Nuclear Enrichment Facility

[zeace]

The whole Iran debate has made me think Civ sould have a Nuclear Enrichment Facility. Probably as a National Wonder.

Building it would be required before building any Nuclear Power Plants. Of course it would also be a pre-req for Nuclear Weapons.

I envisage this wonder being expensive (similar to Manhattan Project), but the costs of ICBM and Nuc Plants being a lot cheaper. This would cause the total cost of building these things to be about the same.

The diplomacy should go back to the Civ and Civ 2 days when having nuclear weapons was a big part of diplomacy (Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!). You should be able to ask a civ to not build an Enrichment facility. The responses would be:
- Ok
- We will never limit our right to nuclear arms
- We just want a civilian program

You could also allow an ally to use your Enrichment facility for civilian uses only.

Of course this overlaps a little with the existing Manhattan project. I'd like to see the person who builds MP getting both a free Enrichment facility and a free Nuke. Building it would no longer allow everyone to build nukes.

Discovering fusion, would allow fusion plants and spacechip parts to be built without the enrichment facility, so people interested in a peaceful game could never build the facility.

Any thoughts?

[Solver]

You're screwed if you nuild nuclear plants anyway. Coal and hydro are much better. Civ4 doesn't have quantities of power, power is a simple on/off toggle. Whereas in real life, the reason to build nuclear plants is that they can provide a lot more power than other plants.

What I would definitely want to see is better nuclear warfare/standoffs. That could be made a part of diplomacy under the current framework, more significantly than it's now. Cold-war style nuclear stockpiling, all-out nuclear attacks...

[Smellycowsquid]

Re: Nuclear Enrichment Facility

Originally posted by zeace
when having nuclear weapons was a big part of diplomacy (Our words are backed with NUCLEAR WEAPONS!!!).

Coal and hydro are much better

What I would definitely want to see is better nuclear warfare/standoffs. That could be made a part of diplomacy under the current framework, more significantly than it's now. Cold-war style nuclear stockpiling, all-out nuclear attacks..

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Solver
What I would definitely want to see is better nuclear warfare/standoffs. That could be made a part of diplomacy under the current framework, more significantly than it's now. Cold-war style nuclear stockpiling, all-out nuclear attacks...

A much heavier level of diplomacy and more intricate UN formula would be a) more interesting and b) much more representative of recent history.

[Nikolai]

Solver

zeace, if changes are made to the game to make Solver's points moot.

[LordShiva]

I think this thread wins the "Thread with the most ''s" prize...

[Nikolai]

Nah, you have to look better I think.

[sparkyal]

Better nuclear stuff would be great. I love the idea of a Uranium Enrichment Facility. I hate the fact that once the M-Project has been built then everyone's gottem. Yuk!

Solver, i have a quiestion for you: you said that if you build a nuke plant in the game it is a bad idea, why is that? After I've done the 3-River's Gorge Dam, i usually build a nuke in my cities not on the continent. Let me know your thoughts.

What do you guys think of this: I done' t build plants because I'm going after the big dam, do you all build plants anyway (fbofore the dam is available) in case you don't get it?

sparky

[Nikolai]

I guess Solver means this: All power plants give power, not an amount of power. Therefore, nuclear plants give the same as the others, except it doesn't pollute like coal plants. But, in addition, it bears the chance of melt down, causing a national disaster. Is that right, Solver?

[Solver]

Yes, it's exactly as Nikolai says .

If you play a map with more than one continent, I would still prefer Coal Plants for cities not on your main continent. Nuke plants cause really nasty disasters when they melt down, and they like to do so often.

If health is a problem, later just build Recycling Centres .

[axisworks]

One thing I've actually been thinking about lately is making creation of the UN based not just on building the UN, but also based on having at least two countries possess nuclear weapons. It seems a bit silly to ban them when 1. No one has researched the Manhattan Project and 2. When no one has had a chance to build any.

Obviously, the next question would be, why isn't there an option to ignore this edict and incur a "-4 You ignored the UN!" penalty?

[Urban Ranger]

Re: Nuclear Enrichment Facility

Originally posted by zeace
The whole Iran debate has made me think Civ sould have a Nuclear Enrichment Facility. Probably as a National Wonder.

Building it would be required before building any Nuclear Power Plants. Of course it would also be a pre-req for Nuclear Weapons.

I am not sure what you have been smoking but I would like some of that.

A nuclear enrichment facility is completely unnecessary for the game. It adds nothing but complexity.

First of all, the current situation surrounding Iran is unique to our current geo-political climate. You cannot recreate it in the game. Forget it. On earth there are hundreds of nations. In Civ 4 you get maybe 10. The dynamics are totally different.

Secondly, you don't need enriched uranium for nuclear reactors. All you need is a more effective medium such as heavy water. See CANDU for reference.

There are lots of things we need in real life that aren't required in the game. For example, there's no need for petrochem plants. Though, IRL, these are way, way, more important than any nuclear enrichment facilities.

[sparkyal]

Ok, yes the NEF issue is slaned towards our geopolitical reality. but, I believe the main point of this thread still holds. that:
1) the way nukes are dealt with in the game does need to be modified;
2) there are other steps necessary to build a nuke then just one country in the world having the MP. A NEF is a good solution to this. Maybe call it a Uranium Enrichment Facility? This could be a National wonder.

So, once someone builds the MP, in order for you to take advantage you need a NEF/UEF (except of course the country that build the MP). this actually makes the MP somewhat useful. right now I never build it. Why should I? someone will build it, and I will get the benifit. If no one builds, who cares, nukes are that powerful in the game. But in real life they are very powerful.

anyway, that's my opinion.

sparky

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by sparkyal
1) the way nukes are dealt with in the game does need to be modified;

That's probably a game balancing issue. If you make nukes more powerful that would make them to be like the howitzers in Civ 2: a unit that breaks the game.

In that case a Civ 4 game becomes merely a race to nuclear weapons.

Originally posted by sparkyal
2) there are other steps necessary to build a nuke then just one country in the world having the MP. A NEF is a good solution to this. Maybe call it a Uranium Enrichment Facility? This could be a National wonder.

Why do you think there are other steps necessary?

Originally posted by sparkyal
right now I never build it. Why should I? someone will build it, and I will get the benifit.

That's assuming you are on par with the nation that built the Manhattan Project. If you are seriously lagging behind anyway it doesn't help you one bit. If you are way ahead already, you should be building it anyway.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

That's assuming you are on par with the nation that built the Manhattan Project. If you are seriously lagging behind anyway it doesn't help you one bit. If you are way ahead already, you should be building it anyway.

Granted. If you are way ahead, then IMO the best option is to build the MP, stockpile loads of nukes, build the UN (presuming that you will control it), and pass the no nuke proliferation resolution.

End result - you have nukes and pretty much no-one else does. This makes nukes really quite powerful