EC3 Fix #18 - IMPROVED NUKES

raingoon · February 22, 2000, 22:53

by War4ever

<center><table width=80%><tr><td>quote:
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1>
Nukes..... ie permanent damage radiation squares.... that cannot be fixed by the engineer....same as nuke reactor disaster... some land should be polluted permanently so that it discourages nukes
A nuke still causes 6-8 pollution squares but at least two at random should be permanent
<img src="/images/blue1.gif" width=100% height=1></td></tr></table></center>

ChrisShaffer · February 22, 2000, 23:35

No. Civ does not need more/better/different nuclear weapons. A reduction in the reliance on weapons of mass destruction as military tools in the endgame would be a plus.

Imran Siddiqui · February 23, 2000, 02:57

I think a standoff because of mutually assured destruction should occur. And after the first nuke, the people would know the effects and dropping another one would worsen relations.

raingoon · February 23, 2000, 03:13

In the real world, having nukes is like holding the proverbial wolf by the ears. Your glad you got him under control, but you don't dare let go, either.

In Civ 3 nukes should be just like that; let the wolf go and there's no protecting anyone from it -- ESPECIALLY you.

korn469 · February 28, 2000, 05:35

first can you define what the problem is? is it a significant problem? how does your ideas fix that problem specifically? does your fix effect any other areas of the game? if it does effect another area does it upset game balance in those other areas? is there a simpler way to fix the problem? does your idea hurt gameplay? why out of all of the ideas does your fix belong on this list?

SnowFire · February 28, 2000, 21:13

I posted this before back in summer, but oh well.

Have three levels of nukes and two types of radiated squares, weak and strong radiation. Weak gets fixed by engineers. Strong only gets fixed by lots and lots of time, and then it is only downgraded to weak.

"Standard" nukes and fission reactor meltdowns will halve any city's populaiton within the blast radius, do extensive (possibly deadly) damage to all units not protected, and randomly cause weak radiation in the surrounding squares.

"Improved" nukes will utterly annihilate the square it is targeted at and create strong radiation in that square. The ajoining squares will randomly recieve either strong or weak radiation, but none will be unaffected. If a city is in an ajoining square its population is halved.

"Planetbuster" style nukes will cause a one square lake at ground zero. Strong radiation goes in all ajoining spots, and randomly strong and weak radiation is tossed out 2 squares away and some weak radiation is tossed out even 3 squares away. Cities at range 3 have their population halved, all others are blown to pieces (along with military units of course).

Napoleon I · February 28, 2000, 21:52

SnowFire: I think that you came up with a great idea. I think that the idea of being able to have an engineer go in and clean up pollution damage from a nuclear blast in a few turns is ridiculous.

------------------
Napoleon I

korn469 · February 28, 2000, 22:44

ok here is my editied nuclear bomb idea

types: first there are three classes of nukes

atomic bombs
hydrogen bombs
MIRV hydrogen bombs

they are all single use weapons

the atomic bomb must be loaded in a bomber
the hydrogen bomb is an ICBM with unlimited range

targeting: when a nuclear weapon is built it must be set up to fire...this means setting up the weapon...i would recommend hitting the T key (T as in Target)

atomic bombs are loaded onto a bomber, the bomber's icon would then change and it might get a slight increase in range. after the bomber drops the atomic bomb it reverts to a normal bomber.

both types of hydrogen bombs can be loaded into one of the following
A. a city with a missle silo facility
B. a ballistic missle submarine
C. a mobile launch vehicle
D. a missle silo tile improvement

when a unit is loaded it must be given a target within it's range, since hydrogen bombs can strike anywhere they can be given any target

MIRV hydrogen bombs have the same power as a normal hydrogn bomb but for a little higher cost they get to select two targets and they can be improved with technology so they can select up to three targets

before a unit is loaded it is considered in transport mode, and has the same movement as a freight truck from civ2

Blast: nuclear weapons do the following damage

an atomic bomb kills 10 population in a direct hit, and automatically destroys two facilities, it then has a 50% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (40% to destroy a wonder), all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed, it destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits. If an atomic bomb hits in an adjacent square it kills 6 population and it automatically destroys one facility and has a 40% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (30% chance to destroy a wonder), and it destroys all Tile improvements, all units not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage

a hydrogen bomb kills 25 population in a direct hit and automatically destroys five facilities and has a 75% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (65% chance to destroy a wonder), if a tile improvement exists it is destroyed, and all units are automatically destroyed. if a hydrogen bomb hits in an adjacent square the city loes 15 population, and it automatically destroys thre facilities with a 65% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (55% to destroy a wonder), all tile improvements are destroyed and all units are automatically destroyed. if a hydrogen bomb hits two squares away a city loses 10 population and two facilities are automatically destroyed with a 50% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (40% chance to destroy a wonder). all tile improvements are destroyed and all units not in bunkers are destroyed. units in bunkers take 90% damage.

