Nukes

[Mr. Blonde]

H-bombs=T+D->He+nf usion ignited with a fission bomb, fission is atomic as far as I understand. n-bombs and magnetpulse bombs are special fission bombs which are designed to produce alot of neutrons or alot of electromagnetic pulse (to bring down electronics) I thought nuclear was a general term for all fusion, fission and n-bombs.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

All right, then different types of atomic bombs should be represented in the tech-tree as well, or not?

 

[Albow]

menwai,

agree, it is scary to think how much destruction is sitting around. luckily, civ is a game. I also think Nukes should be way more powerful than currently!

 

[riadsala]

Yeah, the nukes should be way more powerful.

But, it should be really really hard to use one. And there should be huge consqences for years after.

The US had (some) justification when they dropped nukes in WW2. Given it was one of the darkest periods of human history, and the Allies were "the good guys." But even still, the effect of those bombs was felt (is felt?) for years afterwards.

Since then, the all the nuclear powers have been too scared to use one (and a good thing too). Not only would there be international outrage, but there'd be a good chance that the domestic situation would go to pot too.

Even without ever using nukes, there's (well there was during the cold war) unrest about nuclear development. Lot's of protestors, ect. Still happening in the UK with nuclear subs.

 

[Albow]

Oh dear,

we fell for the 'we were the good guys so its ok to do bad things' ... well, I'm sure India thinks it is the good guy, and if it has to drop the 'big one' on Pakistan, they will feel it was justified ... same in reverse of course ...

I think the diplo fall out of a nuke should be more intense with enemies, less so with allies (as per WW2) ... unlesss you use more than a certain number. Perhaps each nuke makes more outrage.

so nuke one is a freebie (no outrage), then 10%, then 20% etc of outrage ...

and also, two types of nukes, early Atomic bomb, then the type of over the top destroy everything ICBM that the US has which should wipe out the city in question, flatten all terrain next to the target and all turns to desert ...

Whatcha think?

 

[Yuri2356]

First off, I don't think a nuke should permanently alter Terrain. The detonation of a device should create a temporary "irradiated" effect on surrounding terrain, making it unworkable, and uncrossable by units. This effect would dissapate after about 5-10 turns, depending on the yield of the weapon.
On Types of weapons, there should initialy be low-yied "atom bombs" that are deployed by specialy designed bombers ala Heroshima. These bombs would cause a limited amount of damage to local units, and effect cities in a way similar to current nukes. This could be followed up by High-Yield "city killer" ICBMs, that can completley destroy cities, and annihalate any units is the blast range. Annother possible addition would be the Neutron bomb, doing mininimal explosive damage to cities/improvements, but killing massive numbers of citizens, and damaging units.

Annother Idea to throw in would be the concept of an "abandonned city." These could occur when the population of a city is Starved/killed, or you orderr the city disbanded. What would remain is an area of ruins that could be used by military forces (acting like a fortress), and claimed if you bring a settler to the ruins. The atvantage would be that some of the city's improvements would still be useable (An improvement could be destroyed each turn as they fall into disrepair.) With that in place, you could drop a neutron bomb on a city to clear it out, and then swoop in to claim the ruins! I think I'll start annother thread about that idea though.

 

[riadsala]

Oh dear,

we fell for the 'we were the good guys so its ok to do bad things' ... well, I'm sure India thinks it is the good guy, and if it has to drop the 'big one' on Pakistan, they will feel it was justified ... same in reverse of course ...

I never said it was justified, but I think, looking back, can safely say that the Allies were the "good side" in WW2.

And the india/pakistan situation is slightly different, as it isn't in the context of a devastating world war.

 

[riadsala]

First off, I don't think a nuke should permanently alter Terrain. The detonation of a device should create a temporary "irradiated" effect on surrounding terrain, making it unworkable, and uncrossable by units. This effect would dissapate after about 5-10 turns, depending on the yield of the weapon.
On Types of weapons, there should initialy be low-yied "atom bombs" that are deployed by specialy designed bombers ala Heroshima. These bombs would cause a limited amount of damage to local units, and effect cities in a way similar to current nukes. This could be followed up by High-Yield "city killer" ICBMs, that can completley destroy cities, and annihalate any units is the blast range. Annother possible addition would be the Neutron bomb, doing mininimal explosive damage to cities/improvements, but killing massive numbers of citizens, and damaging units.

