More Realistic Nukes?

[The D Man]

Just thinking here but, don't the nuclear weapons in Civ 4 are kinda unreal? For example, wouldn't in just one turn, the radiation spreads into about, say, 32 squares? Or when a missle hits, shouldn't it have a nuclear winter of some sort? Just tossing out ideas here.

 

[Lazylen]

well, for sure they should add in a wind system, as to which planes travel slower in one direction than another, and for sure that would effect how you use nukes (you wouldn't want to use nukes on someone that is upwind from you).

Nukes in Civ 4 are very unrealistic, but nukes that would just flatten cities entirely wouldnt be any better.

 

[The D Man]

I'm just throwing out ideas. If you don't like it, don't vote for it. But yeah, a wind system would be pretty cool.

 

[searcheagle]

You don't want to make nukes in Civ too powerful or they will overwhelm the game. That is exactly what your idea would do, imo.

 

[The D Man]

Actually, the more powerful they are, and also garunteeing that the enemy has them, will make you hesitate from using them. I believe this policy is called Nuclear Deterance.

 

[NYHunter]

Nuclear weapons will rarely get used by the AI if you don't nuke them first. And you want to make sure that you only nuke them if you have too, and they don't have an arsenal themselves. There are some exceptions like if you are playing against Monty and it's on a level above Noble I notice he will use nukes, unless somehow you were able to get on his good side, even though he still might not like you. For example once I was the same religion as him, and even though he had nukes, and I was the aggressor he never used them.

However, I actually think that the nuclear weapons in the game are not that fun to begin with. I think this is one area where realism might actually make it more fun. Depending on what direction you chose to go with it. Spreading to 32 squares sounds a bit too much.

 

[Mewtarthio]

32 squares is a lot of land. According to that, the Hiroshima bomb alone would have irradiated all of Japan and probably a nice bit of China as well.

 

[The D Man]

Well, for thirty two squares, I was thinking that as the total radiation spread. And the atom bomb dropped on Hiroshima was not even clos to the power of an ICBM.

 

[Spitefire]

And that is also a good reason to have more then one verstion of nuke after all its not like the first ones made were as powerful as the stuff that would be put together today, thay have after all had a long time to learn how to make bigger bombs of all kinds.

I dont find any of the options in your poll fully agreeable so i did not vote however a way to make it possable to wipe out citys with enough nukes might not be a bad thing, i just would not agree with makeing standard civ nukes big enough to flatten a size 20-25 city in one shot that might be a little to big.

 

[The D Man]

That's what the tactical nukes in BtS are for.

 

[The D Man]

That's what the tactical nukes in BtS are for.

 

[PieceOfMind]

Poll: What would make nuclear weapons more realistic?

If the question were instead, "What would make nuclear weapons more realistic AND should be put in Civ4" and one of the options was "none of the above", I'd pick that one.

Two very big issues - FUN and BALANCE - will (or at least should) always trump the issue of REALISM in this game. That is, game features are usually avoided if they have the potential to make the game less fun or less balanced. For both reasons, nukes should not be able to destroy cities IMO. I didn't vote. I do however agree that ICBMs are unrealistic in Civ4.

 

[CapnKill]

Make them more powerful so that they virtually wipe out an entire city off the map, but make them super expensive to build and combine that w/ SDI's high deflection ratio and it would be a pretty big gamble to use them.

 

[RedRalph]

For most things I think the more realistic the better, but I think nukes are OK as they are, it'd be pointless if you could literally wipe a Civ out with 10 nukes

 

[King Flevance]

Nukes should have devastating power. I voted for vaporize, but more along the lines of Massive Str value and unlimited collateral damage. If a city is holding 30 troops in it all but about 12 should die off, and the remaining 12 should be at half strength at most. A freakin ICBM just hit the city.

However, if it were to get that powerful:
1)the land fallout should ALWAYS include the city tile itself plus the surrounding tiles (fat cross)
2) Any tile that receives fallout recieves a "no one can settle on this tile for 30-40 turns" (in marathon) tag. Even if the fallout is instantly scrubbed. (per nuke fallout stacks)
3) Any resource tiles that recieve fallout may have the resource dissappear (30-40&#37 chance per nuke (fallout stacks)
4) Diplomatic penalaties be increased to something that matters. Not a measly -1 or -2. More like -6 and -10 per nuke on friend or self.

 

[Diamondeye]

Remove the global heating! Or addd it to a coalplant instead. the feature is unrealistic and annoying. eventually code in a nuclear winter if nukes are overused - ever read "Terra!"?

 

[uat2d]

Remove the global heating!

I agree absolutely! It's hell !! Global warming didn't start with Hiroshima and in the game if only ONE nuke is launched to the midlle of nowhere, the global warming caused by it is the same (in strength and intensity) as if everyone launches 20 ICBMs every turn, ice sudently turning into desert is terrible and it is only that plot; the ones aside it continue perfectly normal !!!

 

[gamedude107]

i hate how you could launch 99999999999999999999999999 ICBMs on a city and it would still be standing!
taht is so unrealistic, a real nuke would blow all buildings in range and level the city!

 

[Jaquin10]

I agree that global warming in the game is unrealistic. Even Al Gore knows better, and hes a f***in' dumbass. (By the way, was the icon of Al Gore when you build the internet a joke? Everybody knows he didnt invent it.)