Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
AI should surrender when nuked (if it hasn't nuclear weapon at this time). And I think that nukes should raze cities.
Nuclear Weapons should be More Expensive
- Thread starter MosheLevi
- Start date
AI should surrender when nuked (if it hasn't nuclear weapon at this time). And I think that nukes should raze cities.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
I thought you wanted the game to be more realistic
? Maybe if you fire a LOT of them at one spot.
r_rolo1
King of myself
No and no
1. A country ( let's say.... Finland, just for sake's example ) re-processes the spent nuclear fuel of their nuke plant and extracts the Pu 238 and 239 of it ( like France does in Le Hague ), stores it for some years until it has enough to make a nuke or two. Then drops one nuke in Norway and other on Sweden. They both surrender and finland now is 4 times bigger. Realistical, no?
2. Let me see how many cities were erased from the map because of nukes so far...... 0 . Even the keshiks are better at razing cities
I agree with r rolo1, it's just not realistic. Yes, Japan surrendered in the only actual use of nukes in war, but that was because it was already losing and there was bound to be more where that came from. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were nuked, but not razed. Most of the damage came not from the nukes themselves, but from the wooden buildings catching fire because of the explosive blast. It is true that only a small (very small) percentage of the bombs reacted, but the technology did not allow for that. I have to say, if it had, there would be a couple of big chunks missing from the Japanese islands.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
Not razed? WTF?
hurra! I have just learned that nukes no longer raze cities! Hurra! But why do they prevent other countries to have the bomb then?
And i didn't know that keshiks was more powerfull than the atomic bomb.
Yes, you are right. Nuclear bomb is not that powerfull...
hurra! I have just learned that nukes no longer raze cities! Hurra! But why do they prevent other countries to have the bomb then?
And i didn't know that keshiks was more powerfull than the atomic bomb.
Yes, you are right. Nuclear bomb is not that powerfull...
r_rolo1
King of myself
Want me to show the other parts of Hiroxima? Or maybe remembering you that nagasaki had a far less damaged area, because, unlike hiroxima, it was not built in a plain between mountains? Or maybe comparing those images with berlin or Dresden in 1945 or Stalingrad in 1943, or even Coventry in 1940 ?
Better, let's compare images:
So artilery should raze cities ( Mount Cassino )
So planes should raze cities ( Dresden )
And about the keshiks... I can point you a number of cities that were razed by the mongols and that stayed like that until now.
Better, let's compare images:
So artilery should raze cities ( Mount Cassino )
So planes should raze cities ( Dresden )
And about the keshiks... I can point you a number of cities that were razed by the mongols and that stayed like that until now.
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2003
- Messages
- 3,951
You get it all. Artillery and planes should raze cities also.
Just in case you haven't noticed, Monte Cassino was not a city, but a monastery. One building. It was not destroyed by artillery either, it was destroyed by a total of 700 bombers.
Dresden was destroyed by fire bombing, not your normal bombs. It was not 'razed', since it is still around today.
Both Japanese cities are still around today, are they not? To answer your question: No, people do not want to be nuked. But that's because of the destruction of the blast, and (mostly) because of the effects of radiation. Your examples of nuclear destruction are from WWII tech atomic bombs, modern thermonuclear bombs are much more powerful and more accurate. I will be genuinely surprised if one is ever used in a war, let alone conventional war (the best kind).
What are you going on about Keshiks anyway?
Dresden was destroyed by fire bombing, not your normal bombs. It was not 'razed', since it is still around today.
Both Japanese cities are still around today, are they not? To answer your question: No, people do not want to be nuked. But that's because of the destruction of the blast, and (mostly) because of the effects of radiation. Your examples of nuclear destruction are from WWII tech atomic bombs, modern thermonuclear bombs are much more powerful and more accurate. I will be genuinely surprised if one is ever used in a war, let alone conventional war (the best kind).
What are you going on about Keshiks anyway?
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
The mongols were quite well known for their merciless ability to do that.
