No Nukes

[peanut35]

So, with the elimination of pollution in Civ4, will there be any serious reprocussions to nuking your enemies?

 

[Texan General]

I'm certain the diplomatic repercussions will remain the same for starters and with the implementation of health I would guess they will have similarly extreme repercussions in that field. That said, I find this system more realistic. The only serious problems with a nuclear weapon after the actual blast is the cleanup. Realistically the kind of effects that were simulated in civ3 only occur with "dirty bombs" and not with the "clean?" bombs of most countries.

 

[peanut35]

touche (sp?)

 

[evirus]

dirty bombs are those made to spread radioactive material causing negitave health effects for long amounts of time... the "clean bombs" are made in a way that after the blast there arnt as many bad health effects

 

[Louis XXIV]

Also, city health might still be a factor with the dropping of atom bombs.

 

[Sickman]

Also, city health might still be a factor with the dropping of atom bombs.

Really?
You do raise interesting point.
That actually "city health might be affected by dropping of atomic bomb(s)?"
Never really thought of that.
I though nukes were just meant to create mushroom cloud for the amusement of Gay and Car pilots.

I think it will be simulated in some way other than earlier anyways otherwise they will be farse. City health might be a factor.

 

[Louis XXIV]

They replaced Pollution with the concept of health. We don't know how this works, but it probably involves things like size of cities and variety of diet. If you drop an atom bomb, it might lower the health of a city as well.

But this brings up another though. Is global warming still in the game? Dropping an atom bomb might effect that as well.

 

[Jaybe]

But this brings up another thought. Is global warming still in the game? Dropping an atom bomb might effect that as well.

It would be SOooo easy to represent global warming with negative health applied to every city on the map, and all the other tiles too.

 

[Vietcong]

droping nukes shold acaly LOWer the world tempature, not incrase it.

 

[warpstorm]

droping nukes shold acaly LOWer the world tempature, not incrase it.

True, except locally

If the effect were a lowering of health globally it wouldn't really matter if it were global warming or nuclear winter.

 

[evirus]

prehaps in later points in the game nukes will produce some temperaily cold squares(nuclear winter)

 

[Jaybe]

prehaps in later points in the game nukes will produce some temperaily cold squares(nuclear winter)

Yea, for only a few hundred or thousand years. But that's okay, because the number of years per turn increase geometrically as the world's capacity to support life decreases.

 

[Legionary37]

Yeah, it will probably seriously effect health, which i imagine would lower production\commercial gains?

 

[farting bob]

It would be SOooo easy to represent global warming with negative health applied to every city on the map, and all the other tiles too.

But global warming doesnt really have a effect on health, it just screws the planet over. But until things get so bad that all plants die, sea levels rise and drown us all and pigs start to fly, we will carry on fine.
I think nukes should only have a effect on the local arwea, and a huge drop my friendlyness and diplomacy options.
Also about nukes, i thinkl they should have a more devestating effect on a direct city hit. It should totally destroy the city, as if its been raised in war.
Hmmmm... i'm rambling now.

 

[Texan General]

I don't know about raising it so that it is as if it had been raised in war but I would support total demolition of all improvements, a drop to size 1, removal of all food stores, and a drastic decrease in health.

 

[frekk]

I think you should get 2 kinds of nukes ... tactical nukes, which would wipe out military units but not do alot of damage to civilians, and strategic nukes, which would wipe a city off the map and render its location uninhabitable for the remainder of the game.

Global effects, I think if there's health in the game it should probably have an impact on global health past a certain number of nukes going off.

 

[CurtSibling]

What I would like to see -

A nuke blast should smash an enemy city down to a very small pop-level and keep it unhealthy for a very long time...

.

 

[Himalia]

Nukes are fundamentally underpowered at the moment and do need a change. Certainly more types of nukes even if that just comes down to bigger and smaller payloads. Nuclear deterents are needed as well. So if in one turn someone fire for example 6 nukes at you. You automatically return fire so you dont get back to your turn to discover just about everything is destroyed with no much to do back. At least that way you wont be in such a bad position. A return of the ability to set nuclear devices off in enenly cities would be welcome as well. Yes it all affects your rep but at the point your prepared to go Nuclear i dont think you really car about rep anymore. Depending on the payload of a nuke should dictate how much of a city is destroyed. So not this half th city size method anymore and it can never go below one. It should take out a set amount with prehaps a slight variable instead. On a final note i would like to see polution and nuclear polution/waste being treated as seperate things. Generic pollution is one thing but radioactive waste is another. Pity it looks like pollution is on the way out.

 

[frekk]

On a final note i would like to see polution and nuclear polution/waste being treated as seperate things. Generic pollution is one thing but radioactive waste is another. Pity it looks like pollution is on the way out.

I'm glad to see pollution go. It was just silly the way it was, an unnecessary burden that didn't reflect the real world one bit.

But, you and I think alike about the nukes .... "Irradiated" terrain squares don't necessarily mean bringing pollution back anymore than retaining "cratering" from artillery or bombers would.