Questions about nuclear weapons

[Laurwin]

ok, so I was playing an epic speed continents (two continents) game as ragnar on noble, it was pretty late in the game, and none of the victory conditions were really within my grasp. I had warred against ethiopia with catherine on my side, and we had very good relations, even a defensive pact and so on. However Catherine was a pretty useless ally TBH, never shared any techs, and kept asking for "spare techs" like industrialism for a world map or something equally uselss. Well, I did give her uranium and aluminium for some wine...

Techwise I was probably the second most advanced civ, I dunno how the hell Hammurabi could even survive on the other continent, with only like 5 cities, compared to the just about smaller then me Augustus and Wang Kon and the others around there. In any case, Hammurabi had the most tech, gunships by the looks of things and nukes as I later found out.

I decided that I had to try to take out Hammurabi since he had finished apollo program a bit earlier than I had finished Manhattan Project. I had a nice production city and I was running environmentalism just for that reason, to get more health so I could work more tiles. I almost could churn out tanks in single turns 266 hammers I think. I built a fleet of bombers and teched to rocketry as well. I figured I'd also go for advanced flight because Hammurabi had to have his own fighters already.

I built a big armada of BBs, CVs and DDs and transports with a couple of subs, that I actually decided to withdraw back to carry tactical nukes. But in any case my armada got nuked already at sea.

So, I'd like to ask about the effects of nuclear weapons on ships, troops and aircraft, how is the damage determined (or rather distributed)? I mean some of my troops died and some only got injured, in my TPs at sea. Couple DDs sank as well I think, but my aircraft stayed in rather good health.

Is the damage always the same within the area of effect (how big?) or is the epicenter of the nuclear blast more deadly?

Are tactical nukes equally destructive when it comes to nuking, even thought they have less range?

Can I still carry 3 tactical nukes in a normal submarine? How do I load them in the subs?

[Draco Spirit]

This is why I never build the Manhattan Project.... nukes can turn an army of 50 tanks into scrap metal and and sized 20 metroplis into a hamlet.....

The UN on the other hand

[Laurwin]

I agree fully with that.
Manhattan Project wonder is utterly ridiculous and illogical in function. I mean wtf?!



what good would it be in the first place to build the Manhattan Project if all it meant was that THE OTHERS (enemies) who had not spent a dime in it, would ALSO get the nukes available?

If the Manhattan Project had granted the Germans the capability (and by that I mean the scientific and engineering challenges that went with the whole project) to build nukes, Manhattan Project would never have been started.

Remember, the whole point of the Manhattan Project was that USA and Allies never knew for sure (until about 1945) whether the Germans had their nuclear program, so they had to make sure they got nukes FIRST.

That's a bit like shipping all possible blueprints and technology to the enemy really. A big part of nuke production in WW2 was of course electricity and the capability to produce the weapons grade uranium or plutonium out of the normal uranium. This the USA alone had available during WW2, due to USA's huge electricity production, reservoirs and dams etc...


Because if the Germans had gotten all the blueprints, engineering, and theory work, they would surely have built the necessary facilities to create necessary amount of fissile material. They didn't lack uranium, only the facilities, and the engineering/theoretic work that went with the bomb.


I wonder if its possible to edit or mod the Manhattan Project wonder in some way. For example, the country that builds it first gets a production bonus to nukes, and other civs a penalty perhaps, if it still retained the annoying "allows nukes for everyone"

[vanatteveldt]

If you want to make it realistic, you could make the manhattan project a national wonder or team project, and give a discount of 10%*number of civs that already completed it, to account for the relative difficulty of being the first to build it.

[PieceOfMind]

Tactical nukes are equally destructive as ICBMs. Tactical nukes also have much better chance to avoid interception when the enemy has built SDI. Only 37.5% of tacticals will be shot down, compared with 75% of ICBMs. ICBMs also cost twice as much as tacticals, so if you're in a position where you can use tacticals, then you probably should.

To load missiles (guided missiles or tac nukes) onto submarines you have to load them while the sub is on a fort or city. Note the missiles do not have to have movement points left to be loaded (just like units don't need movement points to be loaded onto transports).

[Laurwin]

Originally Posted by vanatteveldt

If you want to make it realistic, you could make the manhattan project a national wonder or team project, and give a discount of 10%*number of civs that already completed it, to account for the relative difficulty of being the first to build it.

Originally Posted by PieceOfMind

Tactical nukes are equally destructive as ICBMs. Tactical nukes also have much better chance to avoid interception when the enemy has built SDI. Only 37.5% of tacticals will be shot down, compared with 75% of ICBMs. ICBMs also cost twice as much as tacticals, so if you're in a position where you can use tacticals, then you probably should.

To load missiles (guided missiles or tac nukes) onto submarines you have to load them while the sub is on a fort or city. Note the missiles do not have to have movement points left to be loaded (just like units don't need movement points to be loaded onto transports).

Ok, thanks I'll have a look at the modding section if there's anything like that available for the Manhattan Project.

To be honest, I also find it rather silly that you need rockets to have nukes, as we all know, all of the first nukes (the gadget, little boy, and fat man) were all bombs, and in case of the latter two, were dropped from B-29 Superfortresses.

