 |
|
Derfner
|
|
Lincoln, NE, US
Mar 2000 time: 05:12
|
|
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).]
|
|
|  |
 |
|
jdlessl
|
 |
Jacksonville, USA
Mar 2000 time: 00:12
|
|
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
|
|
Kathmandu
Nov 2000 time: 10:42
|
|
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
|
|
Kathmandu
Nov 2000 time: 10:42
|
|
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.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:12
|
|
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
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12. Apolyton Time is 00:12. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|