I wouldn't know as it is rare for any nukes to even be in my games.
Does any one think there should be greater consequences to using a lot of nukes then just polution.
I would like the posiiblility of changin the dynamics all terrain to desert with out the possibilty of chaning it back.
I launched about 40 nukes in one came all at once I guess that would be on the scale of full war today I guess. Full war today would when a nice big glowing desert for every one.
Well this is just my thoughts anyway.
I wouldn't know as it is rare for any nukes to even be in my games.
I believe they fixed that in C3C. Now they have global warming that does change the climate. I didn't see this before C3C, so I do believe that it is new.
Global warming from nukage has been in from the beginning IIRC. I've had games where the entire world was a desert.
Then is global warming from general polution new. I just don't reamber there evr being any metion of global warming, but I might have just missed it.
Global warming from general pollution has been in from the beginning as well. "Global warming has changed plains into desert!" It's possible that it's more frequent in C3C, I personally haven't noticed much of a difference.
Nukes are no no nos
I will never understand why some people on Apolyton find you so clever. You're predictable, mundane, and a google-whore and the most observant of us all know this. Your battles of "wits" rely on obscurity and whenever you fail to find something sufficiently obscure, like this, you just act like a 5 year old. Congratulations, molly.
Asher on molly bloom
I would like to see the impact actually change more things then the long term effects. I dont like the Missle defence thing so I always mod it to just decrease corruption you dont have enough time to build up any large numer of nukes. In a game not to long ago I was the world power(but no one respected me) and the rest of the world was locked in a stalemated war which soon esclated to include nukes before you know it every other nation in the world is nuking each other fastlly and furrously so I soon got sick of the large amounts of global warming so when ever I saw a nuke go off I would immeaditly blitz them and do a massive assult upon their cities taking all before they could react soon I was the only country standing I did all this without the use of nucular wepons however I had about 100 at the time so If anybody did manage to nuke there county would turn into a smeltering wasteland of corpses and orange gasses oh did I mention I burned all the cities I took enslaved all the people and foreced them to clean up their mess well thats what would happen If hippies ruled a super power well probably It woud not have had a military at all!!!
Absolute power corrupts absolutely
A super-power ruled by easily annoyed ultra-aggressive militaristic enviromentalists
Edit: You should be in one of the demogames. I believe the monkeys in PTWDG2 has a very interesting deforestation policy
Don't eat the yellow snow.
Nukes can be fun to use to take out fleets of ships in one blow. Nuke + ocean = no pollution. Just make sure the fleets are not near the shoreline.
I still remember back from the original Civ though... if you used a nuke near wild game (the deer) it would turn into a coal deposit iirc (+ the pollution of course).
Originally posted by EvilKosh
Nukes can be fun to use to take out fleets of ships in one blow. Nuke + ocean = no pollution. Just make sure the fleets are not near the shoreline.
I still remember back from the original Civ though... if you used a nuke near wild game (the deer) it would turn into a coal deposit iirc (+ the pollution of course).
I have to give that a try, especially with one tile that has a iron deposit nearby.
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
He mentioned the original civ
I know, But I have never nuked Game before. Thought I might as well try.He mentioned the original civ
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
I rarely use nukes, so forgive me if I am wrong about this, but doesn't civ3 treat tactical nukes the same as ICBM's except for cost and movement points?
Serious error. As powerful as tactical nukes are, an ICBM should have significantly higher devastation.
While there might be a physics engine that applies to the jugs, I doubt that an entire engine was written specifically for the funbags. - Cyclotron - debating the pressing issue of boobies in games.
vee4473, you are correct. There is essentially no difference between nukes.
I can remember this issue being raised back when Civ III first hit the shelves. The consensus then was likely the same as it is now--nukes are underpowered, and their usage--especially their over usage--has little or no negative ramifications.
It's a part of the game I would love to see fleshed out in a potential future X-pack(assuming there is one).
My argument from the very beggining is that the actual impact of the nuclear weapon should devestate the city or area being hit. Cities should lose a significant amount of their citizens and buildings/wonders. A wide area around ground zero--say at least 10 squares out--should be covered in fallout.
