I would like it if nuclear strikes were more realastic as it is now There is a 50% chance of destroying the units and you kill half the pouplation. Not realastic at ALL.
There should be a uniqe stat for nukes known as megatons the higer the megatons the more units you can kill and the more pouplation you can kill.
The aftereffects should also be more realastic such as after a nuclear strike there should be radiactive clouds that can blow around and radation that lingers causing helath problems and ruining the land.
In addtion the world should NOT declare war on you after a nuke strike that is stupid and unrealstic as well.
Insatead say you are a democracy and you just strucka pouplation center of a enemy and killed many people. That should piss your citizens off causing them to riot and revolt and possibly overthrow you. Also if you repeadtely nuke civillians then the army could refuse to follow orders and not strike or rivals of your government could plot to have you overthrown or assinate din the totaliarn governments.
However it should still impact world opnion of you negatively causing embargos and stuff.

Then I think there should be diffrention between tactial nukes and strikes and the city killing ICBM's.
A tactial nuke should be weaker and be more for battelfied use and it should not have as bad reprcussions as striking a city. There should be a diffrentation between nuking a city and nuking military since your people and the world will be less pissed at you for strking military. Also the afteraffects of a tactial nuke should be shorther and less damaging. Basically a really powerful bomb.
I hope this is somehow implemented.

Since when are armies humanitarian? Nuke someone and they stop fighting? Whatever.

I think there should be more political fallout- but in all honesty my cynicism says that won't mirror reality when there is a nucleur war finally on this stupid planet staffed by apes.

hehehehehehehee That was cool said Dearmad..

However, I agree with Silver... Very realistically said.

It would be realistic when other civs get scared when you nuke a civ.
And when you nuke a civ who hasn't nukes, the civ should want to have peace with you to avoid more nukes.
And you should be able to ask to destroy a nuke "before it destroys us all :D " like in civ2.

How is any of that realistic?

If the U.S. were to nuke, say, Iran, North Korea or China, I think it likely several countries would declare war on the U.S.

And units can survive nuclear strikes -- if they are in bunkers. The blast wave from a nuke is powerful and destructive, but it can be survived in a bunker ... a direct strike on a bunker will usually destroy it (and anyone in it), however.

I agree there could be more diversity in nukes, however ... earliest would/could be Hiroshima/Nagasaki-type -- dropped from aircraft (so must launch from city/airfield with limited range) and (relative to more advanced nukes) low-yield.

Then, perhaps, jet bomber-based h-bombs which are more powerful (and from jets, more powerful) as well as tactical nukes (can fire from a specialized artillery gun, so doesn't have to launch from airbase/city, but would have a fairly short range). And, finally, missile-based nukes, both tactical and strategic (ICBM).

If you are the only nation with nukes, then if you are in a war, the nation you are targetting should be much more likely to negotiate surrender. If, however, your enemy has friends (not necessarily allied) who have nukes, then its nuclear-armed friends should form an immediate alliance and declare war on you. If your enemy has nukes itself, of course, it should feel free to use them at will, and the world would blame you for instigating the nuclear war.

I am not sure where your idea of 'realism' comes from, but it doesn't seem to come from the real world. Anyone using a WMD these days -- whether its the United States or a rogue terrorist -- is going to get condemned across the globe.

You're all MAD HAHAHAHAHAHHA!!

Silver, your description of how nukes should do better in the game was the most gory piece of text I've ever reada!! I wouldn't want to play with you on multiplayer :p

I had fun reading it, but I also agree on tuning the system. Not to make the nukes more powerfull but to change how their use and possesion react with other civs.

Well the 50% pop and unit destruction is kinda unrealistic, but then again I would have lovedd to see multitiled Cities, that would have also given room to urban combat, and to different fallout options. If you had multi tiled cities, there could limits as to population that is around military complexes depending on your government (keyword human shields) and different reprecussions if you nuked the pop center of a city or "just" the military complex.

