Infiltrator
Warlord
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2009
- Messages
- 293
Realism.. how come people are so HUGE? I mean there's a hill and 6 people can barely stand on it. Everyone's a GIANT.
Realistic Approach Institute
- Thread starter Kriku
- Start date
Crustacean Soup
Chieftain
It would be interesting to try to simulate all-out MAD nuclear warfare, seeing as the game is turn-based. One turn travel time for nukes?
One turn on nukes? How many years pass per turn? To be realistic we should probably scale it down to a day. Games would take forever but the Marathon guys would be ecstatic!
GeoModder
Deity
- Joined
- Nov 29, 2005
- Messages
- 7,512
Nothing smaller then our own moon is Earth-cracking in the real sense of the word.
Depends on the era I guess. But taking Civ4 as a guide, and on easiest difficulty, a turn would be maximum 2 years. Most likely a single year.
Well, I must admit that I cannot tell the difference between Imperial and Non-Imperial Mandarins
well, but pple do speak peasant mandarin, and it is funny to hear it spoken by the imperials. it is as about as funny as huckleberry finn's english spoken by English royals.
In the 60's, the soviet's tested the Tsar bomba, the most powerful nuke ever. 57 Megatonnes. The most powerful nukes still in service are only 1/5 that power, 10 MT. They are quite rare.
The most common yields are 475 KT and 500 KT for the US and soviet arsenals, respectively, which is 1/1000th the yield of Tsar bomba.
The combined nuclear arsenals of the entire world at the height of the cold war wasn't enough to wipe out all life on the Earth, let alone "blow the earth up".
You are wrong, sir.
No, that's stupid. An ICBM takes ~15 minutes to go from the heartland of the USA to the Moscow. A better idea would just be automatic retaliation. You pick a "nuclear retaliation policy" and go from there.
paradigmx
Say yes to Steam
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2009
- Messages
- 205
There have been approximately 2000 Nuclear weapons tests on earth, ranging in size from 0.5kt to 50mt, yet even in some of those test sites, there are still livable areas, Hiroshima and Nagasaki are both populated cities, Hiroshima has a population over 1 million and Nagasaki has a population of just under 500 thousand.
As destructive as Nuclear weapons are, they aren't planet killers, it would take the entire American, Russian, Chinese and French arsenals to be detonated in quick succession before we would see anything near an extinction level event.
As destructive as Nuclear weapons are, they aren't planet killers, it would take the entire American, Russian, Chinese and French arsenals to be detonated in quick succession before we would see anything near an extinction level event.
monsterfurby
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 27, 2005
- Messages
- 33
Wow, this thread has gone to sillyland faster than I would have expected.. Back to the Paradox forums, then..
But seriously: Voice acting is only windowdressing. Nukes are a minor part of gameplay. I think a realism mod should first and foremost deal with the political side of things. That is: Nations being created and falling, rebellions, revolutions, events beyond the player's control, randomness. Similar to the Revolution mod, which kind of became the basis for all Civ IV modding.
But seriously: Voice acting is only windowdressing. Nukes are a minor part of gameplay. I think a realism mod should first and foremost deal with the political side of things. That is: Nations being created and falling, rebellions, revolutions, events beyond the player's control, randomness. Similar to the Revolution mod, which kind of became the basis for all Civ IV modding.
Bino
Warlord
Imho, you can add bits of realism, but it could quickly lead to too much micromanagement and ultimately less fun. Once you start adding realism how you can not add something because it removes fun while leaving in unrealistic features?
Nothing we can do can hurt planet Earth. It's just too big, we can not blow it up. We can make it bloody hard for people to live on top of it though.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
First of all, I do think the devs themselves prefer realistic approaches whenever possible. But this is the FIFTH version of civ, and many realsitic concepts have been dropped, mostly due to an undesirable gameplay effect.
I am very sure that vanilla civ5 was about getting the basics right, not taking every feature from previous versions, but instead changing core elements and balancing them well.
There will surely be expansions based on our feedback, but for the vanilla game it would be stupid to add a lot of stuff before they got feedback on the core new mechanics (1upt, hexes, emipre-wide happiness,...).
That said, here are my wishes (*):
- While I understand religion is gone, I'd love to see something like espionage, but more meaningful. something to interact with other civs in a third way, in addition to diplomacy and warfare.
- I have to see how happiness works out, but I can imagine many would love to see it split up into health, crime, stability etc.
- What would have potential IMO would be a better representation of factions within your empire that don't like your rule. Instead of being simply a +3 unhappiness, I'd love to see actual seperatist guerillas pop up in occupied territories. Maybe also rebellious slaves, organized crime, religious fanaics, sects,... All together, the inner workings of your empire should be more complex and feel more alive for me.
- I'm very fine with 1upt so far, have to try it out. Scale was never an issue in civ, so we shouldn't exagerate it. I also believe it is impossible to make it better in a turn-based game. Haven't seen a better sugestion, limited stacks surely aren't.