And that fallout should be different than pollution. I would represent it by the death's head symbol used to signify pollution in Civ 2. The fallout should take an incredible amount of time to clean up, even for multiple workers focusing on one square. And units standing on fallout squares at the end of the turn should have a percentage chance of dying from radiation sickness (similar to disease on jungle/flood plain/marsh squares, but with fallout having a much higher chance of being lethal.)
Just what I would like to see. Probably won't or can't happen.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
-- C.S. Lewis
from what I can recall from when I used a nuke in the game, I think that the blast damage and relative pollution as they are now are probably ok for tactical nukes...probably
but I think that ICBM's should absolutely incinerate any city regardless of size, and quite possibly multiple cities and entire sections of a continent.
Of course balanced by enormous cost and perhaps some sort of probability that the defending nation would have something like a 75% chance of automatic retaliatory launch (meaning that even if a city with an ICBM is wiped out, they were able to launch a counter strike before impact. And even though you would see your city gone on the next turn, it shows that the ICBM launched and is on it's way back to the attacker).
ehh, who knows.
While there might be a physics engine that applies to the jugs, I doubt that an entire engine was written specifically for the funbags. - Cyclotron - debating the pressing issue of boobies in games.
And also why global warming? shouldn't all that dust and the toxic fumes from the incinerated cities actually cause a nuclear winter?
that was why everybody was so worried about in the first place.
What should happen is jungle turns in to forest (if there is any left ) and plains and grassland turn into Tundra. Then the sea levels go down after so many tundra squares are made. that would be more realistic
Global warming has been in civ a long time, so don't expect it to change much or make sense. It is what it is any resemblance to reality is a bonus.
Range only.Originally posted by WarpStorm
vee4473, you are correct. There is essentially no difference between nukes.
Haven't been here for ages....
It's a shame nukes have been so pathetic. It takes out all the fun.
It really does not matter if they are pathetic as they are just to late to be deployed. The game is over before then.
Nukes are just about the most unrealistic aspect of civ. First of all, the power of nukes grew 10,000 fold since the beginning of the nuclear age, yet there is only one kind of nuke available in civ, with only two delivery systems. A modern nuke would destroy the largest city, outlying areas, and render the area uninhabbitable for years or decades. And this is not the same as global warming, which is caused by an increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. I think this is a somewhat important point, people should know the difference between radioactive fallout and greehouse emmisions. Fallout is the result of ionized and radioactive particals, it cannot be "cleaned up." The best you can do is dispose of contaminated soil and other matter, which would be a massive undertaking (it's not like you can burn it, that would just release the radioactivity into the air). Even a small number nuclear explosions would kill tens of thousands or millions outside the blast area (depending on population density) via radioactive fallout. Nuclear winter is the result of dirt and other stuff getting kicked into the air by the explosion, blocking the sun. A full scale nuclear war would result in massive starvation, plauge and huge drains on money and resources caring for a population more dying than alive. Nukes in civ don't deserve to be called nukes, they're really a joke. Of course, making nukes realistic would require a whole new kind of diplomacy, one which I don't think the current AI is capaple of (keeping in mind that this is an AI that will declare war if I ask them to move a worker out of my territory, stack workers in cities on the front lines that are about to be captured, keep a warrior around to defend against panzers, leave pollution unattended for a hundred years, and ignore my requests for peace when I have two aircraft carriers, twenty tanks and a dozen cruise missiles aimed at their capital which is defended by ten engineers, a warrior, and a bomber). The funniest nuke story i have is when I was once nuked and the next turn they had a "We Love the President Day." The reason? Half the people were dead, so it wasn't crowded.
That is pretty funny.Originally posted by Nude Moonbase The funniest nuke story i have is when I was once nuked and the next turn they had a "We Love the President Day." The reason? Half the people were dead, so it wasn't crowded.
Can't disagree with your post, however I believe the key word here is "playability."
It wouldn't be much of a game if nukes had the same power as the real ones...it would be pretty much game over.
Haven't been here for ages....
