wulphstein
Chieftain
Civilization IV needs better nukes. More nukes. Explosion that light up the screen! Polaris nukes. Multiple warhead nukes. Tactical nukes. City killer nukes. 
More nukes!
- Thread starter wulphstein
- Start date
Yeah would be cool if they added more powerful nukes, like hydrogen bombs etc. Imo there should be bombs that totally obliterate LARGE areas of the map. Maybe could have nukes that range from a 3*3 area obliteration (like now) up to 10*10 area obliteration. The more powerful nukes should completely destroy cities no matter size. The current nukes are way too weak and harmless.
Gengis Khan
Deity
Does anyone actually use nukes on a regular basis?
wulphstein
Chieftain
Ah, well, I have to save up for several turns. I think of it as stress relief.Chaos_BF1942
Prince
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2004
- Messages
- 488
I agree, also maybe add more effects form them
Also bring in planet busters (I loved them)
Also bring in planet busters (I loved them)
Al-Hejazi
Chieftain
Lol whats ugly in nukes is that when u use them u get no more allies :S
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I agree with that last point. Though I agree that using nukes should still bear pretty awful consequences, I think that the consequences should depend on how close you are with other nations.
For instance, nations who are already off-side with you will almost certainly go to war with you-especially if they are in a different culture group to you.
Nations who are neutral towards you may end up hating you and, if your nuclear attack is deemed unprovoked-or if the neutral nation is of the same culture group as the nation you attacked-then they might go straight from neutral to war with you!
Nations with whom you are allied or in an mpp/trade deal will change their views of you baed on their culture group and their perception of the nation you have attacked!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
For instance, nations who are already off-side with you will almost certainly go to war with you-especially if they are in a different culture group to you.
Nations who are neutral towards you may end up hating you and, if your nuclear attack is deemed unprovoked-or if the neutral nation is of the same culture group as the nation you attacked-then they might go straight from neutral to war with you!
Nations with whom you are allied or in an mpp/trade deal will change their views of you baed on their culture group and their perception of the nation you have attacked!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Phoenix
Creating Scenarios
The use of nukes should be allowed by other civs on a strictly limited basis and only by those civs that are also at war with the victim civ. (I'm thinking of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki). Another thing - the AI shouldn't declare war when it knows you will kick its ass.
wulphstein
Chieftain
In Rise of Nations, you only get to drop a limited number of nukes before everyone loses the game. How about this, lower the cost of nukes, but raise the damage with political repercussions, nuclear winter andradiation effects (continuous damage to units in tiles). Just for fun!
ShADoW^HawK
The Shanksta Ganksta
They should make nukes have more anti-affects. In real life people don't go all over nuking everyone in site.
Maybe if you launch a nuke, not only would other nations think much worse of you but so would your people, so launching a few too many nukes could get you thrown out of office. Of course, there would be less hatred towards you if the other civ had started the war and was a warmonger and didn't have many good relations, and also, especially if it was a dictatorship government, or something like that.
THat's another thing, countries should align their like/dislike of you based also on your government and primary religion, as they do in the real world (US doesn't like Communism countries too much).
Maybe if you launch a nuke, not only would other nations think much worse of you but so would your people, so launching a few too many nukes could get you thrown out of office. Of course, there would be less hatred towards you if the other civ had started the war and was a warmonger and didn't have many good relations, and also, especially if it was a dictatorship government, or something like that.
THat's another thing, countries should align their like/dislike of you based also on your government and primary religion, as they do in the real world (US doesn't like Communism countries too much).
wulphstein
Chieftain
Multiple warhead nuke. Fire one ICBM, hit multiple targets.
Nukes should cause massive unhappiness in city that they hit. Massive starvation, destruction of all improvements.
What would be the fun of being a computer warmonger if you can't warmonger? It's not like I'm running for office. Did I tell you I served in Vietnam?
Nukes should cause massive unhappiness in city that they hit. Massive starvation, destruction of all improvements.
What would be the fun of being a computer warmonger if you can't warmonger? It's not like I'm running for office. Did I tell you I served in Vietnam?
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I definitely feel that nukes should be MORE DESTRUCTIVE-though more in their 'lasting effects'. For instance, pollution caused by nuclear war or meltdowns should NOT be as easy to clean up as that caused by over industrialisation. Nuclear weapons should also cause a 'plague-like effect' where people can continue to die, long after the original radiation has been cleaned up. Unlike plague, though, this would be limited to the city hit by the nuke!
I do agree that using a nuclear weapon should cause unhappiness in your own Civ, with the actual amount being tied to how many you use, the international reputation of the victim, the culture group of the victim, your civs characteristics and your current government type.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I do agree that using a nuclear weapon should cause unhappiness in your own Civ, with the actual amount being tied to how many you use, the international reputation of the victim, the culture group of the victim, your civs characteristics and your current government type.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
sampedestal
Warlord
i think that there should be a way for enemy countries be able to have a spying feature for "steal plans for nuclear weapons". it would be hard to do and would get everyone else angry if they get caught, but if they get away, they get to build nukes. that, and the AI researchs nukes asap. the point of this would be to set up a MAD or Mutually Assured Destruction scenario, which basically means that if country "a" drops the bomb on country "b", country "b" will drop the bomb on "a". if all civs have the bomb, that should take care of all of the needed ill effects.
i don't think we need variations of nukes. having only a few and then discovering that the ones u have rn't what is needed for the given attack wouldn't be very fun.
i don't think we need variations of nukes. having only a few and then discovering that the ones u have rn't what is needed for the given attack wouldn't be very fun.
ShADoW^HawK
The Shanksta Ganksta
I don't think that allowing other countries to steal nuke plans would be too good. I hate the spy system in Civ (because I can never catch enemy spys that are in my civ), and it is one thing that needs to be improved a lot before I consider any more additions to counter-intelligence.
Nukes are good and you can be a warmonger in civ, but you play civ to have the feel of a real ruler, and one that can "stand the test of time!" If you only want to be a warmonger with ultimate power, then get Starcraft. You can fire nukes in there.
But, Civ should include at least basic similarities to real-life.
Nukes are good and you can be a warmonger in civ, but you play civ to have the feel of a real ruler, and one that can "stand the test of time!" If you only want to be a warmonger with ultimate power, then get Starcraft. You can fire nukes in there.
But, Civ should include at least basic similarities to real-life.
cpikey316_
Chieftain
I've never actually been nuked by the computer in a game, so does the AI use nukes at all?
Similar threads
