Manhattan Project- Enables Nuclear Power FOR ALL?!

[TimothyP]

I don't like the fact that the Manhattan Project is a Great Wonder, does anyone know if this can be changed?

[d_dudy]

when did they change this? first i've heard......

[Your.Master]

I know it's not your fault and you don't know, but this is the BILLIONTH time this has been said! I don't even own the game and I can easily tell you that you just set a flag in the editor.

[RTodd]

It can changed in the editor...under "Improvements and Wonders" tab, it looks like you uncheck "Allows ALL civs to build nuclear..."

T

[Setsuna]

Man, now I know why they didn't release multiplayer. You *couldn't* make temporary fixes like this in such a case.

[Lord Gek]

Uhm, if you uncheck that won't that mean it does NOTHING?

This is where you have to define its function. Even if you could do that how would other civs EVER get nukes short of taking over that city?

[RTodd]

Lord Gek:

Yeah...I shortly thereafter posting figured that out...I'm trying to see if there is a way to turn it into a small wonder, while at the same time enabling nucs for that civ.

T

[TimothyP]

RTodd I hope it can be done because I hate the fact that you put all the work into building the friggin thing and what happens, everyone can have nukes!! It's seems like a better idea not to build the darn thing at all!

And like you guys say, if you simply use the editor, to switch it to a small wonder and than take off "enables ALL civs to use nuclear weapons", it would seem to have no effect at all...

[RTodd]

Totally agree....civs should WORK for their nucs

T

[Setsuna]

The reasoning behind the decision was probably something along the lines of:

"The Modern Age would degenerate into a quick race to nuclear weapons, with the player making a beeline towards them everytime."

Considering how the Planet Buster worked in SMAC (Read: Everyone will hate your guts if you use it and kick the crap out of you) this doesn't make a lot of sense, so there must be another explanation.

I'm listening.

[TimothyP]

Good point Setsuna.

I think the reasoning was prob more like.....
"5 days left 'til game goes gold... crap.... forget it, just leave the Manhattan Project as is, (along with a lot of other things)...

but other than the Manhatt. Proj. and a few other things, I think Civ 3 is very good, and if the plan is to release patches to fix some of these issues (or simply extend the editor) then great, cuz I'm happy to be playing Civ3 (flawed or not) period.... for now

[RTodd]

An arms race? Now where have I heard of that before

Seriously, though...I wonder if it more closely mimics the real world as is, since in this day it seems most developed countries have some sort of nuclear program. But since nucs in Civ3 are the most expensive items you can build, perhaps only well-developed countries could use them anyways, and therefore more than likely could have developed Manhattan on their own?

Then perhaps a better tree to get ICBMs/Tacticals besides "Space Flight"; like "Space Flight" AND "Fission".

T

[Setsuna]

Originally posted by RTodd
An arms race? Now where have I heard of that before

Seriously, though...I wonder if it more closely mimics the real world as is, since in this day it seems most developed countries have some sort of nuclear program. But since nucs in Civ3 are the most expensive items you can build, perhaps only well-developed countries could use them anyways, and therefore more than likely could have developed Manhattan on their own?

Then perhaps a better tree to get ICBMs/Tacticals besides "Space Flight"; like "Space Flight" AND "Fission".

T

Today being the magic word.

56 years ago ONE country had nuclear weapons (Ironically that was closer to the Industrial Age - Hey, maybe *that's* where it belongs on the tree! ) Not too long after it was two countries.

Now 56 years later, how many have the ability to build AND maintain them?

Seven. Seven out of HOW many? (191)

Anyway, the main point is even after the cat was out of the bag other countries that had the resources still had to put 2 + 2 together. It's not just a money/resources issue (That is getting to be the case THESE days - but not in the early years.)

[TimothyP]

Originally posted by RTodd
An arms race? Now where have I heard of that before

Seriously, though...I wonder if it more closely mimics the real world as is, since in this day it seems most developed countries have some sort of nuclear program. But since nucs in Civ3 are the most expensive items you can build, perhaps only well-developed countries could use them anyways, and therefore more than likely could have developed Manhattan on their own?

Then perhaps a better tree to get ICBMs/Tacticals besides "Space Flight"; like "Space Flight" AND "Fission".

T

This makes sense.

I agree that lots of nations today have nuclear programs, but they got them by

1. developing nukes all on their own
2. through espionage (still have to become "nuclear capable")
3. receiving technology or 4. technology and capability from "generous" allies
5. by buying them from countries or organizations (and not necessarily getting the ability to build them).

civ3 allowed you to do 1, 3, and 5
civ2 allowed 2.

I think that the since all of these paths to being able to build nukes except 4. (which isn't even possible in civ) and 5. (doesn't involve building own nukes) involve becoming "nuclear capable" on their own, I think civs should have to build their own Manhattan Project.

ps. Good points Setsuna (your argument is probably more clear than mine)

[TimothyP]

But forgetting about realism...

I think the most potent argument towards making the Manhattan Project a small wonder is-

In Civ2 when you build Manhattan Project, at least half of the civs have or get the technology needed soon after. Civ3 fixes this a bit by adding the need for uranium. As long as uranium is very rare, there shouldn't be too much of a problem... Still I'd rather the ability to change these things in the editor.