Announcement

**Ijuin** · July 27, 2002, 11:20

Yeah, in CTP a nuke would totally obliterate a city. Previously I had suggested that a nuke hitting a garrisoned city would destroy population, units, and improvements like it already does in CivIII, but a nuke hitting a city with no units in it (like if it has already had them all killed by conventional or nuclear attack earlier that turn) would obliterate the city.

Some may complain that this would allow a nuked city to rush/draft a unit during its turn and thus save itself from being destroyed by the next nuke attack, but I say, if you, the player, are planning on destroying a city via nukes, then you should have launched that second nuke on the same turn as the first one!

**WarpStorm** · July 27, 2002, 12:27

Have you tried them lately? They will wipe out half the units out right as well as half the population and buildings. In addition, (and I 'm not sure when they added this, but I don't think it was like this out of the box) units take a major attack. I find that in my games the damage to units is roughly 80% dead and the rest injured.

No it isn't an AC Planet Buster, but it is pretty good.

**DCMike** · July 27, 2002, 21:01

Maybe the tactical nuke should be as you describe, but certainly not the ICBM. I don't think there would be much left of city after a 20 megaton nuke hit a city. And what might be left certainly wouldn't be useful. Check the following link out:

American Experience | PBS

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/bomb/sfeature/blastmap.html

Watch full films from TV's most-watched history series.

**Ijuin** · July 28, 2002, 08:06

Maybe destroying a city with one blast would be more realistic, but it would be unbalancing to the game.

For example, say that an opposing civilization is about to launch its space ship. In order to stop it, you launch an ICBM, completely obliterating the rival civ's capital city. You have now ensured that you will win the game with this single attack, without having to use any land troops to invade and seize the enemy capital.

**DCMike** · July 28, 2002, 10:29

Hmm, good point Ijuin. There must be a way around that problem. I'll have to think about that one. In the meantime I'll just be happy that SDI is no longer 100% effective like it was in previous versions of Civ

**Sonic** · July 28, 2002, 12:14

BTW, nukes didn't wiped Hiroshima. Maybe there should also be Thermonuclear nuke option. It would wipe of a city and make that plot where it stood and 8 tiles around a desert, but it would cost much and would raise global heating to hell high levels, so many tiles all over the map would become desert, in your territory also, so you'd have to think before using it.

**ChaotikVisions** · July 28, 2002, 12:41

Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

**Craftsman** · July 29, 2002, 14:03

Idea for more interesting nukes!!!

I just had an idea for nukes!

According to Ijuin:

Maybe destroying a city with one blast would be more realistic, but it would be unbalancing to the game.
For example, say that an opposing civilization is about to launch its space ship. In order to stop it, you launch an ICBM, completely obliterating the rival civ's capital city. You have now ensured that you will win the game with this single attack, without having to use any land troops to invade and seize the enemy capital.

This is a very good point, and I agree with this.

Also, another good idea came from ChaotikVisions:

Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

Finally, my idea is:

If a city population is below or equals to 12, for example, and it never growed beyond 12 before, then a nuke would raze it.

For example, if a city population is now 11, but it was 13 before a settler was build, nukes would never be capable of razing it.

I´m new to Civ3 (playing since last Saturday) and, as far as I remember, a city needs a Hospital to grow beyond size 12. I think that Hospitals come before nukes in the tech tree. Not quite sure... So, we could protect against nuke razing by populating at least our Capital beyond size 12.

Comments?
Thanks!
Craftsman.

**trickey** · July 29, 2002, 14:07

Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

**Craftsman** · July 29, 2002, 14:13

trickey said:

Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

Well, maybe only if the Capital was hit. If any city hit would cause disorder, IMHO it would be unplayable...

**GhengisFarb™** · July 29, 2002, 17:16

Originally posted by trickey
Another idea for nukes would be that it would throw your civ into a major dissorder. the people wouldnt like it very much.

I agree with Craftsman, it might have the effect of Sept 11 if its not your capital and just piss the population off. Maybe it would reduce war weariness in the victim civ or increase the ability to draft forces.

**Craftsman** · July 29, 2002, 20:10

Talking about nukes, in the Civ3 FAQ is said that M.A.D. (Mutual Assured Destruction) isn´t used in Civ3. What is M.A.D.? Is it the case of pre-targeted cities for nuclear attacks (if our civ is nuked, a nuclear counter-attack is automatically launched)? Or I´m just wrong?

Nukes, nukes... There´s something about nukes.

**Coracle** · July 29, 2002, 20:39

You are right.

Originally posted by ChaotikVisions
Nukes are fairly realistic in terms of gameplay and actually having a 'balanced' super weapon. Only thing I would add in is making nuclear waste a unique pollution, and having it cause plague in the city its near every turn or so. So that way the fallout is accurately represented.

In GAMEPLAY they are realistic - not in reality in regards to their poliitical and moral consequences.

Nukes are unrealistic because we have no quick response first strike option. MORE IMPORTANTLY - and why I NEVER use them - is there is NO RADIATION POISONING. There are people who have suggested TERRAFORMING the earth with nukes!

So you are correct. There must be a RADIATION POISON POLLUTION factor. Otherwise, it is more fantasy, such as disappearing garrisons during flipping, or razing cities.

**Dimorier Maximus** · July 30, 2002, 00:37

Personally, I hate nukes. I know they are realistic and all, but I feel they detract from the game more than anything else. I used to use them in Civ1 sometimes just to jack around, but they ruin the game, IMHO.

Another thing that ruins the game: polluted squares.

If I were making a variant, I would have no nukes, and no polluted squares.