|
Author
|
|
Topic: Depleted Uranium |  |
|
Shadowstrike
King
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
 |
posted February 10, 2001 11:20
    | 
 |
 |  |
I've been doing a project on DU lately and I could help wondering if Civ3 could implement a somewhat realistic model for it. If we could add one more ability, call it "DU shells" or something similar, and those units that have the ability would be more effective against armored vehicles, and fortified positions. Those units would also have a lower cost, to represent the cost-effectiveness of using DU (since it was a waste product) However, they would cause damage to the enviornment which would be expensive to clean up. Of course since it might be in your opponents territory, you could choose whether or not to care. I think this would add an interesting dilema to the game, and make it more realistic. What does everyone else think? |
bagdar
Chieftain
Turkey
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted February 10, 2001 11:29
|
|
| |
weapons with environmental consequences is a good idea, I think. However, it raises us this question: are we going to have a different kind of pollution? Or will the unit leave those skulls on the tile it's firing at? (we have ranged weaponry, do we not?)  |
Shadowstrike
King
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted February 10, 2001 20:18
|
|
| |
Hmm... a single type of generic pollution kinda simplifies it, but having several different types of pollution might be cumbersome and inefficient. |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted February 10, 2001 21:13
 |
|
| |
But isn't that just adding yet another minor quirk to the game that has no "real" effect. Don't get me wrong, the idea is fine, but is it worth the trouble of another unit/unit component that is having little effect on gameplay. Look at the civ/civ2 units. They are different from each other. This would be "tank", then "tank using DU shells". You would then have people calling for "phalanx", "phalanx with bronze shields", "phalanx with iron shields". IMO the units shouldn't be differentiated so much.However, environmentally damaging units sound like a good idea. There is already the nuke which causes damage, maybe there are other distinct weapons that could be included. |
Darkknight
ACS CtP2 Modification Editor
Ireland
Nov 2000
|
 |
posted February 10, 2001 22:02
|
|
| |
That would be great, Your phalanxes would be upgraded after you discover iron working or you could have different shield types in the Workshop like SMAC.
cool! I know you didn't want it but great idea. |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 11, 2001 07:00
|
|
| |
Even though I like as much realism as possible, I think this is going a little bit two far. A completely unneccessary addition to the game, I think. Let them concentrate their efforts on something more important instead. |
Biddles
Prince
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Mar 99
|
|
posted February 11, 2001 20:55
|
|
| |
I know it would be great but think about it: Every unit has 3 types of armour, 3 types of weapons....If you were going to implement this, you would HAVE to implement a unit workshop (something we know isn't in the game) because it would be far to cumbersome. I think firaxis should stick to phalanx, legion etc. |
Chaos Warrior
King
Arcanus
Mar 2000
|
|
posted February 12, 2001 17:28
|
|
| |
I generally agree. There should be considerable effects caused by depleted resources in general, not only Uranium. The details might becom hard for Macro-play-lovers |
Shadowstrike
King
Mississauga, Ontario, Canada
Jul 2000
|
|
posted February 12, 2001 18:09
|
|
| |
It would be an ability like "x2 vs. air" except it only affects tanks and fortified positions. I don't see how implementing that could be too hard. Fuurthermore, there would be no need for a units workshop, because the unit would come with certain units.... |
Roman
Warlord
Bratislava, Slovakia
Sep 2000
|
|
posted February 12, 2001 19:26
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by Chaos Warrior on 02-12-2001 05:28 PM
I generally agree. There should be considerable effects caused by depleted resources in general, not only Uranium. The details might becom hard for Macro-play-lovers
|
You missed the point. This thread is not about resources running out, but about 'pollution' caused by DU weapons. I think this pollution is completely unneccessary to model. |
marc420
Chieftain
Atlanta, GA, Amerika
Jun 99
|
|
posted February 12, 2001 19:51
|
|
| |
Another consequence of DU use should be that it should be considered an "atrocity" ala SMAC. Leaving behind a radioactive waste after a battle that's going to cause generations of cancer and leukemias isn't likely to be looked onto very kindly by the other Civs. |
Jon Miller
Prince
May 99
|
|
posted February 13, 2001 01:04
|
|
| |
DU should not matter because it has no effects on the Civ level. It is not at all atrocity like and may very well have no effect on any level. Now if DU caused a 100 mile area to be so polluted that it was hardly liviable then I would agree with you. But in no stretch of the imagination does DU do that. Compared to the effects of pollution of industry (which is by far the most prevalent pollution in civ) it would be rediculous to make DU pollute at all. I mean compare it to the nuclear weapons. It would be rediculous to have DU do anything on this scale. Now what might be interesting in line with SMACs gas pods (ie weapons that are atrocities) would be tactical nukes and biological and chemical weapons.Jon Miller |
cyclotron7
Chieftain
California
Jan 2001
|
 |
posted February 13, 2001 01:32
|
|
| |
Umm, about this whole atrocities thing:I thought the whole atrocity system was always kind of bogus. Isn't the act of war in itself an atrocity? Bombarding, killing, and sacking? Umm, so why should a nuke be looked at as so much worse than, say, 20 armor units razing an enemy's entire country and leaving a civ in ruins from war? Most any combat is an "atrocity," especially in modern times. |
Jon Miller
Prince
May 99
|
|
posted February 13, 2001 01:57
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by cyclotron7 on 02-13-2001 01:32 AM
Umm, about this whole atrocities thing:I thought the whole atrocity system was always kind of bogus. Isn't the act of war in itself an atrocity? Bombarding, killing, and sacking? Umm, so why should a nuke be looked at as so much worse than, say, 20 armor units razing an enemy's entire country and leaving a civ in ruins from war? Most any combat is an "atrocity," especially in modern times.
|
To a large extant I agree. Most standard war practices like looting, raping, pillaging are looked down upon more in the modern age. Not to say these don't occur but in the modern limited wars countries don't do them because they are 'atrocities'. And for whatever reason (maybe even because the country does not want them used on them) even nations which have a fairly 'screw the international community' attitude (ie Hitler) haven't for the most part used biological and chemical weapons (and nukes). So therefore I do somewhat disagree in that there are diffinitely some forms of weapons that nations do not use as much because they are somejow worse. Maybe there should be (in more modern times) two forms of war (or maybe even three). One that is full blown srew the other guy, another is limited war (ie vietnam). WW2 was mostly the second type but did have a fair ammount of the first type (especially Germans towards Russians, Jappenese towards everyone, and Hiroshima and Nagasaki). The possible third type would be like the Kosovo action or even Desert Storm (or this might just be the natural result of vietnam) where the people want no losses to there side and don't really want any losses to the people of the other side. Jon Miller |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
