Added a lot of very sketchy design documentation

Further work needed!

README.md

@@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ A game about avoiding climate catastrophe.
 
 The primary concerns I have which are driving this project is we're failing to communicate, even to the young but certainly to the old, just how intractable and serious the climate emergency is; that we lack critical infrastructure for a survivable planet; and that, unless we get the management of strategic materials right, it will be impossible to build the infrastructure for a survivable planet without tipping the climate system over the edge into utter catastrophe.
 
-To illistrate what I mean here: we presently have some capacity to smelt steel by electric arc. We currently have some renewable electricity generation plant. But the amount of steel we can actually make using only renewable energy is very limited. If we use that limited 'green' steel to make new renewable electricity generation plant and new electric arc steelworks, then we can increase the amount of 'green' steel we can make, and gradually we can build other 'green' infrastructure. But if we use that 'green' steel to make things which aren't actually on the critical path, like electric cars, we're going to be stuffed.
+To illustrate what I mean here: we presently have some capacity to smelt steel by electric arc. We currently have some renewable electricity generation plant. But the amount of steel we can actually make using only renewable energy is quite limited. If we use that limited 'green' steel to make new renewable electricity generation plant and new electric arc steelworks, then we can increase the amount of 'green' steel we can make, and gradually we can build other 'green' infrastructure. But if we use that 'green' steel to make things which aren't actually on the critical path, like electric cars, we're going to be stuffed.
 
 So the concept here is something between a sim and a god-game. The player will play as government of one of a number of playable territories, on a recognisable model of planet Earth as it is now. As the government, the player can
 
@@ -38,8 +38,6 @@ The user interface needs to be a (possibly stylised, but recognisable) map or th
 
 I like the idea of having little people running around getting on with their lives, perhaps one for every million people in the real world, but that's pretty ambitious and perhaps a step too far.
 
-### User interface
-
 ## Warning
 
 At this stage nothing works. This isn't even a skeleton of a working game; it's a repository in which to develop a specification, and from that a skeleton.

doc/Algorithmic Play.md

@@ -0,0 +1,18 @@
+# Algorithmic play
+
+Territories which are not managed by players will have to be managed algorithmically. Essentially, the algorithm may choose any party for any territory, but there will be strong biases both in the probability and the stability of party associations with territories. 
+
+The following associations will be made.
+
+| Territory    | Initial party | Stability    |
+| ------------ | ------------- | ------------ |
+| America      | Blue          | Volatile     |
+| Africa       | Red           | Volatile     |
+| Brazil       | Blue          | Volatile     |
+| China        | Red           | Stable       |
+| Europe       | Red           | Intermediate |
+| India        | Blue          | Intermediate |
+| Russia       | Blue          | Volatile     |
+| Saudi Arabia | Blue          | Volatile     |
+
+##### 

