SMAC had that cool weapon that could level half a continent. I want it back!

so what would be the range of destruction 10 tiles? 5 tiles? those things would be absoulutly devasating, and would have to be VERY expensive. available only with both integrated defense and stealth. and of course a limited range. also with the missle defense thing (a 75% chance of bieng shot down, unless that is chnaged w/ civ4) you would be VERY mad that you 2000 shield unit was shot down

Ten is just a little much :-)
How about 3?

reasonable, then a cost of say 1500, 1750? but yeah, 3 seems reasonable (it's aproaching the limit of bieng a game breaker)

exactly with radius 4 I once destroide 5 or 6 cities with one shot, leaving a small ocean in their place. I liked havin to buy each of the anti nuke satalites, each one giving a chance to shoot down a nukeinsted of just one thing that gives 75% chance...

I never get that far in the game 4 it to matter for me.

Would be nice to have Planetbusters in Civ4. We could get them in a fifth, Future Era! :)

I remember the first time I used that thing! I was testing it out, and detonated it next to my capital thinking it would be like a Civ2 nuke and.... :eek:


It would be nice to have an adjustable range, and the effect on terrain (i.e., change to terrain is -1 (grass to plains, plains to desert), -2, (pretty much to desert), -3 (to coast), -4 (sea), -5 (ocean). Something like that.

Planet busters = bad idea! Civ4 ought to move away from its warmongering roots and introduce more intellectual governing practices, along w/ the war component. The current level of nuclear armaments is more than effective, its already a 9 tile radius. Now, if you want the graphics changed so you can see a crater where the nuke is detonated, then okay. Something similar to how artillery damages terrain in Conquests.

I agree, no planetbusters. If you want future ages play SMAC or CTP. I'd rather see improvements to the civlized aspect of the game. It is called civilization, after all.

I would like that idea if there was an easy way to deactivate it from the game (Like when you are in the setu screen there is a button you click for weather you want it or not.

No, Civ is historical and should stay that way.

I'm not sure about planet busters but I want better nuclear weapons. Realisticly an ICBM wouldn't reduce a city by 90% population and have a 50% chance of killing units it would totally wipe out the city and kill all the units. I would like to see Tactical Nukes and ICBMs cause radioactivity in the tiles around the nuked cities, that way the AI couldn't just settle in that exact place for about 250 years.

SMAC had that cool weapon that could level half a continent. I want it back!
You must be that dr Blaufeldt James Bond was constantly fighting :eek: Would that leave you someone to play with?

I'd like to see MIRV's and changeable size of the ICBM's and istead of pollution, it should create crater (repairable) and radiation (permanent). about planet busters, I don't know. Isn't that a bit overkill? 10 ICBMs get the job done good enough.

ok someone said to get away from the Warmongering stuff NO! never ever u have to have mass amounts of war otherwise its just a diplomatic game although i like diploamtic stuff i would like to be able to blow the Fu*k outta someone if i wanted too.

From the looks of things, we might be able to edit units in Python if it's that integrated. That way, you can give nukes varying radii and effects.

i.e., imagine a "nuke" that, when it strikes, gives an X radius of damage (and even turn the terrain type - i.e., flat terrain to coast), plus turns all terrain around the radius into hills. If it's already a hill, to a mountain. If it's a mountain, then a snow capped mountain, or volcano. All cities, units, improvements within X tiles of the circle could be destroyed. You could also rename the nuke to "meteor". I think that's the power of the scripting engine -- to do just about anything we want with the game. I wonder if this could go as far as "seeing an animation" and sound effects. (i.e., a 1 second delay before the next set of tiles changes).

We should not have artificial weapons powerful enough to qualify as planetbusters - before long, the AIs will start using them willy-nilly with no thought for environment or consequences. That might indeed put an end to the game, however careful the human player is. Nuclear weapons as currently simulated are bad enough for me.

If anything is allowed to cause damage on that scale, or indeed globally, it should be an EXTREMELY improbable random event, which happens only once in 20 or 30 games on average. Even then, there should be enough cities & units left for the game to continue. And the game setup would contain an option to disable natural disasters, as it does for pollution in Civ2.