Annother Idea to throw in would be the concept of an "abandonned city." These could occur when the population of a city is Starved/killed, or you orderr the city disbanded. What would remain is an area of ruins that could be used by military forces (acting like a fortress), and claimed if you bring a settler to the ruins. The atvantage would be that some of the city's improvements would still be useable (An improvement could be destroyed each turn as they fall into disrepair.) With that in place, you could drop a neutron bomb on a city to clear it out, and then swoop in to claim the ruins! I think I'll start annother thread about that idea though.

I think the nukes in civ3 are detailed enough.

The modern age is only a part of the game. Given the small number of ground troops etc, I think nukes (which shouldn't actually be used much/at all in a realistic game (you mainly have them as a deterrent), having one or two types should be enough to simulate the effect.

 

[NP300]

I never said it was justified, but I think, looking back, can safely say that the Allies were the "good side" in WW2.

Why? The Allies included the communists who killed loads more people than the Nazis, even if we assume it is true that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, as the victors of the war allege. The US COLLABORATED with the communist butchers. These communist troops raped millions of women in Germany and Eastern Europe, with US collaboration.

The Western Allies also committed loads of atrocities. They collaborated with deporting Slavs living in Axis countries back to Stalin, who then proceeded to murder them. The Western Allies did this knowingly. The Western Allies collaborated in the ethnic cleansing of 15 million Germans from East Prussia, of whom about 3 million died in the process. The USA and its Asian allies also ethnically cleansed millions of Japanese from Taiwan, Korea and other Japanese colonies.

The Western Allies deliberately bombed civilian areas in Germany and Japan with the specific intention of killing as many civilians as possible. They also nuked two Japanese cities. These are monstrous crimes against humanity because such bombing doesn't distinguish between combatants and civilians.

After the war the US and the USSR also set up camps for German POWs, where 1.5 million of them died. So yes, the US and USSR had "death camps" too.

The US put Japanese-Americans in camps merely because of their ethnicity. The US also pressured Latin American countries to turn over their ethnic Japanese for internment in the US, often successfully. This is reminiscent of how the Nazis pressured their allies to turn over their Jews to Germany. The US also pressured Latin American countries to intern German and Italian citizens in their territory.

The Allies also invaded neutral countries, like Iran, Iraq and Vichy France, which constitutes "aggressive warfare".

So essentially we are told we were the good guys because the evil Nazis performed exterminations and ethnic cleansings. Yet, the fact is that the Allies killed even more innocent people than the Nazis and ethnically cleansed even more people than the Nazis.

In conclusion, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin are just as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as Hitler is, if not more so.

So are you still so sure of who was the good guy?

Here is an informative link:

http://www.jamesbacque.com/

"James Bacque's two amazing books about Germany after World War Two prove that the Russians, French and Americans committed vast atrocities against surrendered German prisoners of war. They were starved in open cages without shelter or water and left to die. More than a million and a half died.

Millions of German civilians also died in what Germans now remember as The Hunger Years, 1945-48. The Russians and Poles with the help of the US and Britain, seized one quarter of Germany including the best farmland and expelled some 16 million civilians. This was the largest and most brutal ethnic cleansing in human history. Millions of people, nearly all women and children, died in the trek. The four occupying powers, including Britain, then prevented Germans from making fertilizer and destroyed their manufacturing capacity. In total approximately nine million Germans died.

Praise for Bacque's best-selling work, which is thoroughly corroborated from eye-witness testimony, US and French government archives, has come from eminent writers and experts."

 

[K.F. Huszár]

off topic:
NP300: RESPEKT!!!Open, clear, wise and brave words.
But the worst is that these are true words!
Just some more shocking data: In Vienna, 1945, 80 000 women needed medical aid because of being raped by several USSR soldiers. Ilya Ehrenburg, the Soviet propagandist in radio broadcasts encouraged the USSR soldiers to rape the German women and girls. And about the terror bombings of Leipzig, Dresden, Cologne and Hamburg it is no debate that these were warcrimes and crimes against humanity. Spaatz and George Harris (air marshalls) are war criminals.
Many german POWs were sent to coal mines in Belgium and France for 10 years or for a life.
Germany's last ally, Hungary suffered the same. Just one fact: 40 000 hungarian and many other german inhabitants were massacred in the most brutal way (impaling, bury alive, killing by locomotives etc) in the Voivodina (now Serbia) by the Serb partisans in 1944-1945. 700 000 hungarians (500 000 civilian of them) were dragged to the USSR for slave work and half of them never returned.
Although it is true, that one who seeds wind will harvest tempest, but anyway, i am not sure the recent black&white view of the WW2 is good for the European unity.
Let the winners admit their crimes and let the losers gain back their national self-counciousness and respect.
This will form the true Home of Nations in Europe.

on topic:
I think that ABC weapons should be more detailed in Civ4.

