Nuclear Weapons should be More Expensive

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.
 
Nukes served as a massive deterrent in the Korean War, along with deterring a possible war between the Soviets and the USA or Europe.

Also, you're talking about what would be put into "Diplomatics", not how much of a city goes "BOOM" when you drop a nuke on it, and how much said "BOOM" would cost you.

So they've been significant in diplomacy (not warfare) for the last 60 years. Which is what, 1% of the time scale of the game?

Buit we're not talking about actual historical warfare when we play Civ, are we ? In that, you know, Caesar didn't wipe out Elizabeth I with an army of tanks either.

Sure, that aspect isn't realistic, but it isn't trying to be. There has been an attempt to make weapons and units balanced in accordance with each other, and this shouldn't be worked against.
 
Camikaze, the game isn't a representation of history.

In most people's games, it is... Actually just about 1%, when everyone gets nuked.
 
In most people's games, it is... Actually just about 1%, when everyone gets nuked.

I use nukes against the AI in every game I play, lol.
It’s fun, but it is also too easy to exploit and to win easily.

Perhaps FA can just add another option for “Expensive” Nukes.

Do we have an option now for “No Nukes”?

In either case, the options could be.

1 – Normal Nukes (default).
2 – Expensive Nukes (3 times more expensive).
3 – No Nukes.

With option 2 I will still make a few nukes and then use them against large AI SoD’s just to get the upper hand with the number of units on the battlefield.
Then I can continue to enjoy a challenging game.
 
Camikaze, the game isn't a representation of history.
Where have you been? With a name like civilization, you have to wonder. What with all the technologies in order, diplomacy, espionage, wars, peace, even religion now (even though it doesn't seem to do much) this game can't be about history at all.
But it shouldn't be completely unrealistic and skewed towards nuclear weapons.
I have to agree with you there.
I use nukes against the AI in every game I play, lol.
It’s fun, but it is also too easy to exploit and to win easily.

Perhaps FA can just add another option for “Expensive” Nukes.

Do we have an option now for “No Nukes”?

In either case, the options could be.

1 – Normal Nukes (default).
2 – Expensive Nukes (3 times more expensive).
3 – No Nukes.
That sounds too much like a tactical game. You shouldn't be able to take a crucial part out of recent history just for the fun of it.
 
That sounds too much like a tactical game. You shouldn't be able to take a crucial part out of recent history just for the fun of it.

If the objective is to accurately simulate recent history, what would be needed is a mechanism that encourages you to build huge numbers of nukes but never use any of them. This does not seem like fun to me, so I vote against accurately simulating real history here.
 
If the objective is to accurately simulate recent history, what would be needed is a mechanism that encourages you to build huge numbers of nukes but never use any of them. This does not seem like fun to me, so I vote against accurately simulating real history here.
this mechanism is called mutual annihilation. i think the point of nuclear weapons was lost in the civ series. using nukes should have devastating diplomatic and terrain penalties. therefore it will be just like reality: every civ will have nukes, but any one civ will hesitate to use them first.:D
 
this mechanism is called mutual annihilation. i think the point of nuclear weapons was lost in the civ series. using nukes should have devastating diplomatic and terrain penalties. therefore it will be just like reality: every civ will have nukes, but any one civ will hesitate to use them first.:D

Getting global diplo penalties for every single nuke fired at a target the AIs don't hate isn't enough? Fallout isn't enough? Fallout already over-represents the radiation left over from more modern nukes. You want to make that less realistic just to bias the game more?

The AI frequently won't even build manhattan project, and even if it does it often UN bans them (as if the UN is realistic in civ IV...it DOES something?! What?!)

I don't think they should put one iota of effort to change nukes until they find a way to cut the obscenely irrational bias against nuclear power, first. That's a far more broken and less realistic mechanic than the use of nukes in practice could ever hope to be.
 
That sounds too much like a tactical game. You shouldn't be able to take a crucial part out of recent history just for the fun of it.

