"Our words are backed by nuclear weapons!"

Nukes would probly melt the rails but I understand the roads.

If your mad about the global warming mod it to turn into tundra.:p
 
Hipshot said:
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.
No, it wouldn't.

UW-heating IS increasing the global warming, since it makes water heat and therefore steam more, the polar caps will melt faster.
The extra energy from UV is negligible.

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.
From deforestation and the widespread burning of fossil fuels, primarily.

Did you have a point in all this?
 
rflagg said:
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.

That sounds too excessive to me. That essentially gives the builder twice the nukes that he would otherwise have.

TMP small wonders are the way to go IMO.
 
All this aruing.
==========================
Hipshot said:
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.
You're wrong.

What would be the effects of nitric oxides driven into the stratosphere by an all-out nuclear war, involving the detonation of 10,000 megatons of explosive force in the northern hemisphere? According to the recent National Academy of Sciences study, the nitric oxide produced by the weapons could reduce the ozone levels in the northern hemisphere by as much as 30 to 70 percent.

To begin with, a depleted ozone layer would reflect back to the earth's surface less heat than would normally be the case, thus causing a drop in temperature--perhaps enough to produce serious effects on agriculture. .
http://www.worldwideschool.org/libr...fectsofNuclearWar-SomePerspectives/chap1.html
==========================
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.

Many gases exhibit these “greenhouse” properties. Some of them occur in nature (water vapor, carbon dioxide, methane, and nitrous oxide), while others are exclusively human-made (like gases used for aerosols).
...
In the U.S., our greenhouse gas emissions come mostly from energy use. These are driven largely by economic growth, fuel used for electricity generation, and weather patterns affecting heating and cooling needs. Energy-related carbon dioxide emissions, resulting from petroleum and natural gas, represent 82 percent of total U.S. human-made greenhouse gas emissions (Figure 3). The connection between energy use and carbon dioxide emissions is explored in the box on the reverse side (Figure 4).
...
Another greenhouse gas, methane, comes from landfills, coal mines, oil and gas operations, and agriculture; it represents 9 percent of total emissions. Nitrous oxide (5 percent of total emissions), meanwhile, is emitted from burning fossil fuels and through the use of certain fertilizers and industrial processes. Human-made gases (2 percent of total emissions) are released as byproducts of industrial processes and through leakage.
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaf/1605/ggccebro/chapter1.html

Greenhouse gases do not come from nuclear explosions.
 
Dearmad said:
Simpler solution. You build the Manhatten project, you GET A NUKE upon completion of the wonder in that city.

Done.

This seems like a reasonable option. It does give you a minor benefit that makes sense. You were trying to develop a nuke after all.
 
When the U.S. finished making its first nukes, it had no more resources to make any more. I want to say that three were built, but I don't recall that for sure. After dropping bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we had no more capacity to construct additional bombs for quite a while.

I think being given a single nuke at the completion of the Wonder would be balanced, unlike free nukes or a cost reduction.
 
Dearmad said:
Simpler solution. You build the Manhatten project, you GET A NUKE upon completion of the wonder in that city.

Done.
I personally think that switching the Manhattan Project to a national wonder/project is even easier, and also better and more accurate. I mean, it's not like the USA had the ability to launch an ICBM in 1945. ;) Whereas it is true that each nuclear nation has to develop its own program (OK, the exception might be the UK, but that doesn't count :D ). And I think it would be fine if every civ would have to build the damn wonder/project before using these babies, instead of waiting for a weirdo to build it. These are nukes, you shouldn't be able to build them like that, even through espionage.
 
Weasel Op said:
The first one was tested at Trinity Flats, NM.
And of course we have the infamous Fat Man and Little Boy. Were there any others?
 
Thunderfall said:
Why would you want to get nuked? ;)

I haven't tried provoking AI into doing that. But if the AIs already dislike you alot and they possess nuclear weapons (expecially before you do), I don't see why they won't use it to good effect.