MIRV hydrogen bombs have the exact same effect as a normal hydrogen bomb, except they can have multiple targets, so a MIRV could attack 2-3 targets with those effects

radiation: nuclear bombs create radiation when used

atomic bombs when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 75% per square chance that an adjacent square will become radioactive. if an atomic bomb hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 75% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.

hydrogen bomes when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 50% chance per square that a square within a two square radius will become radioactive. if a hydrogen bomb hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 50% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.

radioactive squares cannot be used. radioactive squares remain radioactive for 100 turns. it takes 12 turns for an engineer to clean up a radioactive square. units moving through a radioactive square will take 10% damage per radioactive square they move through. units ending their turn in a radioactive square will take 20% damage. a unit can never heal in a radioactive square.

Mutual Assured Destruction: when a nuke is targeted it can be put on one of two modes.

either on Alert mode or on Counterstrike mode.

when on Alert mode, if a nuclear weapon is launched then ALL nukes on alert launch and all of them hit simultaneously. this ensures Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD)

when on Counterstrike mode, the nuclear weapon doesn't lauch when the first launch is detected. instead it doesn't fire until ordered to do so.

nuclear winter: if during any period 15% of the total squares on the map become radioactive then a nuclear winter will occur. it will last for ten turns. when a nuclear winter first occurs, every city on the map loses two population. also for all ten turns every single square on the map produces one less of everything. additionally during this time radioactive squares will randomly appear anywhere on the map. radioactive squares by themselves do not destroy tile improvements but they make them unuseable. after the 10 turn nuclear winter is over, then it would take a new 15% of the map turning radioactive before another nuclear winter would occur.

that is my nuclear weapon model

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

Glostakarov · February 29, 2000, 15:32

The most important change that needs to be made with nukes is the ability to launch a counterstrike before the first nukes go off. The Mutual Assured Destruction mentioned by Korn. That ability alone would help balance nukes of increased power, since if more than one side had them you might hesitate to use them.

Omsat · February 29, 2000, 21:17

When you use nukes everyone should get pissed off at you, even minor nations. they don't all have to declare war on you just get mad. And there should be a starburst type unit that could go on alert mode and go after any nuke that passes it. It would be like the SDI defense in Civ 2, except it's a unit.

korn469 · February 29, 2000, 21:46

Omsat:

at this moment there are tens of thousand of nuclear weapons throughout the world..the USA, Russia, UK, France, China, Israel, India(just a few), Pakistan(just a few), and North Korea(porbably one) all have nuclear weapons and i have read that South Africa used to have nuclear weapons but gave them up. During the coming years more nations will build nuclear weapons

however, not a single nation has even a prototype SDI system...the USA Star Wars Program of the 80's turned out to be more bluff and wishful thinking than anything else

if a single nuclear missle was launched right now, there is nothing that could stop it. In the Persian Gulf war, the Patriot missles mostly hit the Scud's Fuel tanks and not the warhead...making them useless against chemical, biological, or nuclear warheads. In the US Air Force's latest test on it's scaled down THAAD(is that how they spell it?) anti-missle system which is the successor to SDI failed, and the only success they had was on the USAF's own admission pure luck. After billions of dollars spent over an almost two decade long period no Anti Ballistic missle defense exists. We are no safer now than what we were fourty years ago from ICBM's.

