nukes underpowered?

[Ozymandous]

What the game really needs re: Nukes is an option for a retalitory strike. You should be able to build spy satelites that notify you (during opponent's turn) when an ICBM is launched at your territory. You should then have the option of ordering retaliation.

You can make Nukes as damaging as you want then-- Mutually Assured Destruction will provide protection, just like in the real Cold War (without the whole SDI pipe dream).

Great idea if nukes only hit in between turns and before new infrastructure is built so players couldn't rush bomb shelters and the like. Also code for units can't leave a city once a nuke has ben aimed out of it and you'd be set.

If it was between turns, yet land after the initial turn when it's launched then the above idea of notification of a launch would be good enough to allow launching of any and/or all nukes from the attacked civ as well.

 

[LauriL]

The planetbusters were way too powerful. But if we could mod MIRVs in Civ 4, the devastation would be huge as well. A modern Trident missile can have up to 8 almost 500 kiloton nukes in it (each over 30 times more powerful than Little Boy). That would most definately yield a total annihilation to any city.

 

[TerraHero]

appart from that they now deploy a new nuclear tactic of airborn detonation wich causes upto 50% more destruction adn increases the blast radius substantially.

So appart from 30x more megatons, it also deals vastly more damage since its not detonated airborn at an altitude of aprox 200-500m.

Realistically the nukes are way to udnerpowered and myself, i'll prolly work the Tactical nuke in and make the ICBM more powerfull and maybe even upgrades for a nuke. First off im not to pleased with the whole "cant nuke if your own unit or borders are in conflict" If my situation demands me to nuke even my own borders or sacrafice my own units i can nuke there. I mean come on, i can send 1 spearman up against 20 Modern Armours, but i cant nuke the 20 modern armours and risk killing my Spearman. So thats tyhe first thing i'll probably change about the whole nukes. Then probably a higher population loss, unit dmg rate, only slightly but increase the range of the blast.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

MAD does fit into metagaming, imagine that you are about to lose the game, if it is to anything but a diplomatic or space ship condition that means you are probably behind on points as well, and if MAD erupts, then the other civ will likely Still win because they have more points. What MAD would do is eliminate the possibility of a Modern Age Conquest Win (because you will not successfully eliminate the other nuclear powers without getting yourself eliminated.)

 

[Padma]

Fom one who deals with the reality of nuclear weapons and their effects on a day-to-day basis, I'd say they have the actual physical effects about right.

 

[kettyo]

I would like to see tactical nuke warheads on warships and subs back.
Maybe i or somebody else should also mod a mini-nuke specifically for killing units (not cities and infrastructure).

 

[JakeCourtney]

Yes. We need a mod that will recreate the tactical nuke and create more ICMB damage.

 

[HermanCherusker]

Could someone please explain the overall effects of nukes in Civ IV. In Civ 3, I was pretty much satisified with the effect. My only qualm was with the limited delivery systems. I would like to see nuke capable bombers, keep the sub-launch nuclear missiles. And perhaps some mini-nuke such as for the US Atomic cannon/howitzer.

Herman der Cherusker
(Scourge of Rome)

 

[LauriL]

It's also good to point out that perhaps majority of deaths (at least a great number) will come from radiation over the years after, not from the blast itself. When people get radiation, they get cancer and die. I assume that this isn't in Civ4 because it hasn't been in earlier civs. The population have stayed about the same after nuke attack.

This wouldn't be hard to implement in a mod. In Civ3 we have plague that
decreases your population. And people dieing in cancer is quite similar.

What also would be realistic would be the winds taking radioactive fallout further, in random direction.

 

[m15a]

don't forget the "radioactive fallout" issue. (which makes tiles unworkable and reduces health.) if this is sufficiently likely or difficult to repair, this can be a major problem. blasting off a bunch of nukes could make nearly all the civ's tiles unworkable and they may eventually, slowly die off.

if this isn't very likely or it's easy to repair, this could be a good way of modding. i think it's better than total destruction since the civ still has a desperate hope of surviving. as opposed to being utterly destroyed in one turn.

 

[Icepowder]

Nukes should be weaker than in Civ 3, as there is less cities and, thus, each city represents greater percentage of your overall strenght.

 

[gunnergoz]

Realistically, both sides had thousands of warheads. A nuclear war would not be about 5-6 nukes at a 3-4 cities but 10-20 or more warheads for each and every city and unit stack. I think that would just about bring the level of casualties that our little "Dr. Strangelove's" are looking for. (or are they "Buck Turgidson's?"

 

[NP300]

50% and reductions in mortality from bomb shelters sounds fine to me. When you consider that a city in Civ actually represents an entire metro area plus the surrounding countryside even 50% is overpowered in terms of realism. It is fine for the purposes of gameplay though.