 

[Davidizer13]

They should put in h-bombs. I just studied about nuclear science in school, and the h-bomb would be a better thing to use than the conventional nuke. While the a-bomb destroys and kills indiscriminately, the h-bomb kills, but does not damage as many buildings because the actual explosion is weaker, but neutrons are scattered about, causing havoc in people's cells. You could make the h-bomb more expensive than the conventional one, but that's because it has a definite advantage. I liked the "pollution spike" idea, that afterwards, some people would die when the city was re-inhabited. Also, the abandoned city idea was good. If you would nuke a city below a certain pop level (say, 4), it would become abandoned, and you could get a defensive bonus. It's better than the ruins that are already there. Then the irradiated effects, making the terrain impassable, would come into play. The city could be surrounded by the radiation for a short time. In other words, I agreed with all Yuri2356's ideas except for the city-killer nuke.
One more thing: We (the Americans) had interrment camps for the Japanese during and after WW2. We have since apologized, but there has been laws that state soldiers from the Bataan Death March and slave labor camps in Japan cannot sue. This law should be repealed. The WW2 veterans are dying off at a rate of 1000 per DAY! We should give them some more honor, and let things happen like that around the world, to give them one last hurrah.

 

[Yuri2356]

They should put in h-bombs. I just studied about nuclear science in school, and the h-bomb would be a better thing to use than the conventional nuke. While the a-bomb destroys and kills indiscriminately, the h-bomb kills, but does not damage as many buildings because the actual explosion is weaker, but neutrons are scattered about, causing havoc in people's cells. You could make the h-bomb more expensive than the conventional one, but that's because it has a definite advantage. I liked the "pollution spike" idea, that afterwards, some people would die when the city was re-inhabited. Also, the abandoned city idea was good. If you would nuke a city below a certain pop level (say, 4), it would become abandoned, and you could get a defensive bonus. It's better than the ruins that are already there. Then the irradiated effects, making the terrain impassable, would come into play. The city could be surrounded by the radiation for a short time. In other words, I agreed with all Yuri2356's ideas except for the city-killer nuke.

Well the city killers would be stupidly expensive, only able to completley destroy smaller cities (up to size 8 or 10 maby) And they would have the current effect on your reputation, as nations are less likley to forgive such mass destruction. Just an Idea, I won't be too mad if they don't include city-killers, as long as they have some of these other effects.

Edit: Oh, and Kudos to you all for moving away from politics, and more into the original discussion.

 

[riadsala]

Edit: Oh, and Kudos to you all for moving away from polotics, and more into the original discussion.

well, I'll add, I did have "good guy's" in " " 's. Suggesting that they weren't all that good, but on the whole, they fighting for the free world.

 

[Davidizer13]

LLaP, ppl! Another alternative to A-bombs could be biological or chemical weapons. If they put an Iraqi civ in Civ4, you could search for the weapons, rotf! But bio and chem WMDs would keep you up at night, because its just too creEEEEepy and scary. Thanx to yuri2356 for the kind words! But just to drive people crazy, I must say this (and I don't mean it to be hurtful): Kerry is a turnip, and Bush is a crazed midget.
STOP TALKING ABOUT POLITICS! Also, I make those "signatures" up unofficially!
_____________________________________
Quotes from the Northwest US of A!
"Ee-Chee-Row!" Crazed Mariners fans
"Burp" Mt. St. Helens
"When pigs fly" Davidizer13, regarding the chances the Seahawks could be good this year

 

[riadsala]

Regardingh nukes of any type in the game,

I think that there should be some infrastructure you have to build to be able to build nukes in a city. So, whichever city builds the Manhatten Project can then build nukes. And if any other city wants nuclear capabilities, then it has to build some sort of nuclear weapons plant.

This would allow more negaitve side effects to nukes to be implemented. For a start, a nuclear weapon plant could be really expensive (like, 10+ gold per turn upkeep or something), so in real life, building and storing nukes is hardly cheap. Plus, if a city has a nuclear weapons facility then it would make a lot of the population unhappy (lots of CND protestors in that city and neighbouring ones). So, you have to think a little bit harder about whether you want to have a nuclear weapons program.

A nuclear weapons plant would be needed to build nuclear subs too. And you can only store nukes in city with a plant, or on subs.

And how about having workers able to build a plant outwith a city. So, you don't need to worry so much about CND. Have a secret nuclear faciity in the middle of the desert.

