Bigger Nukes!!

[red_jon]

Planetbusters, Planetbusters!

[Skanky Burns]

Star Imploders!! If my civilization cant win, then noone else can either!!! Muwahahaha!!!

[red_jon]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Star Imploders!! If my civilization cant win, then noone else can either!!! Muwahahaha!!!

LOL!

[axi]

But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by UberKruX
incineration: 1 square
major damage: 3 squares
unit death: 4 squares

I like the idea of tiered damage levels.

Although as you have setup you could target a square 4 tiles away from a city, destroy all the units but leave the city intact.

If you target between two cities the same happens. It would be ok if you can build a nuclear bunker improvement that protects units not hit directly.

[Adagio]

I just think the AI should be more cautios with using nukes, this means only use nukes if there is no other way out of it...and a nuke war can really change the regard of other nations against the "nuke user" (to the lower), cuz it's really annoying to see the AI shoot 10+ nukes against another nation just because they want to take over the cities

[Crouchback]

Originally posted by axi
But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

Is that you Osama?

David

[Akron]

Originally posted by UberKruX
incineration: 1 square
major damage: 3 squares
unit death: 4 squares

This sorta model looks good.

Nukes should not be the toys that the ai used to play around with carelessly in civ 2. There need to be REAL diplomatic consequences. It looks like these will be in, given the statement some firaxian made about the nuclear age as being just a stage in the game that you pass through rather than the end it was in civ 2.

[SITS]

I think once you get the tech/build the wonder (and make it quite expensive) then nukes should be very cheap to build. This would model the real world where there are 1000's of nukes each side. In Civ3 anyone starting a nuke war will have to consider the consequences of the other civ's having 50 nukes to reply with.

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by axi
But you don't need NUKES to nuke a city (if it has no SDI).

You just build a cheapo spy and nuke them via rail.

Unless you can nuke through the espionage menu, you do need nukes. There are no spies in Civ 3.

Also, Via Rail is Canada's national passenger railline. hmm...

[SITS]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison


Berry, berry powerful I will check but it sounds like it has something to do with berylium...

[SITS]

One idea, which is probably far too late to include, is if you nuke an oppounts Capitial then they are unable to send nukes your way for a turn which gives you another shot of wiping them off the face of the earth. This hand-in-hand with cheap nukes would make civ very interesting indeed!

[Trifna]

Why one square:

One square in Civ III isn't a 2km per 2km area! It's all the center of a city. Look at the urban part of New-York city, excluding all the less urban surrounding areas: it's huge...

[Trifna]

forgot...

I forgot.

I mean 1 square for the direct consequences, but the surrounding areas will have some serious problems too... Atomic bombs have areas of action. The center may destroy all, and radioactivity on sides, etc... Does much more than simply destroy.

[red_jon]

Will we be able to drill a whole to the centre of the Earth and put a nuke in it, Dr. Evil style?