effect of nukes

[Tattila the Hun]

And not being able to hit squares inside your own borders... Forget defending yourself with tactical strikes.

[Jaybe]

Apply one nuke to a city: no joy
Apply a second nuke: walk into the city without combat.

[Brutus66]

What really irks me is trying to nuke a big city full of enemy units and not being allowed to because some neutral nation's unit is there "visiting". It just smacks of a kind of exploit.

I think you should be allowed to proceed and take a diplomacy modifier hit with the other country.

[zeace]

I've suggested in the past that Manhattan project be made a national wonder, but every other country that has one increases your production by 2x. The first country would have to do a ton of work, but other countries could just do a little. This is more realistic to what really happened with the US spending a ridiculous amount of effort on the Manhattan Project and then the Russians just copied the result for a tenth of the cost.

[gdijedi7]

I think building the Manhattan Project should give you two free Atom Bombs. Load them onto a Bomber and have the Bomber drop them. Power= a little less than we have in Civ4.

Next, you get Tactical Nukes. About the same power as an Atom Bomb, but can be fired about ten spaces from a submarine or artillery unit.

H-Bomb- More powerful. Something like Civ II, or maybe a city killer. Possibly kills cities under size 5?

ICBM= Civ 2 nuke power, global range, x2 fallout.

Doomsday device: The ultimate nuclear weapon, use if your survival is in doubt. Destroys all cities on the half of the world it is used on, fall out on every (or nearly every) square. Basically, no fun at all.


Perhaps the Doomsday device is not a good idea, but I like expanding nuclear power. However, with more power should come more fallout.

Enjoy the fireworks

[zeace]

Currently all civ games end when one player wins. What if you could have a situation where all players lose. If your opponent builds a doomsday device (ala Dr. Strangelove) then he can cause the game to end and all players to lose if he gets attacked by nuclear weapons.

Imagine an ending video for Mutually Assured Destruction...

[Blaupanzer]

Fallout was bad news in the earlier civs. I like the global warming effects of modern nukes.

[gdijedi7]

Eh. I don't like Global Warming. You can't have a decent nuclear exchange without ruining the game. I got in a war that saw three nukes launched, and the game is beginning to become unfun.

[Autotropx Sox]

I think the whole point is to stress the costs of using Nuclear Weapons.

If I decide to use six nuclear weapons to screen a take-over of an enemy's heartland, I should be prepared to suffer the consequences of having reduced production/food later on against other enemies because of rampant pollution.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by zeace
I've suggested in the past that Manhattan project be made a national wonder, but every other country that has one increases your production by 2x. The first country would have to do a ton of work, but other countries could just do a little. This is more realistic to what really happened with the US spending a ridiculous amount of effort on the Manhattan Project and then the Russians just copied the result for a tenth of the cost.

That's a good idea.

Another, separate, idea is to allow a spy to be sent to an enemy that has the Manhattan Project in order to steal the plans. If the spy is successful, a certain % of hammers are added towards building your project. So you don't just keep stealing from the same civ over and over, you could only steal the plans once from each other civ.