Nukes destroy all

[Shogun Gunner]

signed.

and I also want tactical nukes back

[Mr. President]

Maybe I'd be more interested in this if I could actually nuke things.

In my last game I built an ICBM, clicked the "Nuke" button, and put my cursor over Mecca. (Coincidence - it was close to my city.) I clicked several times and nothing happened. ???

[Datajack Franit]

you have to be either:

-at war with the selected civ
-be inside enemy territory without any chance of touching friendly land

[Son of David]

Signed also! I had to Google 'Planet Busters' because I hated SMAC, but the idea of a nuke literally wiping out an entire city sounds MUCH better than current ICBM which seems basically to be a slightly more powerful version of artillery ....

[Russian_King]

signed

[Mr. President]

Originally posted by Datajack Franit
you have to be either:

-at war with the selected civ
-be inside enemy territory without any chance of touching friendly land

Gracias, Don Franit.

In that case, I vote for Planet Busters too.

[Fosse]

signed.

My favorite nuke effect for Civ IV would be:
Can only use on a city.
Reduce city to size 1
Fallout in most/all of the cities fat cross.
Kill ALL units. in city, 80% in first ring of 9 tiles, 60% in remaining fat cross tiles.
Destroy all buildings in the city.
Destroy all terrain improvements in first ring of 9 tiles, 50% in remaining fat cross tiles.


PBs in SMAC were great... in SMAC I didn't use them often because they were so huge it felt wrong, and I didn't want them lobbed at me. In every Civ iteration I don't use them because they are lame. One game the AI PBed my best base... I cried out. If the AI did that in a Civ game it'd be pretty annoying... but ultimatly not a biggie.

[CrapFactory]

I'd like to see them made more destructive BUT have worse things happen then a 3x3 fallout. Maybe a possible radiation cloud and some kind of nuke scare that effects certain enemies (and even you maybe) into negatice city effects (like +1 unhappy person 'cause they're freaked from nukes).

[DCMike]

This is very easy to mod. It was the first thing I did. All you have to do is change the values in the GlobalDefines.XML file. I changed the nuke values in question to 100 and now one nuke destroys all units and buildings in a city and reduces it's size to 1. As it should be

[fluffy]

Originally posted by DCMike
This is very easy to mod. It was the first thing I did. All you have to do is change the values in the GlobalDefines.XML file. I changed the nuke values in question to 100 and now one nuke destroys all units and buildings in a city and reduces it's size to 1. As it should be

That isn't destroying all - a size 1 city is still a city. SMAC was much more satisfactory - a huge crater where the city used to be (usually full of water)!

[DCMike]

Originally posted by fluffy


That isn't destroying all - a size 1 city is still a city. SMAC was much more satisfactory - a huge crater where the city used to be (usually full of water)!

Yeah, but it's the best that I can do for now. I also miss the SMAC planet buster. And I really liked how it became more powerful (bigger craters) as you gained the right power tech!

[Blake]

Methinks people overestimate the power of nukes slightly. It's like people expect a Nuke would destroy everything in the area the size of Japan, well historically they weren't quite that powerful .

Probably a good argument for 2 different nukes though, maybe an early Atomic-Bomber one (flight, fission, radio), and a later ICBM (rocketry, fission, computers), which is 4x as powerful. By the time ICBM's come out the counters would/could be in place. Atomic bombers would be standard Civ4 ICBM strength, as would an ICBM on a defended city (4x damage, 75% damage reduction). An ICBM on an undefended city would be everything destroyed - reduced to size1.

The diplomatic penalties should increase for each nuke used. The first 2 used globally should have fairly mild penalties, but then continued use should result in greater penalties, with all civs rather than just the victim.

[DCMike]

Originally posted by Blake
Methinks people overestimate the power of nukes slightly. It's like people expect a Nuke would destroy everything in the area the size of Japan, well historically they weren't quite that powerful .

