Nuclear weapons and other WMDs

[astatine211]

I find that the nukes in Civ IV are somewhat weak. When a nuke blows, a city should be 1 population or even gone, instead of just being cut to half size. Fallout should make a tile totally unworkable and it shouldn't be so easy to clean up, and the affected area would in reality be larger than just the blast zone. The global warming in civ 4 is totally unreal, as what follows a nuclear war is a nuclear winter! Finally, the player should also have biological and chemical weaponry instead of just the nuclear arsenal.

[Bob Ilyani]

In addition, It would be cool if the new graphics engine allowed the environment graphics to change when there is global warming/nuclear winter.

[SanderThomas]

I'd like to see more non-nuclear missiles (Cruise Missiles and e.g. Harpoon missiles to defend cities from battleships).

Another defensive unit could be a SAM like Patriot or Hawk.

Besides that, submarines should be able to carry missiles.

[Harle]

Weak compared to what?

The bombing of Hiroshima killed only 30% of the population, with another 20-30% dying over time from radiation sickness and other problems. And that was only a city of 350,000 people. Nagasaki had a similar result.

Obviously death tolls are going to be related to population density and actual population sizes. But fifty percent isn't a bad base number.

Nukes are incredibly devastating, true, but nukes wiping out cities entirely just isn't realistic. Honestly I'd just say nukes should subtract a very specific population number from a city. If the city is less than 6 pop, then it could either destroy the city or just reduce it to 1 with horrible production and growth penalties for a long period after.

[pbninja]

I agree with Harle nukes are powerful but if you want to inflict population damage go for bio weapons i would like to see those type of options available to use.

[Hitman H94]

what they should do is make the city and surrounding blocks unworkable for a period of game time. like in real life there will be a period of recovery for that area thats been hit..

maybe more than one variation of the nuke too? a nuke mk1 would cause a hiroshima level effect where it would only kill say 30%

but a more developed nuke mk5 would oblitirate it from the map and cause much more unworkable damage for a longer period of game time

[Weaver]

Weak compared to what?

The bombing of Hiroshima killed only 30% of the population, with another 20-30% dying over time from radiation sickness and other problems. And that was only a city of 350,000 people. Nagasaki had a similar result.

Obviously death tolls are going to be related to population density and actual population sizes. But fifty percent isn't a bad base number.

Nukes are incredibly devastating, true, but nukes wiping out cities entirely just isn't realistic. Honestly I'd just say nukes should subtract a very specific population number from a city. If the city is less than 6 pop, then it could either destroy the city or just reduce it to 1 with horrible production and growth penalties for a long period after.

The yield of little boy, the bomb used on Hiroshima, was roughly 13-18 kilotons. While modern nuclear weapons, such as the "Tsar Bomba" made by the USSR was 50 megatons. This is the highest yield bomb ever made, but regardless, my point is that comparing little boy to a modern nuclear weapon is not a good comparison.

[Bob Ilyani]

The yield of little boy, the bomb used on Hiroshima, was roughly 13-18 kilotons. While modern nuclear weapons, such as the "Tsar Bomba" made by the USSR was 50 megatons. This is the highest yield bomb ever made, but regardless, my point is that comparing little boy to a modern nuclear weapon is not a good comparison.

Not to mention that the Tsar Bomba was designed to carry up to 100 megatons, and there are also cluster nuclear munitions that fire multiple missiles. Nuclear technology is very much ahead of what it was in 1945, that's for sure.

[onexero]

I'd be interested in a distinction of nuclear weapons. ICBMs are later on in the 20th century, there should be nuclear bombs from the early period that must be dropped by a plane.

I'd also like to see different nukes at different sizes, from 1 to 50 megatons.

[CivHyperFreak]

I trained NBC (Nuclear Biological Chemical) when I was in the Canadian Armed Forces, and the truth is, weapons of mass destruction work best as tools of fear and propaganda. I'm not saying they won't wreak unholy havoc, only that their ultimate us is not as terrifying simple as wiping out every living creature in a city. This was, in fact, a problem I had with nukes in Civ2, which remains my most sentimental game of all time. It was too easy to nuke a city and move troops in to capture it...very unrealistic.

