I started a new on this topic since it felt it didn't belong to any other thread

Some ideas:

- Increase Nuclear blast range by one but lower Fallout percentage to 50%
- Add a nuclear weapon technology (requering Balistic missle technology, nuclear reactors and computers), which allows the construction of ICBM
- Every building should be destructable, even nuclear silos and bunkers, its just a matter of dropping more nuckes. It would be nice if there were diferent catogories of building surviveabkity when attacked by nuclear weapons
- Add a Nuclear Missile Submarine ("Boomer") unit which can Launch itself as a nuclear missle

And a unit that tries to shot the nukes when the city is being attacked.

I agree the "bomb" tech should be seperated from the other nuke tech. Perhaps the Atomic Bomb tech would allow nuclear bombers to be built. It would have the same range as the regular bomber, but it's bombardment button would be the nuclear attack button. Also agree that they should be more destructive. There should be some kind of rebuilding penalty in the city as well, to simulate the recovery effort. Not sure how this would be done. Currently, with only ICBM's available, any nuclear conflict is an all out annihilation, and the game is pretty much over at that point. Yeah, I know things would pretty much be over IRL with a large scale exchange, but with the nuclear bombers, you could pretty much have the WWII style limited bombing.

I'd like tiered nukes, yeah... like a Nuclear Bomb (dropped by a bomber) at first, then a Tactical Nuclear Missile (ala Civ3, launchable from subs), and then the full-scale ICBM. Possibly a 'Backpack Nuke' option for Spies, as well.

Suggestion: Make the nuclear component separate from the delivery component, to allow a range of options. The basic nuclear tech (and the wonder) allows production of the standard Nuke. This is an immobile unit that has a special ability that can sacrifice itself, attaching itself to a unit (rather like a Warlord, the effect appears as a promotion). If attached to a Bomber, that Bomber will drop a Nuke on it's next attack, then revert to being a normal bomber. It could also be attached to a Tactical Missile or an ICBM (both of which are just one-use ranged bombard without a nuclear warhead... a conventional ICBM would be a fairly potent bombard, but still nothing to get too excited about). Requiring an additional espionage technology of some sort in addition to the standard nuclear tech, the Mini Nuke could be developed... cheaper and lower damage then the regular nuke, but can be carried by Spies (and possibly Assassins, as per your preference) in addition to everything else that can carry a nuke. (Everything that normally affects spies and assassins applies here... if security is tight, the attempt may fail... if security is lax, the spy may succeed in escaping, having set a timer before fleeing) Requiring a more advanced nuclear technology, the Mega Nuke can be built. This is much more expensive then the standard Nuke, and can only be carried by ICBMs. It is, of course, horribly destructive.

Final thought: Allow Nukes of all sorts to be transported by most normal transport units, and captured if the unit is defeated. Also, allow nukes to trigger themselves without a delivery method (exploding at ground zero). As such, if a delivery method is not forthcoming, and you're desperate for a nuclear attack (possibly due to being on the receiving end of one), you can simply load it onto a transport ship (or a truck, for that matter) and sail it up next to your foe's city, then detonate it. Less effective then normal, but better then leaving it to rot.

Backpack Nuke :lol:

The effects of nuclear fallout should be on a large scale

read this http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuclearwar1.html

Mega nukes should be just called Fusion (or hydrogen) bombs and available with fusion. Currently only US and Russia have that capability.

Nuclear fallout should fall in the core 9 squares (obviously) and randomly spread several squares in any direction reflecting it being carried by wind. Don't know if it is feasible, though.

Mega nukes should be just called Fusion (or hydrogen) bombs and available with fusion. Currently only US and Russia have that capability.


Wrong. As a French retired soldier, i can tell that France also had this kind of weapon. Each of our Nuclear submarine carry 16 missiles with 6 warheads each. So a total of 96 warheads by submarine. England also had this weapon. They even get it before France.


Nuclear fallout should fall in the core 9 squares (obviously) and randomly spread several squares in any direction reflecting it being carried by wind. Don't know if it is feasible, though.

mmm. The problem is not to know if the weapon is a A-Bomb or a H-Bomb but its intrisec power. You can build small Hydrogen Bomb, less powerful than a medium A-Bomb. On the other hand a big (20+ mega tons) atomic bomb can be build. Far most dangerous than a common 150 kilo tons Hydrogene bomb.
So, no ! We will not change this.

Hian the Frog.

btw I heard that those H-bombs are based not truly on thermonucler reaction, because it is not possible for us to produce them in size of the bomb - not a factory. I heard that H-bombs are just upgraded A-bombs.

Coming back to topic, talking about Nukes, we could implement Neutron Bomb - Nukes without nuclear fallout. Sounds nice isn't it? :)

Nuclear fallout should fall in the core 9 squares

Hell no maps arent big enought to make fallout so big.

Also, take a look at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, how they look after being bombed, and what is the level of radiation there.