Basically i think SDI is science fiction as of right now and even a small ABM system won't exist for at least 5 years maybe as many as 10...so in summary if SDI is put into Civ3 it should be one of the very last techs before future techs...it should be very expensive to build a SDI system and it should not be completely effective. and it should definantly not be a unit.

between MAD, radiation, nuclear winter, and other civs considering using nuclear weapons a major atrocity, the wide spread use of nukes should not be a problem...and in civ3 surviving the age of nuclear weapons without triggering a full-scale nuclear war should be a major accomplishment

korn469

Napoleon I · February 29, 2000, 22:25

Korn: I can agree with the idea that despite fifty years of living under the prospect of a full-scale nuclear war we still have not developed any kind of efficient anti-missile system, but as you pointed out it is just a matter of time and resources. If you make an SDI complex very, very expensive I don't see a problem with civs having it. Futhermore I don't think that it's a bad idea to have it implemented as a unit, because that way civs can trade it. This could nicely emulate the defensive missile systems that the Soviets gave to the Egyptians before the Egypt-Israely war of 1973. For this reason I think that SAM Battery should also be implemented as a unit in some way.

Omsat: I really like the idea. A system like this could finally rule out a massive nuclear first strike that I used often to win in Civ2.

------------------
Napoleon I

korn469 · February 29, 2000, 23:14

Napoleon I

well i am always willing to compromise,

as long as SDI systems are expensive, not completely effective, and come after nuclear weapons then i am for it being in the game...

if you were going to have an SDI unit, then maybe you could give it a 2 square intercept range, so that it protects a specific target, orbital defense pods in SMAC were good, except that they were a little too cheap and a little too effective...a large enough nuclear strike should be able to overwhelm almost any SDI system

some rules would be, a SDI unit could only intercept once per turn...it would be about 25% effective and cost like one third the cost of a hydrogen bomb

son once you get three war head MIRV type hydrogen bombs having a great SDI system to stop it would be a very costly proposition

so just some starter numbers

atomic bomb: cost 80 minerals, must be loaded in a bomber, and the bomber can be shot down by SAM units or enemy fighters

Hydrogen bomb: cost 200 shields, can strike anywhere can only be intercepted by SDI units

MIRV Hydrogen bomb: cost 300 shields, can strike anywhere, can only be intercepted by SDI units, has two warheads (strike two targets) and some advanced tech would automatically upgrade them to three warheads

*these weapons would be banned by the Salt II treaty a U.N. security council proposition (diplomacy option like repeal/reinstate U.N. charter in SMAC) if you started building one of these weapons after the Salt II treaty passed, people would impose sanctions on you

SDI unit: cost 65 shields, can intercept a Hydrogen bomb in a 2 square radius, can only intercept once per turn and has a 25% chance of a successful intercept...obviously the intercept occurs before the nuclear weapons hit

**these weapons would be banned by the ABM treaty a U.N. security council proposition (diplomacy option like repeal/reinstate U.N. charter in SMAC) if you started building one of these weapons after the ABM treaty passed, people would impose sanctions on you

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

Napoleon I · February 29, 2000, 23:37

Korn469: I think that you are really on to something. The 25% sounds a bit too low but after all you are right, such weapons are very unpredictable and complex. Overall, I think that your proposition is very good. The SDI unit would have a very low movement ratio to simulate the difficulty of moving such systems around. It should also not be able to be airlifted. This would prevent somebody from building an SDI unit in their capital and getting it on another continent the next turn. Thanks for the meaningful reply.

------------------
Napoleon I

February 29, 2000, 23:53

I tried to find that old thread on nukes. Mark'n'Dan have axed everything before August, so if it was prior to that it's gone.

Warhead types
The two dropped on Hir/Nag were what we now consider tactical or "theater" nukes. Perhaps that is what you mean by your first "type" of bomb? They yield far less than 50kt (typically 10-20kt, like Fat Man and Little Boy).

Most nukes are still fission only; there are probably fewer than 50 fusion bombs in the US arsenal. The old Soviet arsenal had a larger proportion of H-bombs but still probably less than 500 out ~10,000 warheads. Strategic fission warheads have yields between 250kt and 1Mt.

Multiple Independently-targettable Reentry Vehicle Warheads
Mirv technology is primarily for fission warheads. Fusion warheads are big and extremely difficult to mirv (two or three warheads on the largest liquid-fueled missiles). By contrast, the relatively small missile [dang, forgot name] developed to replace Minuteman carries several (maybe 5?) fission warheads, and the sub-launched Trident missile carries 10 ~750kt warheads (the kind the Chinese stole data on).

