Changes to nukes

[HazieDaVampire]

On this forum i've heard people talking aobut nukes, but never heard sombody actualy talking about changes they made to them. Has anybody done anything to them?

PS: Do a search on kazaa for 'a bomb' in videos, now thats entertaining!

[Fighter]

I like the way they handled nukes in the game, I was annoyed how in civ2 the nukes could only move 16 squares. In real life, Nukes can drop on another city accross the planet easily, not just 16 spaces.

[HazieDaVampire]

actualy, real life ICBMs are also carried on subs, and they can only be launched 250k square miles around the sub.

[DRoseDARs]

Civ3 subs can only carry...what, two or four tac-nukes? Bullcrap I say! Los Angeles-class Nuclear subs can carry I believe 16 ICBMs. That's one alteration I do, though I go 8 tac-nukes not 16. Also, thermo-nuclear warheads typically have multiple explosive devices, not just one. I change some settings with the ICBMs so they can move anywhere unlimited and carry 3 tac-nukes. Have not been able to test it yet and really DO NOT CARE if the AI(s) can handle it (it/they get enough advantages/cheats as it is...).

The current game I'm playing: 256x256 Pangea, Wet, Warm, 3 billion years, 16 civs, me = The United States. There are additional mods I did to the rules, but not gonna list them here, they are irrelevant to this thread. Current savegame is at 1550AD, I'm half-way through Industrial Age and the other fifteen civs just entered that Age. Used Gramphos' C3MTv95 a few times to prevent AIs from settling RIGHT WHERE I WAS GOING AND THEY SAW IT!!! and to prevent the ever-irritating AIs building a WoW one turn before me, even though I'd been building that WoW long before AIs started it. Nearing the 512 city-limit and just had a flurry of MPP offers come my way (I ALWAYS reject them). I can only assume World War I will happen in the next twenty or thirty turns. I should have the ability to build nukes not long after that.

When I get there I'll post my findings...

[HazieDaVampire]

hey, i'm looking these videos and did you know nukes can be fired from cannons?

[Carver]

Yeah, the US and others have long had nuclear artillery shells for tacticals to be used on the battlefield... much more convenient for terrorists too.

[N. Machiavelli]

The tactical nuclear artillery shells have been around since the mid-50's. The neat things were intended for rapid theater deployment with front-line troops, but were impractical in comparison to rockets (less range, larger crew, specialized cannon that broke alot, that whole 'radiation' thing that has been known to itch if you send troops in right after the blast hits, etc).

OT though, I've made ICBM's have 1 movement point so that they can be placed onto modified subs. I just wish they were a bit more destructive

[Carver]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
OT though, I've made ICBM's have 1 movement point so that they can be placed onto modified subs. I just wish they were a bit more destructive

Wow, is that all you changed in the editor? Having true SLBMs would be awesome as the tacticals being carried by Civ3 subs are completely unrealistic. US subs can sit in Charleston Harbor and hit Moscow as it is.

[N. Machiavelli]

There are a couple other flags that need to be changed as well, such as the stationary flag for ICBM's and the 'tactical missle only' flag for the Nuclear Subs. The only 'downside' is that this allows Nuclear subs to carry other air units. These were quick changes I made last night, I'm sure if I tweak it a bit more, I'll find a work-around.

[Col. Emil Furst]

Note that submarines do NOT carry ICBMs. They carry SLBM's.

[korn469]

a few quick responces

There are a couple other flags that need to be changed as well, such as the stationary flag for ICBM's and the 'tactical missle only' flag for the Nuclear Subs. The only 'downside' is that this allows Nuclear subs to carry other air units. These were quick changes I made last night, I'm sure if I tweak it a bit more, I'll find a work-around.

this is not the way to allow submarines to carry ICBMs...first thing is that you do not have to change nuclear submarines at all, every change you make will be to ICBMs, most likely what you did was select carry air units for nuclear subs, which isn't needed because ICBMs technically count as ground units

do this to ICBMs instead

remove "immobile"
add tactical missile
enable the load check box
make sure it has at least 1 movement point

this should work just fine

Civ3 subs can only carry...what, two or four tac-nukes? Bullcrap I say! Los Angeles-class Nuclear subs can carry I believe 16 ICBMsThat's one alteration I do, though I go 8 tac-nukes not 16. Also, thermo-nuclear warheads typically have multiple explosive devices, not just one.

i thought civ3 nuclear subs could only carry one tactical nuke, and it is the Ohio class that carries SLBMs not the Los Angles class

i would also argue that all units on the map most likely represent multiple units including nuclear missiles

basically my favorite change to make to nuclear weapons is to make them alot cheaper, because that means more gets built and the risks of a nuclear war are greater

[Coracle]

Originally posted by N. Machiavelli
The tactical nuclear artillery shells have been around since the mid-50's. The neat things were intended for rapid theater deployment with front-line troops, but were impractical. . .

Never heard them described as "neat" before.

Of course tactical nukes were indeed totally impractical and were never used and have been abandoned by front line troops. The only place they remain is in Civ 3. American tacfical nuclear tests resulted in the eventual deaths of many American soldiers involved in them.

One of the most unrealistic, and disturbing, aspects of this game is the cavalier way nukes are thrown around. There is good reason none have been used since 1945 - moral, political, religious, and other prohibitions and condemnation, along with massive RADIATION POLLUTION. None of which is in the game, thus making it all the more unrealistic. Also missing from the game is a Quick Response option to a First Strike.

All of this is why the Manhattan Project was modded out of my version long ago.

[Carver]

The Ohio Class/Trident subs of the US Navy carry 24 SLBMs. Each of those missles can have 8 (or more) warheads, allthough I think they've reduced the numbers of warheads with the end of the cold war.

[korn469]

One of the most unrealistic, and disturbing, aspects of this game is the cavalier way nukes are thrown around. There is good reason none have been used since 1945 - moral, political, religious, and other prohibitions and condemnation

i actually agree with this

along with massive RADIATION POLLUTION.

nuclear winter would be better, and more realistic, i don't love the way that fallout is currently handled but it's not that bad

Also missing from the game is a Quick Response option to a First Strike

M.A.D. is there, it's just not as flashy or as quick as i'd like it, so i'd give a nod to this

All of this is why the Manhattan Project was modded out of my version long ago

i completely disagree with this approach, if you make nukes cheap enough then basically you can see just how horrible they are, try 70 for tacticals and 150 for ICBMs, then things can get really messy really quick

[YC4B4U]

Can't say that I have actually used a nuke. I have built a couple but not done anything with them.

I guess the only time I would use them was if my civ was attacked with nukes or if I was about to die anyway...

P.S. Not only can nukes be fired from planes, trains and automobiles ... but can be fired as torpedoes and depth charges! I would want the depth charge to be in very deep water otherwise you will be surfing from Hawaii to Alaska