Nukes

[Panag]

Originally posted by Jaybe
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

hi ,

the EMP is for real , and you dont need large and many nuke's to get it , ..................

as for MAC , some have ship's that are shielded , .........

have a nice day

[Carver]

Okay, here are more accurate figures from the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists:

The largest
The largest nuclear weapon ever produced was the Soviet thermonuclear Tsar Bomba ("King of Bombs"), which had an estimated yield of 100 megatons (100Mt--equal to one hundred million tons of TNT). The explosive force of this bomb would have been approximately 6,500 times the 15-16 kiloton bomb detonated at Hiroshima. A scaled-down 50Mt version of Tsar Bomba was tested in September 1961, in the largest man-made explosion to date.

The largest bomb ever produced by the United States was the Mk/B 53, also a thermonuclear weapon, which had a yield of 9Mt. Though the United States and the Soviet Union attempted to make larger and larger bombs early on, the "big bomb" race was later abandoned: in the 1960s and 1970s, the superpowers replaced almost all of these very cumbersome weapons with the smaller yet still formidable multiple independently targetable re-entry vehicle (MIRV) warheads that tip today's intercontinental ballistic missiles.

The smallest
The Davy Crockett fission bomb, fielded by the United States in Europe from 1961 to 1971, is the smallest confirmed nuclear weapon. Its miniature warhead weighed only 51 pounds, had a yield of 0.1 kilotons and a maximum range of 2.49 miles, and could be launched from a recoilless rifle or a jeep. It was deployed by U.S. Army forces in Europe for use against advancing Soviet troops.



A 100 megaton bomb would kill everyone in the target city, none of this "decrease population by" crap.

[PhoenixPhlame73]

I think that they should work as Ijuin said, they destroy units until there are none left, possibly taking 4-6 points of population as well, then destroying the city when there are no units left. I think that a nuclear strike should maybe create some ocean squares around the city to represent the immense destruction, maybe soem desert squares as well.....

I won't wander intot he conversation about the strength of actual nukes cause thats waaaay over my head

[Ben Williams]

I like this discussion, even if there's some strange logic going on (nukes arren't powerful, otherwise there wouldn't be a lot of them). A lot of raw destructive, that is the force of the explotion, would also depend on how hilly an area is (something about neutron concentration, I won't pretend to be an expert). I'm not saying it has to be intensly accurate (after all, nobody knows for sure how much destruction a full scale nuclear war would cause), I'm just saying the current system is bogus, and needs an overhaul to be even remotely true to life.

I also think when you launch a nuke, at least for the first time, there should be SOME sort of video of an explotion, or maybe a clip from Dr. Stranglove, like Major Kong riding down to oblivion...

[Non Flammable]

At the height of the cold war, the US and Soviets had the capacity to end all life on earth, with plenty of overkill left over. Hell, one US missile sub could wipe out a massive chunk of the eurasian landmass. Basically, the reason both countries kept building up their stockpiles past the 'point of extinction' was A) to keep their military-based industrial capacity strong, and B) a matter of pride. "Yeah, you can destroy the earth 10 times? We can destroy it 20 times!" The arms race wasn't a matter of destructive power, they had that covered.

I agree with the ideas in this thread overall. Setting up an automated counterstrike, more powerful nukes, small cities wiped out, etc. etc. etc. I would like to see a way to eventually clean up the mess though, but unlike civ2, make it an EXTREMELY long and cost prohibitive process. Nuclear war is a big deal. SDI should equally be a big project, with more SAM sites needed perhaps? Ideas on that would be cool.

Carver: That's intresting. I thought some of the Bikini bombs reached blasts of 15mt+. Your resources are valid though, I guess you do learn something every day.

[GeneralTacticus]

I think that they should work as Ijuin said, they destroy units until there are none left, possibly taking 4-6 points of population as well, then destroying the city when there are no units left.

Wouldn't it be kind of stupid though, garrisoning a city against a nuke strike?

Anyway, the nukes in SMACX were certainly overpowered, hell you could use a few Singularity Busters to raze whole continents.

