Nuke Preview on CivFanatics

[HawaiiFive-O]

Originally posted by Locutus
That's exactly how it worked in CtP2.

Yep.

I dunno if the modding capabilities of the Civ4 engine will support adding something like this.

This wouldn't be a simple 'add new unit' or 'change attack value' mod. It would require waiting for the SDK that's coming out early next year, I'd imagine.

We'll know more soon.

Though a Firaxian did say you could mod in Stacked Combat though the base game doesn't support it, so it seems you can do a lot with the engine. I'm hopeful we'll see a player made MAD mod sooner or later.

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by VJ

This isn't true, you could move nukes within your own territory in Civ2. I sure hope it's possible to mod the units easily enough so you can make moving icbm's possible; otherwise it's back to playing good ole MGE with Rah, DD, et alii for me.

Not sure what you mean. Yes, you could move nukes in Civ2, but in Civ4 you cannot.

Regarding the realism about this, one can see it either way I believe. Many nuke systems are permanent installations in a fixed silo. OTOH, there are many mobile systems -- especially Soviet design.

From a tactical standpoint, moving them is good if you civ is under attack and you don't want to lose those weapons when/if a city were to fall.

Also, are we going to be able to load nukes on subs? Have to move them to do that, no? Unless they have to be built in a port city and that seems like a silly restriction.

[Addled Platypus]

did it bother anyone else that unprotected workers could go clean up the radioactive mess


never stopped me from dropping them (4 in one game)

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
There's only one SG

<--------------------------

Think how I feel when everyone starts abbreviating Battlestar Galactica.

[ajbera]

Don't like that Wonders are immune to nukes - must change that via mod. Also don't like that you can't nuke your own units - sometimes they must be sacrificed.

Understand the non-mobility, but this means you cannot gift nukes to allies. I would like to be able to do that, by making them mobile, or creating a 2nd kind of mobile nuke.

Environmental impact is underwhelming.

First Civ4 news that makes me go "meh."

I *do* like the animation, though - looks awesome.

[Kataphraktoi]

Think how I feel when everyone starts abbreviating Battlestar Galactica.

you should have a name like mine; ive never heard of a game abreviated 'Cata' as opposed to a 2 word name that often overlaps something somewhere

[Boris Godunov]

Wonders have always been immune to nukes, IIRC.

[ajbera]

And there's no good reason for it. They're not indestructible.

[Shogun Gunner]

they can be destroyed when the city itself is destroyed, so nukes should do it too...or a percentage change to do so at least.

[korn469]

Well I'm already planning a mod, and changing nukes is one of the first things I'll do.

*Manhatten Project will become a small wonder
*Reduce ICBM cost to somewhere between 100-200
*Make at least railroads vulnerable to nukes (possibly roads as well)
*Increase negative diplomatic impact from using nukes (unless it's -2 relations per nuke)
*Make it so that nukes always kill at least x (between 2-5 ) citizens when a bomb shelter doesn't exist (so that way a nuke can kill a small city)
*Allow players to use ICBMS within their borders and on their troops
*Possibly decrease the chance for SDI to intercept ICBMs to 50% from 75%
*Possibly allow nukes to destroy wonders
*Possibly add movement to ICBMS

That's all of my thoughts for now, and of course I will only makes these changes only if it's possible to do with the editor.

[joethreeblah]

Originally posted by HawaiiFive-O
MAD could work something like this:

a) Build ICBM.
b) At time of build, pre-program a target for it.
c) Set it to 'MAD'.

If an enemy launches at you, all of your 'MAD'-set ICBMs automatically launch back at him.

I would love it if someone would mod this in somehow. it's the only "mod" i'd really be excited about.

Perhaps it takes a turn to re aim a nuke.

MAD nukes go off IBT?

[joethreeblah]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The global warming effect seems really minor, too. After all the odds calculations, only one tile is effected? I prefer the large-scale consequences, as they are realistic dissuaders to using nukes.

There has been some clarification on this point.

Originally posted by Thunderfall@CivFanatics
I emailed Soren for clarifcation on Global Warming and he wrote "there is about a 5% chance that global warming will appear each turn - per total nuke that has been dropped during the game."

Which would work out to :
1 nuke: 5% chance
2 nukes: 10% chance
10 nukes: 50% chance
20 nukes: 100% chance

of 1 tile per turn being destroyed

[Addled Platypus]

would it be great to have the wave file be from "Fail Safe"

"The next sound you will hear is the alarm once New York is bombed"

cant remeber excactly

Originally posted by Cataphract887


you should have a name like mine; ive never heard of a game abreviated 'Cata' as opposed to a 2 word name that often overlaps something somewhere

pult.......maybe

Originally posted by korn469
Well I'm already planning a mod, and changing nukes is one of the first things I'll do.

*Manhatten Project will become a small wonder
*Reduce ICBM cost to somewhere between 100-200
*Make at least railroads vulnerable to nukes (possibly roads as well)
*Increase negative diplomatic impact from using nukes (unless it's -2 relations per nuke)
*Make it so that nukes always kill at least x (between 2-5 ) citizens when a bomb shelter doesn't exist (so that way a nuke can kill a small city)
*Allow players to use ICBMS within their borders and on their troops
*Possibly decrease the chance for SDI to intercept ICBMs to 50% from 75%
*Possibly allow nukes to destroy wonders
*Possibly add movement to ICBMS

That's all of my thoughts for now, and of course I will only makes these changes only if it's possible to do with the editor.

korn469

[Dale]

MAD is going to be something I'll try to mod when the game comes out. That and True stacked combat.

And before anyone says, NOT the CTP2 implementation of either, a different format.

Dale

[Guildenstern]

I agree ... mos def not the ctp2 implementation ... I think that the fog of memory is apparent here..

Korn's ideas, which are essentially a compendium of the complaints here, are good ones. I would be interested in knowing why the dev team decided on the rules that they did. Because I am *sure* they have heard all these complaints before. Someone in an earlier post said they emailed Soren Johnson - could they email him again and ask? If there were a compelling playbalancing issue, say, then I would understand.