wlievens
Warlord
SMAC had that cool weapon that could level half a continent. I want it back!
planetbusters!
- Thread starter wlievens
- Start date
ybbor
Will not change his avata
so what would be the range of destruction 10 tiles? 5 tiles? those things would be absoulutly devasating, and would have to be VERY expensive. available only with both integrated defense and stealth. and of course a limited range. also with the missle defense thing (a 75% chance of bieng shot down, unless that is chnaged w/ civ4) you would be VERY mad that you 2000 shield unit was shot down
wlievens
Warlord
Ten is just a little much 
How about 3?
How about 3?
ybbor
Will not change his avata
reasonable, then a cost of say 1500, 1750? but yeah, 3 seems reasonable (it's aproaching the limit of bieng a game breaker)
exactly with radius 4 I once destroide 5 or 6 cities with one shot, leaving a small ocean in their place. I liked havin to buy each of the anti nuke satalites, each one giving a chance to shoot down a nukeinsted of just one thing that gives 75% chance...
CIVPhilzilla
Reagan Republican
I never get that far in the game 4 it to matter for me.
Cheetah
Deity
Would be nice to have Planetbusters in Civ4. We could get them in a fifth, Future Era!
I remember the first time I used that thing! I was testing it out, and detonated it next to my capital thinking it would be like a Civ2 nuke and.... 
It would be nice to have an adjustable range, and the effect on terrain (i.e., change to terrain is -1 (grass to plains, plains to desert), -2, (pretty much to desert), -3 (to coast), -4 (sea), -5 (ocean). Something like that.
It would be nice to have an adjustable range, and the effect on terrain (i.e., change to terrain is -1 (grass to plains, plains to desert), -2, (pretty much to desert), -3 (to coast), -4 (sea), -5 (ocean). Something like that.
dojoboy
Tsalagi
Planet busters = bad idea! Civ4 ought to move away from its warmongering roots and introduce more intellectual governing practices, along w/ the war component. The current level of nuclear armaments is more than effective, its already a 9 tile radius. Now, if you want the graphics changed so you can see a crater where the nuke is detonated, then okay. Something similar to how artillery damages terrain in Conquests.
Pirate
Emperor
I agree, no planetbusters. If you want future ages play SMAC or CTP. I'd rather see improvements to the civlized aspect of the game. It is called civilization, after all.
#1 Person
The Cow
I would like that idea if there was an easy way to deactivate it from the game (Like when you are in the setu screen there is a button you click for weather you want it or not.
h4ppy
You sir, pineapple?
No, Civ is historical and should stay that way.
Erulastannen
Chieftain
- Joined
- May 26, 2004
- Messages
- 3
I'm not sure about planet busters but I want better nuclear weapons. Realisticly an ICBM wouldn't reduce a city by 90% population and have a 50% chance of killing units it would totally wipe out the city and kill all the units. I would like to see Tactical Nukes and ICBMs cause radioactivity in the tiles around the nuked cities, that way the AI couldn't just settle in that exact place for about 250 years.
Kyborgi
Warlord
I'd like to see MIRV's and changeable size of the ICBM's and istead of pollution, it should create crater (repairable) and radiation (permanent). about planet busters, I don't know. Isn't that a bit overkill? 10 ICBMs get the job done good enough.
ok someone said to get away from the Warmongering stuff NO! never ever u have to have mass amounts of war otherwise its just a diplomatic game although i like diploamtic stuff i would like to be able to blow the Fu*k outta someone if i wanted too.
From the looks of things, we might be able to edit units in Python if it's that integrated. That way, you can give nukes varying radii and effects.
i.e., imagine a "nuke" that, when it strikes, gives an X radius of damage (and even turn the terrain type - i.e., flat terrain to coast), plus turns all terrain around the radius into hills. If it's already a hill, to a mountain. If it's a mountain, then a snow capped mountain, or volcano. All cities, units, improvements within X tiles of the circle could be destroyed. You could also rename the nuke to "meteor". I think that's the power of the scripting engine -- to do just about anything we want with the game. I wonder if this could go as far as "seeing an animation" and sound effects. (i.e., a 1 second delay before the next set of tiles changes).
i.e., imagine a "nuke" that, when it strikes, gives an X radius of damage (and even turn the terrain type - i.e., flat terrain to coast), plus turns all terrain around the radius into hills. If it's already a hill, to a mountain. If it's a mountain, then a snow capped mountain, or volcano. All cities, units, improvements within X tiles of the circle could be destroyed. You could also rename the nuke to "meteor". I think that's the power of the scripting engine -- to do just about anything we want with the game. I wonder if this could go as far as "seeing an animation" and sound effects. (i.e., a 1 second delay before the next set of tiles changes).
Pariah
Outside Influence
We should not have artificial weapons powerful enough to qualify as planetbusters - before long, the AIs will start using them willy-nilly with no thought for environment or consequences. That might indeed put an end to the game, however careful the human player is. Nuclear weapons as currently simulated are bad enough for me.
If anything is allowed to cause damage on that scale, or indeed globally, it should be an EXTREMELY improbable random event, which happens only once in 20 or 30 games on average. Even then, there should be enough cities & units left for the game to continue. And the game setup would contain an option to disable natural disasters, as it does for pollution in Civ2.
If anything is allowed to cause damage on that scale, or indeed globally, it should be an EXTREMELY improbable random event, which happens only once in 20 or 30 games on average. Even then, there should be enough cities & units left for the game to continue. And the game setup would contain an option to disable natural disasters, as it does for pollution in Civ2.
Diogenes183
Chieftain
You know what would be fun? Just for "ha has"? An expensive, high tech unit that will blow up the entire planet (the Dr. Strangelove device?). The AI will be programmed to never build the device. At the begining there can be an option to exclude the device from the game entirely, like for multiplayer games. When you use the device, it starts a cut scene of your people activating the device and then cuts to a view from space of the earth being blown apart or perhaps imploding into a black hole. Then the game ends, it counts as a loss. You could shoot for it if you have absolutely no chance of winning the game (while expensive, its much less expensive then the spacecraft).
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
I still think that current ICBMs should be able to level mountains, flatten hills, and blow all terrain immediately adjacent flat.
The target square would be completely flat desert, radiated. All the adjacent squares would be partially radiated, hills and mountains remain, but the rest turn into desert.
I'm suprised the AI isn't programmed with a sense for Mutually Assured Destruction.
The target square would be completely flat desert, radiated. All the adjacent squares would be partially radiated, hills and mountains remain, but the rest turn into desert.
I'm suprised the AI isn't programmed with a sense for Mutually Assured Destruction.
Similar threads