doc/Climate Events.md

@@ -0,0 +1,47 @@
+# Climate Events
+
+The main purpose of the game is to help players understand and appreciate the probable costs of climate change. Therefore, climate events should be modelled using the best available scientific projections. Generally, once severe climate events start to happen in a territory, then algorithmically the population will tend to move towards favouring greener government; but once this sort of thing has started happening it's really too late.
+
+## Transient events
+
+Transient events effect areas temporarily; they may cause huge damage, but afterwards the areas return to habitable. The probability of transient events varies with geography, and needs to be reasonably modelled. The probability and intensity of such events varies overall with the overall degree of anthropogenic warming
+
+### Extreme Heat Events
+
+Extreme heat events -- essentially heat waves -- may happen anywhere outside polar regions., but are more probable in the tropics.
+
+Extreme heat events may cause substantial proportions of the population of the affected region to die -- up to 100% in severe cases (i.e. sustained wet bulb temperature above 38° Celsius). Extreme heat events almost certainly cause crop failure. Extreme heat events will very probably cause forest fire.
+
+### Fire Events: forest fires; also peatland fires and tundra/taiga fires
+
+Fire events will normally start from extreme heat events but may persist for some time after the heat event has abated, while there are contiguous areas of forest or high-carbon soil to burn. These fires result in the loss of substantially all of the sequestered carbon in the area affected, and will cause crop failures and widespread infrastructure damage. Forest loss will also change rainfall patterns potentially leading to desertification.
+
+### Flood Events
+
+Flood events are considered separately from sea level rise, which is persistent; flood events happen primarily in river valleys. Flood events cause widespread economic and infrastructure damage and crop failure. They will also cause deaths but typically less thant 25% of the population of the affected area.
+
+### Storm Events
+
+Storm events happen primarily on leeward coasts and tend to be most intense in the tropics, but really may happen more or less anywhere; again, this needs to be modelled. Storm events directly cause infrastructure damage and localised flooding leading to further infrastructure damage and crop failure; and also contribute to flood events further down the river catchments.
+
+## Persistent events
+
+### Sea level rise
+
+Sea level rise is caused by ice melt and by thermal expansion of sea water; both can be modelled. Both are fairly slow processes, so by the time sea level rise is happening there's very little policy intervention which is likely to stop it. Sea level rise results in the total loss of affected land areas, leading to loss of all economic output.
+
+### Desertification
+
+Desertification will happen where rainfall is no longer sufficient to maintain vegetation cover; it will be the consequence of three things:
+
+1. Aquifer depletion;
+2. Forest loss;
+3. Atmospheric circulation change.
+
+All these can be modelled.
+
+Desertification results in permanent crop failure, and an increased probability of extreme heat events.
+
+### Biodiversity loss
+
+Biodiversity loss needs careful thinking about. It is certainly a factor (and is already causing e.g. very substantial falls in the productivity of fisheries), but I don't know enough yet to be able to model its wider economic and policy consequences.

doc/Influencing other territories.md

@@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
+# Influencing other territories
+
+Broadly you can influence other territories by three main methods (and algorithmically managed territories will use these too).
+
+## Diplomacy
+
+What this fundamentally comes down to is bribing territories into doing what you want. It will cost money, probably serious money. Diplomacy has no carbon cost, and no real downside. Poorer territories will generally be cheaper to buy than richer ones, red territories will generally be cheaper to buy than blue or green ones.
+
+## Interference
+
+You can interfere in another territory's political processes by bribing politicians, funding favoured political parties, or buying media. This needs to be covert or it will be greatly resented; there is a random but significant chance of it backfiring spectacularly (i.e. promoting the faction you oppose rather than the one you support). It will generally be cheaper than diplomacy but has no carbon cost.
+
+## Military intervention
+
+You can attempt to impose the government you want on a territory by military intervention. Military intervention will only work if the attacking territory is at least equally militarily strong as the defending. Other territories of the same political colour may join in to support the territory attacked.
+
+Military intervention has huge carbon cost, and a war involving both America and China, or any four territories, is essentially game over everyone loses.
+
+### 

