Gojira75

To be fair, I was quoting a lytic from Guns n' Roses song 'Welcome to the Jungle' - I called nobody names.

Welcome to the Jungle, baby!

Godzilla

Achievement Name: Godzilla Achievement Description (how to unlock): Have at least one nuclear power plant, have eaten a nuke, and have nuked another. Achievement Name: Quixote Achievement Description (how to unlock): Have at least 10 cities powered by wind

Thanks for keeping it a civil discussion about the pros and cons. That's what I was looking for with this post. As you've noticed, my suggestion has shifted a bit based on all the feedback. We still disagree about the pollution aspect, but that's OK. Have a great week!

Alex saw it and liked it. Twice. (I originally had it posted in a different thread, and he agreed I should create a new one for it). Despite the vocal minority, the OP has more positive than negative votes, and as I've said a few times now, I do agree there is room for tweaking the mechanism for balance. I am not trying to punish any playing style or anything like that, just trying to add some realistic risk that comes with nuclear power plants, and a non-game-breaking way to do that. If others have other suggestions to make that happen, this is the thread for it.

I've been a professional developer\database administrator since 1998. I know a thing or two about coding and maintenance. Code that has worked for years can begin to fail when the situations such as load size or customer demands change. My point here is that the way Nuclear Power Plants are being implemented as the be-all-end-all, completely safe power plant is in itself a flaw. It ISN'T working now, and, IMHO, this code should be optimized.

I see these forums are just like any other social media. Some people come on just looking to argue. I appreciate all the constructive criticism. That's why I posted the idea here. The idea itself is one I am fine with @Alex tweaking as he sees fit for game balance. If he even implements it. It is HIS game after all, not mine or any of yours. If he is smart enough to create the game we all love, he is smart enough to decide which suggestions go in and how to implement them. I agree with the suggestion that since this is not weapons-grade, it wouldn't explode like a nuke and therefore maybe shouldn't have the same destructive power - that's true! So maybe take away the destruction of improvements. Have it have the same polluting effect as a nuke, maybe do some infra damage too. Yes, when making a game, one must balance realism with gameplay. And that was the point of this post. Nuclear energy comes with significant risk. I am merely trying to find ways to represent something like that to the game, without breaking it. If anyone has other suggestions on how to do that, please put them in this thread.

Three Mile Island, Chernobyl, Fukushima. Look these things up.

Since everyone seems to be focused on what was #1, and not the main thing I posted this for, #2, I edited the OP to only have what was #2. The idea of melting down due to lack of funds was more of a side note, it is the destruction of a nuclear plant in war, and what it's effects could be that I wanted to be the focus here.

I could see that. Maybe, as someone else suggested, running out of funds simply turns the power plants (all) off until funds come back. That would still cripple the nation, but only until funds come back, and would force active players to budget differently.

#2 is really the meat of what I was hoping to see. It actually is realistic, if you look at my reasoning and the history of Nuclear power plants. It doesn't make any sense at all to have a coal plant meltdown. so I really don't understand that reasoning. I guess an oil processing plant could have the effect of a missile strike? For #1, there is only a chance of meltdown if funds run out. As others have pointed out, funds should never run out anyway, making it a small chance. Such a small chance that I would be fine if #1 was deemed not worth the coding effort. For #2, it would only occur if the plant was destroyed in an act of war, and since we cannot specify an improvement to target, that chance is small. You could make it smaller by adding protection of those plants by 50% or so when you build the Vital Defense System Project (or something along those lines). It adds quite a bit of hard decisions to the game, I think.

It just means you'll either need to accept the risk, avoid war as much as possible, or go with less efficient power plants. But I love the extra challenge that brings.

Probably no active player, no. Unless they were brand new. But part 2 of my OP is the real meat of what I want to see.