And yes, virtually any military force can raze a city if it moves in. It isn't hard if there's no resistance...you walk in with 10,000+ people armed to the teeth and start launching missiles or simply lighting fires. How many buildings are in the average city? I bet it wouldn't take 10,000 people long to torch even some of the larger cities.
Nukes don't completely eliminate target sites for game balance...but in real life it would take a lot of nukes to iron out every single person in a city. In game terms hitting a city with several nukes and dropping it by 10-20 pop is a single-city slaughter the likes of which hasn't been seen much in our history...that represents 100's of thousands...possibly millions. What more do you want?
r_rolo1
King of myself
True enough in both ( in spite of both Cassino and Mount cassino had suffered a lot of artilery shelling as well ). I was being sarcastic with the image usage ( the person I was responding to used images of the same type to ptrove that nukes raze cities .... and decided to show 2 pics of the center of Hiroxima
) and my opinion is that the nuked Japanese cities were as razed as Dresden or CoventryI definitely agree on the more powerful, not sure on the accuracy, especially with the avaliable counter-measures and the fact than no country in the world ever tried to launch more than 5 ICBMs ( even if duds ) at the same time, like it surely would happen in case of MAD going mad
......Nothing. I could had used legionaries or macedonian phalanx in the same sentence and it would make exactly the same sense.
But it works both ways. It is just as difficult for the AI to launch nukes. Reducing the significance of nukes does not give you any relative disadvantage, seeing as all other civs also would have a lower ability to create/use nukes (depending on how you restricted them further).
And you can't really say it's not balanced. Argetnyx mentioned that that cost includes transportation, maintenance, etc. Well, why shouldn't this be included in the cost of nukes also? I'm not sure about this, but as far as I'm aware, nukes do not have any exceptional or larger maintenance or supply costs. Perhaps they should.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,989
And why should they, given the obvious costs above normal units already present in terms of diplo consideration, having them get banned (or defying that), global warming (which being caused by nukes is BS but that's another story), and the MASSIVE war weariness from launching them?
If you think restricting nukes is good for game balance, you can do it, but I don't see the point. Games where they factor in are quite rare unless one is either playing below their level or running a big GAMBLE on the nukes.
Making them more expensive but also more damaging does not add balance. It reduces it. If you made it so that they could raze cities for example, a productive empire with a good tech position would get that tech and you might as well hit quit the second it happens, because you could just win conquest without sending ground troops outside borders.
Just a thought, but why not have the city itself get some type of status, like how fallout covers normal tiles, maybe the city would have a "Nuked" effect placed on it.
Wait, wait, wait, nevermind that. A Hiroshima-bomb was about 10 KILOTONS.
Our current ICBMS can go up to 20 MEGATONS.
I think an ICBM would literally obliterate a city. If one was dropped on Hiroshima, not only would IT not exist, but most of the area where it WAS would not exist, leaving a crater, and a drastically increased shoreline.
In other words, there should be a difference between A-Bombs and H-Bombs, an A-Bomb would do what the ICBM does now, but the ICBM would cost much more to build, but would destroy a city with a chance of destroying the tile itself.
Oh, that, and when H-Bombs were tested, it wiped out all vegetation, so maybe the tile would become "Barren", with other tiles having a chance of getting that.
Wait, wait, wait, nevermind that. A Hiroshima-bomb was about 10 KILOTONS.
Our current ICBMS can go up to 20 MEGATONS.
I think an ICBM would literally obliterate a city. If one was dropped on Hiroshima, not only would IT not exist, but most of the area where it WAS would not exist, leaving a crater, and a drastically increased shoreline.
In other words, there should be a difference between A-Bombs and H-Bombs, an A-Bomb would do what the ICBM does now, but the ICBM would cost much more to build, but would destroy a city with a chance of destroying the tile itself.
Oh, that, and when H-Bombs were tested, it wiped out all vegetation, so maybe the tile would become "Barren", with other tiles having a chance of getting that.
In the grand scale of things, though, nukes haven't really effected warfare. I mean, they've been used twice, in all of history, so adding more variations of them into the game would not be the most sensible thing to do.
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.
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.
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.