Personally I don't use nukes much myself (I'm mostly a builder), but nevertheless it's great to have such wonderful nuke effects. :) And it's not just nuke effects. There are great effects for many other things in the game. .

like you i dont use them much either. i use them only if nuked first and yes the AI will most definitly nuke you first. at least at monarch level they will they have done it to me many times. I do love the effects of the nuke very good and im hoping that means that they put as much effort into the other effects of the game. im waiting impaitently for this game. :)
 
Nukes gonna rock! Graphics are sweet! Reminded me of the graphics of planet busters on Alpha Centauri! and the results were fantastic! Nothing was left! Sweet!
 
Melendwyr said:
No, it wouldn't.

yes it would unfortunately but not enough to cause a break down of the ozone at least not in the near future it is estimated that the number of nukes it would take to severly damage the ozone would burn out the surface first.

Melendwyr said:
The extra energy from UV is negligible.

around most of the world that is true but at the polar caps it is quite extreme and is directly responsible for the rapid melting of the polar caps which is increasing every year.

Melendwyr said:
From deforestation and the widespread burning of fossil fuels, primarily.

yup sure do but unfortunatly the radiation is coming through the ozone which is breaking down gradually but not due to the greenhouse gases.

globaly warming is a bit of a deceptive term as a recently published research article shows that while the warming at the poles will cause the caps to melt and a gradual rise in world wide temps it will not be enough to be noticed by the casual observer. the caps melting will however greatly cool the waters and cause the gulf stream and other warm current tracks to shift thier path along the equator causing the next ice age.
 
I'm a bit late with getting into the discussion here, but...

The machanics of obtaining, building and dealing with the politics of nukes has always been my biggest frustration with Civ III.

First off, any idiot knows that atomic bombs were around before they were being strapped to rockets. What they should do is, once you build the Manhattan Project, you get what simply amounts to a gravity bomb, just like the two dropped on Japan, that can be loaded into a bomber. You then have the option to use the bombers limited range to transport the bomb to a location and drop it. Or, it would have one movement point, so you could acctually just move it to a location and detonate it where you choose. Thus, except for the need to be transported, it would be much like the Tactical Nuke in III. Once you researched rockets, you can build ICBM's.

Second, 500 shields is far too much to build an nuke. How many did we build during the Cold War? It would never take a city (at the least) 5 years to build an ICBM. I understand that we can't have Civs building buku nukes, but I think it should be lowed to about 400 or so.

Third, and I guess this is more a general critique of how diplomacy works in the game, you allies would not suddenly turn against you if you made the decision to use the weapons. It is hard to believe that, during the Cold War, the Brits would have turned on us had the war gone hot and we had been forced to use our weapons. But, alliances in general are far too weak in the game, and grudges last far too long.

Fourth, I should be able to nuke my own land if I wish. Any Turtledove fan's here? ANyone read the World War series? In the series, the human's keep luring the Race into these dense pocket's of activity and then setting off nukes, near their own cities, to destroy the Race's tightly packed pockets of troops. It is a strategy that I have acctually utilized myself in the game. It works, and I should be allowed to do it if worse comes to worse. Also, I can't use weapons when my own guys might be effected? Even a spy? That is just assinine.

Fifth, there seems to be no difference, in terms of diplomatic consequences, in using nukes on enemy armies and using them on enemy cities. This makes no sense to me. Obviously, using a warhead on a division of enemy soldiers who are threatening you troops and people is quite different from targeting the enemies population.

Sixth, not enough damage is done by a nuclear attack. Now, it could be worked out that the atomic bomb, that I mentioned before, does as much damage as the standard nuclear bomb in Civ III (which is about as much damage as "Little Boy" did). An ICBM, however, has many times the destructive power of "Little Boy" since a "City Buster" is essencially six bombs all in the same punch. The ICBM's should basically clean the city out. And the Diplomatic reprocussions for using them shoudl be very severe.
 