You know what would be fun? Just for "ha has"? An expensive, high tech unit that will blow up the entire planet (the Dr. Strangelove device?). The AI will be programmed to never build the device. At the begining there can be an option to exclude the device from the game entirely, like for multiplayer games. When you use the device, it starts a cut scene of your people activating the device and then cuts to a view from space of the earth being blown apart or perhaps imploding into a black hole. Then the game ends, it counts as a loss. You could shoot for it if you have absolutely no chance of winning the game (while expensive, its much less expensive then the spacecraft).

I still think that current ICBMs should be able to level mountains, flatten hills, and blow all terrain immediately adjacent flat.

The target square would be completely flat desert, radiated. All the adjacent squares would be partially radiated, hills and mountains remain, but the rest turn into desert.

I'm suprised the AI isn't programmed with a sense for Mutually Assured Destruction.

Mutually Assured Destruction? I've never actually had an all-out nuclear holocaust in my games - just a few cities nuked here and there. No-one seems able to build a big enough nuclear arsenal for total genocide of a rival empire.

If these planetbusters were supported, some kind of forebearance by the AI players would be essential.

No planetbusters, but nukes should be more powerful. You should be able to upgrade the power of your nuke to an H bomb, and then it would totally destroy the city and everything around it.

Mutually Assured Destruction? I've never actually had an all-out nuclear holocaust in my games - just a few cities nuked here and there. No-one seems able to build a big enough nuclear arsenal for total genocide of a rival empire.


The idea is that MAD is an actual possibility. In the "Missile Silos" thread, someone brought up the idea of a "Nuclear Advisor." You could target your nuclear weapons beforehand so that if anyone launched a nuclear attack on you, you could instantly retaliate with all your nukes (during your enemy's turn, of course; otherwise whoever launched first would instantly win!)

The idea is that MAD is an actual possibility. In the "Missile Silos" thread, someone brought up the idea of a "Nuclear Advisor." You could target your nuclear weapons beforehand so that if anyone launched a nuclear attack on you, you could instantly retaliate with all your nukes (during your enemy's turn, of course; otherwise whoever launched first would instantly win!)

Ironically enough that was me. I am glad someone is reading my posts. :crazyeye: :king:
Anyway, here is how I would revamp the nuclear system so arsenals were more realistic(I mean big).

One, before you could build nuclear weapons, you would have to build a 'Fission Bomb Project'(a lto like the Manhattan Project) once. Once this was built, nuclear bombers and tactical missles woudl be a lot cheaper(150 - 200 Shields).
ICBMs would also require a building project then they would cost 250-300 shields. THis way developing a program requires concerted effort, but actually developing an arsenal would take a lot less time.
If everyone had 50 ICBMS and 200 bombers, then a nuclear exchange would actually be scary. As for the AI, I never had a problem in AC with Planetbusting. Of course I usually had the big arsenal anyway.

Your ideas on the nuclear weapons situation sound excellent, Sir Schwick. I only hope that they wouldn't result in a holocaust being the standard outcome of most games.

Again, that would depend on how much common sense was programmed into the AI. I suppose the totalitarian governments, and leaders with negative personalities, would be more likely to launch a first strike.

Adding to this whole MAD Idea, you should probably be allowerd to build a "public fallout shelter" improvement in cities. You could remove the 50/50 chance of each citizen surviving in a nuked city, UNLESS it has a shelter in it. If you include that the city is completley destroyed, the survivors could emmerge from the shelter as settlers/workers a few turns after the blast. This would allow for some interesting post-apocalyptic scenarios.

But plannet busters? A definate no. Unless you want your Civ4 Games to end up like this:

Shaka: Ah Mr. Bond, welcome to my underground lair.

Bond: You;ll never ger away with this Shaka!

Shaka: That's what you think Mr. Bond! You see, I have constructed a highly advanced nukelear device which I call a, "Plannet Buster." This,, "Plannet Buster," posesses an Iron fusion core that gives it enough destructive force to: LEVEL ENTIRE CONTINENTS!!!!! :evil:
DUN DUN DUN!!!!
:eek:
Bond: Your a madman Shaka!

