, military to population ratio, etc... The better your environment the more citizens you get and the happier your total population is.

So, a nations resources, which, being randomly assigned at nation creation, seem to be beyond player control, have an automatic impact on environment.

Does the negative impact depend upon production? or is trade in these commodities sufficient?

Resources already had an impact - extra money, extra people, etc. This is just another factor.

I would add one thing - for those who don't want to play as "tree huggers," although that is hardly the case here, different types of "economies" like a green one, a capitalist one, etc. that can counter the effects of the environmentalism.

Much like Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri (and Civ 4 to an extent, I guess) - although maybe not as an in depth as that game got.

H-Bar - March 17, 2006 01:42 AM (GMT)
I feel really sorry for anyone who has coal. It was already one of the weakest two resources, and now it has negative effects on top of that.

Pius XIII - March 17, 2006 01:44 AM (GMT)
I know, I have coal as one of my defaults. :(

King Justin the Brave - March 17, 2006 02:03 AM (GMT)
As do I :(

canis - March 17, 2006 02:07 AM (GMT)
Gold & cattle defaults here... not too bad. Not as good as those coming in today with uranium and aluminum.

theblitz - March 17, 2006 02:08 AM (GMT)
WAY to powerful.

Can we get a full list of what it does, etc?

Calm Minds - March 17, 2006 02:12 AM (GMT)
iam just full of questions today
when i have my mouse over the bar it says
QUOTE
your nation's environment needs minor cleanup. a cleaner environment will lead to in...


this seem really incomplete to me, is there more too it and the modzilla(this is what i use) is just cutting it off? or is it a typo? or is this what its suppose to say?

bundesland - March 17, 2006 02:24 AM (GMT)
It shoud be helping nations, not destroying their economy. I lost 19 people, 10 euros per person (that's around 2k) and my happiness dropped by three.

Yenisey - March 17, 2006 02:31 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Calm Minds @ Mar 17 2006, 02:12 AM)
iam just full of questions today
when i have my mouse over the bar it says
QUOTE
your nation's environment needs minor cleanup. a cleaner environment will lead to in...


this seem really incomplete to me, is there more too it and the modzilla(this is what i use) is just cutting it off? or is it a typo? or is this what its suppose to say?

Should read: "Your nation's environment needs minor cleanup. A cleaner environment will lead to increased and happier citizen counts"

Using Firefox here @ 800x600, no problems with the site, but some of the forums scroll a bit.

Calm Minds - March 17, 2006 02:35 AM (GMT)
well inprove your environment then
the green isn't cheep

Pius XIII - March 17, 2006 02:41 AM (GMT)
I also got:

Your nation's environment is decently clean. A clean enviornment leads to increased and happier citizen counts.

Calm Minds - March 17, 2006 02:55 AM (GMT)
ok it just looks like 2.5 is just cut out then

bundesland - March 17, 2006 03:00 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Calm Minds @ Mar 16 2006, 08:35 PM)
well inprove your environment then
the green isn't cheep

What part of: I BOUGHT .76 TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO HELP YOUR ENVIRONMENT, didn't make it through?

Pius XIII - March 17, 2006 03:03 AM (GMT)
It might not help every purchase, just like with happiness.

herr schmidt - March 17, 2006 03:33 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (bundesland @ Mar 16 2006, 09:00 PM)
What part of: I BOUGHT .76 TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO HELP YOUR ENVIRONMENT, didn't make it through?

It probably works like happiness, ie you have to reach a certain level before technology improves your environment. If you now have .76 technology, bump it up to 1.01 and see if you get an improvement.

harveydent - March 17, 2006 03:40 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (bundesland @ Mar 17 2006, 11:00 AM)
QUOTE (Calm Minds @ Mar 16 2006, 08:35 PM)
well inprove your environment then
the green isn't cheep

What part of: I BOUGHT .76 TECHNOLOGY, WHICH IS SUPPOSED TO HELP YOUR ENVIRONMENT, didn't make it through?

You bought only a fraction of tech. Perhaps there is a set point on how much ration of tech you have to help your environment.

EDIT: what they said. :J

Ao Wolf - March 17, 2006 03:52 AM (GMT)
Has the system changed? My environment went up without me donig anything.

Pingu - March 17, 2006 03:54 AM (GMT)
Mine too, just a fraction of a star... :unsure:

harveydent - March 17, 2006 03:55 AM (GMT)
Natural land growth?

Pingu - March 17, 2006 03:58 AM (GMT)
Between updates? I guess it's possible. More likely a coding tweak, I would have thought. Not that I'm complaining at all, you understand. Indeed, I think we should all be thanking Admin for both the environment and the new resource features. More complexity ==> more fun for all the family :)

Bjornoya - March 17, 2006 04:48 AM (GMT)
Perhaps environment should factor in (or already has factored in) not just the 'tree-hugging hippy' aspect of environment but a more general and human connection to 'environment' like ones' social environment. Drugs, for instance, should lead to a poor social environment if your population is allowed the substances and is dependent on drugs to feel temporary pleasure. Again for social environment, although police-officers make us feel 'safe' and therefore happy there were and are countries where governmentally employed men with guns do not make the populace feel safe and happy. (perhaps soldiers should not increase happiness so much in a Communist government etc. or maybe there should be a split between hiring police forces and hiring soldiers)

H-Bar - March 17, 2006 05:22 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Ao Wolf @ Mar 16 2006, 09:52 PM)
Has the system changed? My environment went up without me donig anything.

Water improves environment now.

Sir Paul - March 17, 2006 07:12 AM (GMT)
Why does uranium lower your environment? If anything, that means that you're not buring as many fossil fuels and should help your environment.

theblitz - March 17, 2006 07:17 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Sir Paul @ Mar 17 2006, 01:12 AM)
Why does uranium lower your environment? If anything, that means that you're not buring as many fossil fuels and should help your environment.

- bracing for Green Party member to burst in here -

Exactly. Thats why the Greens hate it.

Sir Paul - March 17, 2006 07:26 AM (GMT)
Ok... What would you rather the United States' do? California is switching to a hydrogen economy, and the ethanol that going to save the world is being grown with unrenewable fossil water from the Ogalala aquifer. I can either:

a) burn coal
B ) not burn coal

In the "not burn coal" catagory, I need to use a combination of bio-mass, cow dung (which UC Davis found out you can convert to hydrogen), nuclear, wind, and, if you insist in throwing money down the drain, solar.

If you really want to get into the environment argument, the worst aspect is the mining, but current techniques require the money for land restoration and clean-up to be set aside upfront to return the land 10% better than it was. The greens hate it because one meltdown can kill us all. And if that's the case, make an event out of it. (however, please consider we've had all of two incidents worth mentioning, and only one was a major disaster).

Edit, by b ) kept turning into a B)

The Multitude - March 17, 2006 08:47 AM (GMT)
nuclear reactors produce highly toxic nuclear waste that has a half life of about 50,000 years.

If thats green...

Ao Wolf - March 17, 2006 08:54 AM (GMT)
Glowing green that is

Wurzak - March 17, 2006 08:56 AM (GMT)
My nation doesn't dump radioactive waste into nature, not inside our own borders anyway, so nuclear power shouldn't hurt our environment except in the case of nuclear meltdown.

Frank Carbonni - March 17, 2006 09:47 AM (GMT)
QUOTE (Sir Paul @ Mar 17 2006, 01:12 AM)
Why does uranium lower your environment? If anything, that means that you're not buring as many fossil fuels and should help your environment.

There are some issues with radioactive gasses as it is mined.

That being said, it should actually mildly improve the environment.




* Hosted for free by InvisionFree