More Nuclear Units

[SilentMage]

How about some nuclear bazookas? I'm not kidding they tried it... I wouldn't have liked to have been the guy who had to test it

I think that could fall under my idea of DUM's -- if there is a unit in the game that already bears a bazooka, just give them the DUM promotion (read my post above for all the details!) and it would be like giving them really powerful bazooka shells -- I'd hate to be on the receiving end of that, even if it doesn't hit me, cuz all the radiation from the fragmented shell would eventually kill me, if not make me get cancer.

OR are you talking about something along the lines of what they had in the movie Starship Troopers -- literally a nuclear bomb in a bazooka shell? If that's what you're talking about, I think small yield shells might be possible, like a bit stronger than a suitcase nuclear device, perhaps. I don't know if such a weapon would become a part of the battlefield because its sheer destructiveness (and the radiation after-effects) would render any spoils of war worthless -- at least for a few hundred years.

Unless the radiation effects of such a weapon could be minimized, if not eliminated, I don't think we'll actually see something like that anytime soon.

 

[Panzer Ace]

LOL i was being sarcastic.....

 

[SilentMage]

Panzer Ace, I wouldn't be surprised if such devices are being worked on in underground military labs right now! Not to sound like a military conspiracy theorist, but you'd be surprised just how "practical" some outrageous ideas can be!

The atom bomb being one of them, IMHO. Who'd a thought that a bomb could be made that could wipe out whole cities? Crazyness, I tell you!!!

 

[aahz_capone]

nukes on subs! nukes on subs!

I mean, what's the point of nuclear deterant if you can find and destory all the nuclear deterenting nukes in a first strike?

Madness, I tell you! MADNESS!!!!!

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

banned?
ploitically correct nuclear delivery systems?

what???

So suicide bombers are politically correct now?

Pollitically incorrect, yes, but a good idea, yes.

Hmm... A spy option to plant a nuke in a enemy city... now that's strategy.

*edit* Though I do not condone suicide bombers in anyway.

 

[Suki]

Panzer Ace, I wouldn't be surprised if such devices are being worked on in underground military labs right now!

worked on? how about complete, the davy crockett
. was one of the early 'neutron bombs' -> it's lethal radiation radius was much bigger than it's lethal blast radius and The smallest nuclear weapon ever (I think) yield, scalable, down to 20T (the hiroshima bomb was 14 500T, the largest bomb ever was ~50 000 000T but wpuld have been double if operated at full power) after it came unguided rocket artillery like the honest john, and surface to surface nuclear missile launchers like the lance.

20T is not much. The MOAB is ~10tonnes weight, and probably uses more powerful explosives than TNT. So if you wanted to simulate the davy crockett in game you'd get an infantry unit with the oprion of one shot artillery, with the same effect as a heavy bomber, could be lethan, with one square range, (that may get used on defensive bombardment if the unit is feeling hopless.. starting spastic nuclear war), that would also damage the unit launching it..


50% is much too high an increase for DU weapons, as written that's the same ability as the nerve gass pods from SMAC. I think it shouldn't be more than 10% max, maybe 5% I mean half the reason they're used at all is that nuclear waste is cheaper than tungsten, in fact they pay you to take the nuclear waste away because otherwise they'd ahve to pay to have it disposed of safely.. my understanding is that the only real difference between it and tungsten(W) for direct weapon effects is that it's also incindiary. I could understand a small rep hit for using it, a small chance of desertifying of poluting the tile it's used in, effects on the health level of nearby cities, and your own depending how many troops are exposed.

 

[Carver]

LOL i was being sarcastic.....

But they exist; I saw them on Starship Troopers.

 

[Agent-Jay]

Brilliant Idea, I love it and there should be four generations of fighters and even a couple of fighter-bombers too.
An Idea I had was to be able to build a Nuclear ordnance package. This package can be combined with units either bombers or artillery. When combined with these units they are given the option to fire conventional explosives or nuclear payloads. A bomber carry's a single city busting payload while artillery are more tile and unit destroying attacks with three seperate attacks. Also the advent of thermo-nuclear weapons can upgrade these to thermo-nuclear devices which can be used by bombers only?

I dislike the limitation of the ICBM being the only nuclear weapon.

I believe there should be 3 or 4 generations of bombers all of which can be nuclear capable with the manhattan project . To be nuclear bomber should be an expensive option.

First generation: Prop-Bomber(Aka. The B-17 or B-29)

Second generation: Jet-Bomber (Aka. The B-52)

Third Generation: Low Altitude Evasive Bomber (Aka. The B-1)

Fourth Generation: The Stealth Bomber (Aka. The B-2)

A nuclear bomber should basically work just like a regular bomber such as the possibility of being shot down. The differences are that you could not produce any more with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and their attack has the same effect as being hit by an ICBM both in physical and diplomatic damage.

