 |
|
tuckson
|
|
So was the one in civ2
I guess the result of a nuke should depend on the size of a city.
A small city should be vanished, a medium sized city should be reduced to small and a big city should become medium.
And of course important building are crushed.
Also hope for a nice explosion, Maybe a screen blank for a while too?
Grtx
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
Well...if you have studied nuclear warfare even just a little, you know they ain't anything like they were in civ2. And its not just that they were NOT realistic, they were just too lame and WAY TOO weak.
I would hope that they were like this:
1 nuke in city = all population killed in small, medium, and large size cities. If there were cities with Mega populations (eg. New York in real life), with say...a population that reached above 30, they would become mega-size. and a nuke would destroy 3/4's of the population in "megas". In all cities and cases of nuclear explosions, all of that city's(s) improvements would be destroyed, with the exception of "megas" which would destroy 3/4's of the improvements. in cities sizes small and medium, all of the small wonders (if any) would be destroyed. small wonders in large city's would be destroyed by 3/4, and in mega's, 1/2. Unless the city was a mega, 1 great wonder would be destroyed in that city. also, I personally think that a radiation/fallout field should 'shroud' the land surrounding the city, damaging the agriculture and any units that are there for the next several turns.
BTW, Firaxis has mentioned a small 'tad' of Nuclear warfare in one of their interviews, I believe it was the 2nd one at Gamespot: it goes somethin' like this,
"...When a civilization reaches that time in the modern era when nuclear weaponry is available, you had better be the one with the weapons, or your screwed. If a nuclear holocaust does happen, you are lucky to survive it...nuclear warfare is just down right, DEVESTATING..."
- Jeff Brigg's
those aren't his exact words, but that's the general idea. Unless Firaxis has gone back on this quote, I have high hopes that nuclear wafare will be much improved from that crappy civ2 style.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Big Crunch
Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still on my map of Japan. Cities will still exist after a nuclear detonation. How much depends on the blast radius and the size of the city.
Even with large yield bombs the larger cities wil not be completely obliterated. Especially sprawled cities, like LA. |
you are correct to a certain extent, the mega cities (such as L.A. and New York) will not be completely obliterated, BUT...the population will eventually die out. radiation is considered even more devastating then the explosion itself.
"Nagasaki and Hiroshima are still on my map of Japan..."
this may be true, but if you research, Hiroshima was one of the largest cities in southern Japan during WWII. Now, its quite small. And though the actuall cities themselves were not destroyed, nearly all the populations' were. Most of the people that did survive the blast...died in the next 5-10 years from the after-affects of the radiation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Internationalist
|
|
Thessaloniki,Hellas
Oct 2000
time: 05:15
|
|
I also think(though it's late for such an addition) that nuke usage should be greatly avoided by the civs in game(even your civ).It was overly popular as a military tactic in civ2 (IMHO) and though this makes for good battles it's not that realistic.Players should be freightened to use nukes and settlers-workers shouldn't be able to fix the damage made. Also it should create anarchy for two turns for each nuke attack(which would mean, say two attacs in one turn=4 subsequent turns anarchy) and a possibility of a revolt in your empire(after all nuke users detroy the future of their subjects).The penalty should be less if you're only counter-attacking(unless you overly passionate about it) retaliation should be 1.5 max(for every 2 attacks you get less penalty for 3 attacks).Also other nations should percieve the 1st one in a battle using nukes as a universal threat and offer the opposing nation military aliances and units.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mongoloid Cow
|
|
What about sprawled out cities like Sydney or Los Angeles - they are among the largest in physical size but relatively small in population compared to New York or Mexico City?
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Pingu:
|
 |
Exeter, England
Jan 2001
time: 05:15
|
|
I too hope that the Nukes have better graphics in Civ3, it was prett lame in Civ and f***'ing awful in Ctp2.
Ctp2 did have one good thing though. it had a good "mutually assured destrcution" (MAD) setup, if you nuked someone, then they would immediately Launch all their nukes at you. Immediately means in YOUR turn, before you get to wipe them out with your hordes of parartroopers.
Ahhhh, immediate and total retaliation, that's a bit more like human nature...
You'd be a fool to launch Nukes against any other nuclear power, or their allies.. you'd better be one too, or your history.... Perhaps that's what one of the Firaxians meant when he said "You'd better be a nuclear power when they come along or you'll really miss out.." or something like that... I forget the exact quote.
Anyway, that's what I hope Nukes will be like in Civ3. (plus a kickass graphic and a deeply booming sound effect that'll pop your speakers and piss off your neighbours....... but that goes without saying.)
Pingu:
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Grim Legacy
|
|
War Machine, Barbaric King, Relentless, Remorseless, Guiltless and Unclean!
Aug 2001
time: 06:15
|
|
Nuclear warfare is for wussies that are unable to conquer the world on horseback! :P
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:15.
Apolyton Time is 00:15. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2001 23:26
|
|