I wonder what nukes look like...?

[Lonestar]

Do you think Nukes in CivIII will be just explosions that reduce the city by 1/2 or larger, "plenet buster" style explosions.

Just wondering.

[Dauphin]

A nice feature would be a little movie clip of a nuke explosion and the subsequent mushroom cloud. At least when the first nuke is used/tested.

[The diplomat]

I hope for a nice big mushroom cloud explosion like in SMAC.

I also hope that the effect of a nuke is more like the planet buster (ie city completely destroyed) instead of the 1/2 pop reduction of civ2.

the nuke explosion in ctp2 was pathetic!

[tuckson]

So was the one in civ2

I guess the result of a nuke should depend on the size of a city.
A small city should be vanished, a medium sized city should be reduced to small and a big city should become medium.

And of course important building are crushed.

Also hope for a nice explosion, Maybe a screen blank for a while too?

Grtx

[java4me]

I think that the nuke should eliminate 1/2 to 3/4 of the population, and also destroy all the city improvements, small wonders, and maybe major wonders. I think that the green goo makes it more realistic because it melts everything in its path and the material that was melted becomes radioactive goo!!! Just some thoughts!!!

[Inverse Icarus]

i really liked the planet buster, whereas it turned the ground underneath it into water.

THAT RULES.

a nuke could destroy a whole city, could it not?

[Dauphin]

Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still on my map of Japan. Cities will still exist after a nuclear detonation. How much depends on the blast radius and the size of the city.

Even with large yield bombs the larger cities wil not be completely obliterated. Especially sprawled cities, like LA.

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Well...if you have studied nuclear warfare even just a little, you know they ain't anything like they were in civ2. And its not just that they were NOT realistic, they were just too lame and WAY TOO weak.

I would hope that they were like this:

1 nuke in city = all population killed in small, medium, and large size cities. If there were cities with Mega populations (eg. New York in real life), with say...a population that reached above 30, they would become mega-size. and a nuke would destroy 3/4's of the population in "megas". In all cities and cases of nuclear explosions, all of that city's(s) improvements would be destroyed, with the exception of "megas" which would destroy 3/4's of the improvements. in cities sizes small and medium, all of the small wonders (if any) would be destroyed. small wonders in large city's would be destroyed by 3/4, and in mega's, 1/2. Unless the city was a mega, 1 great wonder would be destroyed in that city. also, I personally think that a radiation/fallout field should 'shroud' the land surrounding the city, damaging the agriculture and any units that are there for the next several turns.

BTW, Firaxis has mentioned a small 'tad' of Nuclear warfare in one of their interviews, I believe it was the 2nd one at Gamespot: it goes somethin' like this,

"...When a civilization reaches that time in the modern era when nuclear weaponry is available, you had better be the one with the weapons, or your screwed. If a nuclear holocaust does happen, you are lucky to survive it...nuclear warfare is just down right, DEVESTATING..."
- Jeff Brigg's

those aren't his exact words, but that's the general idea. Unless Firaxis has gone back on this quote, I have high hopes that nuclear wafare will be much improved from that crappy civ2 style.

[Skanky Burns]

Im wondering what the effect of the "green goo" radiation will be, interesting stuff... and if the workers can clean it up. Maybe we need a Greenpeace wonder

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

Originally posted by Big Crunch
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still on my map of Japan. Cities will still exist after a nuclear detonation. How much depends on the blast radius and the size of the city.

Even with large yield bombs the larger cities wil not be completely obliterated. Especially sprawled cities, like LA.

you are correct to a certain extent, the mega cities (such as L.A. and New York) will not be completely obliterated, BUT...the population will eventually die out. radiation is considered even more devastating then the explosion itself.

"Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still on my map of Japan..."

this may be true, but if you research, Hiroshima was one of the largest cities in southern Japan during WWII. Now, its quite small. And though the actuall cities themselves were not destroyed, nearly all the populations' were. Most of the people that did survive the blast...died in the next 5-10 years from the after-affects of the radiation.

[Zanzin]

Well, seeing as Firaxes is going for a very natural "look" and feel with all the graphics, I would expect the nuke explosion to look very realistic as well.

[Internationalist]

I also think(though it's late for such an addition) that nuke usage should be greatly avoided by the civs in game(even your civ).It was overly popular as a military tactic in civ2 (IMHO) and though this makes for good battles it's not that realistic.Players should be freightened to use nukes and settlers-workers shouldn't be able to fix the damage made. Also it should create anarchy for two turns for each nuke attack(which would mean, say two attacs in one turn=4 subsequent turns anarchy) and a possibility of a revolt in your empire(after all nuke users detroy the future of their subjects).The penalty should be less if you're only counter-attacking(unless you overly passionate about it) retaliation should be 1.5 max(for every 2 attacks you get less penalty for 3 attacks).Also other nations should percieve the 1st one in a battle using nukes as a universal threat and offer the opposing nation military aliances and units.

