Bigger Nukes!!

TheRussianKing · October 6, 2001, 22:53

I wasnt watching Apolyton discussions for a few months, so I must bring this up again!
Since there will be no Futuristic action in Civ3, I guess we'll leave the nukes at 2sq radius.
This is how I think it should be:
Adv_Nuclear Fission
gives unit_Atomic Bomb/missile Total destruction and deadening of tiles in 1sq radius.
Adv_Mass Destruction
gives unit_Hydrogen Bomb/missile Total destruction+tile deadening in 2 sq radius.

Its a bit more reallistic that way, especially on gigantic maps. and you have something to be afraid of

how many sqares radius MAX do you think it should be?

JellyDonut · October 6, 2001, 23:07

Nukes should be more powerful than Civ II in order to reflect the true terror today's nuclear weapons can unleash upon the world.

There are two types of nukes, tactical missiles and ICBMs, and the ICBMs should be more powerful yet less accurate than tactical missiles.

Firaxis: I wouldn't object to a nuclear winter addition

Simpleton · October 6, 2001, 23:13

I always hated nukes and planet busters. After building up a great city the computer would somehow always find it and nuke/planet bust it even though I never did a thing to it. It sucked!! If the computer would play a little more cautious with these weapons I may support a larger radius than the 2 which I chose. But for now I choose 2 max.

TheRussianKing · October 6, 2001, 23:13

ICBMs should be 3 aquares!

TheRussianKing · October 6, 2001, 23:18

yes I think 2 sq is max, but if the game goes until 2250 AD or sumthing, the max radius should be 3sq for more advanced nukes. but the PC only nukes a lot in CTP2, other games its not a problem

jdd2007 · October 6, 2001, 23:20

4 squares

ndai...

JellyDonut · October 6, 2001, 23:28

I read a few months ago that the nuclear part of the game will be more of a phase where you don't use nukes unless absolutely necessary, but you have a few stored "just in case." I had suggested it was because of a "Star Wars"-type minor wonder which makes all cities immune (or nearly immune) from nuclear attack. I think Firaxis has implemented this in the game. It's a great improvement over Civ II, where if you had nukes, they were a lingering threat until the end of the game or until they were dropped, but I never really had a problem with it because I usually won the game well before the computer got anywhere close to researching Rocketry.

Inverse Icarus · October 6, 2001, 23:58

incineration: 1 square
major damage: 3 squares
unit death: 4 squares

Nemo · October 7, 2001, 01:14

with adv. of fusion = 2 squares
with adv. of fission = 3 squares

(or is it the other way around? i always forget

)

Dida · October 7, 2001, 01:25

nuclear fission involve splitting of the nucleus, and fusion is the fuse of smaller nucleus to make bigger atom, which can unleash comsiderable more enegy, usually 4 times greater than fission.

Nemo · October 7, 2001, 01:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
nuclear fission involve splitting of the nucleus, and fusion is the fuse of smaller nucleus to make bigger atom, which can unleash comsiderable more enegy, usually 4 times greater than fission.

cool, thanks. like i said i always forget which is which. i actually did not realize that fusion was 4 times more powerfull (i hadnt realized it was that much of a difference...but i suck at science, so what do i know

). in that case, then

with the advent of fission = 2
with the advent of fusion = 4 (ok this should be 8 but it is a game after all...and 1 was too little for fission, and 8 was too great for fusion, imho)

JellyDonut · October 7, 2001, 01:53

Remember: FUSION is when you FUSE the atoms and FISSION is splitting up the atom like you split up a fish after you go FISHIN'

. A little note of historical interest: the word "atom" comes from Greek meaning "unable to be cut/split"

to whoever came up with that word.

SITS · October 7, 2001, 01:58

What is a Berry Nuke?

Crouchback · October 7, 2001, 05:23

Quote:

Originally posted by SITS
What is a Berry Nuke?

Don't know, but George has just decided to spend $20b making one just in case.

As long as they kill everyone in the city's full 21 square radius, obliterates the cityand all its improvements completely, and leave me feeling superior, I'm not that fussy.

David

Provost Harrison · October 7, 2001, 06:38

Quote:

Originally posted by SITS
What is a Berry Nuke?

Berry, berry powerful

I will check but it sounds like it has something to do with berylium...

red_jon · October 7, 2001, 07:04

Planetbusters, Planetbusters!

Skanky Burns · October 7, 2001, 07:17

Star Imploders!! If my civilization cant win, then noone else can either!!! Muwahahaha!!!

red_jon · October 7, 2001, 07:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Star Imploders!! If my civilization cant win, then noone else can either!!! Muwahahaha!!!

LOL!

axi · October 7, 2001, 07:42

But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

Dauphin · October 7, 2001, 07:49

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
incineration: 1 square
major damage: 3 squares
unit death: 4 squares

I like the idea of tiered damage levels.

Although as you have setup you could target a square 4 tiles away from a city, destroy all the units but leave the city intact.

If you target between two cities the same happens. It would be ok if you can build a nuclear bunker improvement that protects units not hit directly.

Adagio · October 7, 2001, 08:53

I just think the AI should be more cautios with using nukes, this means only use nukes if there is no other way out of it...and a nuke war can really change the regard of other nations against the "nuke user" (to the lower), cuz it's really annoying to see the AI shoot 10+ nukes against another nation just because they want to take over the cities

Crouchback · October 7, 2001, 10:09

Quote:

Originally posted by axi
But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

Is that you Osama?

David

Akron · October 7, 2001, 10:16

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
incineration: 1 square
major damage: 3 squares
unit death: 4 squares

This sorta model looks good.

Nukes should not be the toys that the ai used to play around with carelessly in civ 2. There need to be REAL diplomatic consequences. It looks like these will be in, given the statement some firaxian made about the nuclear age as being just a stage in the game that you pass through rather than the end it was in civ 2.

SITS · October 7, 2001, 10:24

I think once you get the tech/build the wonder (and make it quite expensive) then nukes should be very cheap to build. This would model the real world where there are 1000's of nukes each side. In Civ3 anyone starting a nuke war will have to consider the consequences of the other civ's having 50 nukes to reply with.

isaac brock · October 7, 2001, 10:25

Quote:

Originally posted by axi
But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

Unless you can nuke through the espionage menu, you do need nukes. There are no spies in Civ 3.

Also, Via Rail is Canada's national passenger railline. hmm...

SITS · October 7, 2001, 10:34

Quote:

Originally posted by Provost Harrison

Berry, berry powerful

I will check but it sounds like it has something to do with berylium...

SITS · October 7, 2001, 11:24

One idea, which is probably far too late to include, is if you nuke an oppounts Capitial then they are unable to send nukes your way for a turn which gives you another shot of wiping them off the face of the earth. This hand-in-hand with cheap nukes would make civ very interesting indeed!

Trifna · October 7, 2001, 11:37

One square in Civ III isn't a 2km per 2km area! It's all the center of a city. Look at the urban part of New-York city, excluding all the less urban surrounding areas: it's huge...

Trifna · October 7, 2001, 11:39

I forgot.

I mean 1 square for the direct consequences, but the surrounding areas will have some serious problems too... Atomic bombs have areas of action. The center may destroy all, and radioactivity on sides, etc... Does much more than simply destroy.

red_jon · October 7, 2001, 11:41

Will we be able to drill a whole to the centre of the Earth and put a nuke in it, Dr. Evil style?