Strategic use of nukes is never going to be single warhead strikes. What civ2 seems to be modeling is the barrage of warheads targetting the city proper and surrounding military units and industrial centers. Except when a unit is targetted instead of a city, then it seems to immitate a limited tactical strike. But then a spy could never smuggle in numerous warheads to gain the same affect as the nuclear barrage.

Civ3 needs to distinguish between theater and strategic nukes. A single theater warhead can destroy one or maybe two division-sized units. They are frightfully cheap compared to conventional weapons needed to destroy a comparable number of units. Only fear of escalation prevents their use.

Radioactive pollution
Radioactivity generally doesn't kill people. The polluted region of the Ukraine caused by Chernobyl could be repopulated. Those people who moved in would suffer dramatically higher rates of particular cancers, so radioactive pollution causes unhappiness rather than outright death. Even tile production penalties should be minimal, but removing workers from polluted tiles minimizes the unhappiness affects. The effects last a variable time, depending on what isotopes were produced.

Nuclear Winter
Nuclear blasts launch debris into the upper atmosphere theoretically capable of blocking a significant percentage of sunlight. How this would affect the complex interaction of oceanic and atmospheric thermal balance, etc, is unknown. It would likely lower global temeratures enough to affect harvests severely.

Only the detonation of thousands of warheads within a short time can produce a nuclear winter; with each strategic unit counting as 20-50 theater warheads. The effects on food production would be similar to pollution.

korn469 · February 29, 2000, 23:59

Napoleon I

yes 25% does sound low, but for the price versus Hydrogen bombs it would be a pretty good trade off 3 SDI units for one hydrogen bomb, so it wouldn't be impenetrable but it could offer you pretty good protection if you spent the same amount of shields on your SDI system as what they did on nukes

the price of an SDI unit could be as low as 50 shields (if you keep my nuke prices) but that might make it a little too good, it would need play testing to see which is a better price 65 shields or 50 (the question is more of a 1/3 the cost of a h-bomb or a 1/4 the cost of a h-bomb) MIRV Hydrogen Bombs would still beat SDI for the cost though

i don't think that SDI should be perfect but it should offer enough protection so it would actually be useful in a game...but MAD (cuase of blast, radiation, and nuclear winter) should be the primary deterant to using nuclear weapons

korn469

korn469 · March 1, 2000, 00:13

don don

to defend my positions...

radiation: in civ2 you can't use a square if it's polluted, so i think if a square is radioactive you shouldn't be able to use it...unhappiness penalties are SO easy to get around

nuclear winter: i can also say if there was a nuclear winter, though the direct effects might only effect food production, i have a feeling that it would disrupt trade on a mass scale, consumer confidence would be shot...catostrophic inflation of some goods and severe delflation of some services would rip the fragile economy apart...if the new york stock market still existed, it would crash, IRA's 401k's mutual funds would be crushed by this, spending would drop to an all time low, i'm sure absenteeism at work would increase, as would lay offs and corporate down sizing...this in turn would effect tax income, resulting in deficit spending, education cuts, numerous things that would disrupt all forms of production

tactical nukes: make it a special ability like nerve gas pods in SMAC...that would simulate tactical nukes in a good fashion

korn469
[This message has been edited by korn469 (edited February 29, 2000).]

Omsat · March 1, 2000, 21:51

Ok, I'm for a SDI system that isn't perfect. And I'm not saying that it would be the main deterrent for starting a nuclear war, but nukes were so good in civ 2 a way to counter it would be good. It should be a tech that you don't get till after nukes so nukes still can be a major weapon.

War4ever · March 5, 2000, 05:32

wow the idea was posted even if "I" didn't think it up origionally......

My big thing with nukes is the radiation.....

Cleaning is too easy...... there should be permanently damaged squares like in sim city.... where they cannot be cleaned up ever!!!

Reality dictates that every nucleur disaster or bomb has had long lasting effects.... to the point that the land was inhospitable for a long time..... this should be the case in civ.

One year to clean radiation..... i think not.

There should be a way to have permanently distroyed land in civ and nukes are the answer to this.

this would put some teality in to the prospect of launching a nuke. As it stands now i dont' think twice about launching and noone else does either..... all you need is four engineers and your fine......

The consequences of losing a special square or two to permanent radiation could be devestating especially if the same city had multiple attacks on it!!!!!