Perhaps they should just set different blast areas for tactical and ICBM nukes. Depending on map size, the area affected could change.
Neither of the nuke units are well named. They both seem to have around the power of the earliet nuclear weapons (Hiroshima-style bombs) - basically causing a lot of damage to a single city and contaminating the immediate countryside.
Not that ICBMs would be that much more powerful on the scale of the game - they're not going to take out two major cities in the real world, so they can't really have a bigger blast - just a bigger effect on what they do hit (more population lost, more units lost, more city improvements trashed).
Tactical nukes (in the real world sense of the words) wouldn't do a huge amount of damage in civ3 terms. If we use the usual convention that a single unit represents a large military force (1 modern armour = perhaps 1,000 tanks worth of fighting power - although I don't think the designers had any particular 'translation' to the real world in mind), then a single tac nuke isn't going to do more than take off 1 hps worth of tanks, even under ideal (or worst case, depending on your point of view) circumstances.
Perhaps tactical weapons would be better represented by some kind of nuclear artillery (with very high attack strength, lethal bombard and good rate of fire), and causing pollution on the target square only.
Regarding the 'nuclear winter' effect - that would have to be some kind of non-linear function of the number of nukes used in 1 turn. 1 nuke per year for 100 years might not cause massive environmental changes. 100 in a few minutes may well produce a far more dramatic effect. Perhaps there should be some 'global damage' counter (start at zero - at the end of each turn, add on the square of the no. of nukes used that turn (6 nukes = 36 'points') - subtract some fixed number (e.g. 1) every turn). How this global damage parameter is used (in terrain changes, or loss of global food production or something) is another question entirely.
Not that any of this is going to be put into civ 3 of course. It's far too late to make that kind of change to the game engine now.
I suppose they should be seen as an anomynous Weapon of Mass Destruction. Perhaps they are more akin to a mass gas attack. Cleaning and disposing of sarin or other nasty organophosphate poisions would in my opinion parallel with the civ3 nukes
Come on Guys, there is no way possible for anyone to completely show the horrors of Nuclear War. The power of these weapons is just beyound the scale of this game. To comprehend the nature of a nuclear war I will give the destructive power of a single US SSBN. Carrying the latest missle the D-5 Trident the Ohio class boomer can launch a missle with 12 MIRV's, each with the power of 470 KT (appox 100 x's the size of the bomb dropped on Hiroshima). The Submarine carries 24 missles; enabeling this submarine to unleash energy in exceess of 20,000 Hiroshima bombs. The US currently deploys 29 of these submarines world wide, each able to hit targets more than 5000 nm away.
Nukes do seem lame in CIV 3, but if it were to show the true destructive power of nukes (or even a close approximation) then we would just end up with an AI asking us if we would enjoy a nice game of checkers.
* A true libertarian is an anarchist in denial.
* If brute force isn't working you are not using enough.
* The difference between Genius and stupidity is that Genius has a limit.
* There are Lies, Damned Lies, and The Republican Party.
Nukes do seem lame in CIV 3, but if it were to show the true destructive power of nukes (or even a close approximation) then we would just end up with an AI asking us if we would enjoy a nice game of checkers.
-Arrian
grog want tank...Grog Want Tank... GROG WANT TANK!
The trick isn't to break some eggs to make an omelette, it's convincing the eggs to break themselves in order to aspire to omelettehood.
well,Originally posted by Mad Bomber
Nukes do seem lame in CIV 3, but if it were to show the true destructive power of nukes (or even a close approximation) then we would just end up with an AI asking us if we would enjoy a nice game of checkers.
wouldn't including the potential for the world to totally be destroyed due to nuclear war be a simulation of reality?
it seems that nukes were powered down so that their use wouldn't be an overpowered game ending thing, but in doing so, they left reality behind...they should have just left nukes out all together.
modeling the true destructive forces of an all out nuclear war would have been something that could end the game in 1 or 2 turns yes, but the same thing means game over in real life too...
While there might be a physics engine that applies to the jugs, I doubt that an entire engine was written specifically for the funbags. - Cyclotron - debating the pressing issue of boobies in games.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks