effect of nukes

[Lambiorix_be]

I have the impression that nukes don't do much except destroying civilians.

I was asked to attack one of my neighbours who I knew had a lot of units. I had noticed that many of those units were inside the cities or standing next to it. Since I wanted the war to be over very quickly I nuked 2 of those heavy packed cities. However most of those units survived (I think even all survived and I don't know if they were damaged).

So what's the point of nukes?

[Will9]

IIRC, nukes don't destroy units, they only damage them. Nukes will also destroy buildings.

[Tattila the Hun]

They do destroy units. Hit the same city again, and you're sure to destroy units. They just aren't powerfull enough to kill a unit with one strike. Maybe they have maximum % of max HP they destroy, on a given unit.

[CreepyD]

I think they need to be more powerful like in old civ games. 1 nuke should wipe out ALL units instantly as well as destroy the surrounding area and some buildings.
If u have bomb shelters then sure some can survive then (not improvements tho).

I think the alpha centauri method of anti nukes was nice too (gameplay wise), 1 satellite to destroy 1 incoming nuke

[Lambiorix_be]

Originally posted by CreepyD
I think they need to be more powerful like in old civ games. 1 nuke should wipe out ALL units instantly as well as destroy the surrounding area and some buildings.
If u have bomb shelters then sure some can survive then (not improvements tho).

I think the alpha centauri method of anti nukes was nice too (gameplay wise), 1 satellite to destroy 1 incoming nuke

I agree, except if you have nuclear bombshelters most units should be instantly destroyed after one attack.

[ColdPhoenix]

I think you guys are overestimating the strength of a nuclear bomb. I'm sure someone will come along with more accurate figures but from a quick look at Wikipedia on the bombing of Hiroshima:

Around 80,000 (mostly civilians) directly killed, 60,000 more in the following months from injuries radiation sickness. I think the population was around 300,000.
68% of the buildings were destroyed.

I think it's realistic (and more importantly works better in the game) for the units to be damaged rather than killed by a nuke. And also for some of the buildings to survive.

[zeace]

I think that civ needs more than one kind of nuke:

1. A Hiroshima style bomb that needs to be delivered in a bomber and causes moderate damage to a city (All units damaged, a few buildings destroyed). Some fallout nearby.

2. A missile that can ride on subs that has a moderate range and does lots of damage to a city (All units damaged, some killed, half of buildings destroyed). Lots of fallout.

3. An ICBM that can reach anywhere in the world. Kills almost all units without shelter, even kills some with shelter. Most buildings destroyed. Fallout up to 2 squares away.

4. Fusion bomb like ICBM reaches anywhere. Destroys all units and buildings and some wonders. Chance of reducing city to ruins. Fallout up to 3 squares away.

5. Planet busters that remove the city completely from the map and replace it with a lake. Surrounding tiles terraformed to desert. Fallout up to 4 squares away. maniacal laugh whenever used...

Ok, maybe the last one is a little overboard, but I'd like to play more cold war type games where research actually helps you get better bombs. Currently the nuke is overpowered at the stage it is available because of it's huge range, but it's not so strong that it is the ultimate end-game weapon. A late game full nuclear war should actually feel like it destroys the world.

[Tattila the Hun]

Originally posted by ColdPhoenix
I think you guys are overestimating the strength of a nuclear bomb. I'm sure someone will come along with more accurate figures but from a quick look at Wikipedia on the bombing of Hiroshima:

Around 80,000 (mostly civilians) directly killed, 60,000 more in the following months from injuries radiation sickness. I think the population was around 300,000.
68% of the buildings were destroyed.

I think it's realistic (and more importantly works better in the game) for the units to be damaged rather than killed by a nuke. And also for some of the buildings to survive.

Mind you, difference between Little Boy and a modern MIRV is like the difference between slingshot and a trebuchet.

[Targonis]

What most people need to understand is that nukes have evolved over time from the first batch to a much much more powerful and destructive weapon. So, there should be upgrades, or perhaps make it so a certain improvement is needed in a city to make the more powerful nukes.

Now, a problem I have with Civ 4 is that just because one civ comes up with the manhattan project should NOT mean that every civ can suddenly make a nuke(with the right resources). It should be a national wonder that each civ needs to complete.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun


Mind you, difference between Little Boy and a modern MIRV is like the difference between slingshot and a trebuchet.

Ah, yes! Right you are. Little Boy would have obliterated all building in about 0.5km radius. I just read that one of the modern US bombs (don't know if it's the one you mean) would have a 2.5km radius. That's a much larger area.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by Targonis
What most people need to understand is that nukes have evolved over time from the first batch to a much much more powerful and destructive weapon. So, there should be upgrades, or perhaps make it so a certain improvement is needed in a city to make the more powerful nukes.

Now, a problem I have with Civ 4 is that just because one civ comes up with the manhattan project should NOT mean that every civ can suddenly make a nuke(with the right resources). It should be a national wonder that each civ needs to complete.

I think that making different nukes wouldn't add much to the game. Most people don't use them a lot anyway.

I wholeheartedly agree with the manhatten project being a national wonder though. I guess the reason it isn't is to reduce the chance of a civ becoming too powerful just because they got it first.

[CreepyD]

Making manhatten project a national wonder sounds good so every nation has to build it.
Silly that others can make nukes when I put all the work in.
I like the idea of 2 or more types of nuke (2 makes sense gameplay wise), maybe just a small one (range same as a bomber) with current damage.
Then when u develop Fusion u should get to make an ICBM that wipes out units/buildings/improvements.

Alpha centauri's planet busters were WAY over the top gameplay wise, once u got those the game was over in a matter of minutes as u would just nuke every city

[Lord Avalon]

Originally posted by CreepyD
Silly that others can make nukes when I put all the work in.

Why? You do the work, someone else steals the plans. So maybe others need to have a spy go do that before they get nukes.

[Tattila the Hun]

What I'd like to see, is that you'd need to assign a territory inside you own borders for the testing...

And, the ability to assign targets beforehand, then just push a big, (red) button, zoom out to planetary view, and watch the fireworks, ala Terminator3...

Tactical nukes would be nice, too.

[Saurus]

If I remember correctly, nukes in CIV I destroyed a random(?) number of units in a city. The citys level dropped to half of what it used to be (Thus a size 16 city dropped to size 8 after a succesfull nuclear strike)

The nuke also destroyed random units stationed at tiles bordering the city directly and random buildings in the city. It also polluted random tiles around the city.

I really liked the nukes back in civ 1.
Even a militarily inferior civ could potentialy be dangerous if having nuclear weapons.
In civ 1, nukes could also be used as a weapon to destroy stacks of units. (allthough the SOD-problem did not exist during in the same manner than in CIV IV)

In civ 4 nukes are weak, weak, weak.
IMO this is wrong - nukes should NOT be balanced like the other military units in the game.
Nukes should be true tools of terror.