Also, it might be nice to be able to have upgrade/downgrade nuclear/conventional bomber cycles. What this means is that a nuclear bomber can be downgraded to a conventional bomber and a conventional bomber can be upgraded to a nuclear bomber.

Herman der Cherusker
(Scourge of Rome)

 

[Agent-Jay]

Brilliant Idea, I love it and there should be four generations of fighters and even a couple of fighter-bombers too.
An Idea I had was to be able to build a Nuclear ordnance package. This package can be combined with units either bombers or artillery. When combined with these units they are given the option to fire conventional explosives or nuclear payloads. A bomber carry's a single city busting payload while artillery are more tile and unit destroying attacks with three seperate attacks. Also the advent of thermo-nuclear weapons can upgrade these to thermo-nuclear devices which can be used by bombers only?

Ok you asked for it; I've had idea's for these games for ages, now I found this site; so here goes.
3 generations of balistic/cruise missiles.
First the short range ballistic (available with the advance of the rocket engine) based on the V-1 and V-2 terror weapon devolped by the Germans late in the second world war. The first designs for the long range, heavy ordnance carrying city terrorizors lacked any type of electronic guidance whatsoever (no really) relying on a gyro scope and a very precise fuel load or something and having reliability problems (1 in 50 chance of exploding on the square its on in flight each move and 1 in 15 chance of missing the target tile alltogether. These flaws disappear when you enter the modern times) gives it quite a character! Simply a terror weapon used to intimidate the population into submission. Point it at a city and shoot. Just hope its far enough away from the firer before it explodes, and that it travels far enough to cause an effect on the enemy city or at the least its area of control.
Second the medium range balistic. A heavily updated version of the originals, now using super intelligent computers in there design and targeting systems to pinpoint citys from miles away. These would be the biggest ordnance a bomber could carry as a cruise missile (if that way inclined). If you wonna carry bigger, get a nuclear sub. These babys are designed to blast very serious holes into enemy citys, or oblitorate the very toughest of units that just have to go in one go (Battleships, aircraft carriers, mechinfantry/artillary combo's perched on a mountin top!) Becomes available with computers.
Third generation are the ICBM's, the biggest missile ordanance in the modern world! (and well known to all civ3 players). Capable of carrying millions on killo-tons of pure death in there tips, these are the weapons that ended the cold war in the real world. The ultimate city busters! Only use these on your enemy's if a) You know they haven't got any or b) you know you have destroyed theres in your initial attack. You don't want these things firing back at you, no you don't! Based on the trident and other various inter-continental-ballistic-missiles. Becomes available with satallites.Not sure about unlimited range though.
Ok, now here is another idea I had about the warheads.
Warheads can be reaserched. Now this is to do with a reasearch idea where a city can pool its reasearch light bulbs into a city/university specific minor advance(like a little wonder, but a minor advance for the civ with minimal but noticable effects (slight unit upgrades or new unit designs).
Advanced warhead tech = 1) M.I.T.R.V warheads. Multiple-independantly-targeting-re-entry-vehicles basically break the wrhead into seperate vehicles and scatteres them to cause a massively greater effect. being far more difficult to intercept than normal missiles, this small tech really is the icing on the ICBM cake. 2)I also want a new building available called the N.B.C. reasearch laboritry.(With each building and research ability upgraded when the Manhatten project, micro-biology (If theres no Micro biology advance [if not why not] may I suggest it becomes available after Biology + refridgeration + Optics]) and industry(?). You need these to build nuclear, biological and chemical weapons in that city. Also to reasearch bio and chemical weapons to become more potent you need one of these and turning nuclear wepons into thermo nukes. You can find new biological deseases in trpoical rainforsests from around the world (as well as new medicines).
One more unit could be A Mobile N.B.C. Reasrch facility, which can reaserch these weapons as long as there on a supply line, away from Prying eyes like the U.N. who quickly make research sites like these illegal.
Hope that wasn't too much. Anyone like my ideas?

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

I like HermanCherusker's ideas, but I think they're too thorough for the regular Civ4 game. They could only be implemented in a mod or a scenario.

I'd change it so that instead of the Third Generation B-1 Bomber it's the A-10 Thunderbolt-2 a.k.a. "The Warthog". The B-1 is strategic bomber, like the B-52 Strato-Fortress, except smaller and more sophisticated. It's intended to drop smart bombs, unlike the B-52 which is primarily for carpet bombing.

I think the A-10 TB-2 would be more useful as a specialist ground-attack bomber than the B-1, which is basically a stop-gap between the Strato-Fortress and Stealth. The A-10 would have +50% vs. land units but -50% vs. cities, because it's intended for close-in ground support, not precision strikes. Also, it would have better resistance to AA fire because it flies just above the deck and has relatively heavy armour, but it would be more vulnerable to enemy fighters because it's relatively slow.