Just a thought.... i am too tired to really get into this tonite but that was my main point about nukes.....

Everyone elses suggestions are interesting as well

pauli · March 6, 2000, 12:54

simple solution to the clean up problem: keep it cheap... but don't let it last long before the square gets nasty again. i think bikini atol is almost livable again, after many years of being scraped clean, with a new layer of sterile soil shipped in to replace the old dirt (well, sand, i guess). that way, you could force squares into productivity, but it would require a very big commitment.

The Mad Viking · March 6, 2000, 16:19

I agree with Chris Shaffer. The reliance on weapons of mass destruction in the endgame should be minized. (Sorry, I should have quoted)

In 55 years since Nag & Hiro, none have been used. I don't think we need several kinds of weapons and radition to simulate this. We need to be able to counter-launch, (MAD) This works. Nukes will only be used by someone if they can't be used against them. We don't need SDI, which is in fact an offensive weapon if you have it and your opponent doesn't. It is virtually impossible to ever intercept an ICBM under perfect conditions, let alone do so reliably to scores of ICBMs in any weather.
Use of nukes should be, as suggested, a MAJOR atrocity, and radiation should be larger, more severe and longer lasting than anyone has suggested. Bikini Atoll was just a baby, and its still f#%#!

Okay, maybe tactical nukes should be included but these should function more like the cruise missile, not like the nuke in CIV2.

edit by markg: html error
[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited March 09, 2001).]

korn469 · March 6, 2000, 16:32

does anyone know how many turns there are in civ2? i know in SMAC it has 500 turns for most levels of play. the reason why i am asking is that i do not think that radiation should be permanent but i do think that it should last for a long time.

so if civ3 is 500 turns long i think radiation from strategic nuclear weapons should last on the order of between 100-200 turns. nuclear weapons should come relatively late in the game so this should be a long enough penalty. i also strongly believe that radiation should damage units. units that move through a radiation square should take 10% damage and units that end their turn in a radiation square should take 20% damage. their could be a special ability that could lessen the damage (but would not eliminate it) but this should be expensive.

i think we all agree on MAD. That when one nuke is launched that all nukes on alert are launched. and all nukes hit simultaneously.

i think we all agree that if SDI is included in the game it should come in the late stages of the game, it should not be completely effective, and it should be very expensive to deploy.

tactical nukes could be an option that units have that work like nerve gas pods in SMAC that could double their attack value. except this could leave temporary radiation squares that last on the order of between 4-10 turns.

korn469

pauli · March 6, 2000, 17:02

i find it interesting that one the one hand, people are saying that nukes are Very Bad Things, and should be punished severely... yet on the other hand the same people are saying well ok, maybe tactical nukes are ok and no worse than a cruise missle or nerve gas, maybe a minor terrain penalty for a while.

to my mind, neither extreme is inviting. tactical nukes have distinct uses, none of which are particularly minor: in recent years, they have been seriously considered as bunker busters. on the other hand, causing damage that lasts the majority of the more intense part of the game is a bit much. a couple levels of tactical nukes should be fine for most players (ie, a bunker buster that destroys all non-mechanized units in a bunker square that gets hit directly, and a slightly larger weapon that behaves like the civ2 nuke).

does anybody know the current state of ground zero in hiroshima and nagasaki? i thought the cities were pretty well recovered, but i honestly don't know, so i'm asking

also, bikini wasn't just hit by a small test. it was hit by a lot of small tests, for many years, if i'm not mistaken.

another thing: has any thought been given to neutron bombs?

one final note: just because you find something unpalatable, doesn't mean it should be denied to everyone.

------------------
it's just my opinion. can you dig it?

War4ever · March 6, 2000, 19:54

well a modification to what i said could be.... permanent damage to two squares for say 20 - 40 turns . So the same pollution of 6 -8 sqaures with two being unremovable for the 20 - 40 turns. And as korn stated units passing through take damage and units ending on that sqaure take even more damage. Either that or the square should be inpassable by troops of all kinds as sort of a radioactive precaution. I mean how many people would really travel through a radioactive disaster anyways.

korn469 · March 7, 2000, 04:07

Nuclear Model Version 2.0

Types:

there are five classes of nuclear weapons.

