Tweet
Well, we all know that experiments were made to determine possibility to survive near nuclear explosions.
On humans and on ships for example on sea.
Depending on the strength of the weapon it can devastate more or less. I liked the approach of smac - mounting various reactors you could get radius of devastation from 1 tile to 4. That was a reason for not keeping your military stacked in bases. However, often players did not use nukes for roleplay purposes or simple calculation that it was not worth of lost commerce - other faction declared vendetta on you. And later there were orbital defense pods. There was though a window between orbital space flight - planet buster weapons - and the defense pods. You might use it for easy nuking. However planet busters are an expensive weapon. You usually get one or two fusin ones, and that is already like 1 or two secret projects (Wonders). Either you construct it for long time or use crawlers, it drains your resources, while peaceful opponent builds infrastructure. And even if you hit him with maybe 3 fusion busters, he anyway can be in better situation just having better economy still and many bases.
There is a balance somewhere.
If in Civ4 players tend to have less cities, then too powerful nukes might be destabilizing a game. I think though, that significant population loss with partial destroying of units is a good way to go. I think something like that no matter how many nukes in a turn you use, the city cannot loose some percentage of population or units. That way it would simulate reality, that some of buildings or units might survive even multiple nuclear hits. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki some people survived.
On humans and on ships for example on sea.
Depending on the strength of the weapon it can devastate more or less. I liked the approach of smac - mounting various reactors you could get radius of devastation from 1 tile to 4. That was a reason for not keeping your military stacked in bases. However, often players did not use nukes for roleplay purposes or simple calculation that it was not worth of lost commerce - other faction declared vendetta on you. And later there were orbital defense pods. There was though a window between orbital space flight - planet buster weapons - and the defense pods. You might use it for easy nuking. However planet busters are an expensive weapon. You usually get one or two fusin ones, and that is already like 1 or two secret projects (Wonders). Either you construct it for long time or use crawlers, it drains your resources, while peaceful opponent builds infrastructure. And even if you hit him with maybe 3 fusion busters, he anyway can be in better situation just having better economy still and many bases.
There is a balance somewhere.
If in Civ4 players tend to have less cities, then too powerful nukes might be destabilizing a game. I think though, that significant population loss with partial destroying of units is a good way to go. I think something like that no matter how many nukes in a turn you use, the city cannot loose some percentage of population or units. That way it would simulate reality, that some of buildings or units might survive even multiple nuclear hits. In Hiroshima and Nagasaki some people survived.
Comment