I like the idea about upgrading conventional aircraft with nuclear payloads, but for game balance I think the bomber would have to be consumed after releasing its payload -- for game balance.

Although, it would depend on how its nuclear capability was added: whether by an upgrade or by being loaded with a nuke.

If it was upgraded, it would require A LOT of Gold, like maybe 1/2 the cost of rushing an ICBM, and after it was upgraded it could only drop a single nuke and then the unit would be consumed. It could be down-graded at no cost and fly multiple missions like a conventional bomber again, but it'd cost the full amount to upgrade to nuclear again.

If the nuke was loaded, then the bomber would just be strategic bomber (like a B-52 or Stealth) and the nuke would cost a lot to produce; approximately the same as a Tactical Nuke. The bomber would drop the nuke but survive the blast (or perhaps it'd have a survivability percentage: a B-29 might have a 50% chance whereas a Stealth would have a 90% chance, and the other two bombers would fall somewhere in the middle). Regardless, the survivability would just be for the nuke blast; there'd also the chance that the bomber could be shot down by fighters or AA defences before it releases the bomb.

 

[Suki]

I'd change it so that instead of the Third Generation B-1 Bomber it's the A-10 Thunderbolt-2 a.k.a. "The Warthog". The B-1 is strategic bomber, like the B-52 Strato-Fortress, except smaller and more sophisticated.

keep in mind: smaller with 20years extra tech still gives larger payload, 0.4 mach increased speed, 7x price (but still 1/10x B-2's price).

anyway, I'm no expert, and maybe you mean it a little differently than i hear it but the A-10 isn't a 3rd generation bomber, it's on a defferent upgrade tree, it's like you said a close support craft, and famed 'tank killer'.

The bomber would drop the nuke but survive the blast (or perhaps it'd have a survivability percentage: a B-29 might have a 50% chance whereas a Stealth would have a 90% chance, and the other two bombers would fall somewhere in the middle). Regardless, the survivability would just be for the nuke blast; there'd also the chance that the bomber could be shot down by fighters or AA defences before it releases the bomb.

I'd stick with the nuke as a seperate unit.. and not put any chance to destroy the plane if it's used, the chance to loose the plane should all come from air defense and such. both the enola-gay and bocks-car came back from their missions, are you suggesting that they just got lucky? if I were a general I wouldn't accept a 10% chance of loosing a 2billion dollar plane each time we use it, and would make sure they lowered that chance.

 

[Cytadc]

Well it is rather easy to mod the size of nuclear explosions in Civ4. I have already had a brief experiment and had a nuke that did massive damage and one that was only one square large.

Just open up \Civilization 4\Assets\XML\Units\CIV4UnitInfos.xml in notepad do a search for icbm and look for
<iNukeRange>1</iNukeRange>

change the one to a 0 and you get a single square explosion change it to a two and you get a double square explosion.

Haven't found out how to add the nuke button to another unit yet but when I do I will have stealth bombers that can nuke.

Can do same with extending range of aircraft etc...

PS: Problem with extending range of the aircraft is you get super huge recon zones.

 

[Alathan]

I like the idea about upgrading conventional aircraft with nuclear payloads, but for game balance I think the bomber would have to be consumed after releasing its payload -- for game balance.

Although, it would depend on how its nuclear capability was added: whether by an upgrade or by being loaded with a nuke.

If it was upgraded, it would require A LOT of Gold, like maybe 1/2 the cost of rushing an ICBM, and after it was upgraded it could only drop a single nuke and then the unit would be consumed. It could be down-graded at no cost and fly multiple missions like a conventional bomber again, but it'd cost the full amount to upgrade to nuclear again.

That's sort of what I was going to suggest. My idea was to start with the OP's idea, but when the nuclear bomber attacks, it auto-downgrades right after an attack, becoming a non-nuclear bomber, and it must be upgraded back to a nuclear bomber in order to deliver another nuclear attack. (This is assuming you can script a unit to auto-downgrade after an attack...)

 

[Soryn Arkayn]

anyway, I'm no expert, and maybe you mean it a little differently than i hear it but the A-10 isn't a 3rd generation bomber, it's on a defferent upgrade tree, it's like you said a close support craft, and famed 'tank killer'.

I wasn't saying that the A-10 is a "third-generation bomber", I was just suggesting that it take the place of the B-1, because I don't really think the B-1 is necessary. The B-29 is fine because it's basically the first generation heavy bomber; the B-52 is obviously the 2nd gen heavy bomber; and the B-2 Spirit is the newest gen stealth bomber. But the B-1 doesn't really add anything. The reason I suggested the A-10 because it would be a specialist ground attack aircraft, meaning it would have attack bonuses vs. ground units, but would have penalties against fortifications.