Meltdown!!!

Feyd · April 30, 2002, 17:55

Okay...I'm in the late game and I'm running away with a win. Being the production freak I am, I build factory upgrades ASAP, but I'm given pause when it comes to Nuclear plants. For 50% more production (upgrade from the Hoover Dam Hydro Plants) dare I risk nuclear meltdown?

What happens if a meltdown should occur? What is the likelihood of a meltdown in a peaceful, well-upkeeped city? What if I'm beseiged? Finally, if there is a meltdown will it throw me out of the game or will it be more of a nuisance?

As there is not much help in the civilopedia on the subject (imagine that) I was wondering if anybody out there knew the statistics or affects of nuclear meltdown...

Your humble servant,

Lawrence of Arabia · April 30, 2002, 18:30

Meltdowns happen when your city goes into civil disorder for a long time. I always put em in. Less pollution, unless they meltdown of course. Then I guess its like a nuclear blast.

Coracle · April 30, 2002, 18:36

Any chance of getting a meltdown if the city is attacked by stealth bombers targeting nuclear plants??

notyoueither · April 30, 2002, 18:46

It's not that bad.

It pollutes all surrounding squares and can degrade the terrain, like a nuke. The population is halved, like a nuke.

I don't recall losing any other buildings, unlike a nuke.

It only has a chance of melting down if the city goes into disorder. That shouldn't happen if you let the governor manage moods or if the city is already at max population. Be careful though in the case of the sudden loss of a luxury or 2 through disrupted trade.

I have had a melt down on the same turn as the city goes into revolt. Kind of a nasty one-two...

notyoueither · April 30, 2002, 18:48

Quote:

Any chance of getting a meltdown if the city is attacked by stealth bombers targeting nuclear plants??

I doubt it, but I've never seen a Nuke Plant hit by bombing.

Jaybe · April 30, 2002, 18:49

Feyd,
My recollection from 4-5 months ago is that my meltdown city lost about half its population, and I suddenly had plenty of work for my workers. All 8 (or was it 20?) tiles were polluted. While probability increases while in anarchy, anarchy is NOT required. Mine did not occur during anarchy.

There was Firaxis talk of meltdown probabilities some months back here in the forums.

If I have a factory and a powerplant (especially if Hoover Dam), I generally do not replace my powerplant with nuclear plant.

JB

Feyd · April 30, 2002, 19:05

Thank you all!

I went ahead and built them and had 180 production in my Iron Works city. The next closest was 140 which is still something! It wouldn't had mattered if I didn't want to build modern armor in a single turn

.

Anyway, thank you for the quick replys and since I constantly have my civ set on governer control of citizens (He perempts riots...before they even happen he hires entertainers which means I never lose a turn...EVERYONE should consider this function with the cities set on production). More nuclear plants for everybody!

The man, the myth, the pathetic...

Feyd

SpencerH · April 30, 2002, 19:29

So nuclear plants increase production on top of the effect of Hoover dam ?

zulu9812 · April 30, 2002, 19:32

Yeah - normally each plant replaces the old one. However, when you are given the plant by a wonder it's always there no matter what. Thus, if barbarians sacked a city and destroyed the hydro plant, if you had Hoover Dam you'd still have the hydro plant in that city.

asleepathewheel · April 30, 2002, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither .

I have had a melt down on the same turn as the city goes into revolt. Kind of a nasty one-two...

In one of my first full games I went into a nasty tailspin towards the end of the war, deciding not toswitch from dem to republic. kept flipping to anarchy and back. Had, IIRC 4 meltdowns in the span of a few turns. Pretty annoying, esp. if it happens to the capital.

Skanky Burns · April 30, 2002, 19:58

We know that the hydro plant always exists no matter what, but the question is - Does it actually increase production on top of the nuclear plant's increase?

Jaybe · April 30, 2002, 20:10

SpencerH,
No, I DO NOT believe nuc plants are in addition to Hoover Dam. But their production increase is greater, and their pollution is nil (like Hoover -- unless they blow). [I am at work now, will check again when I have the docs, at home].

There are Factories and then there are Power Plants. You can have only one active Power Plant. Their production and pollution values vary.

Zulu,
Yes, Hoover Dam "gives" a free Hydro Plant in each of the qualifying cities.

JB

Jaybe · April 30, 2002, 23:42

Here is the list of Production enhancers. I forget if this list came from Apolyton or from CivFanatics (sorry).

Identity; Production; Pollution; Replaces; Maintenance
Factory; 2; 2; (N/A); 3
Manufacturing Plant; 2; 2; NO; 3
Coal Plant; 2; 2; Yes; 3

The non-polluters:
Hydro Plant; 2; 0; Yes; 3
Nuclear Plant; 4; 0; Yes; 3
Solar Plant; 2; 0; Yes; 3

... and other polluters:
Offshore Platform (2 pollution)
Airport (1 pollution)

So we see from above that you can have Factory, ONE of Coal/Hydro/Nuclear/Solar Plant, AND a Manufacturing Plant all active at the same time.

Personally, I have never built a Coal Plant. I have always waited for Hoover Dam. (Then, before I got this list, I would build a solar plant and find that it didn't improve production over the Hoover-installed Hydro Plant).

