Climate change!Good or bad?

[DeliCiousTZM]

I don't dislike the concept of climate change in Attila at all, i think it is a very cool feature that helps push northern factions down towards more fertile regions. But! When the fertile crescent is on 1 fertility is the whole concept of climate change backfiring? The problem to me is that climate change keeps going on after the Northern factions have lost all their fertility. And the fertile regions, or in fact any regions can't be relied upon to produce enough food from traditional food structures.

Maybe limiting the climate change to 2 events or leaving the max fertile land unspoiled would both help keep it realistic and emphasize the need to migrate to these regions even more!

Less severe, climate change across to board if you ask me, and no impact in fertile regions.

[Abdülmecid I]

The mini ice-age theory has been debunked since the 20th century, so I'd gladly get rid of that feature. It woudn't be my primary concern, but CA managed to exagerrate so much that the feature's really unbearable; you don't really need to be a genius to realize that having Mesopotamia with zero fertility is ridiculously dumb.

[Lionheart11]

The mini ice-age theory has been debunked since the 20th century, so I'd gladly get rid of that feature. It woudn't be my primary concern, but CA managed to exagerrate so much that the feature's really unbearable; you don't really need to be a genius to realize that having Mesopotamia with zero fertility is ridiculously dumb.

This.

Its a insult to think i cant have 6 buildings in a region without turning into a bunch of canaballs due to lack of food. It should have little effect not massive effects.

[stevehoos]

The mini ice-age theory has been debunked since the 20th century, so I'd gladly get rid of that feature. It woudn't be my primary concern, but CA managed to exagerrate so much that the feature's really unbearable; you don't really need to be a genius to realize that having Mesopotamia with zero fertility is ridiculously dumb.

Exactly.+ rep

We know a nuclear winter did not camp out during the time period.

[Butan]

Less impact accross the board (2x more turns between each world-wide changes) + even less impact in fertile regions (4x more turns between each climate change for those) + reverse climate change (warmer) after reaching absolute worst wintering.

As is I voted less impact in fertile regions because the biggest problem is ridiculous end game barren world. Some regions need be fertile even in end game to have attractive places to aim for or the feature is null.

[Bouncepass]

I limited it to a -2 penalty in my CAI mod here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...WIP-Melior-CAI

[DeliCiousTZM]

I limited it to a -2 penalty in my CAI mod here http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...WIP-Melior-CAI

That is not a bad idea, most territory up north are at 2-3 Fertility anyway, so what is the point of going past that? Any chance you could create a mod that keeps the Fertile regions out of harms way ?

[Giant Death Robot]

The effect is exagerated for sure. I can buy Scandinavia becoming colder, but the Nile valley and plains of Gaul becoming nigh infertile wastelands? The heck is that? This would have heralded the end of civilizations in these parts, not just migrations.

The concept is cool, however. It's just too much, too fast.

[Generaal Van Heutsz]

I haven't played the grand campaign this far, so I have no idea how it plays out but wouldn't this climate change make the more arid and hotter regions more ferile