ICBM explosion effect unrealistic

[taelons]

Civilization 4 (Warlords + Beyond The Sword) -
I like almost every aspect of the game except for one thing

ICBM successful attack does not wipe out a unit on tile. Only damages.

I find it totally ridiculous and unrealistic. Any idea to tweak or patch this?

 

[digitCruncher]

It actually does

As long as there is no nuke bunkers, 50% of all units will be killed, and the other half will be damaged. If you launch a second nuke, then something insane like 95% of all units will be killed, and the rest will be on less than 10% health.

Drop 2 nukes, and the desired effect will be achieved.

[Edit]If you want 1 nuke to kill all units... then that is insane!! Imagine that YOU are not first to ICBMs / Tactical Nukes... then you couldn't attack any nuclear-capable civilisation. Any, and all, stacks that you send at them will be wiped of the face of the earth as soon as it approaches your borders!! And that civ can just waltz through your empire without a care for the world, as nukes are rather cheap (About twice as expensive as a Modern Armor), and 2 of them can kill any stack.
Its a balance thing, and if you can have either balance, or realism, but not both, then I congradulate Fireaxis for choosing balance. As an unbalanced game is no fun to play.[/Edit]

 

[Matthew5117]

Completely agree with digitCruncher. Nothing more to say except for the first nuke bombs were not powerful. For example, the bomb on Hiroshima didn't kill everyone; people still lived.

 

[taelons]

It actually does

As long as there is no nuke bunkers, 50% of all units will be killed, and the other half will be damaged. If you launch a second nuke, then something insane like 95% of all units will be killed, and the rest will be on less than 10% health.

Drop 2 nukes, and the desired effect will be achieved.

[Edit]If you want 1 nuke to kill all units... then that is insane!! Imagine that YOU are not first to ICBMs / Tactical Nukes... then you couldn't attack any nuclear-capable civilisation. Any, and all, stacks that you send at them will be wiped of the face of the earth as soon as it approaches your borders!! And that civ can just waltz through your empire without a care for the world, as nukes are rather cheap (About twice as expensive as a Modern Armor), and 2 of them can kill any stack.
Its a balance thing, and if you can have either balance, or realism, but not both, then I congradulate Fireaxis for choosing balance. As an unbalanced game is no fun to play.[/Edit]

I dropped 5 ICBMs on normal tile (not city) and at least 1 unit still standing.

Unrealistic indeed.

 

[reverend oats]

More or less unrealistic then, e.g., having the same person rule a country throughout history?

 

[Matthew5117]

5 ICBMs on a normal tile and 1 unit still standing? How many were there at first? Does the civ you nuked have SDI?

Another question not related to the response of taelons, does the terrain you nuke affect the results?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I dropped 5 ICBMs on normal tile (not city) and at least 1 unit still standing.

Unrealistic indeed.

Consider the amount of size a tile represents in the game and rethink it. Most nukes don't have a blast radius of 100+ miles. Most don't even go over 5? Point is, it's hard to get such missiles to hit perfect dead center of an army, and if we're talking multiple armies, they're probably not standing in a layered circle holding hands while the nukes rain down - more likely at least a LITTLE spread out!

 

[digitCruncher]

Agreed... I have had no units standing after 3 nukes, ever!

Was it a military unit? A corporation executive (I heard that those guys are invinsible to nukes)? Could you provide a save-game? [Edit]If it was a non-city tile, could you tell us if he had SDI (Which intercepts 75% of all ICBM's, and 50% of all tactical nukes)?[/Edit]

 

[Emiliano]

And remember: One Unit is really a complete division of that class... hundreds, maybe thousands soilders. If its damaged, it means that some of them died.

If that blasted unit has only 0.1 life, it could mean that 99% of the batallion died, and only a docen survived... why not taking cover in some improved but effective bunker.

Oh! And of course, is the ballance thing

 

[r_rolo1]

I don't know if the ICBM effects in game are unrealistical or not, because no one ever dropped a ICBM on a military unit to see if it is still in "working conditions" in real life.

 

[Unconquered Sun]

I don't know if the ICBM effects in game are unrealistical or not, because no one ever dropped a ICBM on a military unit to see if it is still in "working conditions" in real life.

Stalin did.

 

[r_rolo1]

^^No...

URSS dropped a nuke in a ghost town and then sent a division to move in to see if the army could efficiently conquer a nuked city...

And anyway there were no ICBMs in Stalin days, with nuclear warheads or not The first ICBM was the R-7 , that was first tested in August 1957, the same model that would launch Sputnik in October of the same year

 

[Lemon Merchant]

I don't know how realistic the game is in terms of reality. As others have said, it's a balance thing. But I remember watching a documentary a few years ago about what a nuke attack will really do. They were talking about dropping an average size one on New York city, and what would happen. Basically, if I remember right, the damage would be catastrophic around the blast radius, and about 50 to 60% of the people would die either outright, or from injuries later immediately after it. Another 5 to 10% would die after that from other causes like radiation sickness. But there would be buildings and people left standing.
With that in mind, I don't think I would want to stand in the blast radius to really find out just how realistic the effects in Civ really are. In fact, if someone ever does push the big red button, I hope the thing lands right on my head.