I was thinking make the old reagan MX missle"the Peacekeeper" ,and it destroys the entire city . To balance it out ;limit the number to the size of the map and make it very expensive too make and certain tech requirements computer , satilites , fusion mannhatan project etc. Also give many negative effects if used like 2 or 3 unhappiness per city and diplomat negatives as well . But also it should give an upper hand to the one that pocess it force vassalage tribute so on

I just dont like it.
,and it destroys the entire city
Hiroshima and Nagasaki again...

it is definitly realistic

Sometimes this team puts more attention to gameplay and fun than reality. Still saying it is definitly realistic that nukes completelly destroys cities, that means there are no survivors of nuclear explosion, and both Japanese cities are destroyed...

In Hiroshima about 200.000 people have died. Takakura Akiko, has wrtien(or said) that it was a "black rain". He was 300meters from center of explosion.

As for Nagasaki, the bomb was a 2 times bigger and made from plutonium (on Hiroshima it was uranium). Bomb was 3km(about 2miles) inaccurate and blowed up above Urakami (wonder if you know what that is).

For your knowlage atomic bombs are made to explode above ground, so that it has longest range, and its power doesnt hit only the ground. (i met a lot thinking that NB should explode when hitting ground)

Well, the bombs in the first 2 nuclear bomb are fire crakers compared to the power of a modern ICBM like SATAN ICBM. a Satan ICBM missle has a force of 25 MEGAton Tnt, which is more than 10 times more powerfull than the Atomic bomb at Hiroshima which has only a force of 15 KILOton of TNT. Now image what would hapen to a city like newyork when hit by such a weapon, it will simply evaporate and create a huge crater.

Because the devopment of nuclear weapons produces radiation (on earth, over 700 nuclear warhead are detoneted in the surface resulting resulting in 700 billion radio active particles to be released into the atmosphere), upon delopment of nuclear weapons, some global pollution effects should be applied. For example 1 pollution effect in every city.

For details read the following:
http://www.vialls.com/transpositions/smoking.html

Ok so what do you suggest ? Total destruction or ICBM war till no civ have a city ? Know that there can be few ICBMs fired before you may even contact the one you are in war and launching missiles.

And most importantly, remember that in World map most european civs have 3 cities. So like 3 ICBM and a civ is destroyed, you think its "ok". Game maps are small and cities i beleve should be considered to be Provinces not Cities it self. So ICBM would not destroy NYC but NY state.

Or a German Munich city (in WTR world map it is soppoused to be placed in Warsaw place, and its cultural borders would fit The Whole Poland Country. Now one ICBM destroys the city and polutesa all its radius... 1 ICBM destroying a country of size of Poland.
If there is EVER to be made such a weapon, its blast would destroy life on the planet.

Ok so what do you suggest ? Total destruction or ICBM war till no civ have a city ? Know that there can be few ICBMs fired before you may even contact the one you are in war and launching missiles.

And most importantly, remember that in World map most european civs have 3 cities. So like 3 ICBM and a civ is destroyed, you think its "ok". Game maps are small and cities i beleve should be considered to be Provinces not Cities it self. So ICBM would not destroy NYC but NY state.

Or a German Munich city (in WTR world map it is soppoused to be placed in Warsaw place, and its cultural borders would fit The Whole Poland Country. Now one ICBM destroys the city and polutesa all its radius... 1 ICBM destroying a country of size of Poland.
If there is EVER to be made such a weapon, its blast would destroy life on the planet.

Hello Anaztazioch,

You will be surprised but i agree with you. Nothing more can be made about Nukes without changing gameplay balance. You are right when you say that most european countries had 3 cities on TR world map. Can somebody imagine that a country than France, england or Poland will be destroyed with only 3 Nukes ? Stupid... it's stupid.
At least 10-12 nukes are needed to destroy the biggest city of Europe (London). So, i let you imagine what it necessary for a whole country .....
I have to add the Allied countries (USA, FRANCE, UK) prefer medium H-Bomb (150 kilotons) than big city-buster. It's easier to use, it allow you more flexibility in target choice.
To conclude, NEVER NEVER forget this. It's the most important point. In these 3 countries, Nukes are still seen as DEFENSIVE WEAPONS. The doctine is very easy: If you invade us, try to destroy us with NBC weapons, we will use our Nukes to kill and destroy you !

Last but not least, Nukes are not a priority today. Not at all. We have many work to finish on other interesting add-ons.

Hian the Frog.

Hello
I have two more ideas about nukes, wich I used in Civ III (making mods :p )

1. Nukes should have a negative influence on people.

For example:
1 nuke = -2 happy faces
2 nukes = -4 happy faces etc.
Nobody like to live next to nuclear weapon. Also Manhatan Project should produce unhapiness. That would make a higher social cost of producing nukes in democratic civilizations, and lower in totalitaristic. I supose that should be easy to implement.


2. Nukes should not be able to be destroyed/disbanded or if disbanded shuld produce permanent pollution

Sad truth. Once created plutonium is a time bomb. There is not a way to utilize it, except burying deeply inside the ground (or water), which will just move the problem to future. Until they are launched to space, to sun for example, the problem will stay.

