Nukes

[Solver]

No, you must be able to destroy a city by nuking. Survivors? If a city gets nuked three times, any survivors there?

[Panag]

Originally posted by Solver
No, you must be able to destroy a city by nuking. Survivors? If a city gets nuked three times, any survivors there?

hi ,

lucky you , in the future all that shall be left are ruins , ....you can turn this on / off with the editor , ....

have a nice day

[Ijuin]

Here is a possible compromise: The first nuclear strike acts normally, but if a second nuke hits a city after all its units are destroyed (that is, if it strikes an undefended city), then the city should be obliterated.

[Ben Williams]

To modify my earlier statement, I think weather a city is wiped out should depend (not to make it to complex) on the size of the city, yield of the nuke and just luck. There should be at least two types of nukes, fission and fusion (the second could be built into a tech called "modern nuke" or something). That way it would all depend on the goal of the attack, if it was to capture cities or just wipe out another civ.

In the game with Russia nuking me, yes, they attacked first. They actually led with nukes before anything else. I REALLY didn't want to start WWIII, so dispite the fact that I had a bunch of ICBM's, I didn't use them until attacked. It would be nice if deterrance actually played into the game, which would of course mean whole new AI programs. My main complaint is the lack of realisim, insead of building new concepts for nukes (such as radiation) they just used stuff they already had (changing terrain, pollution).

[tinyp3nis]

How many nucklear wars have u guys seen? None? Me too. There havent been any, and u cant count ww2 since they used "prototypes". But seriously, too much scifi movies makes people think nukes are all powerful, they are not. I cant remember the exact figures but US and soviet used to have thousands of nukes.... why so many? Because nukes arent so powerful so they need many? Any other reasons? If anyone here has nukes and knows more about their REAL effects, plz tell us

I think nukes are fine the way they are now in civ3. Well, maybe u could destroy small cities with nukes, would be nice... Honestly i dont know how powerful nukes are irl, i know those figures too about the big ones but they tell me nothing.

[Panag]

Originally posted by tinyp3nis
How many nucklear wars have u guys seen? None? Me too. There havent been any, and u cant count ww2 since they used "prototypes". But seriously, too much scifi movies makes people think nukes are all powerful, they are not. I cant remember the exact figures but US and soviet used to have thousands of nukes.... why so many? Because nukes arent so powerful so they need many? Any other reasons? If anyone here has nukes and knows more about their REAL effects, plz tell us

I think nukes are fine the way they are now in civ3. Well, maybe u could destroy small cities with nukes, would be nice... Honestly i dont know how powerful nukes are irl, i know those figures too about the big ones but they tell me nothing.

hi ,

just "imagine" , .........what would the world be like if Gen. Mac Arthur would have used his plan to seperate N and S Korea with strontium , .....or what would the world have been like when any mad man would use them , ......just "IF", .......

and that is what the game is all about , .......YOU , the human player is in control , ..........

imagine "IF" Solver does not like one , and he has a nuke at his hands , ........... . - Solver its just an example hé , ....

now you are in control , ........PLAY THE WORLD

have a nice day

[The Eliminator]

The city should be completely gone and the pollution left from nukes should last 100 years before you can clean it up.

[Panag]

Originally posted by The Eliminator
The city should be completely gone and the pollution left from nukes should last 100 years before you can clean it up.

hi ,

that is maybe why they have ruins in the game now , ....PTW , ..

we should have the possibility to edit this in the editor , ....


have a nice day

[Carver]

What is this talk about "ruins"? Is this something from the PTW video?

[ChaotikVisions]

The US and USSR had a large amount of nukes because they were both huge countries. Nukes by themsevles are not overly powerful, and will not destroy a city in an instant. What nukes do do however is spread fallout, which is what will kill off most of the people in the city. I do believe we developed nukes large enough to wipe out whole citys, but that ever using them would screw us over as well.

[The Eliminator]

What are you on??

Nukes destroy cities, that is their purpose. 10 Megaton bomb (Ground Burst)...
1. Shockwave, levels ALL buildings over 3 km radius.
2. Gas Bubble, vapourizes organic material over a 2 km (minimum) spread.
3. Heat Wave, incinerates everything in a 5km radius (minimum).
4. Groundwave, distorts seismic properties over a 10 km range.
5. Fallout, renders 250 km range inhospitable for life for 100 years, minimum.
Bottom line: CITIES ARE DESTROYED.

Try airburst - little fallout and seismic damage, but times destructive power by a factor of 10 per 100 m.

I hope you are talking about tactical nukes - they aren't designed to take out cities, just troops and equipment. These nukes are all airburst - little fallout makes radiation a near non-factor.

[Solver]

Some here are missing what nukes are in real-life. Modern nukes are no longer what they used to be in 1945. And even then.... the nuke targeted on Hiroshima didn't explode as expected, due to problems with the plane fuel and weather, so it wasn't dropped in the center of the city. Still about 1/3 of the city were destroyed with tens of thousands instant deaths. And modern nukes are even more powerful, it would wipe out an average city, an essence.

US and USSR? Now US and Russia have some 6000 nukes each... enough to completely obliterate both the countries and quite something else.

[Carver]

The bomb dropped on Hiroshima was about 20 kilotons, modern thermonuclear weapons are as powerful as 300 megatons . A 300 megaton bomb dropped on New York City would wipe out Bridgeport, CT.

[Coracle]

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
The US and USSR had a large amount of nukes because they were both huge countries. Nukes by themsevles are not overly powerful, and will not destroy a city in an instant. What nukes do do however is spread fallout, which is what will kill off most of the people in the city. I do believe we developed nukes large enough to wipe out whole citys, but that ever using them would screw us over as well.

I hope you appreciate the irony of this.

A nuke, even a few of them, will NOT destroy a city. But a single unit, even if it only has just one hit point left, can instantly make a metropolis vanish, turn the terrain into grassland, and dispose of all the corpses without even leaving so much as a pollution tile!! Yea, surrre. What was Soren on when he thought of that one?

As for nukes, I turned the Manhattan Project into a trade-producing Internet Wonder as I will NEVER use nukes without a Quick Response option for a First Strike. The game is too non-historical and too stupid otherwise, without that response it always creates a rush to see who can nuke the other first. This is silly and juvenile.

[Jaybe]

Larger nukes are not nearly as efficient as smaller ones. OTOH, no one has (fortunately) played around with trying to deliver several at virtually the same time. The Electro-Magnetic Pulse (EMP) is rumored to fry the triggering devices (top secret, of course). Fatricide??

The US arsenal has few (or fewer) ONE megatonners. Anyone have any up-to-date info on this type of info??

EMP would devastate the civilian economies of any of the consumer-based societies. In the US, only military hardware is hardened to withstand EMP. Imagine, NO personal computers (not even Macintoshes :gasp: ) -- now THAT, my friends, would be the end of Civilization!!

JB