The fact is that nukes do not completely destroy a city. Even modern nukes would not totally destroy an entire metro area; far from it. It was also demonstrated by several scientific studies that civil defense could drastically reduce the death rate during a nuclear attack. So the bomb shelter idea sounds very realistic. If you want to totally level a city and kill its entire population you'll have to build many nukes and nuke the city several times, as you would have to in real life.

Consider this:
http://www.stardestroyer.net/Empire/Science/Nuke.html

For a 1 megaton modern nuke, which is amongst the larger nukes used today, the ionizing radius for 50% mortality is 3.1km (about 2 miles). That's about a 4 mile diameter area with a 50% mortality rate, ignoring civil defense measures. A 4 mile diameter circle is not enough to include an entire metro area, let alone the surrounding countryside. So the mortality rate in the entire metro area would be far below 50%. Note that the fireball radius is 430 meters. That's the area that would be totally levelled by a 1 megaton nuke. That's less than a 1km diameter circle.

Of course, that's assuming no civil defense. Civil defense measures would drastically lower that 50% figure.

Seriosly, I think some people have exaggerated notions about the destructiveness of nuclear weapons.

 

[knupp715]

I don't think that they Nukes should be any stronger than they are. In Civ4, population will go down 50% which will severely decrease production and many buildings could be destroyed in the blast. Also, I think the health effects will be terrible after the blast. I certainly think they have made nukes stronger since Civ3 and that may be why they are offering such things as bomb shelters, sattelite small wonder, and the UN resolutions.

 

[holy king]

dont make them stronger, make them cheaper....

 

[NP300]

The planetbusters were way too powerful. But if we could mod MIRVs in Civ 4, the devastation would be huge as well. A modern Trident missile can have up to 8 almost 500 kiloton nukes in it (each over 30 times more powerful than Little Boy). That would most definately yield a total annihilation to any city.

The effects of nuclear weapons are not linear. A 500kt nuke may be 30 times more powerful than little boy, but would only destroy an area about 9.5 times more than little boy and a radius about 3 times that of little boy.

 

[Obssesed Nuker]

I also think nukes are underpowered, considering that the missiles in Civilization 4 and 3 are single warhead ballistic missiles, they should pack quite a punch. The USAs Minuteman-3 ICBM carries THREE 500 kiliton warheads, thats 1.5 megatons. Thanks to miniturization, a single, larger warhead would not take up as much space as multiple warheads. The Chinese CSS-4(which is basicilly a copy of our Titan 2... a obsolete missile), carries a single 5 megaton warhead. It is, for all intents and purposes, a city kille. A one megaton warheads blast, heat, and initial radiation effects up to a 50 mile radius from the detonation point(assuming the warhead is detonated in the air). A 5 megaton warhead is less efficient then a 1 megaton warhead however, so a 5 megaton warhead would not nessecarily be 5X Stronger... but pretty close to it. I estimate that if the warhead was detonated at optimal burst altitude(5,000-6,000 feet) over Washington DC, and the detonation point was within the triangle that makes up the Capitol Building, the Pentagon, and the White House NOBODY in Washington would survive. Oh sure, there might be a few people in the subways that survive initially. But the fires probably would suck out any oxygen from the tunnels. Given that 1 point of population in Civilization 4=10,000 people(is that right?), Washington rates as a level 35. Quite high in the Civ games!

 

[KrikkitTwo]

This gets into the How many people in a spearman argument... The point should be to compare the costs of nukes to their destruction in the game.

For example take City X, how many turns should it take city X to produce enough nuclear weapons to destroy City Y (which is exactly like City X except being part of another Civ)

I'd say maybe 20 turns at most (increase to about 60 if City X/Y has bomb shelters) assuming City X/Y is a decently sized city. Whether that means one Super ICBM that takes 20 turns of production, or 4 lesser ICBMs that take 5, or 20 wimp nukes that are churned out once per turn... that should be able to destroy a major city.

This is essentially what is necessary if MAD is going to be recreated.

 

[LauriL]

The effects of nuclear weapons are not linear. A 500kt nuke may be 30 times more powerful than little boy, but would only destroy an area about 9.5 times more than little boy and a radius about 3 times that of little boy.

I know that. Of course it is so. But an area that is 9.5 times bigger than in Hiroshima isn't small. And when you have 8 of these warheads, you could take out any city in the world.

 

[Besuchov]

I know that. Of course it is so. But an area that is 9.5 times bigger than in Hiroshima isn't small. And when you have 8 of these warheads, you could take out any city in the world.

You could allways build 8 civ nukes.... Consider that there is only one nuke unit in civ iv, that means it has the same power from its invention until spaceage. To model a large scale (where all your mirv components gets through) attack against a small area, several missiles are probabely a rather apt.