Probably a good argument for 2 different nukes though, maybe an early Atomic-Bomber one (flight, fission, radio), and a later ICBM (rocketry, fission, computers), which is 4x as powerful. By the time ICBM's come out the counters would/could be in place. Atomic bombers would be standard Civ4 ICBM strength, as would an ICBM on a defended city (4x damage, 75% damage reduction). An ICBM on an undefended city would be everything destroyed - reduced to size1.

The diplomatic penalties should increase for each nuke used. The first 2 used globally should have fairly mild penalties, but then continued use should result in greater penalties, with all civs rather than just the victim.

Well, maybe not the size of Japan. But they would 'stop' an entire city (especially in terms of the game). Check out this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/25mtblast.html

[Shogun Gunner]

i really don't like seeing that graphic on the link considering that I live in Northern Virginia.

Then again, I have a better than 50% chance of JUST receiving thermal burns - so it's all good

[RAKKIR]

Hello,

Blake is right. Nuclear blast effects are not the end all that people think they are. A single bomb does not traditionally "wipe out" a metropolitan city. Someone above pointed out a link indicating a 20 mile destruction radius. I should point out that the link describes a 25 Megaton nuclear weapon. Quite frankly, you will not see weapons this large used. Almost all nuclear weapons are in the 500 kiloton (half a megaton) or single megaton size. The Russians prefer large weapons to ours.
Large bombs were INITIALLY sought because delivery systems (ICBMs) had not matured to the point of MIRVs (MIRVs being multiple, small, independent, self-guiding, warheads attached to a single ICBM). Therefore, you HAD to use a single large bomb. However, as soon as MIRVS became viable large bombs became inefficient and wastefull. It was far "better" (more destructive) to hit a city with four or five smaller blasts (spread out) than a single large blast.
Incidentally, a great many (though not all) modern U.S. weapons (and Russian too I am sure) are actually "dial-a-yield" where the yield of the weapon can be chosen. I do -believe- the admitted range of the weapon is 250 kilotons to 1 megaton from the same warhead. I may be wrong in this. Wikipedia lists the W88 warhead at 475KT and the W76 is 100KT
Secondly, as far as the radiation effects of "nuclear clouds." Radiation effects of modern nuclear weapons on population centers is always MASSIVELY overrated...(not that I'm saying any is good). Almost all the statistics you see overinflate the radioactive 'fallout' of the weapon by quite a bit.
This is generally for two reasons.
1: Most of the studies assume a GROUND burst weapon which spreads a lot of now radioactive dirt high into the atmosphere. Ground bursts do not happen as they are a waste of the weapons energy.
2: Most data is based upon OLDER, "dirtier" weapons such as the primitive weapons used in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. U.S. and Russian nukes are FAR "cleaner" than their older counterparts and create far less long-term radioactive fallout. This is not because we wanted to be "nice" but because, quite frankly, the more radioactive fallout is left over the LESS nuclear material was used by the bomb. Therefore, if you have a lot of fallout left over it means a good portion of your plutonium DID NOT go into the explosion so the blast was WEAKER than it could have been, or you wasted plutonium you didn't have too. Basically, the "cleaner" the weapon is the more "bang for your buck" you get.

As an aside, can anyone add FACTUAL data as to how many MIRVS the latest SLBMs can carry on a single missle? Officially it's supposedly 8 on the newer Tridents, however I've heard people say that in reality it is probably closer to 12 to 16. Can anybody add whether there is any truth to that or just wishfull thinking?

And now, to really RILE UP THINGS..... who ELSE believes the United States needs to invest more in its Nuclear Deterent (notice I say DETERENT only) capabilities to the effect of designing newer missle delivery systems and ensuring our nuclear warheads are still viable (outside of the National Ignition project)? Anybody else believe we SHOULD be developing the "bunker busters" that were recently vetoed? Please note I'm not a "nasty warmonger" type, but merely a realist who advises having a HIGHLY CREDIBLE retaliatory strike capacity should, god forbid, it ever be needed.

Ohh yeah, add me to the petition too.