Nukes

[Dragonsbain]

Has anybody thaught about the side afects of n-bombs other than fallout or killing of people or units,

An explosion of a n-bomb in a high altitude would cause an emp burst, not killing anything but stil causing mayhem.

also the usage of nukes had affects in other areas as well like a better understanding of the body on a cellular level and the emp-proofing of military and domestic systems.

 

[Davidizer13]

Interesting... I've never heard of that! So the electronic equipment would short out on the town below. If they put wind in Civ4, though, the high-altitude winds might blow the fallout somewhere else, maybe even back on the owner of the nuke! Brilliant, Dragonsbain!

 

[sir_schwick]

I agree in general that cities should require certain infrastructure to build certain units. Cities should require a Harbour to build large warships. Cities shoudl require a factory for mechanized vehicles. You should have at least one nuclear plant to provide weapons grade materials for nukes. Maybe fusion weapons can only be built in cities with Research Labs. I've always supported the idea for missle silos(no thread link this time).

 

[rhialto]

For nukes, a nuclear power plant should not be required. Otherwise, the USA would have been waiting a decade after the end of ww2 to build their first nuke. Having the tech itself should represent the first prototypes capable of processing uranium and generating trickle amounts of power. An actual power plant represents a reactor that provides useful amounts of energy.

Incidentally, the trickle level is where we are at for fusion power, except it is still making a net energy loss, and provides no useful material processing functions, unless you count converting hydrogen to helium.

 

[sir_schwick]

Your first couple of nukes should not require a nuclear industry, but a substantial one should.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK the simplest solution, IMHO, would be to have an 'atomic bomb' unit, which requires uranium, no nuclear power plant, but is considerably weaker than a nuke. Such a 'unit' can be transported on a bomber, and 'The Manhatten Project' gives you 2 free atomic bomb units.
Later technology (say jet power or nuclear power) will give you nukes, and THIS does require a nuclear power plant to build!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[rhialto]

aussie lurker, I think you hit the nail on the head there!

 

[Mr. Blonde]

I agree that there should be different nuklear weapons which come at different stages of tech.

Atomic bombs (=fission bombs) should come right after the manhattan project. I think they should damage military units and the cities but only to a small degree (20% poploss/damage units 1-2 HP but without lethal bombardment). Question: How should they be dropped? In RL rocketery came after the first atomic bombs, they were dropped with bombers.

ICBMs (I think all of them are H-bombs=fusion bombs) should come with spaceflight. They should be as strong as they are now (50 km killing radius), alter the impact point permanentely and produce fallout around. 2-3 should kill any city regardless of size. You should have nuclear plants for these killers.

Together with ICBMs there should come n-bombs (Neutron bombs=special designed fission bombs). Fallout on one tile and kill pop, infantry units and cav units. I think mechanised units should only be damaged since metal can protect you from neutrons (not sure how thick the metal (lets assume Iron) has to be to reduce the radiation to 50%, maybe 0.5-1 m). Mounting on tactical rockets.

And later on, maybe with satellites (they exist in satellites like in Goldeneye), there should come magnetopulse bombs. They are special designed fission bombs to destroy electronics. They should kill or severely damage mechanised units (no modern tank works without microelectronics) and additionally stop production in a city for x turns and maybe also empty the shields in the box. The mount should be like ICBMs but much cheaper.

To balance things: I think they should cost upkeep regardless of your military support and maybe cause unhappiness in the cities where they are produced. Using them should severely hit your reputation and cause weariness regardless of your government. To use them should be a very hard decision as in RL.

I think these effects should reflect reality as well as make sense in gameplay. If you have additions or modifications, please post.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

nukes are a good area for improvment.

You need to be able to "point" nukes at certain cities & automate their launch for example
Launch Nuke at <Any Selectable Citytarget> if:
Country A Declares war on us
Country C Declares war on us
This City is the last one left.
Country A Uses a Nuke against anyone.
Country A Uses a Nuke against us.
Country A Uses a Nuke against Country B.

Then you could make threats to target a nation's cities if they dont meet your demands or another nation could "buy" this from you & have you target another nation for them, just for intimidation and diplomatic pressure purposes. (there could be a secret agrement between you & the nation buying your nuclear cards wheather this would be a bluffed agrement or a real one)

Then later during negotiations, you could negotiate to turn these missles away from each other.

I like playing a Cold war, but all too often, someone gets bored & Declares war.

 

[Davidizer13]

Interesting. I liked Aussie Lurker's idea and the "nuke pointing" idea, like when the Soviets put some on Cuba! You could then get various things as long as the nuke is pointed that way through demands! Also, CTP has a nuke loading system. You load them on stealth subs and bombers, and fire away!
_________________________________________
45% of people think that cities are getting noisier. The other 55% didn't hear the question.

 

[sir_schwick]

This would be a nice addition to my missle silos thread.

