"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!"

Yup, agree totally : I'm afraid i'mnever gonna see any global warming, not being a huge fan of nukes myself.
BTW I hope the nuked cities' health decreases due to remaining :nuke: :nuke: :nuke: !!
Some people over there in japan could find the contrary unrealistic :rolleyes:
 
Melendwyr said:
I hope it's possible to change "Global Warming" to "Nuclear Winter". Warming doesn't make any sense - it should be a response to pollution levels, not bombs.

Would the addition of something like CivIII's Global Warming be moddable?
Click to expand...

Yes, it is really inacurate to say that nukes are what triggers the global warming and they know. Global warming is caused by CO2 emission (factories, cars...) It is a bit suspicious...

Juande
 
The environmental effect sounds miniscule at worst- ONE TILE? Oh whoa is me...


The nukes themselves sounds as pitiful as they were in Civ 3 only a bit worse: you can't nuke in your own territory? CAN'T? That is MY decision as the leader of my civ!

The loss of tactical nukes!? Oh good improvement there.

Overall, this design of this game element seems to suck.
 
Why is the loss a a unit that served no real purpose upsetting you, Dearmad? The ICBMs were better for all purposes (including not being able to be destroyed by nukes). The rumor that the Civ3 tac nukes could not be intercepted by SDI is just that, a rumor.

If you feel the design of the game sucks, don't buy it. It's that simple. There are a lot of games I don't buy even though I liked the previous ones in the series.

Edit: I do agree that you should be able to target your land. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
 
Gogf said:
Wonders roads and rails can't be destroyed? That doesn't make senes, but I guess nukes would be overpowered, otherwise.

Great article, TF :)!
Click to expand...

Roads and railroads are just modified terrain, I doubt a nuclear blast would destroy them.

Other than that, nice preview ThunderFall.
 
zorniks said:
Yes, it is really inacurate to say that nukes are what triggers the global warming and they know. Global warming is caused by CO2 emission (factories, cars...) It is a bit suspicious...

Juande
Click to expand...

Anyone remember the game "global effect " ? - there you had global warming from industriy and global chilling from nukes - and therefor you could counter the greenhouseeffect with nuclear weapons ... :eek: :D.
 
By and large, I've approved of the design changes. Even the few changes that I wasn't so sure about, I suspect will prove themselves once I try a few games. The very few things I'm thinking of altering will be mostly cosmetic.

But this "Global Warming" thing just isn't right. The penalty for widespread nuclear warfare should be global health deterioration and Nuclear Winter.

I think this is something I'm going to feel compelled to mod. It's neither realistic nor a particularly effective deterrent.
 
Also, not being able to nuke your own lands seems to be for tactical purposes. It forces you to actually defend yourself rather than answer your troubles with a couple of ICBM's.
 
A great mini-review, Thunderfall! :goodjob:

I was a bit disappointed by the visual effect of nukes in Civ 3, I always thought they were cooler in Civ 2, but this seems to be over the top! :D
 
If theres only one nuke in the game then they got rid of Nuclear subs or atleast there ability to hold nukes. I had expected at the least for them to keep at least the same number of nukes not decrease it.
 
Wouldn't it be cool if there was an "Arms Race" victory condition, where the first Civilization to build and detonate a nuclear weapon would win? :nuke: :nuke: :nuke:
 
warpstorm said:
Why is the loss a a unit that served no real purpose upsetting you, Dearmad? The ICBMs were better for all purposes (including not being able to be destroyed by nukes). The rumor that the Civ3 tac nukes could not be intercepted by SDI is just that, a rumor.

If you feel the design of the game sucks, don't buy it. It's that simple. There are a lot of games I don't buy even though I liked the previous ones in the series.

Edit: I do agree that you should be able to target your land. Sometimes you gotta do what you gotta do.
Click to expand...

