New Nukes

[rob006]

Hell yeah.. gotta have nukes.

But they also definately need to be improved....

The fear of nukes should return... at least until the other nations gets nukes.

MAD is a must... but make it like a declaration that you make to the world (how that would be done, i dont know) but do something like call all the leaders together and tell them you will immediatly annhilate them if they use WMDs on you. (hopefully this could create times of tensions like the cold-war)

Something i think that would be cool... once you build the Mankattan Project, you automatically get 2 A-bombs. The A-bomb would be a unit you CANNOT build, but you get one free every 5 turns like the Staue of Zues and Knights Templar in Conquests. The A-bomb has to be loaded into a bomber and dropped on a city.

The development of ICBMs stops the Manhattan project from building A-bombs.

Nukes (not A-bombs) should LEVEL cities.. not just reduce their population.

[jatf]

Historically the effects on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were totally different. There was (I think) more damage to Hiroshima than Nagasaki. Wind was a factor as was the different target sites.

Also the A Bomb was replaced by the H Bomb which was replaced by something else replaced by something else. The difference was better triggers and more power in the blast. Then you get Polaris and Trident - The latter which was billed as the Rolls Royce of nuclear weapons.

What would be nice would be a neutron bomb. Very costly to build but neutrons decay quicker so background radiation returns to normalish quicker. After all you cannot stay near most atomic test sites for long before glowing in the dark.

Also some indication of long term health effects of living in a nuked city would be nice - higher cancer rates etc - possibly reduced growth in that city

JATF

[rob006]

yes hiroshima had more damage than nagasaki.. about 20,000-30,000 more dead. and true the H-bomb followed the A-bomb... and so on... but who cares? i dont think the people playing the game.. me included.. really want to research 20+ diferent types of nuclear weapons.

and your idea about post-blast effects is a really good idea... like slowly over time they die of radiation and cancer... very good idea

[joncnunn]

Not to mention that Civ IV is a GAME, so MAD wouldn't work at all within it.

Worst that can happen is I lose the game.

Originally posted by Dida
You idea about nukes would be too complicated for civ. Remember, this is a civ game, not Nuke Tycoon.

[joncnunn]

Historically, the two bombs against Japan did less damage than the mass satration of napalm dropped upon one German city.

Also, the idea between dropping the second nuke on Japan when that was the last one in stock was that is is better to actually run out of ammo than to look like your about to run out of ammo.

And it also turned out to be quite important a few nights later that a bombing north of Tokyo (with convential weapons) flight path took it close to the Emperor's palace. (See "The Longest Day") The air alert caused major disruptions to a plan by military leaders in Japan to foil the emperor's plan to surrender. (Unknown to our forces at the time)

A conventional invasion of Japan would probably have cost even more Japense civilian casulaties than the two bombs did. (No smart bombing technics existed at all in WW II, the only way to guartine destruction of a specific building would also result in half the buildings within a few square miles receiving major damage.)

[TechWins]

Originally posted by joncnunn
A conventional invasion of Japan would probably have cost even more Japense civilian casulaties than the two bombs did. (No smart bombing technics existed at all in WW II, the only way to guartine destruction of a specific building would also result in half the buildings within a few square miles receiving major damage.)

Well, there is speculation that the fire bombings the US were using were more effective the the two A-Bombs and the continuing of such tactics might have ended the war all the same, but the US may have wanted to flex its muscle by the use of A-Boms. I'm not claiming it to be fact, just merely speculation.

[rob006]

Yes some of the fire bombing raids on Japan did do much more damage than the atomic bombs (one firebombing run killed more than 100,000 civilians) however... no one can doubt that the a-bomb probptly ended the war, becasue one bomb almost leveled a city. and the Japanese had no idea how many bombs we had. so their only choice was surrender. but anyway... i still think the manhattan project giving you an a-bomb every 5 turns would be cool...

[alva]

Originally posted by kolpo
I think that nukes are WAY to weak in civ3. Even the nukes that where used againsts japan did gigantic damage and modern nukes are much much more powerfull. Modern nukes should completely destroy everything(including cities) in there radius with the exception of ICBN.