 

[Stid]

Interesting. I liked Aussie Lurker's idea and the "nuke pointing" idea, like when the Soviets put some on Cuba! You could then get various things as long as the nuke is pointed that way through demands! Also, CTP has a nuke loading system. You load them on stealth subs and bombers, and fire away!

this is all good stuff but we also need to think about defences for how to prevent these attacks on your cities. atomic bombs are simple enough as normal fighters should be able to intercept them but what about ICBMs, tacticals etc. should there even be a defense? as we all know now there is practically nothing you can do defence wise when a nukes coming straight for you except fire one back i suppose.or should we stick with a missile command sort of thing? or maybe like the SDIs in civ2 where each individual city needed an SDI defense.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually, there is one way to shot down a missle. A missle going up is much slower then the one coming down. If you can shoot the missle on its way up to orbit, you have a much higher rate of success. That is why the US has so many missle-boats parked outside North Korea and China.

 

[Stid]

Actually, there is one way to shot down a missle. A missle going up is much slower then the one coming down. If you can shoot the missle on its way up to orbit, you have a much higher rate of success. That is why the US has so many missle-boats parked outside North Korea and China.

i stand corrected sir

 

[sir_schwick]

But that still doesn't mean there is a great chance of success, just better. Still, if Russia launched we would be fubar for many reasons. 1) Submarines, neither side knows where all the other sides boomers are. 2) Inland missles, we are not going ot hit that many missles. 3) You are still trying to shoot an object no bigger then a house travelling a couple hundred miles an hour from hundreds of miles away with a missle.

Yes, in general the notion of SDI is pretty silly. The Civ 3 SDI was even sillier then the Civ 2 SDI. Your point is accurate though, civ shoudl not allow people to block each others missles.

 

[BigBirdZ28]

having nukes would be diplomatic pressure +5

pointing nukes at cities (~+10) this should be increased for larger cities & capped for the capital city, say like +15 for the capital city & +5 for low value cities.

Also any diplomatic alliance should have the option to pressure countries to turn their nukes away from cities.

~ ALSO ~

The "aggressive rating" of a nation should be increased with the number of nuclear tests done (I do a nuke test ever once in a while when I get bored, basically just firing a nuke into a ring of my own battleship/submarines to make sure no enemy unit is in there.) Maybe with fusion or some other tech it would make pollution from nuke tests drop to near zero because you can do underground tests (even with a rocket nuke still shouldnt be a problem)



Also what we are asking for is a pretty big thing.

 

[Stid]

having nukes would be diplomatic pressure +5

pointing nukes at cities (~+10) this should be increased for larger cities & capped for the capital city, say like +15 for the capital city & +5 for low value cities.

Also any diplomatic alliance should have the option to pressure countries to turn their nukes away from cities.

~ ALSO ~

The "aggressive rating" of a nation should be increased with the number of nuclear tests done (I do a nuke test ever once in a while when I get bored, basically just firing a nuke into a ring of my own battleship/submarines to make sure no enemy unit is in there.) Maybe with fusion or some other tech it would make pollution from nuke tests drop to near zero because you can do underground tests (even with a rocket nuke still shouldnt be a problem)



Also what we are asking for is a pretty big thing.

if this was to happen, then nukes should not be allowed to be aimed and fired in the same turn cos for obvious purposes this wouldnt annoy the comp until you suddenly stab them in the back.it would add a great perspective on the game aswel if nuke targets were 'painted' onto some of your cities and you could do the same or even send a statment saying "what the $@*# are the doing?!"

 

[sir_schwick]

I do like the idea you have to do tests to get better effectiveness out of nukes. These tests would increase worry a little, but mostly agitate other non-nuclear powers. It could also lead to above-ground nuclear testing bans.

 

[geowhiz1]

H-bombs use hydrogen instead of plutonium or uranium. They were made after the USSR developed thermonuclear bombs, which use tritium shot into the core of plutonium nanoseconds before the explosive detonate, causing theplutonium to shrink into an extremely dense pile of matter, breaking the strong nuclear bond holding the nucleus of an atom together.
Neutron bombs are simpler: they fire billions upon billions of neutrons into the environment, which breaks apart atoms of living beings, not inanimate objects.

Fun, huh?

 

[sir_schwick]

Also, Hydrogen bombs utilize a two-stage reaction: FIsson then Fusion. Some of the more powerful fusion weapons utilize the second fusion stage to activate an even stronger third stage. A coulpe experimental weapons use this third stage to activate a super-powerful fourth stage.

Neutrons don't break apart atoms of living beings. Neutrons in general are small enough to pass through most cellurlar and cell nuclear membranes. They are like billions of bullets flying at your DNA. Usually they really **** it up and when these cells replicate(which they do often) and they produce new proteins, everythign is fubar. People die quickly from the mutated cells.