Tweet
I am unhappy with the current state of affairs in regards to nuclear weapons in Civ3.
I have thought about this for some months and here is what I am thinking.
1. There should be two types of nuclear weapons, as in Civ3 (and the real world), but they should not have bombard capability. They need to be loaded onto something else in order to be delivered. Therefore there should be two types of "warheads" that you can produce.
A. Tactical nukes. These warheads are weaker than the current Civ3 nukes. They would only do one tile damage, i.e. destroy improvements and units and produce pollution on the tile on which they explode.
B. Thermonuclear warheads. These warheads would be the same strength as Civ3 nukes, i.e. doing damage to and pollution 9 squares (or 7 hexes, whichever map type is chosen in Civ4). These would be more expensive to produce and require more advanced techs.
Type A nukes could be produced immediately after the Manhattan project. Since they cannot bombard, they must be loaded onto one of the following types of delivery mechanisms:
X. Bomber. Loading a tactical nuke onto a bomber will cause the bomber to drop the nuke on its target on the next bombing missing the bomber undertakes. The Bomber still risks being shot down and the warhead destroyed.
Y. Cruise (short range) missile. When loaded onto this type of missile, the nuke can be delivered up to 4-6 tiles from the launch site (current cruise missiles are just 2, which I think is too low). A cruise missile without a tactical nuke attached would act as a regular cruise missile and have range 4-6 tiles.
Z. ICBM. An ICBM is just the delivery mechanism for a nuclear warhead. I.e. it must be "loaded" with a warhead of either tactical or thermonuclear type.
Type B nukes could only be manufactured after some appropriate tech. They could only be loaded onto either Bombers or ICBMs (i.e. not cruise missiles).
In addition to being weaker, tactical nukes would be cheaper to produce and maintain; they would carry less of a reputation hit when used, especially when used against military targets (as opposed to cities). The idea is to make modern warfare more deadly, but more fun by making nukes that are much more likely to be used on the battlefield.
Additionally, I think cruise missiles need to be more useful by making them cheaper and go more places. Cruise Missiles (with or without attached tactical nukes) could be loaded onto nuclear submarines (3-4 missiles each sub) or Carriers (1-2 missiles). But only cruise missiles without nuclear warheads could be loaded onto Destroyers (1-2 missiles), Battleships (1-2 missiles), and AEGIS cruisers (1-2 missiles). Cruise missiles should be able to be airlifted, loaded onto transports (but not fired from transports), etc.
I am continually frustrated by the nature of nuclear warfare in Civ3. I think it needs a change. Especially modern warfare, where the monotony of hundreds of MA and MI rolling around, coupled with gobs of Bombers is just too....boring?
What do you think?
I have thought about this for some months and here is what I am thinking.
1. There should be two types of nuclear weapons, as in Civ3 (and the real world), but they should not have bombard capability. They need to be loaded onto something else in order to be delivered. Therefore there should be two types of "warheads" that you can produce.
A. Tactical nukes. These warheads are weaker than the current Civ3 nukes. They would only do one tile damage, i.e. destroy improvements and units and produce pollution on the tile on which they explode.
B. Thermonuclear warheads. These warheads would be the same strength as Civ3 nukes, i.e. doing damage to and pollution 9 squares (or 7 hexes, whichever map type is chosen in Civ4). These would be more expensive to produce and require more advanced techs.
Type A nukes could be produced immediately after the Manhattan project. Since they cannot bombard, they must be loaded onto one of the following types of delivery mechanisms:
X. Bomber. Loading a tactical nuke onto a bomber will cause the bomber to drop the nuke on its target on the next bombing missing the bomber undertakes. The Bomber still risks being shot down and the warhead destroyed.
Y. Cruise (short range) missile. When loaded onto this type of missile, the nuke can be delivered up to 4-6 tiles from the launch site (current cruise missiles are just 2, which I think is too low). A cruise missile without a tactical nuke attached would act as a regular cruise missile and have range 4-6 tiles.
Z. ICBM. An ICBM is just the delivery mechanism for a nuclear warhead. I.e. it must be "loaded" with a warhead of either tactical or thermonuclear type.
Type B nukes could only be manufactured after some appropriate tech. They could only be loaded onto either Bombers or ICBMs (i.e. not cruise missiles).
In addition to being weaker, tactical nukes would be cheaper to produce and maintain; they would carry less of a reputation hit when used, especially when used against military targets (as opposed to cities). The idea is to make modern warfare more deadly, but more fun by making nukes that are much more likely to be used on the battlefield.
Additionally, I think cruise missiles need to be more useful by making them cheaper and go more places. Cruise Missiles (with or without attached tactical nukes) could be loaded onto nuclear submarines (3-4 missiles each sub) or Carriers (1-2 missiles). But only cruise missiles without nuclear warheads could be loaded onto Destroyers (1-2 missiles), Battleships (1-2 missiles), and AEGIS cruisers (1-2 missiles). Cruise missiles should be able to be airlifted, loaded onto transports (but not fired from transports), etc.
I am continually frustrated by the nature of nuclear warfare in Civ3. I think it needs a change. Especially modern warfare, where the monotony of hundreds of MA and MI rolling around, coupled with gobs of Bombers is just too....boring?
What do you think?
. And maybe we should have non-nuclear missiles, that should have smaller chances of destroyng units, cause no pollution and lower pop damage.
Comment