please make nukes better!
- Thread starter hossam
- Start date
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
NO!!!
Stop with the global warming!
It's 1) completely off! (Nuclear winter) and 2) Terrible to have random tiles turn into desert!
brianshapiro
King
- Joined
- Mar 6, 2003
- Messages
- 775
We could always have more advanced nuclear weapons as the game goes on:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
- Pure fission weapons
- Fusion-boosted fission weapons
- Two-stage thermonuclear weapons
Future era : planet buster!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon_design
- Pure fission weapons
- Fusion-boosted fission weapons
- Two-stage thermonuclear weapons
Future era : planet buster!
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
global warming feature sucks dockey ..., ahem, Better would be to do it the next war way, after x nuclear strikes, the world ends.
^ that produced a big big shock to me playing next war mod for the first time, two ai nuking each other into oblivion, suddenly its game over, grrrrrrrrr.
^ that produced a big big shock to me playing next war mod for the first time, two ai nuking each other into oblivion, suddenly its game over, grrrrrrrrr.
markieness
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2003
- Messages
- 81
I like how nukes work in Civ4, apart from global warming.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
as long as global warming acceleration goes ill be happy
Ddude97
King
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2008
- Messages
- 761
So you want global warming? 
Fine then, perhaps having it as an option would satisfy both you and all the people (which I understand is the majority correct me if I'm wrong) who dislike (/hate) global warming, especially when it comes to nukes, which would create nuclear winter.
Fine then, perhaps having it as an option would satisfy both you and all the people (which I understand is the majority correct me if I'm wrong) who dislike (/hate) global warming, especially when it comes to nukes, which would create nuclear winter
.
I think Nukes are too easy to construct in Civ 4. I would prefer something akin to the style of alpha centurai, which approached its super weapon in a much more reasonable fashion. Firstly, a nuke would cost a significant amount of hammers, rather than the puny amount it does at the moment in civ 4 (think a moderate national wonder, you could then remove the manhattan project i suppose). Secondly, instead of an ICBM defense system that has a 50% chance of intercepting a nuke, civs can build defense pods, which cost around the same amount of hammers as a nuke does, gives you a x% of chance to automatically intercept a nuke, but also the option of sacrificing the defense pod to guarantee interception. This could only work for the ICBM system really. IMO you would have to add a condition in order for a tactical nuke to be dropped from a bomber. Total air superiority could be one.
It annoys me in civ 4 that nearly your entire army can be wiped out by a nuke, although this fate is only ever usually reserved for the AI because they are so bad atusing nukes. Ive only ever been nuked by hatty and augustus. This will thankfully be remedied by the one unit per tile rule. I also think that tile improvements and the like all still work, but each city affected by a nuke suffers a cumulative 10% penalty to growth or something like that.
i also agree that global warming as a result of nukes is a
game mechanism.
As for diplomacy a consequence could be that all trades and treaties are canceled if a nuke is dropped by an AI, UNLESS that AI is already a worst enemy of the target. you should also get a negative attitude penalty. Finally, it should also dramatically increase the likleyhood of a DOW from other bloc's of AI's\players depending on relative attitudes.
It annoys me in civ 4 that nearly your entire army can be wiped out by a nuke, although this fate is only ever usually reserved for the AI because they are so bad atusing nukes. Ive only ever been nuked by hatty and augustus. This will thankfully be remedied by the one unit per tile rule. I also think that tile improvements and the like all still work, but each city affected by a nuke suffers a cumulative 10% penalty to growth or something like that.
i also agree that global warming as a result of nukes is a
game mechanism.As for diplomacy a consequence could be that all trades and treaties are canceled if a nuke is dropped by an AI, UNLESS that AI is already a worst enemy of the target. you should also get a negative attitude penalty. Finally, it should also dramatically increase the likleyhood of a DOW from other bloc's of AI's\players depending on relative attitudes.
butterbail
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jun 30, 2010
- Messages
- 6
ya they should blow a big whole in the earth. leave the tile un usefull for long time. Kills everything, sends acid rain around the globe. that be sweet. be able to blast people into stone age. kills most buildings in city
Ahriman
Tyrant
There is no way to make nuclear weapons both:
a) realistic
b) fun
Realistically, outright war between nuclear superpowers has become unthinkable because of the truly devastating power. Which is no fun in a game where war is an integral part.
Having them destroy the unit in the tile they hit, damage every unit in the surrounding tiles, reduce a city to one hit point, halve the population and destroy ~1/3 of the buildings would be plenty. Along with a big diplomatic penalty and some localized tile yield reduction. No "global warming" type effects, and no destroying cities entirely.
