Nuclear Enrichment Facility

[greenday_234]

Idk, I don't think an enrichment facility would do much to improve the lack of excitement of Nuclear Weapons, however I think one thing to do is to create classes of nuclear weapons i.e. a tactical Nuke which is a ranged weapon and must be carried on a sub or whatever and has the strength of the current in game nuke. The second would be the Hydro ICBM. Capable to strike newhere with the same force as a civ 3 nuke had. To keep this weapon from breaking the game due to strength simply do 2 things: Making them like spies with a max of 5 in game at one time and 2. make their construction on par with a national wonder so that way they take a decent amount of time to create.
There are innumerable cool and interesting things that could be done with the UN and I'd love to get into them, but not until after work.

I look forward to your thoughts.

[Urban Ranger]

nugog:

greenday_234: a tactical nuclear device is no more powerful than a very large bomb. It certainly won't affect more than one tile. Only an ICBM carrying a megaton device (or MIRV) could concevibly do that. Again, the power of nukes has to be balanced with everything else. If it is very powerful, it breaks the game unless it is also very expensive.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by 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...

Except any sort of realistic nuclear war is unfun. I like how nukes are now, they exist but aren't used very often and don't completely screw up your game if they are.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger
nugog:

Why thankyou

Query: Is this conversation just about NEF's, or a sign that some players feel that there is a lack of complexity during the end game?

Sorry if that's a bit a threadjack, but that seems to be general "feel" of it.

[MasterDave]

Originally posted by 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?

I definitely agree with your second point, since the only instance where the UN is effective and its edicts are taken seriously are in Civ 4 games. In the real world, the UN is nothing more than a prominent place to spew out political wind and for rich diplomats to live in the lap of luxury at the rest of the world's expence.