@PieceofMind
thanks for quick answer, do you happen to know if the damage varies in the area of effect, and how big is the area of effect?

I mean if you drop it directly on a city's garrison, but outside of the city there are also some troops, would the city garrison suffer more damage than the troops outside a few squares away. (no bunkers or anything like that, which would reduce nuke damage)

[J-man]

Well, I did give her uranium and aluminium for some wine...

You trade aluminium and uranium for wine!?
If your enemies have nukes, you can build the SDI and also split your forces up.

[Laurwin]

she was my ally, remember . Well ally in terms of defensive pact at least.

well honestly, cathy is a pretty crappy ally, never shared any techs for a decent beaker price, always came asking for key techs for free. I had spare aluminium and uranium so I figured I'd rather give some to the russians to keep them happy.

[Gliese 581]

Originally Posted by J-man

You trade aluminium and uranium for wine!?
If your enemies have nukes, you can build the SDI and also split your forces up.

I'd give anything for some wine when I'm in the mood!

[dirtyparrot]

Nukes aren't that bad in the right circumstances. The AI does not seem to prioritize the tech (at least up to Monarch), so it's an extremely useful mobile artillery. It's speeds up the time it takes to get a victory. I won't build the Manhattan Project unless I have a monopoly of the tech, but in the right circumstances it's an extremely useful weapon.

[6K Man]

I like the idea of nukes, but they are pretty badly implemented as it stands.

Perhaps each civ should be required to build the Manhattan Project in order to build nukes, but the second (and subsequent) Projects should be 1/2 the hammer cost of the first one? At least that way, there is a bit of a window in which the the 1st civ to build it can enjoy a nuclear monopoly.

[MadmanAtW]

Does the use of nukes carry a diplomatic penalty?

[TheMeInTeam]

Originally Posted by MadmanAtW

Does the use of nukes carry a diplomatic penalty?

You get a special demerit with the nuke target "-3 you nuked us", which is pretty obvious. You also get "-1 you nuked our friend" for anybody who is pleased or friendly with your target.

Nobody else cares at all .

[omnimutant]

You also get "-1 you nuked our friend" for anybody who is pleased or friendly with your target.

Unfortunately when playing against 18 civ's they all decide to get real friendly with each other right about the time your gonna nuke them. -17 Per Civ hurts real fast, but since I usually plan on nuking everyone it doesn't bother me that much.

[mirthadir]

Originally Posted by Laurwin

I agree fully with that.
Manhattan Project wonder is utterly ridiculous and illogical in function. I mean wtf?!



what good would it be in the first place to build the Manhattan Project if all it meant was that THE OTHERS (enemies) who had not spent a dime in it, would ALSO get the nukes available?

If the Manhattan Project had granted the Germans the capability (and by that I mean the scientific and engineering challenges that went with the whole project) to build nukes, Manhattan Project would never have been started.

Remember, the whole point of the Manhattan Project was that USA and Allies never knew for sure (until about 1945) whether the Germans had their nuclear program, so they had to make sure they got nukes FIRST.

That's a bit like shipping all possible blueprints and technology to the enemy really. A big part of nuke production in WW2 was of course electricity and the capability to produce the weapons grade uranium or plutonium out of the normal uranium. This the USA alone had available during WW2, due to USA's huge electricity production, reservoirs and dams etc...


Because if the Germans had gotten all the blueprints, engineering, and theory work, they would surely have built the necessary facilities to create necessary amount of fissile material. They didn't lack uranium, only the facilities, and the engineering/theoretic work that went with the bomb.


I wonder if its possible to edit or mod the Manhattan Project wonder in some way. For example, the country that builds it first gets a production bonus to nukes, and other civs a penalty perhaps, if it still retained the annoying "allows nukes for everyone"

1.) The amount of electricity required to generate a fissile mass is trivial. Any decent size Al smelter is going to require far more electricity.
2.) Dams had nothing to do with U production, Y-12 could have been powered quite handily with coal. Thermal diffusion, of course, works better by far off a hot hydrocarbon plant than a cool hydroelectric. The biggest reasons had more to do with the amount of Ag, the ease of manufacturing magnets, and the like than power plants.
3.) The actual calculations for a nuclear explosion of the gun type are not that hard; only Pakistan has managed to fizzle them.

In reality, the Manhattan project worked out much like it does in the game. The first society to it gets a year or two advantage and then everyone else gets to use it if they have the basic technical competency. Frankly any further buff to Manhattan is completely retarded. As it stands he who builds the Manhattan project can easily ensure victory by just setting things up to finish a large number of ICBMs 2 turns after finishing the project. Stockpile cash, finish Manhattan, put one turn into building ICBMs, then rushbuy enough to irradiate all the U tiles on the planet but your own. Build more nukes to either take out enemy SoD or just to irradiate and win.

[Shurdus]

On a funny note, a friend of mine once was the UN secretary general and one rather large civ was standing between him and a diplomatic victory. That one civ was not very popular at all.

A few nukes later, both the population of that civ - and the related UN voting power - was seriously diminished, resulting in him winning diplomatically on the very next vote. I thought it was a rather creative way of handling the situation.