Shaka: Scilence! Impi, attach our guest to the device.
Ok, now put me through to the UN!!!

Alexander: What do you want now Shaka?

Shaka: I have constructed a highly advanced nukelear device which I call a, "Plannet Buster." This,, "Plannet Buster," posesses an Iron fusion core that gives it enough destructive force to: LEVEL ENTIRE CONTINENTS!!!!! :evil: I will spare you the wrath of this "Plannet Buster" if you pay us, One Hundred Billion GPT!!!!
DUN DUN DUN!!!!
:eek:

Alexander: But that's impossible!

Shaka: You have 5 turns gentlemen. Shaka out.

Your ideas on the nuclear weapons situation sound excellent, Sir Schwick. I only hope that they wouldn't result in a holocaust being the standard outcome of most games.

Again, that would depend on how much common sense was programmed into the AI. I suppose the totalitarian governments, and leaders with negative personalities, would be more likely to launch a first strike.

The AI always scares me. Also, I think nuclear arsenals should be really vulnerable during revolutions.

Adding to this whole MAD Idea, you should brobably be allowerd to build a "public fallout shelter" improvement in cities. You could remove the 50/50 chance of each citizen surviving in a nuked city, UNLESS it has a shelter in it. If you inc;ude tat the city is completley destroyed, the survivors coulod emmerge from the shelter as settlers/workers a few turns after the blast. This would allow for some interesting post-apocalyptic scenarios.

You put this story in the Alternate Ending Thread?

This is an awesome idea. You lose all those buildings you spent centuries putting up in a blink of an eye. Here is some ways to extend past the initial shock and return back to the world. They extend a while, but you have to rebuild civlization, not just repair it.

Some cities would inevitably survive, as some armies, but once nuclear weapon detonation reaches a certain level, the world would now be radiated. This means that while you have the knowledge of civlization, you cannot use it in this new world. You have to relearn a lot of how to even farm and build roads. Basically you would start on a new post-apocalyptic reserach tree which would force you to learn even the basic skills. Also, at year 10, 20, 50, 100 one of out every 10 population or settlers would die from radiation poisoning. Terrain would yield little, usually one food for plains/forest/grassland, definitely not desert or hill. At certain years the effects of radiation would lessen on terrain, 50, 100, 200. At year 500 radiation would drop to above average, so most of the effects will be gone. Your weapons would also downgrade, and modern weapons woudl have a 10 year clock from the moment of 'nuclear winter' because of logistics and support. There would be barbs(think Mad Max) that would raid your pitiful early settlements. Also, the 2050 end-game would be eliminated until post-war year 700, when radiation goes back to normal. If 2050 was later then that(tech-fast game), then 2050 would still be the ending.

And at the end of it all, you can reserch Time travell and send a Robot assasin back in time to prevent the war from ever happening. But then other factions learn of your evil time-travell plot, and send their massive robo-armies after you! A massive futureistic clash would insue, with lazers, and mechs, and missles flying everywhere! The wars of the future will find their battlefield in our present, tonight....

:scan: Time jump complete, scanning mission directive.exe
Mission Objectives:
1. Find some pants.
2. Aquire said pants.
3. Try said pants on for both fit and style.
4. Aquire matching shirt and jacket.
5. If possible, aquire badass shades.
6. Gain means of transit.
7. Gather local weaponry.
8. Seach and destroy target: Abraham Linchon.
8b Maximize Civilian casualties.
8c Cause optimal number of explosions.
9. Destroy Secondary Objective: Mao Tse-Tsung
10. Kick back and watch the game. :cool:

NO to planet busters!!! Just way too unhistorical and won't feel right in civ4. Having said that, I would okay with radiation (perm) and craters (reparable), and maybe advanced ICBMs/Fussion Bombs would be able to destory cities wholescale, but I think the current affects of Nukes in civ are fine as is.

The "fallout shelter" could be either part of the civil defence improvement, or act as an upgrade to it.

Currently nuclear war is not the hell that should be represented. Now nukes cause easily reparable pollution and do not level cities and the improvements within. No person has a 50% chance of survival of a direct hit by a Fusion Reaction device.