Gameplay/Fun > History/Reality

Civ 4 will never be able to reflect the reality of Nuclear weapons.
To do that, Civ 4 will have to change into a real time strategy game (RTS).

In real time if one nation launches 2000 nukes then the other nation have an hour or two to react and strike back with their own 2000 nukes before they are completely destroyed.
For that reason the first nation has to think twice before launching such attack.

In Civ 4 if one civ launches 100+ nukes the other nation cannot react and strike back because all its cities will be destroyed (along with all their nukes) at the end of the turn.

So massive number of nukes should NOT be allowed in Civ 4 (or Civ 5).
Currently (in my game) I can easily make 50+ nukes in 15 turns and wipe out/disable any nation I want.
So where is the challenge in that?
 
Gameplay/Fun > History/Reality

Civ 4 will never be able to reflect the reality of Nuclear weapons.
To do that, Civ 4 will have to change into a real time strategy game (RTS).

In real time if one nation launches 2000 nukes then the other nation have an hour or two to react and strike back with their own 2000 nukes before they are completely destroyed.
For that reason the first nation has to think twice before launching such attack.

In Civ 4 if one civ launches 100+ nukes the other nation cannot react and strike back because all its cities will be destroyed (along with all their nukes) at the end of the turn.

So massive number of nukes should NOT be allowed in Civ 4 (or Civ 5).
Currently (in my game) I can easily make 50+ nukes in 15 turns and wipe out/disable any nation I want.
So where is the challenge in that?

Doing it before they get SDI, declare on you, or win culture, and doing it without getting completely dogpiled by the rest of the world.

If you can win that way, you could have won a lot of other ways, too, normally.
 
One thing with nukes that should be changed- the ability to nuke your own territory, perhaps in exchange for an unhappiness penalty. It is really annoying to have to declare war on an enemy before they DoW and invade, when you can see your stack coming. It's just an extra diplo penalty that you could do without, and it undermines defensive pacts. If you could wait until they entered your territory before nuking them, they would suffer the diplo penalty for DoW that their aggressiveness deserves.

Also, something needs to be done about that one damn neutral unit in a city with a 100 strong stack. I don't care about collateral damage! Perhaps a diplo bonus for any neutral enemies that get killed/damaged in a nuke attack, limited to 3 from each nation (to prevent nuking without a DoW on a really big power traversing a really small power's territory).
 
Gameplay/Fun > History/Reality

Civ 4 will never be able to reflect the reality of Nuclear weapons.
To do that, Civ 4 will have to change into a real time strategy game (RTS).

In real time if one nation launches 2000 nukes then the other nation have an hour or two to react and strike back with their own 2000 nukes before they are completely destroyed.
For that reason the first nation has to think twice before launching such attack.

In Civ 4 if one civ launches 100+ nukes the other nation cannot react and strike back because all its cities will be destroyed (along with all their nukes) at the end of the turn.

So massive number of nukes should NOT be allowed in Civ 4 (or Civ 5).
Currently (in my game) I can easily make 50+ nukes in 15 turns and wipe out/disable any nation I want.
So where is the challenge in that?

It overall seems that you have to move up one or two difficulty levels...
 
Gameplay/Fun > History/Reality

Civ 4 will never be able to reflect the reality of Nuclear weapons.
To do that, Civ 4 will have to change into a real time strategy game (RTS).

In real time if one nation launches 2000 nukes then the other nation have an hour or two to react and strike back with their own 2000 nukes before they are completely destroyed.
For that reason the first nation has to think twice before launching such attack.

In Civ 4 if one civ launches 100+ nukes the other nation cannot react and strike back because all its cities will be destroyed (along with all their nukes) at the end of the turn.

