"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!"

Here's an idea of how do deal with the whole Manhattan Project advantage problem:


First, create a new city improvement, say "ICBM Production Facility", which gives the city it is built in the ability to build nukes. Also have it have some effect on city health or happiness or some such thing (presumably negative because of increased radiation, the occasional leak, people's NIMBY attitudes towards nukes, etc).

Then change the effect of the Manhattan Project to allow all players to build "ICBM Production Facilities", as well as having it serve as such a facility itself, possibly with fewer/no negative health/happiness effects.

The player who builds it gets a head start on everyone else in the building nukes department with a better facility than everyone else, and everyone else is able to develop nukes soon thereafter, thus making the historical mechanics work out fairly accurately.

Now all we need to do is screw with some XML files and we'd be good to go.

INSANE!!
Nuclear explosions have never looked so great in this series.
Hopefully it's only in this game that Iran(Persia) can make nuclear weapons

Thunderfall said:

The main difference is projects can't be rushed, but wonders can be (if you have the right civic, like Universal Suffrage allows you to spend gold to rush production).

Click to expand...

What!? I never liked this option in Civ II.

OMG OMG they brought back my favorite civ quote! I just wet my pants!

This is the first time I've seen any civ4 animation. I found it all quite nice. The moving horses, water and of course the nuke. Sort of made me feel bad for the horses. Do they get killed by the nuke?

Cyberstar said:

This is the first time I've seen any civ4 animation. I found it all quite nice. The moving horses, water and of course the nuke. Sort of made me feel bad for the horses. Do they get killed by the nuke?

Click to expand...

It's fairly plausable that they gained superpowers!
Godzilla is a fair example of this possibility.

Cyberstar said:

This is the first time I've seen any civ4 animation. I found it all quite nice. The moving horses, water and of course the nuke. Sort of made me feel bad for the horses. Do they get killed by the nuke?

Click to expand...

You can't kill resources, although after the explosion that tile became a fallout and can't be worked on until you clean it.

I'm a little disappointed that the tactical nukes were taken away. Am I the only one because nobody seems to be missing them...A lot cheaper than ICBMs and hard to be protected from.

I don't understand how nuclear explosion won't destroy roads and railroads?

brown_mudante said:

I don't understand how nuclear explosion won't destroy roads and railroads?

Click to expand...

Well yes it does in the very vicinity of the ground zero, but the blast does damage to vertical objects such as buildings and living beings, not to roads or railroads. I think that's the logic behind it. However, it should do more damage to railroads because at least modern railroads have those electrical cables above the track.

That explosion is soooooooooo cool and i have ordered civ4 i can't wait

LauriL said:

A lot cheaper than ICBMs and hard to be protected from.

Click to expand...

Cheaper true, harder to be protected from false.

Thunderfall, can you clarify if resolutions, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation resolution, can be ignored or if you are given no choice in following it?

Here's a simple solution for the Manhattan Project being a great wonder - have it allow the civ that built it produce nukes at half cost.

Then they would be pretty much guaranteed 1st production of an ICBM.

As for modding to allow nuking one's own territory, I believe the nearest home city to where the nuke was detonated in your territory should increase greatly in unhappiness or something along that line.

I can't wait for this game!!

-m.

QiZhe said:

Thunderfall, can you clarify if resolutions, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation resolution, can be ignored or if you are given no choice in following it?

Click to expand...

I agree, this is a very important point on UN working. And I Really Like the 1/2 cost suggestion. (even if it was 3/4 or 2/3 cost or something)

I haven't read all pages, stoped somewhere on page 3. But, I've seen people typing that it would be incorrect that call it Global Warming, and that they should use the term Nuclear Winter instead. Because that is what would follow from a global nuclear war. While this is correct, a nuclear winter would never be that long, it would only affect some parts of the world, following the wind current and not be longer than maybe a few months. Within this time, it will of course be cold, but when the nuclear dust settles, the sun will reach the surface and heat the earth again, and its here a global scale warming will begin, since the nukes probably will damage the ozon layer ALOT, increasing the UV-heatning/radiation tremendous.

Edit: I should add, that after a warm period, that would come after a while, there will be a ice age, its the natural cycle, and then the climate will even out, and then it will restart again. It has to do with the natures will to disturb things, because of the sun, the climate will never be stable. We, us, (humans), just speeds it up a bit.

Edit 2.0: It would be very cool to see a ice age effect in CIV4 with the new 3D engine, it could be done very cool I think. Feeling the ice crawl down, and over the sphere.

Sorry for bad english, tired as hell now.

The new nukes look pretty good, but I still miss the SMAC type nukes that completely destroy the city leaving a huge crater in the ground. The atomic bombs of WW2 were like fire crackers compared to the nukes we have today, they were 15-16 Kilotons. The US had a 25 Megaton nuke in the 60's, and Russia supposedly had/has nukes up to 100 MT.

I agree that it would of been cool to have a tacticle nuke that maybe killed a few population points in addition to a large, multi megaton MIRV ICBM that would totally level a city and leave the surrounding region uninhabitible. But it doesn't matter much to me, since I am usually a peaceful, builder type player.

Again: the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with ozone loss. Global warming is caused by gases in the atmosphere that trap low-level infrared radiation. Ozone loss is caused by certain pollutants that cause the breakdown of ozone.

Your points about the appropriateness of a Nuclear Winter would be better taken if it weren't so obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Melendwyr said:

Again: the ozone layer has nothing to do with global warming, and nuclear weapons have nothing to do with ozone loss. Global warming is caused by gases in the atmosphere that trap low-level infrared radiation. Ozone loss is caused by certain pollutants that cause the breakdown of ozone.

Your points about the appropriateness of a Nuclear Winter would be better taken if it weren't so obvious you don't know what you're talking about.

Click to expand...

Maybe you wanna read up about that a little better then. The radiation that strikes the earth/atmosphere with a global nuke-war, would affect the ozone. UW-heating IS increasing the global warming, since it makes water heat and therefore steam more, the polar caps will melt faster. The increased water level in the atmosphere, the loss of climate stabelizing ice with the caps will increase the temperature, thus creating a global warming.

Maybe you wanna expand from only that "Global warming is caused by gases in the atmosphere that trap low-level infrared radiation" a bit, and think about where the gases comes from.