Nuclear Missiles aren't worth it -> Global Warming
- Thread starter wc3promet
- Start date
Tholomeo
Chieftain
Agree. This concept is unfair.
MrCynical
Deity
On the contrary it is extremely fair, just not very realistic. It helps prevent nuclear weapon being thrown around regardless in the late game, and also makes it (marginally) less of an advantage to be first to nukes. I admit it makes no sense for global warming to be specific to a civ though. I haven't actually noticed this in game, but I'll take your word for it.
Corbeau
Jack of All Trades
It only matters if the game is going to continue. Conquer your neighbors, tech up, build the UN, and nuke everyone else so you have the population to elect yourself head of the world!
Well, okay, so maybe that's a dumb strategy. But it sure is fun if you can pull it off.
Well, okay, so maybe that's a dumb strategy. But it sure is fun if you can pull it off.
If I'm going for domination/conquest, and I have 1 or 2 civs left near the end of the game, I'll use nukes on their cities before my tanks roll in. It saves time bombarding and using artillery. A nuke on a city completely destroys anything in it, and I see huge stacks of units take 75-80% damage on their strength modifiers so my tanks just clean up.
Sure there is global warming, but by this time you have 15-20 cities from all the dominating and you just want to quickly and easily take out the last civs.
Sure there is global warming, but by this time you have 15-20 cities from all the dominating and you just want to quickly and easily take out the last civs.
Crimso
...aaaaaagh!
Yeah, what Draetor said. If you're going to use nukes, you're probably close to a conquest victory and you just want to speed things up.
sherrick13
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2004
- Messages
- 37
The global warming is way out of control. We know (from expierence) that setting off several nuclear weapons in a few years time does NOTHING to cause global warming. Yet it has a catastrophic effect in the game. Civ has always been a great game yet the environmentalism in it is ridiculous. I mod the crap out whenever I can.
allnamestaken12
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 11
The global warming makes sense, it allows civs without the techs but with superior armies to take advantage. If there wasn't a downside to nukes, the game would be based on the tech race to nukes, eliminating all other strats.
allnamestaken12
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 11
Global warming is put in so the advantage one gets with first/early nukes is downgraded. The game would be a tech race if you could fling tens of nukes everywhere without a side effect, and it probably wouldn't be a good idea for the game to become a tech race.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
It's not global warming! It's nuclear winter. I don't know why they didn't call it that, it just confuses people 
In real life, if you blew up a few hundred warheads (each ICBM contains many warheads), our planet would turn into a barren wasteland too from all the fallout spread through high-altitude winds (think Chernobyl). It's perfectly realistic, just erroneously reported for some wacky reason of the developers
Johnson: Ok, we're going to have worldwide fallout when people blow up a bunch of nukes. What're we going to call it?
Developer guy: Nuclear winter?
Sid: Global Warming!
It's a hangover from when global warming was caused by pollution from cities (in previous Civs). They really need to update the message though...
In real life, if you blew up a few hundred warheads (each ICBM contains many warheads), our planet would turn into a barren wasteland too from all the fallout spread through high-altitude winds (think Chernobyl). It's perfectly realistic, just erroneously reported for some wacky reason of the developers
Johnson: Ok, we're going to have worldwide fallout when people blow up a bunch of nukes. What're we going to call it?
Developer guy: Nuclear winter?
Sid: Global Warming!
It's a hangover from when global warming was caused by pollution from cities (in previous Civs). They really need to update the message though...
PibbZ
Paladin
Nukes should be way more expensive to build, that would be the downside. Global warming in the nation that launches em makes no sense (but its not the only thing that doesnt make sense in civ4 though).
sherrick13
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 24, 2004
- Messages
- 37
Thalassicus said:It's not global warming! It's nuclear winter. I don't know why they didn't call it that, it just confuses people
In real life, if you blew up a few hundred warheads (each ICBM contains many warheads), our planet would turn into a barren wasteland too from all the fallout spread through high-altitude winds (think Chernobyl). It's perfectly realistic, just erroneously reported for some wacky reason of the developers
Johnson: Ok, we're going to have worldwide fallout when people blow up a bunch of nukes. What're we going to call it?