[paradigmx]

nukes should be variable in size, Small cheap nuke, midsised midpriced nukes and expensive massive nukes. Hiroshima was a small nuke, if you dropped it on Manhatten about 5-10% of the island would be casualties. The US has mostly mi-sized nukes that would probably be closer to a 50% casualty on Manhatten. The Tzar Bomba that the USSR tested would have closer to a 75-85% casualty rate on Manhatten.

Similarly, I think smaller WMDs should be more accurate, primarily used for unit-killing, mid-ranged would be more multi-purpose and the large WMDs would be city killers.

The only other thing I would like to add is that I would like a little more time with nukes, or the ability to ignore the UN anti-nuke resolution(with obvious sanctions of course), it always seems that unless I control the UN, the AI immediately bans nukes when the Manhatten project is built.

[Bob Ilyani]

nukes should be variable in size, Small cheap nuke, midsised midpriced nukes and expensive massive nukes. Hiroshima was a small nuke, if you dropped it on Manhatten about 5-10% of the island would be casualties. The US has mostly mi-sized nukes that would probably be closer to a 50% casualty on Manhatten. The Tzar Bomba that the USSR tested would have closer to a 75-85% casualty rate on Manhatten.

Similarly, I think smaller WMDs should be more accurate, primarily used for unit-killing, mid-ranged would be more multi-purpose and the large WMDs would be city killers.

The only other thing I would like to add is that I would like a little more time with nukes, or the ability to ignore the UN anti-nuke resolution(with obvious sanctions of course), it always seems that unless I control the UN, the AI immediately bans nukes when the Manhatten project is built.

Uuh, I'm not sure you understand the power of the Tsar Bomba. Here's a diagram of what would happen if the bomb was droped over the centre of Paris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png

Yellow circle is the fireball. Red Circle is the total area of devastation. We're talking 95-100% casualties here. Civ Rev nuke numbers.

[CivHyperFreak]

Uuh, I'm not sure you understand the power of the Tsar Bomba. Here's a diagram of what would happen if the bomb was droped over the centre of Paris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png

Yellow circle is the fireball. Red Circle is the total area of devastation. We're talking 95-100% casualties here. Civ Rev nuke numbers.

About 90% of the Novaya Zemlya archipelago (where Tsar Bomba was detonated) was used as a nuclear test site, and there are still a couple thousand indigenous people living there.

After the extrapolations, there is always the reality that eliminating all life is nearly impossible.

Hey, did anyone wonder about dirty bombs for underdeveloped rogue nations?

[Weaver]

We should have units called ghosts which have to stealth in and guide the nukes down with laser sites.

Uuh, I'm not sure you understand the power of the Tsar Bomba. Here's a diagram of what would happen if the bomb was droped over the centre of Paris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png

Yellow circle is the fireball. Red Circle is the total area of devastation. We're talking 95-100% casualties here. Civ Rev nuke numbers.

May I say that image is the bomb?

[paradigmx]

Uuh, I'm not sure you understand the power of the Tsar Bomba. Here's a diagram of what would happen if the bomb was droped over the centre of Paris:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tsar_Bomba_Paris.png

Yellow circle is the fireball. Red Circle is the total area of devastation. We're talking 95-100% casualties here. Civ Rev nuke numbers.

I partially assumed people would have enough warning to get into bomb shelters and some Manhatteners can survive anything, I don't know why. but yes, originally I was leaning towards closer to a 95-100% mortality rate, but decided to be a little more conservative with my figure, assume maximum survivability and optimal conditions

[Hitman H94]

Who actually used them though inthe game? I think I used them once

[paradigmx]

Who actually used them though inthe game? I think I used them once

I use them in every game I can, provided the AI hasn't banned them.

Then again, I also only play for conquest victory, i disable all other victory conditions including time.

[CivHyperFreak]

I partially assumed people would have enough warning to get into bomb shelters and some Manhatteners can survive anything, I don't know why. but yes, originally I was leaning towards closer to a 95-100% mortality rate, but decided to be a little more conservative with my figure, assume maximum survivability and optimal conditions

Don't worry...the HAARP system will keep them from re-entering the atmosphere over the US and Canada. Don't ask me where they'll probably land, though, senor.