1. Atomic bombs: these are the first type of nuclear weapons you can build. They are single use bombs that must be loaded into a bomber.
2. Thermonuclear missles: The second type of nuclear weapons you can build. These are single use missles that can hit anywhere on the map.
3. MIRV thermonuclear missles: They become available after thermonuclear missles. These are single use missles with multiple warheads. What this means is that they can have more than one target. These missles can strike anywhere on the map.
4. Neutron bombs: They become available with the same technology as MIRV weapons. These single use nuclear weapons have the same range as a cruise missle and are more of a tactical weapon than a strategic weapon.
5. Tactical nuclear weapons: This is a unit special ability. It becomes available with the the same technology as thermonuclear weapons. This option can be added to any ground, air, missle, or naval unit.

Diplomatic Repercussions:

The use of nuclear weapons is considered an atrocity and it carries harsh diplomatic penalties. Any use of strategic nuclear weapons is considered a major atrocity and will cause all but your staunchest allies to declare war on you. Your allies (the Pact Brother Concept from SMAC) will downgrade their relations with you and all civs will impose economic sanctions against your civ. The use of nuclear weapons is very likely to trigger a full scale nuclear war which could potentially wipe out human life on Earth, and all sides would seek to avoid it.

Using tactical nuclear weapons, while not as taboo as strategic nuclear weapons would still cause adverse diplomatic actions to be taken against your civ. The use of tactical nuclear weapons would downgrade relations with all civs by one diplomatic level and would cause civs to impose economic sanctions on your civ. The use of tactical nuclear weapons could trigger a nuclear war, and would be frowned upon by the international community.

Treaties:

There would be a number of diplomatic inititives that would seek to contain nuclear weapons.

1.The Non-Proliferation Treaty: Once multiple civs gained nuclear weapons the Non-Proliferation treaty could be ratified. This would cause that civ's reputation to go down and would impose economic sanctions on a civ if it didn't have nuclear weapons and started to build them. Economic sanctions would remain until that civ changed production, or if disbanded the weapon after it was completed. If a civ with nuclear weapons gave nuclear weapons to another civ, it would cause that civ's reputation to go down, and economic sanctions would be imposed against it.
The Salt II Treaty: This treaty would prevent civs from building additional nuclear weapons. If a civ did start building nuclear weapons, that civ's reputation would go down and economic sanctions would be imposed against that civ until it stopped production of it nuclear weapons or if it did not stop production, until the treaty was revoked.
The Start Treaty: This treaty once passed would automatically disband half of every civs nuclear arsenal. All civs with nuclear weapons would have to agree to this before it would go into effect. If this treaty passed, all civs that voted for it would gain a level of reputation.
The ABM Treaty: This treaty would prevent civs from building SDI units. This treaty would cause a civ's reputation to go down if it violated the treaty and would impose economic sanctions on a civ if it started building SDI units. Economic sanctions would remain until that civ changed production, or if disbanded the weapon after it was completed.

targeting:

when a strategic nuclear weapon is built it must be set up to fire...this means putting the weapon into an active mode (compared to a transport mode)...i would recommend hitting the T key (T as in Target)

atomic bombs: are loaded onto a bomber, the bomber's icon would then change and it might get a slight increase in range. after the bomber drops the atomic bomb it reverts to a normal bomber.

both types of thermonuclear weapons can be loaded into the following structures

A. a city with a missle silo facility
B. a ballistic missle submarine
C. a mobile launch vehicle
D. a missle silo tile improvement

when a unit is loaded it must be given a target within it's range, since both types of thermonuclear missles can strike anywhere they can be given a target anywhere on the map.

MIRV thermonuclear missles cost more than a normal thermonuclear missle but they can strike two targets. with a later tech one MIRV thermonuclear missle could strike up to three targets

before a strategic nuclear weapon is targeted it is considered in transport mode, and has the same movement as a freight truck from civ2

Blast:

nuclear weapons do the following damage

atomic bombs: kills 10 population in a direct hit to a city square, and automatically destroys two facilities. it then has a 50% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (40% to destroy a wonder) in that city. all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed. an atomic bomb destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits.

