How I think nukes should work

Derfner · April 29, 2001, 00:25

I'm new to this board so excuse me if someone has suggested this before.

I almost thought CTP2 did this but they didn't. When you build a nuclear missle you should be able to select a target for it, within range of course. Then when an opponent trys to hit you with a nuke all your nukes will launch at their targets. This would assure MAD, rather than an opponent being able to wipe you out in a single turn with well placed nukes and your powerless to do anything about it.
[This message has been edited by Derfner (edited April 29, 2001).]

Nemo · April 29, 2001, 01:42

i really hope that teh ICBM's will work like CTP2 MAD was supposed to work. i.e. the targetting system was a very easy impliment to the game and i REALLY hope that they will have a similar feature in CIV III - MAD crisis' only encompassed a 6 decade span (and is still going in some countries, and may come back to the U.S...between china and us this time). it engulfed the majority of the second half of the 20th century.

jordanz19 · April 29, 2001, 01:57

With the enhanced Diplomatic area, and unlimited range ICBMs, I'm looking forward to a Cold War type situation.

When you build an ICBM, it should be assigned to a target.You should know where the other civ's nukes are aimed, by say spying on the cities that hold them. You should be able to see what the target is when your spy uncovers them. Even satalites. I mean there is a good setup for a standoff. I hope Firaxis implements some form of it.

Russian King · April 29, 2001, 06:36

Sure, MAD is a great idea BUT there is something MUCH more important!!!
1.)The power of a nuke(I DEMAND

at least 2 sq rad for ICBMS)
2.)The GodDamn animation!!! We want a pretty picture. FIRAXIS: make sure you show me the animation(or at least a shot) of the explosion! I wont buy the game otherwise!

dennis_caver · April 29, 2001, 14:48

Hi Civ'ers,

You also need a tactical nuke. One that can wipe 12 stack armies and have
a killing radius. CTP2 nuke has to hit a city to be effective.

Cavin forever,

Dennis

David Murray · April 29, 2001, 17:46

What is this world coming to when people clamor to create the nuclear holocaust.

Does anyone really want to spend thousands of years intricately building up an empire only for a few nukes to end the whole game?

I hope they don't play a big role in the game for anything other than being a good target for protests.

[This message has been edited by David Murray (edited April 29, 2001).]

Nemo · April 29, 2001, 22:31

dennis: actually as it stands right now there are 2 types of nukes: ICBM's and Tactical. teh ICBM's are limitless movement points, but cant be loaded onto any type of transport. then the tactical ones can be loaded onto subs or stealth bombers (maybe some others too) to get within their movement radius, which would kill the armies/decimate cities.

Nemo · April 30, 2001, 00:17

if i remember right, the nukes DID hit a 2 tile radius, i.e. anywhere within the city radius which is the same as 2 tiles.
and while i too like graphics, i think that more than the majority of the civ people in these forums will agree that game play is MUCH more important than graphics. (heck, look at civ I which cought most of us to begin with)

jdlessl · April 30, 2001, 11:44

There's something wierd with using nukes that take out 9 (1 sq radius) or even 25 (2 sq radius) squares. I mean, how much land area does each square represent? On a small map, 25 squares is like the entire US east of the Mississippi. To do that kind of damage with sheer overpressure or tectonic disturbances would take quite a few gigatons.

I'd think that the ICBM fusion warheads would totally destroy any units in the target square and do 75% damage to all surrounding squares. In cities, it wipes out 4 million (however many city points that is) people or 500 thousand if it's detonated in the adjacent square. If the city is smaller than this, well, time to get new travel guides. I haven't given much thought to the destruction of buildings.

Tac nukes do no damage to surrounding squares. They will do 90% damage to units at ground zero. In cities, they'll take out 150k. Again, I dunno about buildings.

If we wanted to go all out, we could differentiate between airbursts and groundbursts, long half-life fallout warhead casings (cobalt, strontium, etc) that render the area uninhabitable for quite a long time, neutron bombs, all the fun options available to weapons of mass destruction.

Murray: Hey, what's wrong with us demanding Armageddon?

Seriously, the Cold War and the nuclear standoff was a very important piece of our history. It's not something you downplay in the modern era part of the game.

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited April 30, 2001).]

Lord_Davinator · April 30, 2001, 23:24

We need MAD alright more than one in deity the god damn AI has nuked half my entire civilization and taken a quater of it with it paratroopers....

well nukes are a important part of the game but I really loth to use them... its such a waste... I hope there are sever deterents from the use of nukes....your civ breaking up possibley for one... getting your own ass fried another... if it hadn't been for that well... either the US or Russia would be kinda pale right now.

Lord_Davinator · April 30, 2001, 23:25

We need MAD alright more than one in deity the god damn AI has nuked half my entire civilization and taken a quater of it with it paratroopers....

well nukes are a important part of the game but I really loth to use them... its such a waste... I hope there are sever deterents from the use of nukes....your civ breaking up possibley for one... getting your own ass fried another... if it hadn't been for that well... either the US or Russia would be kinda pale right now.

Russian King · May 1, 2001, 06:39

quote:

Originally posted by Nemo on 04-29-2001 12:17 PM
if i remember right, the nukes DID hit a 2 tile radius, i.e. anywhere within the city radius which is the same as 2 tiles.
and while i too like graphics, i think that more than the majority of the civ people in these forums will agree that game play is MUCH more important than graphics. (heck, look at civ I which cought most of us to begin with)

Which civ would that be? 2sq radius: never in civ!(i hope this one though)

Venger · May 1, 2001, 17:22

In Civ2, nukes suck big time. Which is why I have them removed from the game...

Frankly, I'm not sure how best to implement nuclear weapons. They should not be available en masse within 5 turns of discovery. They should not be available as a 16 move free range weapon until rocketry is discovered. So many problems with them...so little time...

Venger

korn469 · May 1, 2001, 18:56

i want M.A.D.
i want ICBMs and the threat of worldwide armageddon
i want to turn cities into rubble strewn radioactive wastelands instead of making them size 8 cities that is going to have a "we love" day after you paradrop into them

check out
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000323.html

it contains more ways to implement a nuclear holocaust in civ specific terms

korn469