[Beimeith]

The bombs dropped at the end of WWII were Fission bombs.

Modern bombs are Fusion bombs (AKA Hydrogen bomb) which are orders of magitude more powerful.

Unless you are in a reinforced shelter many many stories down, you are toast if one goes off. they are not nearly powerful enough in Civ4, and the AI is stupid and uses them at every opportunity as well. It needs to be way way more conservative about it.

[CivHyperFreak]

The bombs dropped at the end of WWII were Fission bombs.

Modern bombs are Fusion bombs (AKA Hydrogen bomb) which are orders of magitude more powerful.

Unless you are in a reinforced shelter many many stories down, you are toast if one goes off. they are not nearly powerful enough in Civ4, and the AI is stupid and uses them at every opportunity as well. It needs to be way way more conservative about it.

So, was all the time I spent wearning a NBC suit in a Leopard tank anticipating a nuclear attack during NATO war games wasted, then? You mean I could have been drinking coffee and reading the Globe & Mail instead?

I feel ripped off.

[Laurier]

I always loved the way how nukes in Alpha Centauri created big holes in the landscape. I would love it if the most powerful nukes in Civ V did something similar.

[Beimeith]

So, was all the time I spent wearning a NBC suit in a Leopard tank anticipating a nuclear attack during NATO war games wasted, then? You mean I could have been drinking coffee and reading the Globe & Mail instead?

I feel ripped off.

In case of a nuclear attack, just get under your desk like the old school safety films. /nod

It's just like a tornado/earthquake!

[astatine211]

Weak compared to what?

The bombing of Hiroshima killed only 30% of the population, with another 20-30% dying over time from radiation sickness and other problems. And that was only a city of 350,000 people. Nagasaki had a similar result.

Obviously death tolls are going to be related to population density and actual population sizes. But fifty percent isn't a bad base number.

Nukes are incredibly devastating, true, but nukes wiping out cities entirely just isn't realistic. Honestly I'd just say nukes should subtract a very specific population number from a city. If the city is less than 6 pop, then it could either destroy the city or just reduce it to 1 with horrible production and growth penalties for a long period after.

I agree that it depends on population density, but...
...think about this: the bombs dropped on Japan were 21kt and 30kt for Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively. The ICBMs today are hundreds of times more powerful than the bombs in that day, due to the fact that nearly all modern nuclear weaponry is tritium enhanced, that is, they are all H-bombs. The W56 minuteman warhead (retired in '93) had a yield of 1.2Mt, and the largest bomb made by the US had 15Mt, while the largest bomb ever detonated had 50Mt. Here's some data from Wikipedia:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi.../Nukecloud.png
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ball_sizes.svg
The first diagram is the cloud size, and the second is the fireball size.
This is another link to a google gadget showing the destructive power of various bombs:
http://www.carloslabs.com/projects/2...roundZero.html

And one shouldn't forget that the main destructive power comes from the blast wave and lingering radiation, not just the heat. And yes, multiple nuclear explosions surely would make the Earth a cold, radioactive and partially dead planet.

I wonder if any mod will ever feature an antimatter device, which would be scary to have in real life, but sure would be fun in a game.

[astatine211]

On the topic of animating an ICBM launching: the animation in civ rev (link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEPzCPWn2NA) is somewhat unreal, as a ballistic missile turns its engines off at being halfway through, and the flight path is somewhat more steep, i. e. rises quickly, turns its engines off and falls to the ground. One thing that is also stupid in Civ4 is that ICBMs should be possible to load on submarines, cruisers or mobile launchers. And the tactical nuke should have a smaller capacity for warheads, that is, if the yield could be controlled at production.

[astatine211]

Another useful feature would be that forts in the late game could be used as military bases/missile silos for nuclear bombs. And it should be possible to deliver bombs using aeroplanes, which would become obsolete with the rocketry tech.