We want nukes to be useable without destroying the entire planet, but we want you to have to think hard before you start throwing them around.
[Also: aircraft nukes should be interceptable by AA/SAMs/interceptors, and ICBMs by SDI.]
Having finite numbers of nukes per uranium resource, though unrealistic, will also be good for limiting the size of arsenals (and making the size of arsenals meaningful; you can build more once you use them, but that takes time).
a) realistic
b) fun
Realistically, outright war between nuclear superpowers has become unthinkable because of the truly devastating power. Which is no fun in a game where war is an integral part.
Having them destroy the unit in the tile they hit, damage every unit in the surrounding tiles, reduce a city to one hit point, halve the population and destroy ~1/3 of the buildings would be plenty. Along with a big diplomatic penalty and some localized tile yield reduction. No "global warming" type effects, and no destroying cities entirely.
We want nukes to be useable without destroying the entire planet, but we want you to have to think hard before you start throwing them around.
[Also: aircraft nukes should be interceptable by AA/SAMs/interceptors, and ICBMs by SDI.]
Having finite numbers of nukes per uranium resource, though unrealistic, will also be good for limiting the size of arsenals (and making the size of arsenals meaningful; you can build more once you use them, but that takes time).
Arbustro
Warlord
How about simultaneous lauching? (haven't seen it mentioned before)
It is both realistic and a deterrent to the use of such weapons.
Regarding fun/realism/gameplay
Well nukes are always fun to use, exept when you get hit by them.
About realism, hiroshima and nagasaki were able to stand up, but that wouldn't happen with modern weapons I guess. However, creating different types of nukes seems too much detailed and out of proportion with the rest of the game. Also, in the name of realism, nukes should be fairly easy to build, and the result of a nuclear war is pretty much the end of civ.
So regarding gameplay, considering that we still don't know how the new military module will work, we haven't tested it yet, we haven't exploited its flaws, we don't know how the ai behaves, it is very hard to say how it should be. What we do know is that we'll have less units, either by higher production costs, resource requirements, maintenance, etc so we can expect nukes to follow this trend.
That said, nukes shouldn't be able to prevent a victory. Like, there you are after millenia of civ development, and on the eve of lauching your spaceship, ghandi levels your capital... same with a cultural victory, why should I strive for it, if all my major cities can be obliterated at the end of the game? (assuming the ai can perceive imminent defeat and is willing to do anything to prevent it)
I think nukes should have strict military purposes, reducing the city pop to 1 thus crippling their production but not razing it, reducing the city defenses to a minimum but not zero, and with a very conservative approach regarding the destruction of buildings so that it doesn't get overpowered. If whenever someone wants to lauch a nuke, every civ would then have the option to lauch their own (taking the side of the agressor or the victim), that could lead to an interesting MAD cold war scenario (again, assuming the ai perceives the threat coming from a nuclear war, and would always think twice before starting it).
The crippling effect on a nation's economy, and potential side effects, such as war weariness and/or unhappiness, should be devastating enough (for both sides), so that lauching a nuke is a last measure resort, and not the very first thing you do when starting a war.
About their range and such, I think we should keep it simple and have only one type of nukes, the tactical ones. Those that make you think where to place them, and give nuclear subs a noble purpose. Also, nukes should affect only one tile, since units will be scarcer and you shouldn't be able to wipe out a nation's army with one or two nukes (I do think however they should kill whatever unit they hit, it can give you the edge on the battlefield you just needed).
This whole discussion is pointless however, since by this stage of the game they already thought and hard coded all the nuking business, and all that's left are balancing issues.
It is both realistic and a deterrent to the use of such weapons.
Regarding fun/realism/gameplay
Well nukes are always fun to use, exept when you get hit by them.
About realism, hiroshima and nagasaki were able to stand up, but that wouldn't happen with modern weapons I guess. However, creating different types of nukes seems too much detailed and out of proportion with the rest of the game. Also, in the name of realism, nukes should be fairly easy to build, and the result of a nuclear war is pretty much the end of civ.
So regarding gameplay, considering that we still don't know how the new military module will work, we haven't tested it yet, we haven't exploited its flaws, we don't know how the ai behaves, it is very hard to say how it should be. What we do know is that we'll have less units, either by higher production costs, resource requirements, maintenance, etc so we can expect nukes to follow this trend.