Developer guy: Nuclear winter?
Sid: Global Warming!
It's a hangover from when global warming was caused by pollution from cities (in previous Civs). They really need to update the message though...
Why didn't we get nuclear winter in the 1960's? There was close to 500 above ground explosions in the previous 20 years. The crap in the game is patently FALSE and arbitrary.
http://pages.prodigy.net/wrjohnston/nuclear/tests/USA-ntestsS.html
http://pages.prodigy.net/wrjohnston/nuclear/tests/USSR-ntestsS.html
So no if you blow up a few hundered warheads there is NO effect on the climate. Also the effects of a nuke are way overblown. 30 years after Nagasaki and Hiroshima there was people working and living on the blast sites. You can't even tell anything bad happened there except for the memorials.
Theodorick
King
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2006
- Messages
- 624
Usually by time nukes are used the game is about to end anyways.
Mathemagician13
Chieftain
Also, your citizens tend to get really war-weary, really quickly, when you drop nukes. I dropped 46 (yes, 46) nukes on the continent of Germany, and my cities all went from very happy to 60 frownyfaces of war weariness. Whoops! Good thing the space race ended next turn 
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
Yes...which is why thousands of people now have cancer in the region, in addition to the plume from Chernobyl.sherrick13 said:
Radiation, even short-lived is devestating on DNA.There's a reason bombs didn't just get bigger and bigger, but focused on more, smaller, controlled explosions covering a wide area. Throwing a giant plume of radioactive waste up into the jet stream generally isn't a good thing.
Even volcanos have a major effect around the globe. Eruptions like Krakatoa were recordable worldwide, and that's even without a radioactive component.
Tactical nukes or carefully planned test explosions, sure, but not city-killers. You annihilate cities the size of New York a dozen times around a continent and you're going to have major fallout issues. It happens with nuclear meltdowns as well ingame, just like the Chernobyl disaster IRL.
It's not a climate change, the message is just misleading. Global warming wouldn't cause land to turn into desert. The terrain the fallout is landing on is being wiped out: crops destroyed, trees killed, people driven off. That's the effect it's having when turning land into "desert".
Well anyways, I think it's much more reasonable than global warming being caused from weapons exchange and turning the world into an uninhabitable wasteland. Nuclear winter is a much more reasonable explanation.
A question! Yesterday I was constructing some nuclear bombs in order to declare war and inmediatly bomb the 5 major cities of Saladino. When I have them, I drop and... no one exploted, all of them where intercepted! What happens? Which is the improvement to intercept nuclear bombs? And once he has constructed it, do I have any chance to success one?
Thanks.
Thanks.
DangerousMonkey
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2005
- Messages
- 139
Well, nukes are already almost useless, so I guess tagging them with one more disadvantage doesn't really matter.
I think it would be a better system if "nuclear winter" was related to the number of nukes fired within x time-frame, and lasted for y turns or something. So if everyone fired thier nukes at once it would create serious ecological problems, but everyone firing one nuke a turn for 100 turns or something would have minimal effect.
I just hope they nerf the SDI/ Fallout Shelters and provide a Nuclear Bomber unit that's cheaper than an ICBMs and becomes availible with Fission in the expansion because this lack of useful nukes really hurts my innter Cold Warrior.
I think it would be a better system if "nuclear winter" was related to the number of nukes fired within x time-frame, and lasted for y turns or something. So if everyone fired thier nukes at once it would create serious ecological problems, but everyone firing one nuke a turn for 100 turns or something would have minimal effect.
I just hope they nerf the SDI/ Fallout Shelters and provide a Nuclear Bomber unit that's cheaper than an ICBMs and becomes availible with Fission in the expansion because this lack of useful nukes really hurts my innter Cold Warrior.