If an atomic bomb hits in a square adjacent to a city it kills 6 population. it automatically destroys one facility in that city and has a 40% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (30% chance to destroy a wonder). the atomic bomb destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage.

thermonuclear missles: kills 25 population in a direct hit to a city square, and automatically destroys 5 facilities. it then has a 75% chance of destroying each of the remaining facilities (65% to destroy a wonder) in that city. all units in the square it hits are automatically destroyed. an atomic bomb destroys all tile improvements in the square it hits.

If a thermonuclear missle hits in a square adjacent to a city it kills 15 population. it automatically destroys 3 facilities in that city and has a 65% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (55% chance to destroy a wonder). the theremonuclear missle destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are automatically destroyed.

If a thermonuclear missle hits in two squares away from a city it kills 10 population. it automatically destroys 2 facilities in that city and has a 50% chance of destroying the remaining facilities (40% chance to destroy a wonder). it destroys all Tile improvements in adjacent squares. All units in adjacent squares that are not in bunkers(forts) are automatically destroyed, and all units in bunkers take 90% damage.

MIRV thermonuclear missles:have the exact same effect as a normal theremonuclear missle. the only difference is they can strike at multiple targets.

neutron bombs: have a very low blast effect but a very high radiation effect. nuetron bombs would automatically destroy all units in the square they hit. they would automatically destroy all infantry units in the squares adjacent to the blast and would inflict 50% damage on all mechanized units in the square adjacent to it. If a neutron bomb hit a city it would kill 10 population, but would not destroy any facilities. If a neutron bom hit adjacent to the city it would kill 5 population. Neutron bombs would not destroy tile improvements.

tactical nuclear weapons: doubles a units attack strength. it also cause the collateral damage to be twice it's normal value. if used against a city, tactical nuclear weapons kill 5 population and destroy one facility. tactical nuclear weapons also destroy 1 tile improvement per attack.

radiation:

nuclear weapons create radiation when used this is why they are so vile.

atomic bombs when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 75% per square chance that an adjacent square will become radioactive. there is also a 75% chance that up to three other random squares outside of its blast radius could become radioactive from fallout. if an atomic bomb hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 75% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
thermonuclear missles: when used will always create a radioactive square in the square they hit. there is a 50% chance per square that a square within a two square radius will become radioactive. there is also a 50% chance that up to 5 squares outside of a thermonuclear weapons blast radius will become radioactive from fallout. if a thermonuclear missle hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 50% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
MIRV thermonuclear missles: have the same effect as thermonuclear missles except they have multiple targets they strike.
Neutron bombs: cause temporary radiation in the square they hit and every adjacent square this radiation will dissappear in 8 turns. it can be cleaned in 3 turns. hits a city then for the next five turns there is a 50% chance per turn that the city will lose 1 population per turn to radiation.
Tactical nuclear weapons: have a 50% chance of turning the square they were used on into a radioactive square.

radioactive squares cannot be used. radioactive squares remain radioactive for 100 turns. it takes 12 turns for an engineer to clean up a radioactive square. units moving through a radioactive square will take 10% damage per radioactive square they move through. units ending their turn in a radioactive square will take 20% damage. a unit can never heal in a radioactive square.

Mutual Assured Destruction: when a strategic nuclear weapon is given a target it can be put on one of two modes, either on Alert mode or on Counterstrike mode.

when on Alert mode, if a nuclear weapon is launched then ALL nukes on alert launch and all of them hit simultaneously. when a neutron bomb or tactical nuclear weapon is against a civ with strategic nuclear weapons on Alert mode there will be a box that ask if that civ want to launch its nuclear weapons. this ensures Mutual Assured Destruction (MAD) and makes one think twice before using nuclear weapons.

when on Counterstrike mode, the nuclear weapon doesn't lauch when the first launch is detected. instead it doesn't fire until ordered to do so.

SDI:

SDI units could be built to intercept nuclear weapons. these units would have a 25% chance of intercepting a strategic nuclear weapon and would have a two square radius in which they provided cover against strategic nuclear weapons. an SDI unit could only attempt an intercept once per turn. SDI units would come after thermonuclear missles and would cost 1/3 the cost of a thermonuclear missle.

nuclear winter: if during any period 15% of the total squares on the map become radioactive then a nuclear winter will occur. it will last for ten turns. when a nuclear winter first occurs, every city on the map loses two population. also for all ten turns every single square on the map produces one less of everything. additionally during this time radioactive squares will randomly appear anywhere on the map. radioactive squares by themselves do not destroy tile improvements but they make them unuseable. after the 10 turn nuclear winter is over, then it would take a new 15% of the map turning radioactive before another nuclear winter would occur.