I agree that Civ3 nukes should:

a) Be more destructive.

b) Have different levels.

With the issue of the fallout, it could be represented by by saying that when a nuke hits a city, the city square will become polluted, and this pollution will halt all resource gathering in the city whatsoever (including food), and kill 1 citizen every turn until it is cleaned up.

[Non Flammable]

I loved the nukes in SMAC, they were perfect for that type of game: Sci-fi strategy. In that setting, it makes sense for blasts that take nation-sized chunks out of the landscape. Obviously though, they are too overpowered for a more realistic setting like Civ 3. I think there are some good ideas here in this thread on how nukes should be represented, hopefully there will be some changes next patch.

[King of Rasslin]

Alpha Centauri nukes were just plain freaky. Game balance wise, nukes in Civ 3 shouldn't be so powerful. I mean, an ICBM can do instant and permanent damage to any location on the map. And if you play huge maps, thats a lot of range. The true power of the Civ 3 nuke is the ability to project your power to any location on the map, instantly.

Power wise, they are perfect as it is. Although a "supernuke" should be a new world wonder- It would require about 2000 shields but has the power of a singularity planet buster

[Travathian]

A single 25Mt nuclear bomb would destroy virtually all of metro Phoenix. Keep in mind that the Phoenix area is similar to Atlanta in that it is all sprawl. Therefore, it would take probably no more than 3 of these to totally destroy any metropolis.

With this in mind, I'd say nuking any city size less than 10 destroys it.

Here's a link to see what all would be destroyed in a major blast. http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sf...mapablast.html

Also, to all the 100Mt and 300Mt people out there, do your homework. The largest single nuclear weapon the USA deployed was 25Mt, and the vast majority in their stockpiles are less than 1Mt.

And finally to Coracle, get a life dude, you bring up the same lame arguments no matter what the thread subject is. If you dislike the game so much, go back to playing with 'Rosey'.

[Jaybe]

Travathian,
Thanks for the meaningful, resourceful post
(other than for the last paragraph).

[Carver]

Originally posted by Travathian

Also, to all the 100Mt and 300Mt people out there, do your homework. The largest single nuclear weapon the USA deployed was 25Mt, and the vast majority in their stockpiles are less than 1Mt.

Travathian, why needlessly tell people to "do your homework"? The idea behind posting the paragraphs from the B.A.S. was to show evidence for (something you haven't done) what is possible in terms of nuclear weapons. Civ3 is a game, the point of which is not to replicate the armed forces of the United States. The USSR had multiple 100mt yield weapons, and was rumoured to have built a 300mt weapon.

Condescention is not a requirement of posting on Apolyton, so why do it?

[Travathian]

Carver I wasn't attacking you personally, just everyone who seemingly throws numbers out. Nothing bigger than 25Mt was built by either side for military application for the simple reason that there was no delivery vehicle capable of carrying something so heavy. The 100Mt monstrosity built by the USSR was for show, not for military application. Link: http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/

Given this, I'd say ICBMs in Civ3 should stay the same, with my note earlier of destroying a city less than 10 pop. Conventional nukes though shouldn't do the radiation damage to the surrounding squares like an ICBM does. On top of this, I'd say both should do polution damage to the city square itself, meaning a city couldnt gain resources from it. Its non removable by workers and takes say 10-20 turns to disappear.

Sure, in Civ3 you can have 500Mt bombs if you want, but there is no tech advance to simulate this. And as they are now, ICBMs are pretty smooth.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Travathian
Carver I wasn't attacking you personally, just everyone who seemingly throws numbers out. Nothing bigger than 25Mt was built by either side for military application for the simple reason that there was no delivery vehicle capable of carrying something so heavy. The 100Mt monstrosity built by the USSR was for show, not for military application. Link: http://nuketesting.enviroweb.org/hew/

Given this, I'd say ICBMs in Civ3 should stay the same, with my note earlier of destroying a city less than 10 pop. Conventional nukes though shouldn't do the radiation damage to the surrounding squares like an ICBM does. On top of this, I'd say both should do polution damage to the city square itself, meaning a city couldnt gain resources from it. Its non removable by workers and takes say 10-20 turns to disappear.

