what's the point of fallout?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Jim Bro, May 11, 2011.

  1. Jim Bro

    Jim Bro Emperor of Quebec

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Quebec
    i've never been nuked so can someone explain me what fallout really does plz. nukes are not good enough in my opinion.
     
  2. Revoran

    Revoran Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 18, 2010
    Messages:
    493
    Fallout covers tiles around where a nuke hits - you lose access to resources which were on those tiles and they cannot be worked by citizens in a city either. Military and civilian units which step onto fallout covered tiles take damage.
     
  3. Jim Bro

    Jim Bro Emperor of Quebec

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Quebec
    civilian units?? workers can take damage from fallout?? and settlers and great persons too??
     
  4. blasto

    blasto Prince

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2010
    Messages:
    424
    Its an Agent Orange dispenser.
     
  5. Ironmonger69

    Ironmonger69 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    44
    Location:
    Goldsboro, NC, USA
    I don't recall unit taking damage, but it severely hampered movement, and probably gave defensive penalties
     
  6. cavilier210

    cavilier210 Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2008
    Messages:
    120
    Location:
    Ramsey, MN
    I just got movement penalties. Nothing like damage to units
     
  7. Jim Bro

    Jim Bro Emperor of Quebec

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Quebec
    so nobody really has an answer lol. can someone be more specific?

    i don't think nukes prevent a city from working a tile because it would simply starve to death within 10turns and i don't recall that happening.
     
  8. Pac-Dragon

    Pac-Dragon Destroyer of Worlds

    Joined:
    Nov 4, 2003
    Messages:
    107
    Fallout doesn't technically make a tile unworkable, but it pillages all improvements and gives a -3 to food, hammers, and gold. So the tile is effectively useless until the fallout is removed. I've definitely seen cities start to starve when hit. It also costs two movement to move through fallout and units will take a -33% combat penalty when attacked there. Fallout itself doesn't damage units, though.

    Getting nuked is pretty bad. All of your resources & roads get pillaged, the city's hitpoints are low enough that it can be taken over by a single unit, all units in the city are destroyed, you lose population, you have to dedicate a ton of worker turns if you want your land back to normal, any nearby units are reduced to a couple of hit points (atomic bomb) or destroyed outright (nuclear missile), and you have no defense against it. That is, unless you nuke the city containing their nukes first.

    What else would you rather nukes do to make them good enough? I loved the planet buster in SMAC, which simply turned the city & surrounding tiles into a lake, but I think that would be a little overpowered in Civ 5.
     
  9. Amylion

    Amylion Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2011
    Messages:
    45
    My mod Petroleum is using fallout for nuclear meltdowns in nuclear fission plants and for radioactive contamination from uranium mines. ^^

    Looks well - if I see it in the opponents territory...
     
  10. kamex

    kamex Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,272
    Location:
    UK
    All movement to enter tile as i recall.

    -33%, same as swamp
     
  11. Jim Bro

    Jim Bro Emperor of Quebec

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2010
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Quebec
    ok thx that's all i wanted to know.
     
  12. lynxxyarly

    lynxxyarly Warlord

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2010
    Messages:
    148
    Also, you can actually destroy a city straight out if you nuke it like 2 times (depending on strength). It will make a nice big crater there.
     
  13. Scaramanga

    Scaramanga Brickhead

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2006
    Messages:
    2,214
    Location:
    Canada
    The actual purpose of fallout, besides hampering the defender, is to prevent the attacker from moving in too quickly and taking a city too cheaply. However, if the city is on the coast you still have an edge since fallout does not occur on water (England helps).
     
  14. AxelRhodd

    AxelRhodd Warlord

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2010
    Messages:
    100
    All units within 2 tiles of nuked city def take damage or get killed.
    In my current game (king, germans) I got 2 of my cities nuked and immiediately lost all units nearby - dead. Lost 2 workers and some artys - ouch!
     
  15. jagdtigerciv

    jagdtigerciv Prince

    Joined:
    Sep 27, 2007
    Messages:
    468
    Yeah the nuke itself will definitely kill many units in its radius. The main reason cities typically won't begin starving from fallout is because they end up with only half the population remaining after the nuke, and usually, that few citizens can be sustained by a Granary and Hospital and a few remaining farms.
     
  16. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    26,068
    People have often called nukes UP (ridiculous given the time that passes between turns) in civ games, yet in every civ game I've seen them, they are devastatingly cost-effective when used with any semblance of strategy. Tell me, how many other in-game weapons can completely wipe multiple units of the same or greater tech instantly, ignoring terrain and sometimes at less hammer cost than what they destroy?

    Not many.

    I always found it interesting in civ IV that people would claim nukes were too weak there, and yet with a little investment into them a 10 city high level AI could be wiped of the map before it even got a turn after declaration. Some weak unit! Given its equalizing potential in civ V, I suspect it's more of the same.
     
  17. kamex

    kamex Emperor

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2008
    Messages:
    1,272
    Location:
    UK
    Very true. i'd still like to see ICMB in V though. If they were as powerful as the missile however and couldn't be evaded with unlimited range, they would be OP. I think to balance you need some serious diplomacy effect for using nukes.
     
  18. Oneluv

    Oneluv Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2005
    Messages:
    100
    Location:
    Between the Doviello and the D.B.S
    Yes, please.

    It's odd that using nukes would have no diplomatic costs attatched.

    Particularly so, if your the first to launch.

    A retaliatory nuke strike seems kosher but I'd like to see more adverse consequences attatched to being the first Civ to use nukes.

    The use of nukes just feels too arbitrary; As if the devs knew nukes were part of the show but had no idea of how to implement and didn't have time to code for funtional mechanics.

    So instead of useful integration for thoughtful gameplay, nukes are simlpy used as erasers to remove late game obstacles.

    So what we end up with is a vestigial appendage, and an extremely powerful one, that has the power to break games but that has nothing to tie it to the greater whole.

    Two cents.
     

Share This Page