I meant the design of THIS game element. Not the game.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Third, I REALLY think they should have a much greater penalty on the civ you nuke-I mean a -2 penalty is what you get for CLOSE BORDERS for pity's sake! A nuke should grant a minimum -6 penalty to the civ you nuke, and -1 to -3 to all other civs (depending on how they felt about the nuked civ in the first place ;)!)
Click to expand...

I agree. After all, if the US went and nuked somone (North Korea, Iran) the diplomatic fallout would probably be catastrophic - even among our allies.

OTOH, I'd be in favor of a SMAC like "demand surrender or we will do it again!" so you can subjugate their country into your puppet.
 
Colonel said:
If theres only one nuke in the game then they got rid of Nuclear subs or atleast there ability to hold nukes. I had expected at the least for them to keep at least the same number of nukes not decrease it.
Click to expand...

I believe they got rid of nuclear subs.
 
In one of the new preview articles, it is mentioned that by moving a unit into foreign territory, an option to grant the unit as a gift appears. Considering how nukes cannot be moved out of the city in which they are built, is there any feature to gift and recieve nukes to and from different nations?
 
warpstorm said:
If you feel the design of the game sucks, don't buy it. It's that simple. There are a lot of games I don't buy even though I liked the previous ones in the series.
Click to expand...
No offense, but your constant remarks of the kind are starting to be annoying. ;) He didn't mean the game as a whole, but this particular feature, just like Aussie_Lurker and myself. If we didn't play games where one feature sounds bad, then we wouldn't play any game at all (except you maybe ? :lol: ), and that would be a loss. I'll speak for myself, so far I find Civ4 a very promising game, a great improvement in so many parts of the game, but there is this issue about animals at the beginning of the game and now this issue about nukes (and maybe a couple more things) which don't feel right. If you want us all to shut up if we happen to buy the game, just state it please. ;) I also post and cheer when a long-desired change is made (see railroad's movement eg.). Civ4's nuke look "beautiful" and all, but I was expecting a better gameplay for it. Too bad.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Third, I REALLY think they should have a much greater penalty on the civ you nuke-I mean a -2 penalty is what you get for CLOSE BORDERS for pity's sake! A nuke should grant a minimum -6 penalty to the civ you nuke, and -1 to -3 to all other civs (depending on how they felt about the nuked civ in the first place ;)
Click to expand...

Only one nation has ever nuked another in the real world, and these two civs are -very- close allies today.

Your suggestion has a certain merit, but it is more reflective of how nukes would be handled today than how nations reacted when they first came on the scene.

Your model doesn't account for the fact that if USA had invaded Japan via conventional means, MILLIONS more people would have died, on both sides (Japan worse than America, but both sides over a million dead!) Some still advocate that it was wrong, but many believe it was a lesser evil than the alternatives (conventional arms amphibious invasion, or leaving that regime in control of Japan and its future), and America after all did not target Tokyo or Osaka. The kind of nuance involved in the real thing is complex, and that is almost impossible to model in a game. It certainly would not be there with a model that slaps the nuke user with automatic, relations-crushing penalties across the board. :)

I imagine that "getting it right" in regard to nuclear weapons is a pretty steep challenge. Is this the ideal solution? Probably not. Does it represent progress compared to previous Civ games? Maybe.


- Sirian
 
Nice effect! Thanks for the preview, TF. :thumbsup:

I've never been one to use nukes, either, until after the game is over. Even then, it was only the first couple of games. Now, though, with such a spectacular explosion, I'll probably end every game with a grand finale after the official score is tallied. :evil:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
[Complex] (6-20a) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Forces Everyone To Declare War When Nukes Are Used, then Repeals Itself
Replies
3
Views
439
rkkn
R
N.Core
  • Locked
[Complex] (6-20) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Forces Everyone To Declare War When Nukes Are Used
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
ma_kuh
M
S
They missed something
Replies
13
Views
2K
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
PDX Firefly
Developer Diary | After the Demo
Replies
5
Views
965
Sephi
S
The_J
30 years Civ - all the little things you didn't know
2
Replies
32
Views
9K
Horizons
Horizons
Top Bottom