1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Nuclear Meltdowns are lame

Discussion in 'Civ3 - General Discussions' started by derekroth, Jan 5, 2004.

  1. derekroth

    derekroth Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    102
    I think that Nuclear power plants are poorly represented in Civ.

    1. They do not melt down that often. Some countries use nuclear power quite effectively and very safely. But in civ, I seem to get a meltdown every five years or so.

    2. Even if they do meld down, it isn't like an atom bomb going off! When Chernobyl melted down, it didn't kill half the population of Ukraine!

    I think that it would be better just to make a nuclear power plant cost more due to its increased productivity, vise the all to frequent melt down.
     
  2. Tacit_Exit

    Tacit_Exit King

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2002
    Messages:
    933
    Location:
    Oz
    I always thought the malus was kinda lame, because it is almost ENTIRELY preventable.

    The only time you should see city riots is if unexpected WW kicks in or a lux is lost (war/disconnection).

    Its this unlikelihood that probably contributes to why the effect is somewhat severe.
     
  3. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    it isn't the same as nuke explosian, the improvements beneath the polution remain, inlike a nuke explosion, and trust me, that IS a big deal
     
  4. Goober

    Goober Turning Right ...

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2003
    Messages:
    6,143
    Location:
    Victoria, BC, CANADA!!!
    I have never actually gotten a Nuclear Meltdown. Does it happen just randomly? Does it only happen when cities get into Civil Disorder?
     
  5. DS_Legionary

    DS_Legionary King

    Joined:
    May 22, 2003
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Louisiana
    Randomly to my knowledge, although chances greatly increas ewhen in disorder. It's probably been close to 5-6 months since I've had a meltdown. Most likely because my opponents and I never manage to make it all the way to the Modern Age. :)
     
  6. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    IIRC the city has to be in disorder for 2 turns for maeltdown to happen
     
  7. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    IIRC, It's not random! Unless your city falls into Civil Disorder, the chance for Nuclear Meltdown is zero!
     
  8. Horizon

    Horizon Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2003
    Messages:
    87
    I think that the nuclear feature is overall very badly represented in Civ3. Thats is something that become obvious in the case you (or an opponent) use ICBM like crazy.

    after a nuclear war , i expect the exposed area to not be viable for a long period of time.

    And in the game , you just have to send your worker to clean the "pollution" very quickly (if you use a lot of them by pollution area).

    If the lethal radioactivity was well made in civ3 , it would have been more interesting in my opinion , as in such a case you should never use ICBM as the king of support artillery when you want to invade the enemy territory/cities quickly.

    Actually the weather impact of ICBM usage never disturbed me in Civ3 games, so everytime i had ICBM and some Mutual protection pact (as your closest allies never turn against you despite usage of ICBM), i used them before each city assault.

    With its effect well represented , the ICBM should have been the known dissuasion weapon instead of the "easy invasion" one.
     
  9. Ivan the Kulak

    Ivan the Kulak King

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    USA
    If you are managing your cities properly, you should NEVER have a nuclear plant meltdown. I have only had one the entire time I have been playing civ3/PTW/C3C, and that was in a newly captured AI city in disorder for 3-4 turns. I didn't suspect the AI would go out of its way to build those, so I didn't look at the city view improvements list closely. If you do capture a city with a nuke plant, sell it the same turn and put the proceeds towards a temple.
     
  10. useless

    useless Social Justice Rogue

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2003
    Messages:
    10,378
    Location:
    On the internet
    i NEVER have a nuculer meltdown :p
     
  11. royb

    royb Regent!

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2003
    Messages:
    37
    Location:
    UK
    Ivan the Kulak is right. At this point in the game, you should have plenty of luxuries to keep your citizens happy. If the city is unconnected, it probably won't be able to build the nuclear power plant anyway.
     
  12. The Last Conformist

    The Last Conformist Irresistibly Attractive

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2001
    Messages:
    27,779
    Location:
    Not on your side
    I've never ever had one, in Civ II or CivIII (were they in Civ I? Didn't play that much).
     