I think that after the un is built you could sign a treaty against the use of nukes before that you can use them without the world declaring war on you, and if you don't sign the treaty everyone gets angry at you

Why not have it like the realworld, the first couple civs to get nukes try to stop everyone else from getting them. In addition need lots of different nukes, I hate being stuck with basic ICBMs and Tacticals, You should have, A-Bombs made obselte by Nuclear Bombs dropped from jets, then have tacticals (SRBM), MRBMS and ICBMs

The problem with trying to make the effects of nukes realistic is that no one really knows what would happen. There have been two real nuke attacks in history, and that was very early in nuke-history.

Megaton-yield nukes are so inefficient that no one makes them. The USSR made some but the US didn't (how's that for a contradiction of the previous sentence?). It is much more efficient to use multiple smaller-yielders. But if you detonate them ALMOST simultaneously, the first one might well disarm the others (fatricide).

Political effects are quite arbitrary. It would depend on the political climate, and a warring world may easily be different than "today's" reality. Perhaps nuke use would be "justified" due to the evil-ness of the target or becuase of desperation.

It would be SOoo nice if we never find out IRL, wouldn't it? :eek:

Since theyre leaving out pollution (what about war-weariness?), the effects
of nukes should be a dramatic decrease in health for cities (friendly, enemy and neutral) in circles around the drop center. That means a radius of x squares will be heavily affected, radius of x+2 less affected and so on.
As for war-weariness, if it exists in Civ4, it should double after nukes are used (by any side).

As for war-weariness, if it exists in Civ4, it should double after nukes are used (by any side).
Uhm not shure If Im recent on this but I thought Fat boy and little man were tossed because of high war waryness. Also countries that are allied or freindly to you and hostile towards the recipient of the "package" should become more freindly or atleast not less while those allied with the recipient or freindly to him should become more hostile towards you.
Having everyone get ticked off at you is not realistic. consider this: "oh this guy has no scruples to user Nukes, having no visible sense of self preservation, I willl just declare war on him, eventhough I am also at war with his enemy thus opening myself to nuclear bludgening from both sides. YEA thats the ticket"

N3pomuk: It was Fat MAN and Little BOY. But I knew what you meant.

They should be like SMAC. They should destroy the city.

Using nukes should cause serious problems. The phrase "bomb you back to the stone age" comes to mind. If everyone is tossing nukes around, your abilty to wage war after should be greatly diminished.

I don't care if it is realistic as long as it works in the context of the game. The problem, in my opinion, with nukes in CivIII is that they cost so much and do so little. If they are going to cost so many gold to build, they should do a lot more damage.

I also agree that the world should not declare war on you. In fact, if you wipe out a couple of cities of a really powerful civ it would be "realistic" if other civs got scared into peace with you. I mean, who would want to declare war on someone who could "nuke you into the stone age"

I mean, who would want to declare war on someone who could "nuke you into the stone age"

For principle but mostly to avoid that the said country nukes everybody back to the stone age latter.

Let's say China goes berseek and starts nuking Japan, Taiwan and South Korea. Now it shows that China is a country gone mad so the West should better unite and declare war to China before China is in any position to nuke most of the western world. Prevention.

Now of course, if a country like the USA were to go berseek and started nuking everybody, it would be harder to stop them, since their supply of nukes is pretty much unlimited and with good range so probably the world would just pray and ask for peace. But if the US would continue it's rampage, then you have nothing else to loose and you would see the world dow the US - probably too late and without really a chance of winning but for principle. At least the US would have paid dearly for their "madness".

Now, in a case where one country nukes another once or twice (USA on IRAN, RUSSIA on UKRAINE, etc), it would be a very complicated situation, I'm not sure all countires would dow but it's not impossible either depending on the context.

JavalTigar: thank you for catching my mistake... somehow I always get this mixed.

Also you have a good Idea, hisoshima and nagasaki were gone... look at the pictures, 50% my foot. anyways why not finaly bring multi tiled cities and that way with variable size explosions (like in SMAC) you could decide as to wich parts you want to obliterate.

Threads like these make me want Civ4 to be more immersive. I'd hope for different discussions about WoMD. People making a decision not only based on if you'd get some bang for your buck if you build them.