That said, nukes shouldn't be able to prevent a victory. Like, there you are after millenia of civ development, and on the eve of lauching your spaceship, ghandi levels your capital... same with a cultural victory, why should I strive for it, if all my major cities can be obliterated at the end of the game? (assuming the ai can perceive imminent defeat and is willing to do anything to prevent it)
I think nukes should have strict military purposes, reducing the city pop to 1 thus crippling their production but not razing it, reducing the city defenses to a minimum but not zero, and with a very conservative approach regarding the destruction of buildings so that it doesn't get overpowered. If whenever someone wants to lauch a nuke, every civ would then have the option to lauch their own (taking the side of the agressor or the victim), that could lead to an interesting MAD cold war scenario (again, assuming the ai perceives the threat coming from a nuclear war, and would always think twice before starting it).
The crippling effect on a nation's economy, and potential side effects, such as war weariness and/or unhappiness, should be devastating enough (for both sides), so that lauching a nuke is a last measure resort, and not the very first thing you do when starting a war.
About their range and such, I think we should keep it simple and have only one type of nukes, the tactical ones. Those that make you think where to place them, and give nuclear subs a noble purpose. Also, nukes should affect only one tile, since units will be scarcer and you shouldn't be able to wipe out a nation's army with one or two nukes (I do think however they should kill whatever unit they hit, it can give you the edge on the battlefield you just needed).
This whole discussion is pointless however, since by this stage of the game they already thought and hard coded all the nuking business, and all that's left are balancing issues.
With the elimination of the SoD, the roles of nukes in civ games will need to change. Maybe they will have a range of 2 now. 
Ahriman
Tyrant
Well, that's easy, just area of effect impacts that damage units in adjacent tiles.
I think the most important thing to do is to have a series of permanent diplomatic penalty modifiers that affect your relationship with every other civ on the planet.
Eg:
-1 You were the first to use a tactical nuke.
-2 You were the first to use an air-dropped strategic nuke.
-3 You were the first to launch an ICBM.
-1 You used a nuclear weapon.
-1 You used a nuclear weapon against someone who had not used them against you first.
All modifiers are cumulative.
So for example: if no nukes have ever been used in the world, and I launch an ICBM strike on the Germans, then I get a cumulative -5 penalty (-3 -1 -1=-5) with every civ in the world.
If the Germans respond with a counter-ICBM, they get a -1 penalty. If China decides to join in and nuke the Germans too, they get a -2 penalty.
So, nuclear weapons are very destructive and don't have non-local environmental impacts, but those who use them a great deal risk becoming total pariah states and getting annihilated through dogpile wars.
I think the most important thing to do is to have a series of permanent diplomatic penalty modifiers that affect your relationship with every other civ on the planet.
Eg:
-1 You were the first to use a tactical nuke.
-2 You were the first to use an air-dropped strategic nuke.
-3 You were the first to launch an ICBM.
-1 You used a nuclear weapon.
-1 You used a nuclear weapon against someone who had not used them against you first.
All modifiers are cumulative.
So for example: if no nukes have ever been used in the world, and I launch an ICBM strike on the Germans, then I get a cumulative -5 penalty (-3 -1 -1=-5) with every civ in the world.
If the Germans respond with a counter-ICBM, they get a -1 penalty. If China decides to join in and nuke the Germans too, they get a -2 penalty.
So, nuclear weapons are very destructive and don't have non-local environmental impacts, but those who use them a great deal risk becoming total pariah states and getting annihilated through dogpile wars.
Schuesseled
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2008
- Messages
- 2,081
i think a global negative modifier would be bad for gameplay. they should just make the AI smarter, don't use nukes first, should be a policy for most rival civs for most of the time.
Ahriman
Tyrant
How would it be bad for gameplay?
How else are you going to model a disincentive to be the first to use nuclear weapons?
How is "make the AI smart" compatible with "make the AI not use nukes first, even when using nukes first has no particular downside"?
There has to be an in-game penalty for being the first to escalate to nuclear war, otherwise there is no logical reason for the AI not to start flinging any nukes they have.
A diplomatic penalty makes the most sense from both a realism and gameplay perspective, and it constrains the human player as well as the AI.
Hard-coding nuclear reluctance into the AI when the human player faces no such incentive is weak design.
A good idea but the national wonder would not be available until someone completes the Manhattan Project. The national wonder should cost 1/4 of the Manhattan project. Once the secret is out copy cats can build it for a fraction of the original cost.
Nukes should completely wipe a city and everything within it's radius off the civ map. And that area should become a radiation zone for a certain number of turns, causing units that enter that zone at all a chance to die.
People still live in Nagasaki and Hiroshima.
How about 25% of all improvements, 50% population lost, 90% military and pollute every tile within 2 of the city. The place is royally hosed but not a crater.
With the heavy pollution you will see major unrest and starvation with the survivors. That will be very tough to build back from without other cities to support you.
Similar threads