I believe this can be implemented by adjusting the environmentalsim civic

But besides, giving negative happiness modification, it should also give pollution to all cities. The reason is that the first nuclear tested weapons, is wat we now calldirty bombs, which means that only a small percentage (-2%) is split, and therefore the remaining 98% is blown into the atmostphere where it will remain radiactive for the next 50.000 years. the reason the made dirty bombs, and no efficient boms is because it is the fastest way to produce a nuclear device.

btw I heard that those H-bombs are based not truly on thermonucler reaction, because it is not possible for us to produce them in size of the bomb - not a factory. I heard that H-bombs are just upgraded A-bombs.

Coming back to topic, talking about Nukes, we could implement Neutron Bomb - Nukes without nuclear fallout. Sounds nice isn't it? :)


The whole neutron bomb thing is an urban legend of sorts. There is no Neutron Bomb, that miraculously only kills living things, leaving no fallout or residual effects. If this were the case, there wouldn't be any regular nuclear weapons. Some bombs were tested that yielded a higher than normal burst of
free neutrons, but the part about little/no blast or fallout wasn't true. The neutron bombs reportedly had about 40% less blast characteristics of a comparable yield bomb.

Yeah... Neutron Bombs are pretty much just low-yield tactical nukes. Their effects are pretty weak compared to most nukes, and as such, they don't leave fallout.

Also, all this about :mad: and :yuck: from nukes drastically overstates the problem. Barring a full-scale nuclear war, the effects of long-lasting radiation in the atmosphere from nuclear tests and such are minimal... and anti-nuclear protests fall under the category of war weariness.

and anti-nuclear protests fall under the category of war weariness.

Well its a slight differance.
USA for instance, war weariness for war in Iraq.
Now imaginate a "war wearines" when US will use a nuke in Iraql. Even after the war will be over, war weariness will calm, but anti-nukes protest will still be on.

Not under Vertico's system. There, when you launch the nukes, the :mad: goes away! (Which is ridiculous) I suggest that protests be tied to civics.

Recommendations:

Under Despotism or Police State: No :mad: from nukes.
Under Hereditary Rule: Launching nukes results in 1 :mad: in all cities for 5 turns.
Under Representation: Launching nukes results in 1 :mad: in all cities for 10 turns.
Under Universal Suffrage: Launching nukes results in 2 :mad: in all cities for 10 turns.
Under Free Speech: Launching nukes results in 2 :mad: in all cities for 10 turns.
Under Environmentalism: Having nukes (any number) in a city results in 1 :mad: in that city. Launching nukes results in 3 :mad: in all cities for 10 turns.

:yuck: from nukes should be based on the global percentage of fallout-afflicted squares. I'm thinking 1 :yuck: in all cities globally, per 1% of the globe affected by fallout.

from nukes should be based on the global percentage of fallout-afflicted squares. I'm thinking 1 in all cities globally, per 1% of the globe affected by fallout.

I remember in Civ III the global warmin witch was clearing jungles, forests changing grass into plains than into desert (flood plains).
In WTR you get +0.33 unhealthiness from desert +0.50 from flood.

There was global warming in civ3!

And my last sugestion regarding nukes:
I don't know if it is already implemented in beta 4, but Manhatan project shuld be a National Project.
Why?
Answer is easy - Every civilization should be forced to develop its own nuclear plans. Fact that for example USA has atomic bombs doesn't change the fact that Iran has not. They have to start such project from the begining, which concerns other countries. In TR should be the same I think.

Good idea, but manhatan project cost should be reduced this way.

I mean it will take like 20+ turns to build it, and thats a lower resarch (wealth, resarch) and less unit production.

I dont know how high manhatan project cost should be set to, both to dont make it too easy to build, and not too hard.

Another thing is... well why does the Russians must name their nuclear project call "Manhatan" ? ;P

You got my interest in this one Vertico.

And my last sugestion regarding nukes:
I don't know if it is already implemented in beta 4, but Manhatan project shuld be a National Project.
Why?
Answer is easy - Every civilization should be forced to develop its own nuclear plans. Fact that for example USA has atomic bombs doesn't change the fact that Iran has not. They have to start such project from the begining, which concerns other countries. In TR should be the same I think.

Don't forget the spies!
Sovjet made an own bomb only 5 years after the US.
How about having the same system, but whit some changings.
The manhattanprojekt woud be made only once, but it would allow EVERYONE to start their own national nuclear projects if they only have some needed technology.

Sad truth. Once created plutonium is a time bomb. There is not a way to utilize it, except burying deeply inside the ground (or water), which will just move the problem to future. Until they are launched to space, to sun for example, the problem will stay.

Not entirely true breeder reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breeder_reactor) use plutonium and have much better fuel economy than regular reactors. Although work is being done to make them economically viable, the tech has been around since the 1960s.

Also, if people are interested in making more realistic nukes, this (http://www.fas.org/nuke/intro/nuke/7906/) is a good thing to read. A study by the US Government on effects and whatnot.

In any case, is it really that important to improve nukes? The time that they're actually in play isn't super long.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=239634

Very nice ideas in that mod.
Can it be somehow implemented in TR?

Probably. But of course only AFTER BtS conversion.