Does anyone know how to modify the game to eliminate meltdowns? The environmental wackos obviously had final control of this game.
You know, there's whole governments out there (I'm guessing not your own, mind) that would be very interested to hear how that one was managed. They've probably been asking you, except you can't hear them because evidently you have your fingers in your ears.I have been able to eliminate "Global Warming".
well it 1:33 am so i'm going to bed...
as for the meltdown it reduces your population by something like the half...destroy half the improvements and creates a radioactive cloud you need to clean. The worst thing is that sometimes you beelined for fission and when the meltdown occurs you understand you have to research Biology and then Ecology which will take 40 turns before you even start cleaning the place. so during 40 turns the population will decrease even more...then you're in the hole...
Dare I suggest that if at that stage of the game, it's taking you 40 turns to research biology and ecology, there's probably something amiss with your science strategy... (though 40 turns might just be plausible on marathon)
I agree though, that nuclear plants seem pretty useless in civ. I've never built one. Stupid thing is that in Civ they can cause global warming through meltdowns, but in the real world, nuclear plants are actually more likely to slow down global warming, compared to building a coal plant.
Radioactive waste does nothing to slow down global warming.
Nuclear winter, an entirely different issue, is the theorical threat of inducing an artificial ice age from making the atmosphere opaque as result of tons of dust and ashes released into the air. The atmosphere would be opaque, sunlight wouldn't penetrate the atmosphere and everything would be really cold.
Sorry, I didn't express myself clearly. What I meant is that it seems silly/unrealistic that in Civ4, nuclear power plants can contribute to global warming [whereas coal plants don't]. In the real world, nuclear plants contribute I believe a small amount towards global warming, but far less than coal/oil/etc. - to the extent that some people argue for building nuclear plants specifically in order to slow global warming (because by doing so, we burn less fossil fuels).
Civ4 seems to have put in the opposite situation to the real world.
I would like to see an actual statistic showing the number of Nuclear Power plants that have reached the end of their usable life WITHOUT a meltdown compared to the amount that have suffered a meltdown. Not that the Chernobyl incident should mean anything to that statistic because it was the result of truly reckless operation, it's not the way normal real world power plants are made or operated.
Chernobyl is just as much a part of the "normal real world" as New York is.
Why do you suppose that nuclear plants in Civ4 should all be operated like plants in the US, and never like plants in the Soviet Union? Why shouldn't there be a variety of operators and practices and mistakes in the game, just as there is in real life?
I haven't used nuke plants in Civ 4 but from what I read it seems that in a span of 100 turns a single nuke plant is almost certain to meltdown.
Considering that a meltdown in cIV is a Chernobyl -type catastrophe, and that there are hundreds of nuclear power plants in the world, the value seems a bit on the high side compared to the real world. Maybe it should be 5000 instead of 2000.
Chernobyl is just as much a part of the "normal real world" as New York is.
Why do you suppose that nuclear plants in Civ4 should all be operated like plants in the US, and never like plants in the Soviet Union? Why shouldn't there be a variety of operators and practices and mistakes in the game, just as there is in real life?