Nukes

Ben Williams · May 26, 2002, 00:44

I don't think the importance of nuclear weapons are shown at all in civ3 (or 2 for that matter). I just won a full-scale nuclear war (on monarch) with Russia, and while I had missile defence I don't think enough damage was done. The first turn they declared war on me they attacked me with ICBM's, I got REALLY lucky and my defence intercepted all of them, about six. Well I didn't expect them to use nukes, but since they started it I nuked some of their armies and navy. The Zulu, however, had other plans. Because they liked me so much they declared war on Russia to, and they didn't restrain themselves in launching a major nuclear attack even though Russia had spent all their nukes on me. So when I came marching into the Russian cities (the Zulu never bothered to capture any of them) the place was a mess.

The point is nuclear weapons changed the face of the Earth (from the human perspective). When they are used, it's not just a matter of killed people and units plut pollution, it's a major catastrophe. The Russian should not have been so quick to use them, esspecially since I had vast missile supiriority. Only a nation with death wish would do such a thing in the real world. Nukes should have the power to wipe out entire cities, and the pollution should be radiation instead, something that would kill people for a long time after the attack and sometimes move around. The relative power should depend on tech level, the bomb dropped on Heroshima was 5 kilotons, the ones America has today are up to 80 megatons (16,000 times as powerful). I'm tired, you get the point.

Inverse Icarus · May 26, 2002, 01:10

a nuke that wipes out a city (ala Planet Buster missles in SMAC) are far overpowered, and i'm fairly sure you'd complain if the AI actually hit you with 6 of those.

i do agree on the radiation part though. it should take longer to clean (or not be able to be cleaned at all, it would fade with time) and should damage units / lower populations of cities.

this would add another layer of strategy to the game

nuking in such a way as to cover their whole continent

Ethelred · May 26, 2002, 01:16

Quote:

I'm tired, you get the point.

Try playing a bit less continuously. Take a break. The game is more fun that way. Winning when you can hardly keep your head from hitting the keys isn't very fun, its just draining.

Even for genocidal warmongering nuke happy players.

Did Russia fire the first nukes in the game? The AI rarely leads with nukes except when they are in a use it or lose it situation. First strike out of the blue seems a bit unusual.

Maybe its because I never have a nuclear defense in the game. Its always over before it becomes available, usually via a Space Race victory.

PhoenixPhlame73 · May 26, 2002, 02:00

I'm not sure what nukes do in Civ3, as they never seemed to be used on me or by me, but I would say that they should lower the population of a city, maybe enough that about three would totally destroy a city. I support them being able to destroy a city because all the corruption makes capturing enemy cities almost pointless and razing them hurts your reputation (though I suppose nuking does as well). When you really don't want those little cities on the other side ofthe map, it should be allowed to simply destroy them with haveing to invade.

delsolsi · May 26, 2002, 02:07

I would be nice if there was a way to automatically counter attack with nukes of your own even if its not your turn yet, just like in real life. If we nuke someone we will be instantly nuked ourselves.

Odd · May 26, 2002, 02:12

Oh, I had once a nuclear war (no SDI, was hit by 11 nukes and nuked 26 cities) and I can tell you it hurted a lot. Especially because it was my first large scale nuclear attack.
I was a Democracy, had to became communist otherwise not even if I put 70% on luxuries the people would calm down, all my major cities became useless for a lot of turns, never recovering from what they were because of all the desert around. The other cities had to start pumping out workers. To clean the mess and the 3 global warming tiles/turn. Just on my civ.
Meanwhile the army built in the peacetime keep fighting, when I reached 70 workers the situations was beggining to improve for me. The computer, who was very strong (270 mechs) could never recover, stopped all the unit production for a lot of time and was literally sent back to the middle ages.

PhoenixPhlame73 · May 26, 2002, 02:13

Yeah, that would be cool, maybe a setting that would put your nukes on "standby" and should an enemy nuke hit any of your cities, that nuke will automatically head for the nearest city/unit (user's choice?) of the opposing civ.....

Of course, if this were allowed it would open up all kinds of cool new things, like accidentally retalliating upon the wrong country and starting a world war and stuff like that....

This might even be a useful setting for conventional forces, though the reason it might be implemented there is blurry, nukes take very little time to get to their destination, but it would be far less realistic if this were done with conventional forces because that would be basically giving a player a free turn, which could really make or break a game in a big war....

Panag · May 26, 2002, 11:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Ben Williams
I don't think the importance of nuclear weapons are shown at all in civ3 (or 2 for that matter). I just won a full-scale nuclear war (on monarch) with Russia, and while I had missile defence I don't think enough damage was done. The first turn they declared war on me they attacked me with ICBM's, I got REALLY lucky and my defence intercepted all of them, about six. Well I didn't expect them to use nukes, but since they started it I nuked some of their armies and navy. The Zulu, however, had other plans. Because they liked me so much they declared war on Russia to, and they didn't restrain themselves in launching a major nuclear attack even though Russia had spent all their nukes on me. So when I came marching into the Russian cities (the Zulu never bothered to capture any of them) the place was a mess.