[OneFootInTheGrave]

Originally posted by tuckson

Also hope for a nice explosion, Maybe a screen blank for a while too?

Grtx

What about rebooting you PC

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by Internationalist
Also it should create anarchy for two turns for each nuke attack(which would mean, say two attacs in one turn=4 subsequent turns anarchy) and a possibility of a revolt in your empire(after all nuke users detroy the future of their subjects).

No, after all, when America used 2 nukes in WW2, they didnt fall into anarchy. Was still government as usual.

[Sirotnikov]

Originally posted by OneFootInTheGrave
What about rebooting you PC

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



ROFTLMAOYAOMAORFOTLOFTL

That's great

[java4me]

Originally posted by Sirotnikov


LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL



ROFTLMAOYAOMAORFOTLOFTL

That's great

[tuckson]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


No, after all, when America used 2 nukes in WW2, they didnt fall into anarchy. Was still government as usual.

Well, actually, according to the rest of the world's opinion, America still hasn't much of a government. It's more like some kind of circus.

And with Bush it aint got much better

[Mongoloid Cow]

What about sprawled out cities like Sydney or Los Angeles - they are among the largest in physical size but relatively small in population compared to New York or Mexico City?

[Skanky Burns]

Originally posted by tuckson
Well, actually, according to the rest of the world's opinion, America still hasn't much of a government. It's more like some kind of circus.

True. I should have said they didnt fall any deeper into anarchy

[Internationalist]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns


No, after all, when America used 2 nukes in WW2, they didnt fall into anarchy. Was still government as usual.

O.k. So your civ get's first 2 attacks without implications.People didn't know yet

[shade]

Also other nations should percieve the 1st one in a battle using nukes as a universal threat and offer the opposing nation military aliances and units.

Isn't that already so when you are the first(ie the human player)to deploy a Bomb?Or am I just mistaking it for the usual all against one alliance and allowance to nuke the hell out of me??
(but i have SDI )

Shade

[Pingu:]

I too hope that the Nukes have better graphics in Civ3, it was prett lame in Civ and f***'ing awful in Ctp2.

Ctp2 did have one good thing though. it had a good "mutually assured destrcution" (MAD) setup, if you nuked someone, then they would immediately Launch all their nukes at you. Immediately means in YOUR turn, before you get to wipe them out with your hordes of parartroopers.

Ahhhh, immediate and total retaliation, that's a bit more like human nature...

You'd be a fool to launch Nukes against any other nuclear power, or their allies.. you'd better be one too, or your history.... Perhaps that's what one of the Firaxians meant when he said "You'd better be a nuclear power when they come along or you'll really miss out.." or something like that... I forget the exact quote.

Anyway, that's what I hope Nukes will be like in Civ3. (plus a kickass graphic and a deeply booming sound effect that'll pop your speakers and piss off your neighbours....... but that goes without saying.)


Pingu:

[Tjoepie]

I thought I read somewhere that there were 2 kinds of nukes: the smaller carried in a sub for cruise misiles and that bigger ballistic misile that could hit any place on earth.
Can anyone confirm this?

That would be nice, since all the talk about nukes here has been about the "old" nukes, but these days an intercontinental "multiple warhead H-bomb" is very different to the "fire-cracker" used on Hiroshima!

Therefor I hope the damage should be different too.
Buildings or at least 3/4 should be destroyed since a nuke will allways be aimed at the cities strategic centres and population will definately die if its an H-bomb rendering the whole area unable to sustain life for a very long time due to radiation!

And I agree there should be a bigger downside to using nukes especially the big onces. They make it too easy to rule the world if you'r the first to have them and use them without a big downside.

Otherwise Civ should be called : " get the bomb first race"

[Grim Legacy]

Nuclear warfare is for wussies that are unable to conquer the world on horseback! :P

[tuckson]

Anyone seen the movie "Wargames"?

It would be nice to be able to aim your nukes towards a certain city and let it stand so for a while. And indeed, in case of neccesary retalliation to be able to launch them at once.

Also it would be nice to get to know (not at once, but by means of spies or something) where your opponent has nukes and on which of your cities the thingy is aimed.

I guess THAT would cause more something like a "cold war"

[Col Bigspear]

WarGames, Now that was a cool film. I've always wanted a game like that ever since I saw it when I was about 6.

"intercontintal "multiple warhead H-bomb" is very different to the "fire-cracker" used on Hiroshima"

Just what I was going to say, Hiroshima and Nagasaki may still be on the map, but they were hit with a 1 Megaton bomb. What would have happened if they were hit with a 10 Megaton Bomb?

I would like to see the advancements of Nukes from Wet Farts to HUGE city KILLERS in the game.