No more nuclear unrealism plz !

BeeBee · April 17, 2000, 17:59

I find the civ2 way of capturing a city after nuking it VERY unrealistic.
C'mon, imagine the Americans dropping their para's above Hiroshima...
The radio-activity should keep killing units (and citizens) during a certain while, with a decreasing strength.

Ideas?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

WarVoid · April 17, 2000, 18:10

C'mon that's the whole idea of nuking a city.
Because it so well defended we can't break through it's defences.
Even so you are right.
The radioactivity should prevent any units friendly or not from entering the area for at least ten turns.
Only special equipped units could enter the cities.
Such as ones wearing protective clothing.
Or something like that.
I also think pollution should go away after a certain amount of time. For the radiation does dissipitate after long periods of time.
Although it won't really matter much global warming will have taken effect by then.

tniem · April 17, 2000, 21:36

I disagree with the possibility of units not entering a nuked city. In WWII when the U.S. dropped the bomb people were still living in those cities in Japan. Not around the bomb center mind you, but on the outlying parts of town. Civ cities are huge amasses of land (I forget the actual estimate on the world map but it was quite large) troops should be able to entered nuked cities.

However there should be a bigger loss of life during a nuke attack and there should be a good chance for units in a nuked town to live. It is unrealistic for people to survive a nuclear bomb but all of the troops happened to be stationed in the direct wake of the bomb.

Ari Rahikkala · April 18, 2000, 14:28

Nuclear bombs don't actually create nuclear waste for years. In Hiroshima, the nuclear waste decayed in one week so much that living there was actually possible. Remember, radiation isn't really a hard-core killer. But the CivII model isn't very realistic, as tniem said, the loss of life is much greater. But the point here is that the radiation and waste dissipate much sooner than some people think.

BeeBee · April 18, 2000, 14:57

Andz83
what do you mean?

April 19, 2000, 00:03

Wow, a newbie thread until now.

Or maybe it's a thread of DLs...

ivorgrubisic · April 19, 2000, 09:14

I know nuking might be practical for all you civ fanatics but beebee is right about it being very unrealistic. Nuking should be something you never do unless absolutely necessarry. Also, don't compare today's nukes with Hiroshima. If the Russians (or anyone else) nuked the US (with a few missiles), it would instantly lose a half of its population and if all the nukes in the world were used Just a few people would survive (if at all). So, I don't like the idea of massive using of the nukes. They should be mainly a threat not so much a weapon you really use.

tniem · April 20, 2000, 08:53

beebee- andyz looked at the post count and said that no one important had posted. He forgets that he only signed up in march.

ivor- then shouldn't atomic bombs be included in the game. Many historians are now purposing the U.S. dropped the atomic bomb simply to make a show of force, that Japan was ready to surrender. If we are going to make missiles totally realistic then there needs to be the early nuclear weapons.