The point is nuclear weapons changed the face of the Earth (from the human perspective). When they are used, it's not just a matter of killed people and units plut pollution, it's a major catastrophe. The Russian should not have been so quick to use them, esspecially since I had vast missile supiriority. Only a nation with death wish would do such a thing in the real world. Nukes should have the power to wipe out entire cities, and the pollution should be radiation instead, something that would kill people for a long time after the attack and sometimes move around. The relative power should depend on tech level, the bomb dropped on Heroshima was 5 kilotons, the ones America has today are up to 80 megatons (16,000 times as powerful). I'm tired, you get the point.

hi ,

try to put the AI level in the editor to deity , it shall change a whole lot , including the use of nuke's , ....

btw , why open a new thread when there is allready a thread on nuke's , .........

have a nice day

Carver · May 26, 2002, 19:17

Quote:

Originally posted by delsolsi
I would be nice if there was a way to automatically counter attack with nukes of your own even if its not your turn yet, just like in real life. If we nuke someone we will be instantly nuked ourselves.

Someone suggested something like this in another thread. A two-turn nuke launch, giving the second civ time to let his birds fly.

I don't know what happens to dormant ICBMs if the city they're in gets hit. Can they be destroyed? I think the simplest thing would be to keeps ICBMs safe in their underground silos during all nuke attacks.

TheEvilCheater · May 26, 2002, 21:21

nukes dont get destroyed i learned that the hard way i nuked every last russia city twice and they still nuked me on the nxt turn

Panag · May 26, 2002, 22:30

Quote:

Originally posted by TheEvilCheater
nukes dont get destroyed i learned that the hard way i nuked every last russia city twice and they still nuked me on the nxt turn

hi ,

---"tacical"--- , aboard a sub , .......

and if you raelly want them , take their city's with paratroopers , after you nuked them twice , .......

have a nice day / night

Solver · May 27, 2002, 06:11

We have a few nice threads discussing this now, and nice to see people are actually starting to agree.... I think a small city should be wiped out, but not the bigger ones.

Panag · May 27, 2002, 06:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
We have a few nice threads discussing this now, and nice to see people are actually starting to agree.... I think a small city should be wiped out, but not the bigger ones.

hi ,

its not unlikely to see a size 20 city reduced to a size 1 or 2 after a ICBM makes his home of that city , ........like in real live , ....

have a nice day

Solver · May 27, 2002, 06:48

Yes, but not destroyed immediately. A size 6 puke should be destroyed, though, with a high chance.

Panag · May 27, 2002, 06:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
Yes, but not destroyed immediately. A size 6 puke should be destroyed, though, with a high chance.

hi ,

there should always be a size one at least , to symbolize the survivors , .............

have nice day

Solver · May 27, 2002, 07:03

No, you must be able to destroy a city by nuking. Survivors? If a city gets nuked three times, any survivors there?

Panag · May 27, 2002, 07:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Solver
No, you must be able to destroy a city by nuking. Survivors? If a city gets nuked three times, any survivors there?

hi ,

lucky you , in the future all that shall be left are ruins , ....you can turn this on / off with the editor , ....

have a nice day

Ijuin · May 27, 2002, 07:49

Here is a possible compromise: The first nuclear strike acts normally, but if a second nuke hits a city after all its units are destroyed (that is, if it strikes an undefended city), then the city should be obliterated.

Ben Williams · May 27, 2002, 11:59

To modify my earlier statement, I think weather a city is wiped out should depend (not to make it to complex) on the size of the city, yield of the nuke and just luck. There should be at least two types of nukes, fission and fusion (the second could be built into a tech called "modern nuke" or something). That way it would all depend on the goal of the attack, if it was to capture cities or just wipe out another civ.

In the game with Russia nuking me, yes, they attacked first. They actually led with nukes before anything else. I REALLY didn't want to start WWIII, so dispite the fact that I had a bunch of ICBM's, I didn't use them until attacked. It would be nice if deterrance actually played into the game, which would of course mean whole new AI programs. My main complaint is the lack of realisim, insead of building new concepts for nukes (such as radiation) they just used stuff they already had (changing terrain, pollution).

tinyp3nis · May 27, 2002, 12:49

How many nucklear wars have u guys seen? None? Me too. There havent been any, and u cant count ww2 since they used "prototypes". But seriously, too much scifi movies makes people think nukes are all powerful, they are not. I cant remember the exact figures but US and soviet used to have thousands of nukes.... why so many? Because nukes arent so powerful so they need many? Any other reasons? If anyone here has nukes and knows more about their REAL effects, plz tell us

I think nukes are fine the way they are now in civ3. Well, maybe u could destroy small cities with nukes, would be nice... Honestly i dont know how powerful nukes are irl, i know those figures too about the big ones but they tell me nothing.