[TheMystic]

On the topic of animating an ICBM launching: the animation in civ rev (link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yEPzCPWn2NA) is somewhat unreal, as a ballistic missile turns its engines off at being halfway through, and the flight path is somewhat more steep, i. e. rises quickly, turns its engines off and falls to the ground. One thing that is also stupid in Civ4 is that ICBMs should be possible to load on submarines, cruisers or mobile launchers. And the tactical nuke should have a smaller capacity for warheads, that is, if the yield could be controlled at production.

Haha that's my video . I'd really like to see at least two tiers of nukes in Civ 5, and a little more destruction than what we saw in Civ 4. I always felt nukes were a bit underpowered in the Civ Games, although Civ:Rev almost got it right.

[SanderThomas]

Haha that's my video . I'd really like to see at least two tiers of nukes in Civ 5, and a little more destruction than what we saw in Civ 4. I always felt nukes were a bit underpowered in the Civ Games, although Civ:Rev almost got it right.

I love it! It's very dramatic and for the first time I realised I've been using nukes too easily. I was bit surprised by Hitman H94 saying he only used one nuke before. I remember using at least 5 in one turn on Paris, after the French insulted me But using a nuke should always be the last thing you'd want to do. For the sake of the game's realism.

[astatine211]

@TheMystic

Well done with the video! What did you use to capture it on a console? And you timed the music perfectly with the action on the screen.

[astatine211]

But I'd say that starting a full-blown thermonuclear war should be allowed in Civilization 5, instead of having just one missile. Nevertheless, the rocket animation is a mistake I cannot forgive the developers.

[TheMystic]

@TheMystic

Well done with the video! What did you use to capture it on a console? And you timed the music perfectly with the action on the screen.

Thanks, appreciate the kind words from you guys. Back then I was just doing direct feed into a Sony camcorder at SD resolution (720x480). Civ Rev had just come out, and I imported it from the UK so I kind of had a jump on everyone else stateside.

I've been waiting for an affordable HD solution with HDMI and component inputs, but so far the option are either a huge hassle or too expensive.

[VThornheart]

But I'd say that starting a full-blown thermonuclear war should be allowed in Civilization 5, instead of having just one missile.

Would you picture it as being an "automatic response" to someone firing a missile at you (so it all happens in the same turn), or should it take more than one turn for an ICBM to reach its destination?

I could see it going either way, with interesting options for both.

> 1 turn to reach its destination would mean there could be an active ability for people to react defensively or counter-offensively before it hits the ground, though it'd be a bit unrealistic because one turn is - at best - a year if I remember correctly.

Perhaps preconfiguring counteroffensive targets based on nuke scenarios, and then letting it automatically happen (perhaps with a "Do you want to launch your counteroffensive strategy?" prompt or something like that) in response to a nuke firing could be interesting as well.

[Hitman H94]

as in real life - even countries that arent affected by the war but have nuclear capability they should launch too

like if china and america went nuclear i'm sure the russians wouldnt sit there idle.

[Bob Ilyani]

as in real life - even countries that arent affected by the war but have nuclear capability they should launch too

like if china and america went nuclear i'm sure the russians wouldnt sit there idle.

They'd have to be at war with someone to launch nukes, right? I don't really see the change in this case.

[CivHyperFreak]

And don't forget Russia's Doomsday Machine. Make it a World Wonder giving you total protection from first-strike launches if you don't like the odds SDI offers.

[geoff1210]

perhaps implementing a way to build Silos or something on various tiles, just make them a little more vulnerable or harder to build would be a good trade off for adding a bit more kick from the nukes. Haha I'd love to have a HUD to display perhaps a more complex missile system, like having them aimed at certain enemies and have a world overlay similar to something like Defcon, but maybe im pushing too much detail into such a small aspect of the game.

I thought nukes were TOO overpowered in Civ 2, and Civ 4 they almost arent worth building, in terms of damage done vs international anger vs cost

but maybe that was the message they were trying to send.

[astatine211]

Yes, I agree that a DEFCON indicator should be implemented. The ICBMs should be possible to rebase to a silo, also making sure that the silo looks like one, with animated blast doors. Oh, and that horribly wrong missile animation...