Nukes

DCMike · July 26, 2002, 18:25

Any chance of having the option to make nukes COMPLETELY eliminate a city (like the planet busters in Alpha Centauri)? I think that would make for some interesting games. Not to mention the fact that I'm going to need that option for the Mongols

Ijuin · July 27, 2002, 11:20

Yeah, in CTP a nuke would totally obliterate a city. Previously I had suggested that a nuke hitting a garrisoned city would destroy population, units, and improvements like it already does in CivIII, but a nuke hitting a city with no units in it (like if it has already had them all killed by conventional or nuclear attack earlier that turn) would obliterate the city.

Some may complain that this would allow a nuked city to rush/draft a unit during its turn and thus save itself from being destroyed by the next nuke attack, but I say, if you, the player, are planning on destroying a city via nukes, then you should have launched that second nuke on the same turn as the first one!

WarpStorm · July 27, 2002, 12:27

Have you tried them lately? They will wipe out half the units out right as well as half the population and buildings. In addition, (and I 'm not sure when they added this, but I don't think it was like this out of the box) units take a major attack. I find that in my games the damage to units is roughly 80% dead and the rest injured.

No it isn't an AC Planet Buster, but it is pretty good.

DCMike · July 27, 2002, 21:01

Maybe the tactical nuke should be as you describe, but certainly not the ICBM. I don't think there would be much left of city after a 20 megaton nuke hit a city. And what might be left certainly wouldn't be useful. Check the following link out:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sf.../blastmap.html

Ijuin · July 28, 2002, 08:06

Maybe destroying a city with one blast would be more realistic, but it would be unbalancing to the game.

For example, say that an opposing civilization is about to launch its space ship. In order to stop it, you launch an ICBM, completely obliterating the rival civ's capital city. You have now ensured that you will win the game with this single attack, without having to use any land troops to invade and seize the enemy capital.

DCMike · July 28, 2002, 10:29

Hmm, good point Ijuin. There must be a way around that problem. I'll have to think about that one. In the meantime I'll just be happy that SDI is no longer 100% effective like it was in previous versions of Civ

Sonic · July 28, 2002, 12:14

BTW, nukes didn't wiped Hiroshima. Maybe there should also be Thermonuclear nuke option. It would wipe of a city and make that plot where it stood and 8 tiles around a desert, but it would cost much and would raise global heating to hell high levels, so many tiles all over the map would become desert, in your territory also, so you'd have to think before using it.

ChaotikVisions · July 28, 2002, 12:41

Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

Craftsman · July 29, 2002, 14:03

I just had an idea for nukes!

According to Ijuin:

Quote:

Maybe destroying a city with one blast would be more realistic, but it would be unbalancing to the game.
For example, say that an opposing civilization is about to launch its space ship. In order to stop it, you launch an ICBM, completely obliterating the rival civ's capital city. You have now ensured that you will win the game with this single attack, without having to use any land troops to invade and seize the enemy capital.

This is a very good point, and I agree with this.

Also, another good idea came from ChaotikVisions:

Quote:

Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

Finally, my idea is:

If a city population is below or equals to 12, for example, and it never growed beyond 12 before, then a nuke would raze it.

For example, if a city population is now 11, but it was 13 before a settler was build, nukes would never be capable of razing it.

I´m new to Civ3 (playing since last Saturday) and, as far as I remember, a city needs a Hospital to grow beyond size 12. I think that Hospitals come before nukes in the tech tree. Not quite sure... So, we could protect against nuke razing by populating at least our Capital beyond size 12.

Comments?
Thanks!
Craftsman.

trickey · July 29, 2002, 14:07

Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

Craftsman · July 29, 2002, 14:13

trickey said:

Quote:

Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

Well, maybe only if the Capital was hit. If any city hit would cause disorder, IMHO it would be unplayable...

GhengisFarb™ · July 29, 2002, 17:16

Quote:

Originally posted by trickey
Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

I agree with Craftsman, it might have the effect of Sept 11 if its not your capital and just piss the population off. Maybe it would reduce war weariness in the victim civ or increase the ability to draft forces.

Craftsman · July 29, 2002, 20:10

Talking about nukes, in the Civ3 FAQ is said that M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) isn´t used in Civ3. What is M.A.D.? Is it the case of pre-targeted cities for nuclear attacks (if our civ is nuked, a nuclear counter-attack is automatically launched)? Or I´m just wrong?

Nukes, nukes... There´s something about nukes.

Coracle · July 29, 2002, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

In GAMEPLAY they are realistic - not in reality in regards to their poliitical and moral consequences.

Nukes are unrealistic because we have no quick response first strike option. MORE IMPORTANTLY - and why I NEVER use them - is there is NO RADIATION POISONING. There are people who have suggested TERRAFORMING the earth with nukes!

So you are correct. There must be a RADIATION POISON POLLUTION factor. Otherwise, it is more fantasy, such as disappearing garrisons during flipping, or razing cities.

Dimorier Maximus · July 30, 2002, 00:37

Personally, I hate nukes. I know they are realistic and all, but I feel they detract from the game more than anything else. I used to use them in Civ1 sometimes just to jack around, but they ruin the game, IMHO.