The thing with making nukes strong(er) is that it would become a case of whomever get's to nukes first, wins.
In the real world there is no "winning" and thus no need (yeah simplyfying here, bite me ) to use nukes, in a game however...

[diablovision]

Originally posted by rob006
Yes some of the fire bombing raids on Japan did do much more damage than the atomic bombs (one firebombing run killed more than 100,000 civilians) however... no one can doubt that the a-bomb probptly ended the war, becasue one bomb almost leveled a city. and the Japanese had no idea how many bombs we had. so their only choice was surrender. but anyway... i still think the manhattan project giving you an a-bomb every 5 turns would be cool...

http://www.psywarrior.com/B52leaflets.html

One interesting thing about the bombing campaigns in WW2 over Japan was the psychological aspect of it. The US dropped leaflets warning of impending bombing runs and that civilians should evacuate the city to spare their own lives. They also urged citizens to demand their military surrender. They were very effective in weakening public support for the war, and in the end saved hundreds of thousands of innocent lives.

Somehow, I don't expect our current enemies to be so kind.

I like the idea of the Manhattan project producing A-bombs every 5 turns or so.

[Elda king]

Make nukes cause a lot of war weariness! And how will another player see a missile base in your territory with no units there? on true if there are enemy units near them, the enemy will attack it- it's the reality. And the pollution make cities grow slowly and citizens dye due to starvation.

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by kolpo
I think that nukes are WAY to weak in civ3. Even the nukes that where used againsts japan did gigantic damage and modern nukes are much much more powerfull. Modern nukes should completely destroy everything(including cities) in there radius with the exception of ICBN.

hahaa i love this guy! realism all the way ppl!!
i think there should be 3 different nukes
1. a tactical nukecapable of being fired off submarines, battleships carriers, nuke cannons (sorta like scuds) and dropped off bombers. however also can be launched of a city or an airfield, causes a dead center tile and 10% pollution or so per surrounding tiles. kills everything in center tile, and half a citys pop and buildings or so.

2. an ICBM, modern nuke. about 20 megatons tnt, deadens the center tile and tiles around it, kills absolutely everything in the center tile. leaves literally a blank spot. surrounding tiles will have all units killed and half a citys pop and buildings taken.

3. a 70 Megaton hydrogen bomb. has to be launched off a city as an ICBM type missile. has total destruction of the 9 center tiles and kills stuff on surrounding tiles, damaging cities and causing pollution

NOTE TO SID: GRAPHICS ARE IMPORTANT, I DO NOT WANA SEE CIV3 NUKE GRAPHICS!!!!

oh btw: i think dead tiles in CTP were awesome, much better representation of wasteland. however they should grow into desert tiles over time, which u can then terraform.
pollution tiles will just be able to get cleaned up.

i also think there should be future game play enabled in next civ... i know i know, u cant predict how stuff is gona look like, but i think itll be fun to play civ until year 3000 and possibly colonise mars or something. maybe say build space transport which will take 10 turns to travel to mars with a couple of mars-purpose built units. and have them set up on mars to terraform it and such.
oh well getting sidetracked now :S dont get me started!

go nukes!!! plz make them stronger! and better looking

[Russian_King]

Originally posted by alva

The thing with making nukes strong(er) is that it would become a case of whomever get's to nukes first, wins.
In the real world there is no "winning" and thus no need (yeah simplyfying here, bite me ) to use nukes, in a game however...

yeah but the very first nukes will not be strong enough, and whoever does get the strongest nukes before anyone else gets any kind of nukes really does deserve to win the game! :P but not by nuking everyone so much as threatening to

[Russian_King]

Plus i could imagine even the smaller nukes costing a large amount of shields and youd have to have uranium and such. its really not that bad. so far in civ 3 i have not had a nuclear holocaust. as a matter of fact even when i was the nuclear superpower i could not be safe enough to fire them.

oh and by the way: the sam sites and anti nuke things that make nukes almost impossible to use against the city should be banned!! it totally loses the point of cold wars. i think such defences should only reduce the effect of the nuke and at that only a small chance

eg destroy nuke while still in the iar causing radiation on the city but non actual destruction