Very nice! I follow this mod since of beginning with TheLopez!
Some coordenates for new upgrades (suggestion):
( I use in here words of some people of the site civfanatics)
Based on some quick reference, it looks like about 30% of the population of Hiroshima died immediately with more dying afterwards due to the aftereffects, and 80% of the city was destroyed. Perhaps a sizeable population/military hit (some units completely destroyed, others considerably weakened), plus most of the nearby improvements, and a lasting negative health effect would be most realistic.
I don't want excessively weak nukes, but I'd personally prefer the game's implementation rather than such excessively devastating nukes.
The other main component to a nukes, and I don't know anything about implementing this, is a diplomacy effect.(maybe in BTS is more easy to mod) I don't want to go so far as to say the AI will not declare war on a civ that has nukes, but it should be something close to it to simulate nukes standoffs. The US never did battle with Russia. It wasn't until 1999 with India and Pakistan that two nuclear nations actually went to war with each other, and it's much more fitting to call it a "conflict" than a "war."
There should be an automatic setting that any nukes launched against a nuclear nation will be returned in kind (I'd say to the city they were launched from, but that would encourage launching nukes from your smallest/weakest city, so maybe they should just be lobbed at the capital). I don't think that even needs to be left up to the player to retaliate.
The nukes portrayed in Civ 4 are nuclear warheads, which are capable of obliterating a city. The two bombs that hit those two cities were equivelant to 20000 tons of TNT.
The nukes we have today are more near the equivelant of 50 000 000 tons of TNT. This is what the nukes in Civ 4 are meant to be like.the hiroshima-bomb had around 15kTs tnt-equivalent, modern bombs are minimum 10times it. so with a modern bomb hiroshima wouldn't be anymore.
but how about that: if a bomb hits a size 1 city, then this city gets destroyed. so you can bomb a size 20 city to 1 and then destroy it. of course you will need a great amount of nukes, but its more realistic.
for diplomacy it would be cool, if you can demand a nuclear disarmament from your rival or he from you. same with the un-resolution. example: all will reduce their nuclear units by 30% until the next 5 turns or lose 3 trade-routes per city for 20 truns.(example for un-res)
In CIV, nukes should be broken down into three categories to be realistic.
ATOMIC BOMBS
Basically, the nukes Civ has always had. 50% damage to the targetted tile. However, the damage should be confined to that tile. Units and improvements in the adjoining squares should be unharmed. There should be two units with atomic bombs. One, literally the atomic bomb, should have a range equal to the bomber unit and some small chance of interception. The other, an atomic missile, should have substantial range and no chance of interception.
NUCLEAR BOMB
This would be a new unit. It should devastate the tile it's used on. All units destroyed. All buildings destroyed. All improvements destroyed. If used on a city, it should be a 90% populatation loss. I suggest the following formula:
Cities between 1 and 9 should be erased.
Cities between 10 and 19 should be reduced to 2.
Cities between 20 and 29 should be reduced to 3.
And so on...
Adjacent tiles should take 30% damage.
Should be deliverable by long-range bomber, or ICBM, with infinite range.
TACTICAL NUKE
Does the same damage as an atomic bomb, but is very cheap and has a very short range.