Panag · May 27, 2002, 13:55

Quote:

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
How many nucklear wars have u guys seen? None? Me too. There havent been any, and u cant count ww2 since they used "prototypes". But seriously, too much scifi movies makes people think nukes are all powerful, they are not. I cant remember the exact figures but US and soviet used to have thousands of nukes.... why so many? Because nukes arent so powerful so they need many? Any other reasons? If anyone here has nukes and knows more about their REAL effects, plz tell us

I think nukes are fine the way they are now in civ3. Well, maybe u could destroy small cities with nukes, would be nice... Honestly i dont know how powerful nukes are irl, i know those figures too about the big ones but they tell me nothing.

hi ,

just "imagine" , .........what would the world be like if Gen. Mac Arthur would have used his plan to seperate N and S Korea with strontium , .....or what would the world have been like when any mad man would use them , ......just "IF", .......

and that is what the game is all about , .......YOU , the human player is in control , ..........

imagine "IF" Solver does not like one , and he has a nuke at his hands , ...........

. - Solver its just an example hé , ....

now you are in control , ........PLAY THE WORLD

have a nice day

The Eliminator · May 27, 2002, 14:37

The city should be completely gone and the pollution left from nukes should last 100 years before you can clean it up.

Panag · May 27, 2002, 14:45

Quote:

Originally posted by The Eliminator
The city should be completely gone and the pollution left from nukes should last 100 years before you can clean it up.

hi ,

that is maybe why they have ruins in the game now , ....PTW , ..

we should have the possibility to edit this in the editor , ....

have a nice day

Carver · May 27, 2002, 15:53

What is this talk about "ruins"? Is this something from the PTW video?

ChaotikVisions · May 27, 2002, 17:34

The US and USSR had a large amount of nukes because they were both huge countries. Nukes by themsevles are not overly powerful, and will not destroy a city in an instant. What nukes do do however is spread fallout, which is what will kill off most of the people in the city. I do believe we developed nukes large enough to wipe out whole citys, but that ever using them would screw us over as well.

The Eliminator · May 27, 2002, 22:54

What are you on??

Nukes destroy cities, that is their purpose. 10 Megaton bomb (Ground Burst)...
1. Shockwave, levels ALL buildings over 3 km radius.
2. Gas Bubble, vapourizes organic material over a 2 km (minimum) spread.
3. Heat Wave, incinerates everything in a 5km radius (minimum).
4. Groundwave, distorts seismic properties over a 10 km range.
5. Fallout, renders 250 km range inhospitable for life for 100 years, minimum.
Bottom line: CITIES ARE DESTROYED.

Try airburst - little fallout and seismic damage, but times destructive power by a factor of 10 per 100 m.

I hope you are talking about tactical nukes - they aren't designed to take out cities, just troops and equipment. These nukes are all airburst - little fallout makes radiation a near non-factor.

Solver · May 28, 2002, 07:41

Some here are missing what nukes are in real-life. Modern nukes are no longer what they used to be in 1945. And even then.... the nuke targeted on Hiroshima didn't explode as expected, due to problems with the plane fuel and weather, so it wasn't dropped in the center of the city. Still about 1/3 of the city were destroyed with tens of thousands instant deaths. And modern nukes are even more powerful, it would wipe out an average city, an essence.

US and USSR? Now US and Russia have some 6000 nukes each... enough to completely obliterate both the countries and quite something else.

Carver · May 28, 2002, 18:54

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 20 kilotons, modern thermonuclear weapons are as powerful as 300 megatons . A 300 megaton bomb dropped on New York City would wipe out Bridgeport, CT.

Coracle · May 28, 2002, 20:05

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
The US and USSR had a large amount of nukes because they were both huge countries. Nukes by themsevles are not overly powerful, and will not destroy a city in an instant. What nukes do do however is spread fallout, which is what will kill off most of the people in the city. I do believe we developed nukes large enough to wipe out whole citys, but that ever using them would screw us over as well.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this.

A nuke, even a few of them, will NOT destroy a city. But a single unit, even if it only has just one hit point left, can instantly make a metropolis vanish, turn the terrain into grassland, and dispose of all the corpses without even leaving so much as a pollution tile!!

Yea, surrre. What was Soren on when he thought of that one?

As for nukes, I turned the Manhattan Project into a trade-producing Internet Wonder as I will NEVER use nukes without a Quick Response option for a First Strike. The game is too non-historical and too stupid otherwise, without that response it always creates a rush to see who can nuke the other first. This is silly and juvenile.

Jaybe · May 28, 2002, 20:10

Larger nukes are not nearly as efficient as smaller ones. OTOH, no one has (fortunately) played around with trying to deliver several at virtually the same time. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) is rumored to fry the triggering devices (top secret, of course). Fatricide??

The US arsenal has few (or fewer) ONE megatonners. Anyone have any up-to-date info on this type of info??

EMP would devastate the civilian economies of any of the consumer-based societies. In the US, only military hardware is hardened to withstand EMP. Imagine, NO personal computers (not even Macintoshes :gasp: ) -- now THAT, my friends, would be the end of Civilization!!

JB