  13. valamas

    valamas Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2003
    Messages:
    528
    Location:
    Sydney, Australia
    I had them in Civ I a few times. They didn't bother me then. I have not have one in CIV3.
     
  14. derekroth

    derekroth Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    102
    Maybe it was from civil dissorder. I was a Democracy with WW, but I don't let the cities revolt for more than one turn. But I had so many meltdowns it seemd odd. I even had two in one turn.
     
  15. lord42

    lord42 Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2002
    Messages:
    343
    Location:
    United States
    Hmmm I've never really built them anyway.. By that point they're a bit redundent.
     
  16. wilbill

    wilbill That Old Time Religion

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2002
    Messages:
    2,513
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Well, you only have to let them go to disorder for one turn. Democracy isn't the easiest government to wage war under, but it can be done. Here's a good article explaining how...

    How To Wage War Under Democracy
     
  17. derekroth

    derekroth Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    102
    Thanks wilbill, I understand that much. I wasn't trying to have a war, the AI attacked me, and much like in the article it ended up being a whole string of counties declaring war on me. But other than a city here and there, I wasn't having much of a problem because when the Democracy isn't the aggressor, WW isn't as bad. I was just awknoleging that now I know that so long as a city is not revolting that the chances are 0% for a meltdown.

    However, I still think it is silly the percieved high likelyhood of a nuke plant melting down (I guess only under civil dissorder, but still...), and the fact that it kills half the population.
     
  18. Ivan the Kulak

    Ivan the Kulak King

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    USA
    Actually a full scale meltdown can be a much more serious affair than the detonation of a nuclear weapon. There is far more nasty, dirty fissionable material, glowing with short half-life radionucleides, in a reactor core than there is in the relatively small primary of a nuclear bomb. If a reactor were to really melt down and go China Syndrome, you would have many tons of the worst kind of stuff imaginable being spewed across the countryside. Chernobyl was not the very worst that could happen, and that was VERY bad. People are still dying from the effects of that, and that event occurred nearly 18 years ago.
     
  19. derekroth

    derekroth Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2003
    Messages:
    102
    If you study Nuclear Power, you will discover that when a reactor "melts down" the actual reaction stops. Or in more simple terms, "China Syndrome" was a movie, not reality. This is just a result of the entire planet having radiation/nuclear fears without really understanding the phisics involved.

    When you remove the moderator in a reactor, the reaction will come to a stop. The reason why a melted down reactor will continue to make heat is because of the radioactive decay of doughter products created during previous reactions. It can not concievebly melt clear down to China, that is absolute fiction.

    And, studies suggest that in the approximate last two decades, the meltdown at Chernobyl killed about 24,000. Also, there are no doubt many cancer cases linked to it and other healh issues. Still doesn't campar to the 60,000 Japanese killed in one brief moment of time don't you think?

    Another thing to consider is that Chernobyl is quite possibly one of the worse designed reactors in existance. There was little to no containment for those plants, so any meltdown was free to spread radioactive nuclides at will. Chernobyl is often times considered a worse case senario. When Three mile Island melted down, the calateral damage was almost nothing because the cantainment was by and large very effective. The biggest damage from that was the paranoia that followed.
     
  20. Ivan the Kulak

    Ivan the Kulak King

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    906
    Location:
    USA
    Yes, China Syndrome is fiction, but it sounds so cool :) Actually, you may have a situation in which the moderators are not removed and the reactor core remains at critical mass and continues with an uncontrolled chain reaction for some time. The resulting heat will be enormous, causing uncontrollable fires (no one will stick around to fight them, anyway) which will spew huge plumes of super radioactive smoke into the air, contaminating everything for miles around.

    I would say that the death toll from Chernobyl is considerably in excess of 24,000, keep in mind we are not discussing immediate deaths here, but include all radiation induced cancers, radiation induced birth defects resulting in high infant and child mortality, and the like. This is an ongoing process, ultimately tens of thousands will die early because of exposure.

    The point is, from a civ3 point of view, a meltdown SHOULD kill a whole bunch of your citizens, and pollute all your city tiles.
     

Share This Page