Fallout should remove tile values

[mclericp]

1. It disturbs me to see that after i used a couple of nukes on one civ, 10 turns later their workers fully repaired everything and gained the benefit back.

I think, the BASE tile values should be removed completely once the fallout hits the tile. If the worker repairs the tile and pillage, they should only gain the improvement bonus.

Say for example, Grassland has 2 food and the improvement farm adds 2 more food. Once the nuke is down, the grassland loses its base food, but repairs can gain back the 2 food from improvement only.

I think it is safe to say it should work this way. Cmon, what kind of food grow in chernobyl

2. on a side note, i think all units should take HP damage per turn in fallout tiles, just like how carthage takes 50 HP off units on mountains

 

[thelesserevil]

It makes sense from a real world perspective, but would make nuclear weapons ridiculous in Civ V. Like, they would be able to nearly completely and permanently cripple a civilization. The effort put into creating them, and the diplomatic repercussions for using them, would have to be MASSIVE.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Just another case of Gameplay>Realism

 

[TeriXeri]

I agree for balance reasons, the population loss is already the biggest setback, permanent tile penalties would be too easy to take a civ out of the game.

Also when I saved a map late-game, it did save the Fallout tiles with it, weird

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I agree for balance reasons, the population loss is already the biggest setback, permanent tile penalties would be too easy to take a civ out of the game.

Also when I saved a map late-game, it did save the Fallout tiles with it, weird

As far as I know Fallout is literally a tile improvement ala Ancient Ruins.. or something..

 

[Barathor]

As far as I know Fallout is literally a tile improvement ala Ancient Ruins.. or something..

Ancient Ruins are an improvement, but I believe Fallout is feature.

 

[Bad Wolf]

This isn't really a gameplay vs realism thing, I remember fallout in the older Civ games was actually quite devastating. Nukes in Civ V are almost laughably weak, considering what they're supposed to be. (You know, the ultimate weapons of destruction capable of ending all life on Earth.) Of cousre the diplomatic penalty for using nukes should be huge, but as it stands I rarely bother getting nuclear weapons (even as a deterrent) because they're too much investment for not enough payoff.

 

[LoneRebel]

Let's not exaggerate the power of nukes too much. The two cities that have been hit by nukes in human history are both thriving and significantly larger than they were at the time of the bombings, less than 70 years ago.

Also, every succeeding population point represents more people than the preceding one. If a nuke hits a size 30 city,which is around 14 million people IIRC, then you actually killed way more than 7 million people with that one nuke, since at smaller city sizes every population point represents less people. Even better if you managed to hit two cities with one nuke. That seems to be genocide enough to me.

EDIT: Just realized my post would also do for the "nukes are not nearly damaging enough" thread.

 

[Zaimejs]

I liked Civ IV with Engineers who could clean up the fallout, but it took time and it should also take resources. You would hope that in the event of a nuclear attack, we'd have some solution for dealing with fallout. After all, we've known about it for 67 years. I'm certain the the most brilliant minds in the world have been working on this problem.

But yes, Realism vs. Gameplay. Meh.

 

[AW Arcaeca]

I liked Civ IV with Engineers who could clean up the fallout, but it took time and it should also take resources.

^^ This. Yes, nukes in civilization games should be a bit more powerful. (in the real world they completely obliterated 2 entire cities, not halved their population ) At least when making civ4 the developers had enough sense to give workers the ability to scrub fallout to restore tile yields and re-allow improvements. That really should have been in civ5.

..And yes, they're called workers, not engineers.

 

[Winsling]

^^ This. Yes, nukes in civilization games should be a bit more powerful. (in the real world they completely obliterated 2 entire cities, not halved their population ) At least when making civ4 the developers had enough sense to give workers the ability to scrub fallout to restore tile yields and re-allow improvements. That really should have been in civ5.

..And yes, they're called workers, not engineers.

No, they didn't. The bombing of Hiroshima destroyed less than five square miles. 30% of the population was killed. In Civ terms, Hiroshima went from a size 7 city to size 6 and lost a lot of buildings. No fallout in surrounding hexes.

Nagasaki was broadly similar. The aim point was missed, so the city was shielded from much of the blast.

Atomic bombs in Civ are much more powerful than they historically were. It's less clear what nuclear missiles are meant to model - if they're Tomahawk cruise missiles they're similarly overmodeled; if they're ICBMs the range is much too short but the destruction might be about right.

 

[civ54lyfe]

Atomic bombs in Civ are much more powerful than they historically were. It's less clear what nuclear missiles are meant to model - if they're Tomahawk cruise missiles they're similarly overmodeled; if they're ICBMs the range is much too short but the destruction might be about right.

that depends. you get the first Atomic Bomb, then you can get the Nuclear Missile. i'm guessing that the Missile is supposed to be 2nd- etc generation nuclear weapons like hydrogen bombs, neutron bombs, and so on.

that said, i think the (Civ5) Atomic Bomb and Nuclear Missile both do the same population damage. unless someone has seen otherwise.

 

[Playsoneasy]

The whole idea of "Nuclear Weapons" is just too generic. Not all nukes are equal. For example, are we talking about thermonuclear weapons (which could have yields in the tens of megatons) or fission based atomic bombs/missiles, where yields rarely exceed 500 kilotons?

Perhaps there needs to be two broad types of nuclear weapon technologies allowing construction of two broad categories of nuclear weapons in Civ 5 - the earlier fission-based A Bombs and later H Bombs, with the latter having the potential to damage several cities at once...

I agree with the poster who said fallout need not be a permanent feature, and there should be the option for your workers to clean it up.

 

[reddishrecue]

The a bombs launched in Japan weren't that big in comparison to the new nuclear bombs that are made today. Nukes in civilization 5 have lost their power because there's a non nuclear proliferation in the wc that doesn't allow the building of new nukes if you let the proliferation get passed. I do think that the nuclear bomb should cause more damage than the atomic bomb in civilization 5 though.

 

[thelesserevil]

One thing that should be noted about the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were detonated in the air, with the goal to do as much damage to as many buildings as possible, not to kill as many people as possible. Because they were detonated in the air, there was barely any fall-out, which you mostly get when an atomic weapon explodes on the ground and can actually spread irradiated soil and such.

Not sure how this relates to the situation in Civ 5 directly, but hey, there ya go. >.>

 

[JustinianIV]

One thing that should be noted about the bombs used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki is that they were detonated in the air, with the goal to do as much damage to as many buildings as possible, not to kill as many people as possible. Because they were detonated in the air, there was barely any fall-out, which you mostly get when an atomic weapon explodes on the ground and can actually spread irradiated soil and such.

Not sure how this relates to the situation in Civ 5 directly, but hey, there ya go. >.>

Not exactly related, but I just learnt something. Thanks!

 

[Callonia]

Drop nukes onto floodplain hexes and watch them turn into desert permanently.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

If anything, fallout should disappear on its own after a few turns. Surface level radiation would return to normal after a few months at most, usually much faster. There is a huge difference between a few pounds of uranium fission byproducts in an atomic being spread over thousands of square miles and a reactor meltdown like Chernobyl where thousands of pounds of waste contaminated a few square miles.