Quebec Patriote: I like what you said in response to my comments. I agree totally, in fact I think my point was simply that it depends on context. Your examples were good - that was what I was trying to say.

nuclear weapons r a bit simplified in civ. at it's simplest it shud be expanded to about three types:
1. Missiles - loadable onto a bomber or submarine, with a 1-3 tile range
2. Short-Range - that u can either put in a city, or a "silo" improvement, with only a small X tile range limit
3. ICBM - global missile that can hit any target - but perhaps more susceptible to SDI counter

and if there's any space, maybe medium range missiles... but work it so that the longer the range is (the higher the missile goes), the more likely SDI may work against it. also, diff age versions of a nuclear weapon may vary the length of pollution/neg. health effects or the radius of the blast - maybe early ones only affect the 1 tile while later ones affect the 9 tiles around.

also, transporting nukes requiring a road/railroad network, where it can be susceptible to capture (which the opposing part can either use, or sell back/to another civ).


what's hard to capture is the fear of nuclear weapons - like everyone has been saying, when nuclear weapons came out, the first reaction wasn't hate - if nething, countries were more eager to side with nuclear powers to either be protected or gain the tech to produce their own. so to begin with, attitudes towards nuclear nations shud change.

second is the arsenal game - even tho let's say, pakistan has nukes, their capabilities is much more limited both by distance capabilities and number, while the united states has over 10,000 missiles (in contrast to the 30-52 suspected in pakistan). so the us isn't as afraid of pakistan as pakistan wud be of the us. those who have similar amounts of nuclear weapons shud be locked into some sort of nuclear arms race - like the us/ussr or india/pakistan or iran/israel, where they have the option of pouring resouces to either match up their opponents, or propose a disarming (perhaps high nuclear arsenals can produce war weariness, unhappiness, nuclear winter disaster, etc.).

If the U.S. were to nuke, say, Iran, North Korea or China, I think it likely several countries would declare war on the U.S.

I doubt it. Who would? Russia? Ok, maybe. Maybe! But Great Britan, Canada or France? I doubt it. Maybe Syria, Lebanon and Luxembourg, but not many. There could be trade blockades, protests, withdrawal of embassies, expelling of diplomats, etc. But war?

And there is the historical side - USA used 2 nuclear bombs versus Japan. Japan soon after that surrended. Until then they were more than willing to defend every inch of Japan, like the Germans did.

Until then they were more than willing to defend every inch of Japan, like the Germans did.


Actually, I think they were more willing to defend their homeland than germany did. Japan had numerous suicide kalmilkaze pilots and units. One japanese soldier didn't stopping fighting for Japan until 1975 when he realized the war was over when he was in the Philipines.

I doubt it. Who would? Russia? Ok, maybe. Maybe! But Great Britan, Canada or France? I doubt it. Maybe Syria, Lebanon and Luxembourg, but not many. There could be trade blockades, protests, withdrawal of embassies, expelling of diplomats, etc. But war?

And there is the historical side - USA used 2 nuclear bombs versus Japan. Japan soon after that surrended. Until then they were more than willing to defend every inch of Japan, like the Germans did.

haha yeah honestly if the us somehow decide to nuke.... u still wudn't declare war on a country with over 10,000 nukes and just clearly shown that it's willing to use them. there wud be other ways of dealing with it and condemning the action, but not an actual war prob.

here's the thing too... not that it's ever happened, but if u know u're gonna lose, what's to stop u from taking down the world with u. i think that's what makes n.korea so dangerous is that, if kim jong il really does have nukes and we engage in armed combat, he has enuf hatred against several nations that, if he's going down, i'm sure he'd have no problem taking down japan, the us, s. korea with him.

I'd like to see ACBMs/ABMs cant remember which to help destroy incoming nukes they would have to be more expensive than normal nukes to make it realistic but they would be fun also add in MERVs.Think some one else might have mentioned them. not sure though.They also should be much more effective and have fewer consequences.No more you nuke some one and everyone goses to war with you maybe his friends but the people allied to you especialy if they are at war with the person you nuke.Also they should pretty much wipe out the population somthing like 90% not destroy the city though.A nuke wouldn't destroy a huge city like Mexico city or New York would it.

Bond would be in the white house and have assassinated bush (or whoever made the decision) before you guys could say "geeze i always wondered what that button did!"

And no hopefully no one would be dumb enough to enter nuclear war, it's not a pretty thing and would tend to end in the destruction of mankind.