|
Author
|
|
Topic: Nuclear Weapons |  |
|
SorvinoBackhand
Settler
Ohio
Sep 2000
|
 |
posted October 24, 2000 02:32
    | 
 |
 |  |
Did anybody else think that SMAC cheated on nukes with those goofy planet-busters? I hope Civ 3 can somehow model the qualitative change in interstate combat that nuclear weapons entrained. No state goes to war lightly against nuclear powers, but in Civ 2 and SMAC they seem to. Elements of nulcear great power competition - deterrence, arms races, escalation, nuclear winter (not just global warming), etc. - would add realism, and caution, to the international politics of the game in the latest historical era. |
UltraSonix
King
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
 |
posted October 24, 2000 02:57
 |
|
| |
quote:
but in Civ 2 and SMAC they seem to
|
I think the main problem was that the AI is too weak. So to compensate,they try and use nukes a lot. The solution (and no mean one, at that) would therefore to focus on making the AI much harder to play.------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... |
rremus
Chieftain
Romania
Jan 2000
|
|
posted October 24, 2000 03:03
|
|
| |
../../Forum35/HTML/000089.html
Check out how they'll implement Mutually Assured distruction(MAD) in CTP2. I think this is the correct answer to the problem.
The basic ideea is that if you launch a nuclear attack against another civ that posses Nukes, you get nuked back in the same turn. |
rremus
Chieftain
Romania
Jan 2000
|
|
posted October 24, 2000 03:04
|
|
| |
Sorry for the double post...
[This message has been edited by rremus (edited October 24, 2000).] |
jrhughes98
Settler
Nashville, Tennessee US
Oct 2000
|
|
posted October 25, 2000 22:39
|
|
| |
Speaking of nuclear weapons, Firaxis should add atomic and hydrogen bombs to the list. However, only bomber planes can carry these and when you attack a city, or a unit, you have the option of dropping a nuclear bomb on that city/unit(s). You can even drop a bomb just anywhere. These bombs will also destroy units/cities in the surrounding area, though some units and cities may only become partially destroyed. The hydrogen bomb, however, is more powerful and will cause more damage to any units/cities in the surrounding area. Also, nuclear weapons can spread radiation from being carried by the wind, causing radiation sickness upon citizens in any city in any civ (not just the civ that was attacked) and worldwide population decrease as a result. Because of radiation sickness, other civs who fall victim to it may frown upon the civ that actually made use nuclear weapons.------------------
JRH
[This message has been edited by jrhughes98 (edited October 25, 2000).] |
UltraSonix
King
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
|
posted October 25, 2000 23:41
|
|
| |
I haven't had time to read the ctp2 thread (just saw the link), but just quickly, here are some more links for your viewing pleasure:*Nuclear Warfare (this one mentions the hydrogen bomb stuff talked about above)
*Nuclear Warfare
*Nukes
*Nuclear Weapons
*Nuclear winter ------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited October 25, 2000).] |
DarkCloud
Prince
of Posts
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted October 26, 2000 20:33
|
|
| |
Ultra- You have a DSL don't you?  Nuke threads are fairly interesting however.
Bombs: 1. Light Bomb- knocks out oall electrical structures in city.
2. H-Bomb- does 1/2 damage of Nuclear Missile; does not destroy city only 1/2 population and permacontaminates the land around to only produce 1/2 food.
3. Bombees- when placed in land by engineers they lower population of a city whose radius is within their hold by 1/4 each turn. |
UltraSonix
King
Melbourne, Australia
May 2000
|
|
posted October 27, 2000 00:29
|
|
| |
quote:
Ultra- You have a DSL don't you?
|
I have cable (but it's crap) and I run it on my P166.  quote:
1. Light Bomb- knocks out all electrical structures in city.
|
I forget the name of this weapon - I read an article in New Scientist, I think it was - the thing can generate a very, very brief magnetic field, which induces current in nearby electrical circuits (range: a few city blocks or just the building next door, depending on what you want) . I'm sure sure, but I think it was called something like electromagnetic pulse. The article suspected that the weapon is already been used! (It can be used to circumvent alarms - you trigger the bomb, close the alarm, get in, get out, and the alarm comes back on...)