Sure, in Civ3 you can have 500Mt bombs if you want, but there is no tech advance to simulate this. And as they are now, ICBMs are pretty smooth.

hi ,

try www.fas.org , there you shall see that a lot of 75 - 200 Mt nukes where build , .........

anyway , there should be a new nuke in civ3 , to close the range between ICBM and tactical , ........something with a range of lets say 20 , ...............

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

The tactical nuke needs a range of 8. Border cities are going to have a hard time making them. Their production requirement should be halved, but they should only kill 1/4 of a cities population, and only destroy railroads but leave the normal roads behind. There should be a 50/50 chance of a square being polluted, but there should be no permanent damage to the land.

ICBMs need to be more expensive because of their range and power. Since they are usually built in the capitol or most productive city anyway, they should cost more. Actually, they should be like world wonders.

[Panag]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
The tactical nuke needs a range of 8. Border cities are going to have a hard time making them. Their production requirement should be halved, but they should only kill 1/4 of a cities population, and only destroy railroads but leave the normal roads behind. There should be a 50/50 chance of a square being polluted, but there should be no permanent damage to the land.

ICBMs need to be more expensive because of their range and power. Since they are usually built in the capitol or most productive city anyway, they should cost more. Actually, they should be like world wonders.

hi ,

there should at least be a third type of nuke , ..........wheter smaller or bigger remains a Q , ...........

as for the cost of nuke's , try the editor , .......

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes are actually very balanced as it is. What is serious is the strength (well, lack of) of cruise missiles.

A third nuke would be kinda dumb. Although a super nuke wonder would be fun, I think tactical nukes are fine, except for their lack of range.

Now, a land based nuke artillery should be in the game. It should be slow, like take 2 or 3 turns to move a single square. It should require you to "load" a nuke into it. It would have the same range as artillery, but would be more expensive and slower.

[Panag]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Nukes are actually very balanced as it is. What is serious is the strength (well, lack of) of cruise missiles.

A third nuke would be kinda dumb. Although a super nuke wonder would be fun, I think tactical nukes are fine, except for their lack of range.

Now, a land based nuke artillery should be in the game. It should be slow, like take 2 or 3 turns to move a single square. It should require you to "load" a nuke into it. It would have the same range as artillery, but would be more expensive and slower.

hi ,

there should be a nuke with a range of lets say 20 , ....to fill the hole between the to ones there are now , .......

also , there should be the option to give airunits more range , ....
and more units in general , and why not put some buildings in it , that are needed to build this or that unit , ......

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

You don't need a special building to make any units. And a nuke with 20 range is about as far as needed in most games, seriously. The ICBM is fine, we don't need another nuke. I want a stronger cruise missile with more range.

[Panag]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
You don't need a special building to make any units. And a nuke with 20 range is about as far as needed in most games, seriously. The ICBM is fine, we don't need another nuke. I want a stronger cruise missile with more range.

hi ,

please read again , ........

more units , and why not make them true buildings , thus adding more buildings aswell , ........

and maybe some blank units , so that the players can fill in the valuefields themselves , ....

as for the rest there should be many units extra , and the option to play with them or , ...

example ; player one wants three nukes , player two only two , ...
if there are options to toggle these units yes or no , then every type of player can have it his way , ..........

have a nice day

[Ijuin]

I still favor the idea that the first nuke will kill all the units in and around a city, plus half the population, as it already does, and the SECOND nuke will obliterate the city. This lets you wipe out cities if you wish to, without the need for creating a whole new class of nukes. Perhaps to show the difference between Tactical Nukes and ICBMs, only ICBMs would be able to obliterate a city and additional Tactical Nukes can only destroy part of the population and some Improvements.

That's another thing. I think that a nuke attack should destroy half of the Improvements in a city (chosen at random), but Great Wonders and Small Wonders should still remain standing until the city itself is destroyed.