This would also allow spy missions to sabitage nuclear plants and more political stuff, like demanding a civilisation shuts down it's nuclear plant. (like a N.Korea situation, Iraq). Maybe even the plants secret. So your opponents have to use the "investigate city" espionage tool to find out where your nuclear plant is.

etc, etc.

I don't think any of this would be hard to implement into the game. Nor would it lead to any extra MM.

What do you think?

 

[Yuri2356]

Actualy, in order to make Nuclear weapons you should proably need at least one Nuclear power plant first. (Don't you need the power plant's facilities to refine/enrich the uranium in RL?) After that, your civ would have acces to the materials it needs to make nukes. Come to think of it, most modern unist should require certain city improvements to build them ( Ie Factory for vehicles, harbor for large ships, ect.) After all, when was the last time you saw a logging town build an entire armored devision? Or a small fishing villiage comission a battleship?

 

[rhialto]

In civ terms, the USA built teh first nukes before they had nuclear power. The reactor cores they used for making the warheads were useful for procesing the material, but they did not produce useful amounts of power. Kind of like teh stage fusion power is at today.

 

[menwia]

Why? The Allies included the communists who killed loads more people than the Nazis, even if we assume it is true that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews, as the victors of the war allege. The US COLLABORATED with the communist butchers. These communist troops raped millions of women in Germany and Eastern Europe, with US collaboration.

The Western Allies also committed loads of atrocities. They collaborated with deporting Slavs living in Axis countries back to Stalin, who then proceeded to murder them. The Western Allies did this knowingly. The Western Allies collaborated in the ethnic cleansing of 15 million Germans from East Prussia, of whom about 3 million died in the process. The USA and its Asian allies also ethnically cleansed millions of Japanese from Taiwan, Korea and other Japanese colonies.

The Western Allies deliberately bombed civilian areas in Germany and Japan with the specific intention of killing as many civilians as possible. They also nuked two Japanese cities. These are monstrous crimes against humanity because such bombing doesn't distinguish between combatants and civilians.

After the war the US and the USSR also set up camps for German POWs, where 1.5 million of them died. So yes, the US and USSR had "death camps" too.

The US put Japanese-Americans in camps merely because of their ethnicity. The US also pressured Latin American countries to turn over their ethnic Japanese for internment in the US, often successfully. This is reminiscent of how the Nazis pressured their allies to turn over their Jews to Germany. The US also pressured Latin American countries to intern German and Italian citizens in their territory.

The Allies also invaded neutral countries, like Iran, Iraq and Vichy France, which constitutes "aggressive warfare".

So essentially we are told we were the good guys because the evil Nazis performed exterminations and ethnic cleansings. Yet, the fact is that the Allies killed even more innocent people than the Nazis and ethnically cleansed even more people than the Nazis.

In conclusion, Roosevelt, Churchill and Stalin are just as guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity as Hitler is, if not more so.

So are you still so sure of who was the good guy?

Here is an informative link:

http://www.jamesbacque.com/

Lets say for arguments sake you can say all thiese things are true. But then again you can also say they got what was coming to them. don't dish out what you can't take . . . that's one way of looking at it . . .isn't it.

Exmaple, someone comes to kill you -but hey, guess what you kill him instead Not very nice - but then again he shouldn't have started it in the first place . . .

So in the end - you still are the good guy, even though you're the one who done the killing and you're the one left alive - doesn't mean it was your fault - you never started what happened - you just finished it.

 

[Stid]

i was playing civ3 before and it was getting really hard for me to mkae ground cos the comp was cheatin with thousands of units etc bt i couldnt even use nukes cos of their stupid missile command.then i started thinking why shouldnt i be able to use tactical nukes? do they also go out the atomesphere like ICBMs?or did fraxis just make them this way for no reason whatsoever? either way if tactical nukes couldnt be shot down everytime by the damn missiles, it would actually give them a worth while purpose! maybe atomic bombs dropped like they do in the pacific scenario would be cool aswell especially if they all had different kinds of explosions

 

[Davidizer13]

Here's a few starters. A smaller explosion anim for the H-bombs, maybe a green one for the bio, a yellow one for the chem and gas, and the standard one for the conventional nukes. BTW, the SDI wonder has only a 75% chance of shooting down the ICBMs. The ICBMs sorta skip out of the atmosphere, then drop down.
___________________________________
Panzers and ICBMs will solve all your Civ problems, Jesus will do all the rest!
Mt. St. Helens Advisory Level: (USGA this morning) Volcanic Unrest!
" I lost my phone to the lake beneath the Batman ride" Relient K, "Chapstick, Chapped Lips and Things Like Chemistry"