 |
|  |
 |
|
jackl
|
|
There should definately be some diffrent grades of nukes....based on power rather than range.
Free fall bombs (must be loaded onto bombers) could damage units/cities in a single square. with a 50/50 chance survival for all units, wonders, city improvements and population points.
Tactical Missile. Short range but more powerful than free falls. (can be loaded/fired from bombers for extra range) they have a 50% chance of destroying each unit but 70% chance of destroying wonders, improvement or pop point. They still only affect one square (while polution affects upto three random squares.)
ICBM...Built by cities but rebased to silos (and only targetable fron silos). Icbms pack a major punch. 70% chance of killing units and 90% chance against wonders, improvements and population points. They affect the target square and those adjoining and polution/terrain damage is catastrophic.
SLBM....built in coastal cities as a "super Unit" SLBMs are expensive and powerful systems. the unit itself represents the submarine AND its full flight of 8 missiles. Each missiles is independantly targeted and after firing the last missile the sub is lost. SlbM attacks have a 70% chance against units and 70% chance of destroying wonders, improvements and population.
The % attack values against diffrent sorts of targets should not only make nukes more "realistic" but that much more worrying. Knowing that im gonna lose half of my population i can cope with....the chance of losing every last one...thats worrying.
The diffrent grades of weapons means that a real "escalatory" situation can arise giving the chance to "turn off" the fighting before things get to the "stratigic level".
The other important aspect of nuclear weapons should be the political response. I find it difficult to see my allies declaring war on me when i just nuked our common enemy. Embargos and loss of rep...yes but declarations of war against a state willing and able to use nukes from a non nuclear state are pretty unlikely.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elias
|
|
Has anyone else had the world declare war on them for using nukes? Thats happend to me a couple of times ill drop a nuke and everyone goes to war with me. What ever happend to cold wars? With incredably powerful nukes would you wever invade another country that possesed nucluar capabaities? I know i wouldnt Nucular plants should not melt down haw many times has this hapend in the real world? I modded this out.
For a story I once turned an entire country into a orange wasteland lol.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
cad4life
|
|
madison, WI, United States
May 2001 time: 05:32
|
|
I learned a lot about nukes from just reading in the post. one thing I do know about nukes is everyone loose when you use them. They are bad and we all know that. The only thing is the game should make that known. you use a nuke and there and you have to pay. the best representation of nuke in a game was Alpha Centauri. you use a nuke and what ever you hit was gone. no polution no this or that. the spot on the map was gone and water replaced it. no getting it back just gone. now that was beautiful to see but the consequences you suffered for using a nuke was even worse. all countries attacked you and you pretty much was in a bad situation. now it took forever to build one of these planet busters but it was worth it. and rule number 1 you never attacked a country with a planet buster that also had a planet buster because you don't know where they may choose to use theres. your most productive city? your capital? you didn't take a chance. in that game you rarely seen a nuke fly even if you were the first country to get them.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
MoonWolf
|
|
It's very difficult to implement a realistic nuclear war effect as the world (thank God!!) hasn't experienced any full scale nuclear war yet. For playability, I think the current ICBMs should increase their effect range to all 20 squars in a city's production area, not only the 9 base ones. Also, using any nuke, should create some random pollution maybe in a range of 3 outside the effect area to emulate how radioactivity is brought with the wind.
I think however the global effects are good as they are. If you'll end up in a nuclear war, with maybe 50 launches, the effects would be catastrophic. Not only do you have lot of pollution to clean up, but IIRC the terrain might have changed as well where the nukes have stroke. And the global warming will take care of your healthy areas at an accelerated rate.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Senator
|
|
well, the problem with nukes is balancing. I mean sure they're underpowered in the game, but when you increase their power they might easily become overpowered and you'd just get a science race towards nukes. They're very tricky to balance.
Also it wouldn't be fun when a small country that has nothing to lose blows your civ back to the stone age and changes half the world into desert right when you're conquering his territory.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
cad4life
|
|
madison, WI, United States
May 2001 time: 05:32
|
|
you make a good point. there should be down sides to trying to even aquire nukes and down sides to nation having to maintain nukes. like cost being very high. and very hard to even becoming a nuclear state. there are not that many nuclear countries in the world. Just make it very hard to get, really hard to maintain and very bad for everyone once they are used. make the fallout of using a nuke in ones own nation almost unbearable or something. but they have to be more realistic
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Elias
|
|
Only a few countries even have nucular capabilities and they know if the launched aginst us they would be totaly obliterated.
Well maby not weather to use nukes or not if we are nuked by N.Korea is a very conteraversial subject. nukes seem to be better at keeping peace then destroying.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Dr. A. Cula
|
|
Oh please. I don't miss it at all. Last time I saw it was after being on the receiving end of a multiple nuclear attack: 4 civs (including one that has always been friendly and never declared war on me!) dropped 20 or so nukes on me, about 3 or 4 turns after one of them stole nuclear fission from me the turn I finished building Manhattan Project. How about that for liberal use of nuclear power?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
pauli
|
|
herndon, va, usa
Jan 2000 time: 00:32
|
|
arg. i KNEW when i modded the rules for my new game of c3c i forgot something... global warming. got to turn that nonsense off.
anyway, as for nukes... it's busters or bust, to my mind.
of course, i DID use nukes in my last game - i'd isolated a rather large portion of the zulu army in no-man's land (poor fools had sent everything they could after a barb hut halfway across the map - this ai behavior REALLY has to change) and so, when they finally declared war on me (i demanded they leave my territory after making sure it was impossible... after a couple turns, they got fed up ) i nuked the stack a couple times. i was less than impressed that it took two icbms to take out about 30 units, and there were STILL survivors.
but it was no man's land. one of my squares got some pollution, but hey. the other remaining civ didn't have a problem, as i didn't nuke enemy territory.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
moonsavior69
|
|
Can the power of nukes be tweeked by a mod? Could a mod also add additional types of nukes?
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32. Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|