So massive number of nukes should NOT be allowed in Civ 4 (or Civ 5).
Currently (in my game) I can easily make 50+ nukes in 15 turns and wipe out/disable any nation I want.
So where is the challenge in that?
in CtP2 nukes had "target" feature: to any nuke you own, you can set a target. e.g. if someone uses nukes against you, your nukes will automatically launch on aggressor's turn at their targets if set.
 
this mechanism is called mutual annihilation. i think the point of nuclear weapons was lost in the civ series. using nukes should have devastating diplomatic and terrain penalties. therefore it will be just like reality: every civ will have nukes, but any one civ will hesitate to use them first.
I'm with you there.
I don't think they should put one iota of effort to change nukes until they find a way to cut the obscenely irrational bias against nuclear power, first. That's a far more broken and less realistic mechanic than the use of nukes in practice could ever hope to be.
True, but nukes really aren't very nice. The bias against nuclear power is way too much. Much of the town that I live in is powered by a nuclear power plant (If the trees wern't in the way, I could see the towers from my house).
 
Getting global diplo penalties for every single nuke fired at a target the AIs don't hate isn't enough?

You get to the point of building nukes without being dominant enough that this does not really matter ?

Fallout isn't enough? Fallout already over-represents the radiation left over from more modern nukes. You want to make that less realistic just to bias the game more?

I am unconvinced Civ 4's fallout has a severe enough effect on the right scale, yes. (Random-tile "global warming" is not a sensible mechanism for anything.)
 
Also, something needs to be done about that one damn neutral unit in a city with a 100 strong stack. I don't care about collateral damage! Perhaps a diplo bonus for any neutral enemies that get killed/damaged in a nuke attack, limited to 3 from each nation (to prevent nuking without a DoW on a really big power traversing a really small power's territory).

To my mind that's another argument for the letting units from different civilisations occupy the same square thing being a bad idea in general. (except maybe hidden-nationality or soft units, and there should be no penalty for taking those out anyway.)
 
To my mind that's another argument for the letting units from different civilisations occupy the same square thing being a bad idea in general. (except maybe hidden-nationality or soft units, and there should be no penalty for taking those out anyway.)

Yeah, I suppose that's an argument for it, but it doesn't really have a realistic base. Why should it be impossible for two nationalities to have a unit in the same 360 km^2 area? And it still doesn't really solve the problem, because they could still be in one of the surrounding 8 tiles, and prevent an attack.
 
You get to the point of building nukes without being dominant enough that this does not really matter ?



I am unconvinced Civ 4's fallout has a severe enough effect on the right scale, yes. (Random-tile "global warming" is not a sensible mechanism for anything.)

It is possible for nukes to decide the game, but it is rare. However, that only supports my point if it WERE true ----> if you are so dominant that using nukes hurting your diplo doesn't matter, you already have your pick of victory condition.

That isn't actually *always* the case though, especially if one starts isolated etc. But then, the diplo considerations for using nukes is very real, and so is the chance of getting nuked back (you and your target both wind up kind of hosed. The AI sucks at nuke tactics but it will still nuke your invasion stack and then you can't take cities easily :(). Someone else often techs away while you do that.

As for fallout, civ IV has both global warming (which is rigged and stupid), and fallout from a nuke (which is temporary but before ecology pretty long-lasting), which is usually on and surrounds the tile nuked and prevents working them. This can last 20 turns often...certainly a realistic time frame for years = turns. If nukes are launched earlier in the game fallout can last 100 years!

They already kill 100's of thousands of people (the pop decrease in the target city and the soldiers killed), destroy buildings, and irradiate land for a material period of time...I don't see how one justifies making them stronger than this...but their difficulty of use is already very real on high difficulties (or any difficulty that is challenging for a player).
 
I am unconvinced Civ 4's fallout has a severe enough effect on the right scale, yes. (Random-tile "global warming" is not a sensible mechanism for anything.)
I believe you are confusing 2 diferent features related to nukes: Global warming ( tile goes to desert ) and fallout overlay...
Civ IV Info center here in CFC said:
Fallout: -3 food, -3 hammers, -3 commerce
Special Abilities: Movement is decreased by 2, +0.50 unhealthiness in nearby cities, Improvements cannot be built on a tile containing Fallout
....that can hit a tile when either a nuke or a nuclear plant explode nearby. Oh, and you can't clean it before Ecology.... :(
 
Top Bottom