An appropriate MAD system where nuclear strike is immediately answered with destructive force would prevent the commmon MA nuclear exchanges we see in Civ. The point of the fallout shelter is as a Plan B for once the Final Conflict is over(about 45 seconds). A major nuclear war should end civilization as we know it.

As for a Terminator:

10. Become the Governor of California.
11. Wonder why you are listening to some guy living 1000 years in the future.
12. Kill him now and follow his exact moves to where you were.
13. Remember not to build yourself.

It would be a good easter-egg, essentially you would choose a target and their whole civ would disappear from the map(you killed the origin). Of course this violates the "causality" of the universe, but its an easter egg.

It would cause a paradox that results in an awesome CGI sequence in which the universe colapses inward upon itself.

MAD is a must in the modern era. You could even see you and your advisors, sitting in the war room, planning everything to the last detail.

Diplomatic: But if this new "doomsday waepon" of theirs exists...

Trade: We're screwed?

Diplomatic: Exactly.

Science: Mien Furher! I can walk!

Everyone: :confused:

Military: I told you he was insane.

Doomsday Weapon:*NUKAGE*

Human Civilization: BLARG! The Irony!

Earth: Not again, this is the 3rd time those <censored> Humans have gone and destroyed themselves. If they bounce back again, I SWEAR I will shift closer to the sun!

Mars: I know how you feel. Those little buggers keep crashing all those Robots into me. :(

Earth: You're lucky they didn't evolve on you! It's just one bad invention after annother. First it's fire, then axes, then strip mines, and now THIS! I never should have let those first cells grow.

Mars: Oh come on, they haven't done anything TOO drastic to you. They look at me and the first think they say is "Terraforming" *shudders*

Earth: Not again, this is the 3rd time those <censored> Humans have gone and destroyed themselves. If they bounce back again, I SWEAR I will shift closer to the sun!

That cracks me up.

---------------------------------------------

:king: Advisors! Get in here, NOW!
:) Yes, you called me King Darius?
:king: Thrice, after conquering all the questions of the time, you have heralded the dawn of a new age on our great civlization. We now have all the knowledge we need to dominate this, the Modern Age. Where is the next age?
:) But sire, right now we are on the second round of researching technologies so miraculous that they are only known as 'Future Technologies'.
:king: Tell me one practical thing these future techs have brought us.
:) They ummm............increase?.... ...something known ..as points?
:king: Bah! You know nothing! I am guessing you have no name and we will be stuck forever researching fruitless knowledge.
:) Have you considered research into how civlizations could develop and survive in a high-radiation area?
:king: Creating a high-radiation zone would be expensive, and who would agree to live and try to survive there? I mean you would have to start a nuclear war!

I'm not sure about planet busters but I want better nuclear weapons. Realisticly an ICBM wouldn't reduce a city by 90% population and have a 50% chance of killing units it would totally wipe out the city and kill all the units. I would like to see Tactical Nukes and ICBMs cause radioactivity in the tiles around the nuked cities, that way the AI couldn't just settle in that exact place for about 250 years.

Errr, you realize that Civ atomic weapons are already overpowered, right? You should really visit Nagasaki or Nevada sometime if you think one weapon is going to render the land useless for 250 years.

Well, Nevada was that useful anyway. As for Nagasaki (and Hiroshima), the bombs used there were tiny piddlers compared to modern nukes. Modern nukes are mirved, and each individual warhead has 100 times the destructive power of those ww2 bombs.

I think modern nukes should destroy all tile and city improvements, and have a 95% chance to kill each population point, and 50% of the tiles in the 3x3 area are rendered permanently polluted - you can never again use those tiles. Plus, until a basic clean pollution effort is made, any unit in that area loses 1 hit point at the end of each turn (background radiation).

Sounds wonderfully destructive!

i think the modern nuke effect you described is a bit too powerful. Here is something a little less severe.

All improvements destroyed, all military hit with bombard 20/0/2.(nukes only okay against troops, not tactically viable for battle)
50% roll for each citizen to die.

This would result in dabilitating civilizations, since hundreds of turns of production is lost in one attack.