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes shouldn't be city killers. They are so powerful as it is. I do think improvements should be destroyed. Units should be reduced to 1 hp and have their defence halved as long as they are in the radiation.

In fact, I think a -25% defence should be in store for units in polluted squares. I like the idea of a city square becoming polluted for 10 turns or so. The real power of a nuke is getting a freaky 100% defence bonus city down to a reasonable 50% defence bonus city with injured units.

[Solver]

No, no, current nukes are extremely weak.

Though think... if you could obliterate a city with two nukes, wouldn't it be too much? Build Nukes only, get yourself 60 nukes, and get rid of any civ you don't like.

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes are not weak at all if used with combined arms. Nuke a size 20 city to reduce the defence bonus to 50% and kill the weakened units with armor just outside the city. Nuking a city across the world is powerful enough, but nuking a nearby city is instant defeat for it if you use other units with it. Why would you nuke a city and allow the injured units to heal themselves? I would gladly take a nuke over using artillery to the same effect, except artillery are so f'n slow and they are just not powerful enough.

[dexters]

What is this preoccupation with realism? Reducing a city from pop 12 to pop 4 or whatever and polluting its surrounding tiles with pollution is enough.

Repeat several times on 10 cities of a major civ in a normal map, and you have essentially crippled the AI economy and can go in for the kill with conventional units.

I find it highly illogical for players to keep demanding a god weapon. I'm sure we'd have threads whining about the "overpowered" nukes and the "cheap" AI if Nukes were able to wipe out entire cities and the AI actually used it against the human players. And they will. We all know it.

[Carver]

Good points, Travathian.

Originally posted by Ijuin

That's another thing. I think that a nuke attack should destroy half of the Improvements in a city (chosen at random), but Great Wonders and Small Wonders should still remain standing until the city itself is destroyed.

It is pretty silly that all those libraries, cathedrals etc. are never destroyed by nukes. Some improvements should be destroyed - at random. Yes, wonders should remain, afterall the Parthenon is still a wonder although its in ruins.

[Denday]

Originally posted by Ijuin
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.

what do units have to do with it

nuke a city = no city

nuke a city = survirors

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Denday

what do units have to do with it

nuke a city = no city

nuke a city = survirors

Make a nuke kill a city = no strategy = no fun

[LaoTze]

If you want a 3rd type of nuke put nukes on bombers. That was the major delivery system till the 60's. At any rate, the US had 30,000 (4,050 stratgic) nukes for 15,977.17 megaton yield by 1963 most of those were tactical nukes but the reasoning behind so many was the first strike mentality and fools whining about the missile gap. Never existed, Russians only had 4,000 (589 stategic) by '63. Then you had to rebuild your nuclear force when the delivery system was changed in the face of growing Soviet air defence capabilities etc. You can't nuke the world over 3 times if the other guy nukes your nukes on the ground. So overkill was a good thing in that shining enlightenment of cold war mentality:-)

[Panag]

Originally posted by LaoTze
If you want a 3rd type of nuke put nukes on bombers. That was the major delivery system till the 60's. At any rate, the US had 30,000 (4,050 stratgic) nukes for 15,977.17 megaton yield by 1963 most of those were tactical nukes but the reasoning behind so many was the first strike mentality and fools whining about the missile gap. Never existed, Russians only had 4,000 (589 stategic) by '63. Then you had to rebuild your nuclear force when the delivery system was changed in the face of growing Soviet air defence capabilities etc. You can't nuke the world over 3 times if the other guy nukes your nukes on the ground. So overkill was a good thing in that shining enlightenment of cold war mentality:-)

hi ,

keep talking , ........

what about a fourth type of nuke , ....;the one that the a unit like a spy puts there , almost like in civ2 , similar but improved greatly , .......

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

The difference between a tactical nuke and a bomber is that you cannot rebase the nuke. Because the bomber could be shot down before reaching it's destination, the nuke shouldn't be expensive. It should be weaker and cheaper than tactical. Maybe it shouldn't really generate much pollution but it should kill 1/4 of the city and an improvement. Something minor but good.