JB

[Edit: fixed nuclear plant production factor]

Tuberski · April 30, 2002, 23:48

According to the civilopedia, the nuclear plant reduces pollution.

Soren Johnson · April 30, 2002, 23:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
We know that the hydro plant always exists no matter what, but the question is - Does it actually increase production on top of the nuclear plant's increase?

No.

asleepathewheel · April 30, 2002, 23:56

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

The non-polluters:
Hydro Plant; 2; 0; Yes; 3
Nuclear Plant; 2; 0; Yes; 3
Solar Plant; 2; 0; Yes; 3

So the only difference between the solar and the hydro plants is that the hydro plants have to be near water? does the solar reduce pollution?

Grrr · May 1, 2002, 00:12

I have yet to have a meltdown. So other than the stuff already said, I can't really help.

Jaybe · May 1, 2002, 00:28

Quote:

Originally posted by asleepathewheel
So the only difference between the solar and the hydro plants is that the hydro plants have to be near water? does the solar reduce pollution?

Sure enough, I had a typo, which I have now corrected. (Nuclear Plant: Production factor of 4).

If you've got water, you can build (cheaper) hydro plants, or you can wait for the tech and build (expensive) solar plants. I really don't remember about actual 'negative' pollution from solar. There are just too many civ games -- I be confused.

JB

asleepathewheel · May 1, 2002, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Jaybe

Sure enough, I had a typo, which I have now corrected. (Nuclear Plant: Production factor of 4).

If you've got water, you can build (cheaper) hydro plants, or you can wait for the tech and build (expensive) solar plants. I really don't remember about actual 'negative' pollution from solar. There are just too many civ games -- I be confused.

JB

Ah great, thanks for the info.so nukes are the best, if in a stable gov't.

Jethro83 · May 1, 2002, 05:04

Nuclear plants are a MUST late in the game. I wouldn't be too worried about meltdown. I'd just do what is in my power to keep those people happy. Its no big deal at all. I'd be more worried about a nuke.

Solver · May 1, 2002, 06:13

One of my biggest complaints with Civ 3 (yet unfixed!) is the small effect of nuclear blasts, they do so little harm (well, this has been discussed in some excellent threads already). And this is why you don't worry much about meltdowns, you get some pop killed and some pollution, but with your tons of workers it will be cleared so soon.

Thusly, come on, and build those Nuclear Plants!

Tom201 · May 1, 2002, 06:54

IMO the area should stay uncleanable poluted. Same for nuking. As far as I know there isnt yet a effective way to remove such a mess (especially not with shovels

).
That would make you think twice about building nuclear plants and nuclear weapons would be more scary.

Solver · May 1, 2002, 07:24

Maybe, maybe... at least as a suggestion this is OK. Though I would also prefer more of the impact itself - MORE population loss, MORE improvement loss, ALL units in target square killed, RANGE of 3 tiles, with a chance to destroy things there.

Akka · May 1, 2002, 07:52

The funny thing is that actually, a nuclear plant is NOT destroyed if it meltdown, like it would be logical to be.
I then already had TWO meltdown in a row in the same city

latenight · May 1, 2002, 14:11

When you build Hoover, or for that matter, when you have hydro, solar, nuclear, etc., can you sell all of the inefficient, older plants (like coal) without losing the production multiplier benefits that the older plants provide? Would be great to get rid of the polluting coal plants if they no longer contribute.

Jaybe · May 1, 2002, 14:42

Quote:

Originally posted by latenight
When you build Hoover, or for that matter, when you have hydro, solar, nuclear, etc., can you sell all of the inefficient, older plants (like coal) without losing the production multiplier benefits that the older plants provide? Would be great to get rid of the polluting coal plants if they no longer contribute.

In my 30-04-2002 20:42 post, I have a list of the production enhancers. Identity; Production; Pollution; Replaces; Maintenance

'Replaces' indicates that it replaces any previous power plant (factory is not a power plant).

JB

Ethelred · May 1, 2002, 17:07

Quote:

Originally posted by latenight
When you build Hoover, or for that matter, when you have hydro, solar, nuclear, etc., can you sell all of the inefficient, older plants (like coal) without losing the production multiplier benefits that the older plants provide? Would be great to get rid of the polluting coal plants if they no longer contribute.

Yes sell the coal plants. If they are still in the list they are still polluting.

Only one power plant is active but when you build the Hoover Dam the coal plants are still there and still poluting even though they don't contibute to production. The only problem with this is you MUST not lose the city with the Hoover Dam after selling of the coal plants.

notyoueither · May 1, 2002, 19:16

If you lose the city with Hoover you're probably hooped anyway.

Amesjustin · May 1, 2002, 21:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Tom201
IMO the area should stay uncleanable poluted. Same for nuking. As far as I know there isnt yet a effective way to remove such a mess (especially not with shovels

).
That would make you think twice about building nuclear plants and nuclear weapons would be more scary.

You can use the editor to make pollution cleaning take longer.... Will affect all pollution, though....

Panag · May 5, 2002, 18:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Amesjustin

You can use the editor to make pollution cleaning take longer.... Will affect all pollution, though....

hi ,

wait a minute , pollution is pollution , or is there a difference now , between pollution and , huh , "pollution" , ...?????

allas , LOL , have a nice day