Also, in RL nukes would be fired at silos first, which would not be in the suburbs. Civ should use a missle silo (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94655&page=2) system so this coudl be accurately modeled.

You allways tie it back to that silo thread don't you Schwick?

Where is episode two of the Post Wars? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=98342&page=14&pp=20)

Schwick, why do you think so few people would die if a city was the direct target of a nuclear attack?

This idea can be solved with one word:

No.

Schwick, why do you think so few people would die if a city was the direct target of a nuclear attack?

History and testing. There's a reason why a city like NY would be targeted by 10 nukes instead of just one, and it's not just on the assumption that a couple would miss or be deflected.

Yes, geographical area. And just as a single legion unit doesn't represent one soldier, a single nuke unit doesn't represent one missile.

Would probably change the face of warfare totally. If this idea doesn't happen, I think something along the lines of an Ion Cannon (from Command & Conquer) would be another option...

I hated those things in renegade. They would always blast my ass whenever I grabbed the blue flag.

There is always an arms race. Better swords lead to better shields lead to better swords...Planetbusters need not destroy the world, if there were a mechanism for reducing their effects. A city dome, or ionized shield maybe, would reduce them to regular nukes rather than ocean makers. And future techs would make workers able to terraform ocean back into usefull land anyway. Or maybe you could have a tech that gives you a totally undetectable saboteur, so that if a city has this saboteur and shoots a planetbuster, it blows up on the launch pad. But the saboteurs are very high maintenance units (variable maintenance cost, yeah). Or maybe planetbusters could have totally unpredictable effects, which are randomly determined, so that you don't know in any game if they will improve the terrain (turn all the land to solid gold) or mutate the victims, turning them into supermen who will be able to defeat you, or work as predicted. Also, you could have planet buster resistant units, like modern armor that has a good chance of surviving a nuclear blast if it isn't too close, only this would be force field protected units.

(To mod planetbusters, just have a tech that makes cheaper nukes available and another tech that allows the production of no maintenance robot workers to clean up after them, and multiple antimissile wonders [would they stack?].)

Planet busters are inevitable, if you want to convincinigly represent the future, but need not be a game imbalancer, as counterbalances can easily be justified.

The only real counter-measure to current nuclear arsenals is reason and common sense. That is why the modern arms race has resulted in peace rather than war. The cost of using new weapons is higher than the gain. This would be the same with planet busters.

Planet busters = bad idea! Civ4 ought to move away from its warmongering roots and introduce more intellectual governing practices, along w/ the war component. The current level of nuclear armaments is more than effective, its already a 9 tile radius. Now, if you want the graphics changed so you can see a crater where the nuke is detonated, then okay. Something similar to how artillery damages terrain in Conquests.

I agree completely.

Better than all this, why don't we just have designable warheads? The bigger they are, the more they cost, and the worse there enviromental effects. And nukes should have a based level of damage. If I launch a 500 KT nuke at new york it should do a goodly bit of damage, but if I launch it at a montana town with a few thousand people, it should completely destroy it. Also fallout and radiation affects need to be more realistic, so fallout should fall downwind, and small bombs should create no lasting fallout at all (like the bombs in hiroshima and nagasaki left no noticable fallout) while huge 50 MT superbombs, should be rediculously huge and expensive, and be able to nuke twice as large an area as the current nukes, and cause heavy fallout.

I have yet to descover a game that comes even close to realistic with nuclear war, they either portray it as some kind of basically conventional weapon, with little or no consequences, or as some kind of world ending weapon that makes earth uninhabital after only a few shots. Both are rediculous extremes that seem to conform to either a cartoony view of nukes as just big bombs with an additional "cool" effect of a mushroom cloud, or the irrational enviromentalist defeatist view of small nuclear exchanges destroying all life one earth in a single day. Both should be avoided in Civ 4.

The reason we don't have designable warheads is because it will take resources away from some other area. And once you allow one unit to be designed, there is no longer a convincing reason not to allow for a complete unit workshop a la SMAC.

Unit workshops are great for SF genre, but don't make so much sense for most of Earth's history.