Apparently however, there are [expensive] ways to protect against this sort of attack, so if it was implemented in civ3 maybe they should also have an SDI-equivalent.Also, what about a neutron bomb - supposed to very good at killing people, but leaves no radiation, apparently? And what about the idea of only making the stranger ones of these weapons (ie the electro-pulse one and the neutron bomb) available to certain civs?
------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary... |
cygnus
Settler
Oct 2000
|
|
posted October 27, 2000 15:16
|
|
| |
i agree there should be differences between the bombs. For example the atomic bomb dropped on hiroshima (a few kilotons)didnt leave very much radiation(it mostly goes away within 80-150 years). However hydrogen bombs can be excessivley powerful i.e one 20 megaton h-bomb detonated over manchester in the north west england would swallow the entire of the UK in the blast, vaporising rocks and leaving radiation for several thousand years. I think the different civs should therefore react differently to different typesof bombs - i cant imagine anybody wanting to fight some one with a bomb like that.
Also i agree the nukes must be MUCH more devastating on the enviroment causing fallout, global warming and nuclear winter. (infact i think global warming should be alot worse than in previous civs too)PS. A neutron bomb is a special type of nuclear bomb which has a very small blast but gives off huge amounts of radiation. This was designed specifically to kill people and leave buildings/cities intact.
|
Biddles
Warlord
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted October 27, 2000 23:16
|
|
| |
Clarification of terms:Nuclear Bomb - AKA Atom Bomb - The bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki - Uses uranium or plutonium as a fuel. Actually not that powerful. Leaves a lot of radioactive byproducts. H-Bomb - AKA Thermonuclear bomb - Uses a nuclear bomb as a trigger to ignite Hydrogen to a temperature of around 1 million Kelvin, where it undergoes fusion. Pretty damn powerful, but a lot cleaner than a nuclear bomb. Electomagnetic pulse (EMP) - Happens with all nuclear detonations. Disrupts electronic devices in the vicinity. Shielded electronics can be developed. Watch the James Bond Movie Goldeneye. Neutron Bomb - Emits a short burst of neutron radiation. Kills organic matter (thats us), but the small explosion leaves most of a cities infrastructure intact. Neutrons have a short halflife and so the radiation disipates quickly. I'm not sure whether this is theoretical or has actually been developed. Would require that ghost city idea be implemented if this was to be used in civ3. SDI - Strategic Defence Initiative - (Star Wars Program) - A system designed to destroy ICBM missiles before they can reach their targets. THis has no effect against a "mad bomber". It is not a magic weapon that stops nukes from working but rather a system of missiles, lasers, rail gun etc. (that never got off the ground) that was to stop nuclear missiles reaching their targets.
------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission |
Shogun Gunner
Chieftain
Fairfax, Virginia
Oct 2000
|
|
posted October 27, 2000 23:41
|
|
| |
Where's smokey the nuking ebonics wizard when you need him? |
Sir Shiva
Warlord
of Bangalore, INDIA
Mar 2000
|
|
posted October 29, 2000 05:39
|
|
| |
I've said this before, but:Nukes should consist of 2 parts :- warhead, and carrier vehicle. Warheads:- Standard bomb, neutron bomb, chem, biological, hydrogen, small, big, fat, ugly, whatever.. Vehicles:- Bomber, Cruise missile, short range, medium range, ICBM, SLBM etc. You would build the two separatelyand 'load' the warhead onto a bomber or missile, or specify the configuration when building the thing... ------------------
-Shiva
Email: shiva@shivamail.com
Web: http://www.shivamail.com
ICQ: 17719980 |
Biddles
Warlord
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted October 29, 2000 07:55
|
|
| |
Agreed Sir Shiva, actually I think we discussed this in a thread (probably of the same name) A while ago (meaning 3+ months).Personally I would design the nuke in a design workshop and then you build the whole unit. ------------------
- Biddles "Now that our life-support systems are utilising the new Windows 2027 OS, we don't have to worry about anythi......."
Mars Colonizer Mission | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
