stop being so political

Ah. We read it differently. What he should have said was 'A few hundred people getting cancer is not a world-serious thing.'
 
What he should have said was 'A few hundred people getting cancer is not a world-serious thing.'

Absolutely. This is what was intended. I think I said something similar earlier in this thread (or another).

Its sad when people die. But a few thousand deaths is not at the scale of significance to be modeled in Civ. It pales in comparison to car accidents or disease or battles. It is not the stuff of Empires.

A "realistic" implication of a meltdown to me would be to render 1-3 tiles in the city BFC permanently unworkable (0 tile yield, and their improvements destroyed forever). And maybe cause a health penalty for the nearby city (+0.5 unhealth per radioactive tile).

In game terms, Chernobyl is not a city. Its a town in the BFC of Kiev.
Though there *are* a few downtown nuclear plants in the former-Soviet bloc, most people aren't dumb enough to build their nuke plant right in their major population center.

So the area damaged by a catastrophic meltdown would not be the tile that the City is on.
 
Absolutely. This is what was intended. I think I said something similar earlier in this thread (or another).

Its sad when people die. But a few thousand deaths is not at the scale of significance to be modeled in Civ. It pales in comparison to car accidents or disease or battles. It is not the stuff of Empires.

A "realistic" implication of a meltdown to me would be to render 1-3 tiles in the city BFC permanently unworkable (0 tile yield, and their improvements destroyed forever). And maybe cause a health penalty for the nearby city (+0.5 unhealth per radioactive tile).

In game terms, Chernobyl is not a city. Its a town in the BFC of Kiev.
Though there *are* a few downtown nuclear plants in the former-Soviet bloc, most people aren't dumb enough to build their nuke plant right in their major population center.

So the area damaged by a catastrophic meltdown would not be the tile that the City is on.

Hmmm. This sounds like a reasonable proposal, but not just the city and land around it were lost. Lots of assets too. It might be reasonable to have a chance to lose a few buildings as well, just to represent the loss of assets (which, in Chernobyl's case, took the form of buildings such as schools and plants as well as a load of military vehicles including helicopters, and so on).

Also you'd be a little surprised where people sometimes build their nuclear reactors! Downtown nuclear reactors are more common than you might think. There was one in downtown Atlanta until 1995 for example:

http://virtualglobetrotting.com/map/nuclear-reactor-in-downtown-atlanta/view/?service=2

Nonetheless, I like your proposal because I think the mechanic should be based on Chernobyl as an iconic event, rather than what-if scenarios.
 
I could easily see say a 5% chance to lose each building in the city.

And make the whole thing an event that can only happen in a city with a nuclear plant, and with a low probability of occurring.
 
This is the least trendy thread in the universe, actually. We are discussing cancer from nuclear power plants. Yeah, sexy.
 
I could easily see say a 5% chance to lose each building in the city.

And make the whole thing an event that can only happen in a city with a nuclear plant, and with a low probability of occurring.

Yes. And just firing once in a game. Also there should be a chance it does not fire in a particular game at all (like some events in BTS).
 
You, since you are after all free to leave if you do not like this thread. I suspect you know I meant you.
 
The message was not that I did not like the thread. In fact, I find it quite entertaining to lurk here/post if I think there's something to say- it gets me through RFC RAND. The previous post was in reply to MightyGooga, who clearly did not want to discuss anything, and only searched for a popular thread to spam in.
 
Top Bottom