TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
It's not caused by nukes, but they help. (Unless civ4 screwed that up too)
Civ IV screwed up all things nuclear, and it did so HARD. I've never seen such an unbelievable amount of ignorance and bias applied to a default game in my life. Nukes don't do anything vastly significant that leads to global warming in real life. You launch like 2-4 in civ IV, and you'll have tiles turning into desert at random for the rest of the game (should you go overboard and launch 50+, you can turn half the world into desert...global warming rather than even an attempt to make something that's also unproven/unlikely like nuclear winter? They're not even TRYING). Global warming shouldn't be in this game at all really, at least not presumptions of its causality.
And then we have nuclear reactor meltdowns in civ IV. They happen at a rate many times more often than what we've seen in real life, but the true ignorance starts after that. Civ IV treats a reactor meltdown as if a nuke hit the city (does civ III do this too?). A reactor meltdown being compared to a warhead? Haha! What crazy bias mod is loaded? Wait...it's default civ?
Civ IV is critically biased against nukes. If we were to compare reactor meltdowns to issues with other types of power, it would be fair to completely remove them from the game, OR give other power sources crippling failure chances AND reduce the nuke plant's meltdown effects to 0-2 unhealth for 20 turns and -1 pop (and loss of the reactor). Anything more is a representation of blinding ignorance, but it seems civ INSISTS on blinding ignorance when it comes to this issue.
If we were to look at real-life France in civ IV turns, it's already nuked itself with modern nuclear warheads numerous times (probably double digits on marathon). France just caused miles of desert to appear by having nuclear power plants! It's ruined the world, and 1/5 of the country is irradiated.