doc/Playable Territories.md

@@ -0,0 +1,227 @@
+## Playable Territories
+
+The following territories will be playable (i.e. controllable by a player) in the game. It should be possible to play in a small-group collaborative multiplayer arrangement, where different players control different playable territories.
+
+### Africa
+
+Treated as one polity for the purposes of the game.
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Low productivity, small surplus, low dependence on fossil fuels and fertilisers. Vulnerable to desertification. Significant areas of forest (23% cover) but currently mostly of low productivity.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Low energy use per capita. Vast potential for solar virtually everywhere, especially in desert areas, but this is largely untapped.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Limited, low productivity.
+
+##### Military
+
+Small, disorganised, not significantly problematic.
+
+##### Population
+
+1.2 billion, growing significantly, generally very poor, relatively low wealth disparity. Quite low levels of economic improvement are likely to ensure social stability.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Limited, less dependent on fossil fuel than in richer places, but poor infrastructure.
+
+### America (United States)
+
+Including Canada and possibly Mexico for the purposes of the game.
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Very productive, substantial surplus, but highly dependent on fossil energy, fertilisers, depleting aquifers. Vulnerable to desertification. 36% forest cover.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Very high energy use per capit., Very substantial use of fossil fuels in all sectors. Good potential for solar especially in south west.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Productive, flexible, innovative, heavily dependent on fossil energy, plastics.
+
+##### Military
+
+Enormous, beyond effective democratic control, hugely polluting. Huge stocks of armaments. In the event of civil war, might easily fall apart into warring factions.
+
+##### Population
+
+500 million, overall rich but incomes extremely skewed and with a significant majority very poor. Politically volatile, heavily armed, civil disorder likely.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Heavily biased to individual transportation, cities low density and not easily amenable to efficient mass transport systems.
+
+### Brazil
+
+Including most of South America for the purposes of the game.
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Generally low productivity, but considerable surplus. Large forests (62% cover) of generally low productivity, very vulnerable to widespread desertification particularly if deforestation continues.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Generally low energy use per capita, mainly fossil fuels. Good potential for solar, hydro and wind energy.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Limited, low productivity.
+
+##### Military
+
+Large, beyond effective government control, but poorly organised and not heavily armed.
+
+##### Population
+
+450 million, growing, generally poor, very high wealth disparity. High risk of civil disorder.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Limited infrastructure, mainly individual fossil fuelled vehicles, but cities generally compact and amenable to mass transit.
+
+### China
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Generally productive, some surplus. Risk of desertification especially in the west. 22% forest cover.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Mix of energy systems from the very worst to the very best, but generally modernising rapidly.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Vast, extremely productive, flexible, but currently extremely polluting. Considerable production of plastics including single use plastics from fossil feedstocks.
+
+##### Military
+
+Very large, very heavily armed, but disciplined and under tight government control.
+
+##### Population
+
+1,400 million, fairly stable. Generally lesser wealth disparity than in other economies. Low risk of civil disorder.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Relatively good rail and mass transit infrastructure, lower dependence on individual fossil fuel transport than some other economies. Infrastructure generally good.
+
+### Europe
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Very productive, high dependence on fossil fuels and fertilisers. Some surplus. Low risk of desertification. 38% forest cover.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Mixed, modernising rapidly, but still high dependence on fossil fuels. No especially good potential for renewable energy generation except in the north west.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Large, high productivity, possibly less flexible. Very large car industry which may be resistant to change.
+
+##### Military
+
+Relatively modern and well equipped but not large; generally good discipline and government control.
+
+##### Population
+
+750 million, generally wealthy, wealth disparities lower than in most other areas. Moderate potential for civil disorder.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Heavily biased to individual private motor vehicles, but good rail infrastructure and generally compact cities with good mass transit systems. Overall exceptionally good transport infrastructure.
+
+### India
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Generally lower productivity, some surplus, labour intensive, less use of fossil fuels than richer territories. 21% forest cover.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Significant use of coal, but good potential for solar energy virtually everywhere.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Growing industrial production, much of it dirty.
+
+##### Military
+
+Large but not especially well equipped.
+
+##### Population
+
+1,380 million, growing steadily, generally poor but with huge wealth disparities.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Railway network exists but is I think mostly old; lower proportion of the population has access to private motor vehicles.
+
+### Russia
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Average productivity, some surplus, much use of fossil fuels and fertilisers.
+
+##### Energy
+
+
+
+##### Industry
+
+##### Military
+
+##### Population
+
+##### Transport
+
+### Saudi Arabia
+
+Including the whole of the Arabian peninsula, Syria and Iraq.
+
+#### Starting Conditions
+
+##### Agriculture
+
+Virtually none, substantial food deficit, very little forest. Soils generally arid.
+
+##### Energy
+
+Currently, vast production of fossil fuels, mainly for export. Vast potential for solar energy but this is as yet largely untapped.
+
+##### Industry
+
+Limited.
+
+##### Military
+
+Modern and extremely well equipped but not large.
+
+##### Population
+
+140 million, growing rapidly. Severe social tensions despite repression; potentially volatile.
+
+##### Transport
+
+Widespread use of private motor transport.