Another thing that ruins the game: polluted squares.

If I were making a variant, I would have no nukes, and no polluted squares.

Zylka · July 30, 2002, 01:57

This is true

Craftsman · July 30, 2002, 10:42

Nukes were created, and used (and they are horrible, talking about real-life). Mankind life and development generates lots of pollution. So, if the game is about human civilizations, IMHO it´s normal to see those things.

Nukes and pollution make things more difficult, indeed.

We may not need to build and use nukes during gameplay, but to reach the stars first, we must deal with and clean our mess, just as if we were washing dishes after a great meal.

Just my two cents.

The RADIATION POISON POLLUTION factor idea is a very interesting one. I would also remind about my own idea, stated early on this thread. (Hello Firaxis!!!)

Sidenote: Just won my first Space Race, yesterday (2nd game! Tiny map; Chinese versus Americans, Indians and Japanese; Chieftain; 2046!!!). Wow!!! The video is amazing!!!

Oerdin · July 30, 2002, 20:28

I liked the way that nukes worked in CTP2. All the units in the target square were destroyed, those around the target square were either destroyed or very damaged, city wasn't destroyed but all improvements and most of the population was, and most squares in the blast zone were polluted.

In Civ3 the nukes just don't damage things enough and you already lose all of the improvements once you capture a city.

Dragon's Lord · July 30, 2002, 23:35

to fight pollution dont grow above a size 12 city till you have the Eco tech to keep your citys clean.. and when i nuke i have trans with armys and tons of the workers im not useing at this point to clean up the mess... last game i used nukes i have 4 transports 2 have armys in them the other 2 i have 8 workers.... i take the city and 10 turns later i hope the city is clean then rush buy eco improvements... but i like the idea of size 12 and under razing its about right with that blast map up at the top posting my city kc would be destroyed in the blast radius our population is 800,000 or so which i thing is the same size as a 12..

Kramerman · July 30, 2002, 23:36

Quote:

The RADIATION POISON POLLUTION factor idea is a very interesting one. I would also remind about my own idea, stated early on this thread. (Hello Firaxis!!!)

I like this idea too

Quote:

Sidenote: Just won my first Space Race, yesterday (2nd game! Tiny map; Chinese versus Americans, Indians and Japanese; Chieftain; 2046!!!). Wow!!! The video is amazing!!!

Congratulations! Ive never won by space race

, but ive never really cared to. Your statement of the video being great has piqued my interest, however...

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 03:20

I don't think that pollution should really become a problem at all until nukes are used or you get high tech. I mean, you could have a huge city without pollution. It depends on the products your people have. Until you have plastics and other crazy stuff like combustion, you aren't going to pollute the earth no matter how many people you have in your city. Pollution by city size = dumb, IMHO. It should be very, very minimal (read nonexistent).

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 03:24

Ah, I almost forgot, nukes should have a devastating effect on society and the civ that uses them, if they are used. The entire world should shun them, etc. And the citizens of the civ that used them should get pissed off, possibly sparking a Civil War....basically, I want it to be a realistically hard decision whether or not to use nukes. As it stands, all you need is a real army, an army of workers, and an arsenal of nukes, then good-bye enemies. It's not at all like real life. I don't usually support realism over gameplay, but in this instance, I do.

WarpStorm · July 31, 2002, 05:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
I don't think that pollution should really become a problem at all until nukes are used or you get high tech.

You obviously never saw pictures of Pittsburgh in the early 1900s then. Black as night in the day from the pollution. All of the buildings were black. Do a little research, please.

WarpStorm · July 31, 2002, 05:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
Ah, I almost forgot, nukes should have a devastating effect on society and the civ that uses them, if they are used. The entire world should shun them, etc. And the citizens of the civ that used them should get pissed off, possibly sparking a Civil War....basically, I want it to be a realistically hard decision whether or not to use nukes.

When the USA used nukes in WW2, there wasn't this sort of backlash you are talking about. The people were just glad that the war was over. I think what you are suggesting is a very PC version of "reality".

Dimorier Maximus · July 31, 2002, 11:51

Quote:

Originally posted by WarpStorm You obviously never saw pictures of Pittsburgh in the early 1900s then. Black as night in the day from the pollution. All of the buildings were black. Do a little research, please.

So what if the buildings are black, that doesn't turn plains into desert.

Sure, when you get factories there should be pollution, but it shouldn't actually pollute squares for quite some time.

Getting polluted squares like crazy in the Industrial age...nonsense...complete nonsense. Sure, you can probably give me a couple of examples of early pollution, and I don't mind getting one or two token polluted squares, but it's freaking rampant in the game. There should be a way to tone it down, or turn it off in the pregame options.

Sonic · August 1, 2002, 06:34

Yes, deserting of the world is truth and a problem. Deserts becomes bigger and bigger. However, scientists still doesn't knows is this because of global pollution or because of simple process.

Caliban · August 1, 2002, 12:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Sonic
Deserts becomes bigger and bigger.

That's a fact.
But I would really like to reverse this process, at least in my computer. In Civ2 we had that nice little terraforming ability...