It's sad that there's only one nuke now. I hoped there would be much more different nukes. In addition to ICBM there should be MIRV, tactical nukes and suitcase nuke (what the spys used in Civ II).
 
Love the article. I've had a few good nuke parties in civ3 and am looking forward to it in 4. I do have a few questions with it though. With the diplomacy improved, do nukes actually act as a deterrant? Say I have a few icbm's, will the mongols be less likely to start a war with me for fear I may use them? I hope so. There really should be a distinction between hitting a city and hitting troops. During the cold war both sides developed tactical nukes for this purpose. The US had Atomic Annie (the nuke arty piece) to stem the tide of an advancing soviet or chinese army. While this would have produced a response, it probably would not have led to a full blown nuke exchange. Strong allies should have a lesser negitive effect from nukes since, after all, they are allies. While there should be a negitive response for the use of nukes, there should also be one of caution...If the Romans just nuked Japan...maybe its not a good idea for the Germans to invade or go to war with Rome.

On the issue of fallout. It probably should lower the health of nearby areas, but it would not be any significant environmental impact from 1 nuke. It would take an exchange of several hundreds to thousands in a very very very short time to produce any catistrophic results. We can look to history for this. Since 1945 there have been slightly over 2000 nukes of varing power detonated. Thats 2000. These range from very small .something kiloton tactical nukes to massive 100 megaton monsters. During the mid 60's in an 18 month span, over half the megatonage of ALL tests was detonated. That is a lot of radiation in a very short time frame. Are we in a nuclear winter??? No. Are we feeling reduced health effects from it, I would argue that we are. But the results have been far from immediate or really horrible. We actually nuked the upper atmosphere a few times to see what would happen. (I have a theory that has been shot down by many that this is the actual cause of the ozone hole...but I like that theory so :p ). A US gov't report that came out about 4 years ago shows that there is toxic levels of radiation from the testing that took place in New Mexico, Nevada, and Mississippi over the entire US. So to bring this all back into a Civ4 context, I think their very limited environmental impact is about right considering its not likely for there to be thousands of icbm's built in the game, but they also need to have some negitive effect on health.

http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/nudb/datab15.asp
http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/nuctestsum.html

Can't wait to blast someone to the stone age!!!
 
I'm not really sure, but I think "nuclear winter" is a term of the past, that scientists in the 80s revised that theory and claimed it was false. Carl Sagan and others might have been involved. Too lazy to do research on that right now ;)
 
Wow! We are all certified ecologists, meteorologists and physicists here! :nuke: :goodjob: :nuke:

Anyway, I think by now the differences between nuclear winters and global warming is quite clear, and may both be accurate occurances in civ4 in one form or another and I stand corrected on a few points. :mischief: In any case the important quetion is what do we do (mod) about it? :groucho:

I think that Firaxis hasn't gone as deep into this as we are doing now because a) they are not nuke happy psychos like us :bump: and b) by the end of the game when M.A.D. can actually happen the game is almost over and any very long term effects aren't gonna be around. (Insidentaly, does anyone know if excessive smog cities can trigger global warming?)

The scenario of global warming and/or a nuclear winter has never happened (or completed if it's happening now) in our recent civilisation, so there is no real scenario for recovering from it. Should we mod this it would be important to distinguish a few things, and I propose we work on that now with all the scientific knowledge that we have. Thusly....

Things to mod:

A nuclear winter: triggered by 100+ nukes in 3 turns
Effects: 50% farms on earth destroyed per turn randomly. Global unhappiness and health levels due to radiation poisoning?
Duration: 10 turns (as winds sweep away dust)

Gloabl warming: smog and nuke variables?
Effects: dessertification as per vanilla civ4

Nuke dropping bomber: one square effective. (can the nuke graphics be reduced in size for this?)

Or should we just start a new thread for all this?
 
I think we should start a new thread for all interesting things we could mod. That nuke bomber sounds great. Maybe it could drop other things as well. E.g. anthrax, mustard gas, cluster bombs and other fun things :D
 
Top Bottom