From: bhv@areaplg2.corp.mot.com (Bronis Vidugiris)
Subject: Re: Global Effect
Organization: Motorola, CCR&D, CORP, Schaumburg, IL
Date: Tue, 18 Aug 1992 19:46:59 GMT

In article <twong.05q7@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca> twong@nucleus.cuc.ab.ca (Thomas Wong) writes:
)Has anyone played Global Effect from Millenium/Electronic Arts?
)I belive it's a game that originated in the UK.. but whenever I try to play it
)on my 386SX, it allows me to setup the game.. but does a cold boot whenever it
)begins the actual game.
) 
)I'm open to any views or opinions... :^)

It functions fine on my 16Mhz 386DX system.

Game-wise, it has some problems, though (IMO).  All the worlds I try either
fry or freeze eventually.

The factors that make this happen are not clearly explained - I'm guessing
from the behavior and the post game display that it's mostly related to C02
level, but  this isn't explicitly stated or refuted anywhere in the
documentation.

The key seems to be the C02 level - but the global system seems inherently
unstable.  If you start to freeze, you can pump more C02 into the air to
raise the temperature, but there's no good way to get it back out again
(or lower the temperature) that I've found.

The 'save a world' - nuclear winter scenario looked promising - at least, a
(potential) way to reduce global temepratures (have a nuclear war, or explode
some nukes).  However, when I tried the 'nuclear cleanup' scenario, in spite
of the documentation describing it as one of fighting global freezing, I had
the problem of the post-nuclear world frying.  This in spite of initial low
temperatures and large icecaps.  (I'm not sure whether ice-caps have the
realistic property of reflecting a lot of heat away or not - I suspect that
they do, and this is what casuses some of the instability in the Global
Effect model.  High temperatures melt the icecaps, causing more heat to
be absorbed, causing more melting, etc, and low temperatures freeze the
icecaps, causing heat to be reflected, causing more freezing, etc.  A certain
amount of this is probably realistic - but if the real world was as unstable
as the game is, the world would've died many times over already.  I believe
that there are known mechanisms, much talked about as the Gaia effect,
that prevent this from happening in reality, though its hard to separate
out the real facts from the PC wrt the Gaia effect as I haven't read anything
technical on it.)

Other posters have commented on the limited energy supplies.  Though
initially a problem, in many scenarios this is not a major issue, especially
ones that call for massive reforestation.  (You get 'brownie' points for
planting trees - this quickly raises total 'energy' levels.  The main
problem with this is one of excessive political content in a non-realistic
manner, IMO.)

Basic strategy is also highly 'PC' - use solar power (maybe wind power too)
and make lots of unconnected small cities separated by forests or parks. 
(Large areas will experience brownouts when using solar power, but not
if the cities are kept from touching - another slightly strange behavior).

Much later on in the game, when energy resources are plentiful, large amounts
of energy can be put into improving the efficiency of solar power, making
large cities possible.

One may need some other power sources - but these are operated in a (mostly
vain) attempt to control the C02 level, rather than to actually provide
power.