(*) don't expect me modding too much, I did some changes to BtS for personal use, but struggled on more complex stuff, like adding an intermediate unit between cavalry and gunships (a humvee or something).
I am very sure that vanilla civ5 was about getting the basics right, not taking every feature from previous versions, but instead changing core elements and balancing them well.
There will surely be expansions based on our feedback, but for the vanilla game it would be stupid to add a lot of stuff before they got feedback on the core new mechanics (1upt, hexes, emipre-wide happiness,...).
That said, here are my wishes (*):
- While I understand religion is gone, I'd love to see something like espionage, but more meaningful. something to interact with other civs in a third way, in addition to diplomacy and warfare.
- I have to see how happiness works out, but I can imagine many would love to see it split up into health, crime, stability etc.
- What would have potential IMO would be a better representation of factions within your empire that don't like your rule. Instead of being simply a +3 unhappiness, I'd love to see actual seperatist guerillas pop up in occupied territories. Maybe also rebellious slaves, organized crime, religious fanaics, sects,... All together, the inner workings of your empire should be more complex and feel more alive for me.
- I'm very fine with 1upt so far, have to try it out. Scale was never an issue in civ, so we shouldn't exagerate it. I also believe it is impossible to make it better in a turn-based game. Haven't seen a better sugestion, limited stacks surely aren't.
(*) don't expect me modding too much, I did some changes to BtS for personal use, but struggled on more complex stuff, like adding an intermediate unit between cavalry and gunships (a humvee or something).
Leaders and their abilities should be replaced about every 100 years. New leaders could be random (but still nation specific). Leader switch may cause a short rise of unhappiness, happiness, extra hammers for military/buildings or anarchy depending on the leader himself.
In order to avoid switching leaders every 2 turns early on you could make the game progress an equal ammount of years per turn. That way 4000 BC to 3900 BC would be as long as 1950 AD to 2050 AD.
And ofcourse then you`ll have to balance the tech costs accordingly.
In order to avoid switching leaders every 2 turns early on you could make the game progress an equal ammount of years per turn. That way 4000 BC to 3900 BC would be as long as 1950 AD to 2050 AD.
And ofcourse then you`ll have to balance the tech costs accordingly.
OKAY how about this?
When your Social Policies become the equivalent of Monarchy tech, You can marry other Civ leaders daughters & sons. IF that Civ King or Queen dies without a heir, you may inherit their entire territory along with all their culture. Sure you might fight a short war of succession, and build a few courthouses for happiness. Imagine that! Victory by royal fecundity!
When your Social Policies become the equivalent of Monarchy tech, You can marry other Civ leaders daughters & sons. IF that Civ King or Queen dies without a heir, you may inherit their entire territory along with all their culture. Sure you might fight a short war of succession, and build a few courthouses for happiness. Imagine that! Victory by royal fecundity!
Crustacean Soup
Chieftain
I'd rather those elements be under some player control. Rather than having purely random events, having them be influenced by the player's actions would be nice. Rather than those events causing great change of themselves, have them create a scenario that the player must solve in order to steer change in one direction or another.
Tomice
Passionate Smart-Ass
"Oh damn, you randomly have no heir - sorry you lost!" 
Sounds like fun to me!
Sounds like fun to me!
Nothing is really impossible with a bit of creativity, well unless you are completely inflexible.
How is Chernobyl doing now days? That wasn't even a bomb.
I added more destructive nuclear effects in my Civ 4 mod a while back. I disliked the 'global warming' mechanics used previously, especially when the little sun icon got big enough and the game decided that meant it was the end of the world. My solution was to let fallout drift around and give fallout a chance to change the terrain beneath it to a useless wasteland. It did make you reconsider nuking an opponent as a means to soften them up before invading them and taking their land but it wasn't enough to actually totally destroy the world. In Civ 5 you will have two different types of nukes off the bat making it easier to differentiate between early and late nukes.
Realism is also highly subjective because you can't model something to be exactly like it is in the real world due to the game scale, timeframe, etc. So when adding 'bits' of realism you have to be prepared for lots of people screaming about how it isn't realistic or asking why you did that but not something else. I think it's best to consider it adding detail, not realism, and then you can decide where the game needs added detail to make it more interesting (but avoid the R word, you'll thank me later).
It's a thriving wildlife sanctuary, one of the largest in Europe.
The impact on the general population is also not as bad as you probably think. The only really notable impact (aside from those directly exposed and killed in the reactor) was an increase in the incidence of thyroid cancer among the general population, which is almost always curable. The whole "Chernobyl = mutant babies" and "Chernobyl = omg millions dead" are complete myths.
Don't think I said anything about mutant babies or millions dead but I'll scroll back up and check again. Just curious how many of the hundred thousand or so that evacuated were back and living there since everybody always likes to mention Hiroshima and Nagasaki when they argue that nukes won't have any effect on the world.
So, thriving metropolis or all but devoid of human life?
Similar threads