doc/Political Parties.md

@@ -0,0 +1,17 @@
+# Political Parties
+
+Broadly there will be three main political parties in all territories. These will be Blue (or Right), Red (or Left), and Green.
+
+## Blue
+
+Represents the Trump/Bolsanaro/Johnson/Putin position generally. Blue administrations will favour economic growth over climate stability, will favour military that over diplomacy, and will favour wealth disparity over social cohesion.
+
+## Red
+
+Represents the Chinese communist party but also the European left. Red administrations favour economic growth over climate stability, diplomacy over the military, and social cohesion over wealth disparity.
+
+## Green
+
+Represents a faction closer to the New Zealand, English or Scottish Green parties that to the German. Green administrations will favour climate stability over economic growth, diplomacy over the military, and social cohesion over wealth disparity. 
+
+### 

doc/Strategic Materials.md

@@ -0,0 +1,44 @@
+# Strategic materials
+
+## Energy/Fossil fuels
+
+All industrial processes, and transport, and even domestic life, need energy. 
+
+## Metals/strategic minerals
+
+There's a great deal of metal which has already been extracted and used in products, which can be recycled. Recycling scrap metal does not need to use fossil fuel energy (although it currently mostly does).
+
+It's much harder to mine new ores and refine metals from them using only 'green' energy than it is to recycle existing scrap.
+
+Quite a lot of existing metal smelting plant is electrically heated, the electricity could come from renewables but of course currently mostly doesn't.
+
+If we're going to get to net zero in the next two decades, we are not going to be able to ramp up 'green' metal production to meet the existing usage of metals. So metal must become more expensive and we must use less of it.Of course, one way to achieve this is to design products with longer lifespans.
+
+## Timber
+
+Management of timber supply has some interesting features.
+
+Forest generally sequesters carbon, but mature trees sequester **much** more carbon than saplings, so cutting down a forest and replanting greatly reduces the amount of sequestration for probably three decades. Also, when forest is harvested, the proportion of the wood which isn't actually converted into usable timber almost certainly ends up back in the atmosphere as carbon.
+
+Nevertheless, timber is the least carbon intensive structural material widely available, and so structures which we have been used to making in concrete and/or steel will be much less carbon intensive is made with timber.
+
+Clearing forest and converting it to another land use is likely to result in the release of virtually all the sequestered carbon to the atmosphere over quite a short time frame.
+
+So good management is, *I think*, to leave old growth forest alone as far as is possible, and to grow plantation forestry for timber production. Certainly we need a lot of timber production.
+
+My hunches here need scientific validation.
+
+Note that because we will have less metal, there will be demand to use timber for many of the things we currently make from metal. The same applies even more forcefully to concrete: we are going to have very little concrete at all.
+
+## Food
+
+Current food production makes considerable use of fertilisers from fossil hydrocarbons. This has two negative climate impacts. Firstly topsoils become depleted of organic material, leaching carbon directly into the atmosphere, and secondly the carbon from the fossil hydrocarbons is mostly released into the atmosphere.
+
+Additionally modern agriculture is heavily mechanised, with most of the machinery powered by fossil hydrocarbons.
+
+In the short term at least, reducing the carbon cost of agriculture is likely to lead to a decrease in the amount of food produced.
+
+Additionally, so-called biofuels are produced from crops grown on land which would otherwise be used for food. Biofuels are the only viable alternative to fossil fuels for medium and long range air transport. So, unless we ban flying, the amount of food we can produce must sharply reduce.
+
+## Concrete/Masonry
+

doc/intro.md

@@ -1,3 +1,18 @@
-# Introduction to climate-game
+# The Climate Game
+
+## Introduction
+
+The Climate Game is game about avoiding climate catastrophe.
+
+## 
+
+##### 
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
 
-TODO: write [great documentation](http://jacobian.org/writing/what-to-write/)