c174# NUCLEAR WARFARE IN CIV3

[ancient]

well as said in the link i posted there will be two types of nuclear weaponry ones is going to be tactical the other is probably like what were used to seeing in civ2.

I think that the tactical nukes will be loaded on to submarines (or aircraft carrier, and planes (fighters and bombers alike)) and can be fired at citys and units and have higher accuracy but far less power and distance.

And nuclear missiles will be like what seen in civ2 but more powerfull farther distance lower accuracy. One model could be this; You select the missile (the missile should be in a silo outside of your city!) and tell it what city to be launched at then it will fire (not be dragged) and will try to hit the city, however it has about a 50% chance of blowing up 4-8 tiles away from the city you told it to hit. If the missile hits a city (even if its not the one you wanted it to hit (imagine if it was your own )) roughly 60-80% of its population should be destroyed and half of its improvements should be destroyed around the city should be radiation tiles (like pollution but take 4x as long to be removed) and around the radiation tiles should be polution tiles. If they dont hit the city (or anything at all for that matter) there should be a crater tile where they hit (meaning that no city can be built here and no resources or sheilds, food can be built/gathered here and is unremovable) and should be surrounded by radiation then pollution anyways.

SDI's should cover a far larger area ( about a diameter of 5 tiles) but only work 40-70% of the time..

Thanks to bush (yes our idiot president) there should be a missile defence being a wonder, it should have a 20% chance of stopping all missile attacks in your civilizations territory and a 10% chance of stopping all missile attacks in your ally's territory.

well theres my jumbled up ideas of missile attacking and defending.. when added to what i said in te other post its a full idea..

[jake03]

thanks for the review, I like the changes I am really not a fan for the nukes being in the game but the changes are pretty good. What will the cost of them be in dollars or shields? I would be nice if a weapon of that magnitude was a great deal more expensive to build. this would get of the chance of being nuked on every turn.

[TINOMan]

I totally agree that the nuclear warfare part of civ3 should be completely different from that of civ2.

To prove that I have the nuclear warfare in civ2:
-I never use them myself
-I edited out nuclear missiles from civ2 in the rules.txt. file

[connorkimbro]

People, you can't hug with nuclear arms!!

[ancient]

?

[Father Beast]

Connor, that's "You can't hug your children with nuclear arms "

I was just contemplating the relative size of nukes. in civ, there was only one kind of nuke, and it always had the same range.

The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were quite small compared to the big ones around today. The A-Bomb dropped on Hiroshima was more like a civ nuke, while the big ones we are MAD about today are more like AC planet busters.

Nevertheless, the old lesser bombs did kill off the city population, did they not? correct me if wrong. not a big history buff

SO... suppose that your first bombs would be like those little ones, destroy the city, destroy tile improvements directly adjacent to the city and only damage military units in adjacent squares.
these would be delivered the same way as nukes in civ2, basically assuming they are loaded on a plane and dropped. same range as a fighter, say.

after fusion power, you could improve to planet buster bombs. lots of pollution, please.

after space rocketry (or somesuch), you could upgrade to ICBMs, which have essentially unlimited range.

I realize thats 3 advances and a (mini) wonder to accomplish some serious death of the planet MAD , but it make sense to me.

[Dr Strangelove]

Remember the scale of the game. If the map is supposed to represent a planet the size of the earth, then even in a huge map each square represents an area about 200 miles across. A single nuke is not going to obliterate an area 200 miles across. Also consider the large variety of nuclear weapons available today. They vary from free fall bombs, to nuclear artillery shells, to short range tactical rockets, to cruise missles. to silo launched ICBMs, to mobile launched long range missles. It would be difficult for this game to accomodate all the varieties of nuclear weapons, so it's just as well that there is only one unit that is relatively mobile.

[NeoBlade]

Just a lil correction

Someone above said about bombs being "quite large",weighing up to "100 Megatons".I'd just like to point out these bombs didn't way 100,000tons...100meagton bomb means "It'd take 100,000 tons of TNT(dynamite)to do the same amount of damage."

Obviously,sice isn't mentioned but most weighed in between 1-2 tons.No offense to the guy who made the mistake,but I didn't want people reading your post and thinking "OH,thats what that means..".Misconceptions can be hard to disspell.

[ancient]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Remember the scale of the game. If the map is supposed to represent a planet the size of the earth, then even in a huge map each square represents an area about 200 miles across. A single nuke is not going to obliterate an area 200 miles across. Also consider the large variety of nuclear weapons available today. They vary from free fall bombs, to nuclear artillery shells, to short range tactical rockets, to cruise missles. to silo launched ICBMs, to mobile launched long range missles. It would be difficult for this game to accomodate all the varieties of nuclear weapons, so it's just as well that there is only one unit that is relatively mobile.

very funny that you say that, because all maps are different! not all maps are of the entire earth and not are all the same size so think you 200 miles acoss thing is not gonna work!

[Fidel]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Remember the scale of the game. If the map is supposed to represent a planet the size of the earth, then even in a huge map each square represents an area about 200 miles across. A single nuke is not going to obliterate an area 200 miles across. Also consider the large variety of nuclear weapons available today. They vary from free fall bombs, to nuclear artillery shells, to short range tactical rockets, to cruise missles. to silo launched ICBMs, to mobile launched long range missles. It would be difficult for this game to accomodate all the varieties of nuclear weapons, so it's just as well that there is only one unit that is relatively mobile.

Dr Strangelove, I hope you have prepared the underground bunkers where we, the elite, may seclude with some fine breeding babes.

[Fidel]

Re: Just a lil correction

Originally posted by NeoBlade
Someone above said about bombs being "quite large",weighing up to "100 Megatons".I'd just like to point out these bombs didn't way 100,000tons...100meagton bomb means "It'd take 100,000 tons of TNT(dynamite)to do the same amount of damage."

Obviously,sice isn't mentioned but most weighed in between 1-2 tons.No offense to the guy who made the mistake,but I didn't want people reading your post and thinking "OH,thats what that means..".Misconceptions can be hard to disspell.

100,000 tons of TNT is 100Kilotons bomb
100 megatons is 100 million tons TNT

[DarkCloud]

Forcing the player to build a silo and set a predefined path for the warhead is a GREAT idea.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by korn469
Tim

i agree with your 1st point about silos, i also think that we should be able to load nuclear missles onto submarines

Wasn't this already in Civ II?

[Inverse Icarus]

yes KH, is was in civ 2.

and i like the silo idea.

perhaps subs could serve as mobile silos.

[NeoBlade]

Wow..

0.0 yikes,thats even worse.Thanx for clearing that up too..I have no clue where I got mega means thousand,it means million in most cases.*kicks self*