i think those changes add in a new element to civ. it would definantly increase late game tensions and would make a relatively boring late game into an exciting and dangerous phase if someone built the manhattan project.

please feel free to point out all of it's major flaws, but please tell me why it wouldn't work like that

korn469

[This message has been edited by MarkG (edited March 07, 2000).]

korn469 · March 7, 2000, 04:16

something went wrong with my last post...hopefully i will get it fixed soon

korn469

The Mad Viking · March 7, 2000, 16:32

Pauli, you're right there were multiple tests on Bikini- and I'm sure they're not telling how many. My point was that Bikini Atoll doesn't represent what you'd get with a full blown hydrogen bomb blast detonated over a city. And I don't mean to deny anyone their nukes, only that I don't like the current situation of using them with impunity.

Korn, great stuff! For my taste, the Atom Bomb and the Hydrogen ICBM would be more than enough. Does anyone out there know if Neutron bombs work as originally conceived? I read somewhere that they aren't as neat as advertised re not damaging infrastructure, and that the radation levels left remaining infrastructure unusable and irreparable.

What about poison gas - a big nasty in WWI. I could see a scenario where poison gas, atom bombs and germ warfare might all have a brief period of use, before treaties / MAD make them exceedingly dangerous to the Civ that uses them. ;-)
[This message has been edited by The Mad Viking (edited March 08, 2000).]

The Joker · March 8, 2000, 14:31

There are loads of great ideas on this thread.

I think the most important thing to make nukes better are:

Infinite range for at least some nukes.

More pollution that is not only much harder to remove, but also has a much more serious effect on both the climate of the world and to the square it is on.

Some kind of allert mode for the nukes to make MAD possible, meaning that you shouldn't be able to win by just bombing everyone else.

MUCH CHEAPER NUKES!! Nukes in Civ2 are WAY too expensive. There are 10,000s of nukes in the world today, but in civ games there are never more than 30. Nukes should be so cheap that a medium size city (pop around 10, with a factory) should be able to spit out an ICBM per turn. It should be possible for all the superpowers of the world to have LOADS of nukes, which would truly make it possible to have a nuclear apocalypse.

korn469 · March 8, 2000, 14:55

oh yeah one more thought

keep the manhatten project

don't let civs build nukes until this projct is completed and let it count as the prototype for your nuclear arsenal

if you don't build the manhatten project then make the cost of building a nuclear weapon be much much higher than a normal prototype and with nukes you can't get around this cost...

right now the technology exist for anybody to have the knowledge of building a nuke but the actual development process of building nuke is a long and costly program

just ask Iraq~

korn469

pauli · March 8, 2000, 17:08

other than the arsenals of the us and the former soviet union, there are only a comparative handful of nukes on the planet. well, i have no idea how many china has, but still.

nukes should be rediculously expensive at first, but over time (or as more are produced), the cost should decrease. a nuclear weapon designed for long term storage simply cannot be a cheap weapon. now, a suitcase sized device that a spy might carry doesn't have all the shielding and protective circuitry, so that can still be cheap (although i think that maybe you should have to specifically give a spy a nuke, and if it holds on to it for more than ten or so turns, it would have a chance of developing cancer, but that's off topic). in theory, you can build a do it yourself nuke with a couple good sized lumps of plutonium, and two overpowered cannon (quite a fun trojan horse

)... but in practice they just aren't that simple, particularly at first. i think that the manhattan project should be a per-civ thing... once the first guy builds it, if you have a spy in place in the city building it, then you get up to half off the price of yours (based on how long the spy is there: if the spy is in place for the duration of the project, then it's half off. if he's only there for half of the project, then it's a quarter off, etc). now, if you can steal an actual nuke...

one feature that would be nice: the ability to airburst a nuke at a safe distance from an enemy city, to show them that you actually do mean business. some how, watching a pharaoh in civ1 scream at me that he has nuclear weapons didn't really mean much. however, if you could demonstrate that you are willing to blow a rather expensive weapon up without any actual gain... perhaps that would influence the ai slightly

maybe a very slight reputation drop among democracies, republics, etc would ensue, but an increase in awe from all the smaller countries.