Make nukes more realistic

[ComradeMilton]

So far I think nuclear weapons are pretty underpowered and could use a boost, but I'd also like to see P&W take advantage of the fact that nations have firm physical locations on various continents and add some random radioactive fallout from nuclear strikes that would land on neighboring nations and especially on some of the nations in your own alliance that are on the same continent as the targetted nation.

 

Kind of make it a bigger deal in both damage and consequence. Make it less acceptable to drop the weapons, but then when there's enough to justify it, make sure there are some decent consequences that affect the entire physical region using RNG.

[Vincent]

kind of agree, lets take example when Hiroshima and Nagasaki was bomb with atomic bomb , ( the only instance man ever seen the effect of such WMD) - it took a great number of years to rebuild - so for us , only 10 days? kind of understating the nuclear effect.

 

maybe should enhance it but at the same time to compensate for it, perhaps once the nuke is used, the nation that "Eaten" it would be beige immediately - no need for 6th immense or things like tat.

[emperor666]

i would say a chance to put them on beige but an instant beige weapon would not be very useful in my opinion

[Vincent]

instant beige weapon bcos it will destroy 80% of the infra , 2 improvement ( lets increase it to all the improvements in that city is destroyed) and no possibility of rebuilding anything in that city for the next 100 days..

 

I think that will make nuclear more realistic

Edited August 1, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Unnamed25]

100 days?

Your joke is funny

[Vincent]

tell me how long they need to stay off Hiroshima and Nagasaki area to avoid being exposed to radiation after being hit by an atomic bomb during WW2? ...

Edited August 1, 2014 by vincentsum8

[Alex]

Nukes do automatically put the target on beige. It doesn't end your war with them, but if prevents new declarations for at least the next 2 days. And they do massive amounts of damage and have lasting pollution effects.

 

One thing I would like to add in the future, however, is a feature where if X number of nukes are launched in the last X days there's a "nuclear winter" where all food production (regardless of continent) is reduced by 20%. Perhaps more local effects based on continent as well. However, all of that could be added post-reset and is not a priority currently.

[Vincent]

Err, sheepy is not fair when you mentioned continent winter, I mean lets say I am in Asia and another Asian country has been struck with nuclear , then I am also affected and have my food production reduced by 20%? if so is rather unfair, I am not even a party to the war and I got affected because of it.

[emperor666]

were you not the one who was talking about how nukes aren't realistic enough?

[Don Juan]

I like the nuclear winter idea. Nuclear MAD should come with a cost. I think 20% is a pretty light penalty, but it is probably decent game mechanic-wise.

[Phrogg]

If the damage of nukes is upped, then the cost should be as well. We saw nations and Alliances rush for these early this round. And we will see that again post reset. At the current cost, a nation could concivably get the Nuke Project on their own at around 6-7 months. <-- Not rush speed.

[Alex]

Err, sheepy is not fair when you mentioned continent winter, I mean lets say I am in Asia and another Asian country has been struck with nuclear , then I am also affected and have my food production reduced by 20%? if so is rather unfair, I am not even a party to the war and I got affected because of it.

 

This is "realistic". Nuclear fallout doesn't only affect the nation that the nuke hit, it will affect all the nations around it. If a ton of nukes are hitting Asia, it's going to affect more than just those countries nuked. This would encourage players to work together based on continent to avoid these undesirable effects.

[Shellhound]

tell me how long they need to stay off Hiroshima and Nagasaki area to avoid being exposed to radiation after being hit by an atomic bomb during WW2? ...

You talk about realism and then &#33;@#&#036; about it. Personally I'd prefer game mechanics that make the game fun, not game mechanics that are realistic. This is a text-based game, not civ5.

[Atzuya]

Nuclear winter would be awesome

 

I have this weird idea how a dozen of people would nuke each other regularly, targeting their empty cities just to mess with everyone else

[Unnamed25]

tell me how long they need to stay off Hiroshima and Nagasaki area to avoid being exposed to radiation after being hit by an atomic bomb during WW2? ...

Tell me more on how about this game is super realistic.

Unless you mean 100 in-game days, that sounds like a joke.

[SoS]

I never heard of a nuclear winter in Asia following Hiroshima. I don't think one (airburst) nuke would/should affect a whole region much.

 

I guess the GRL was a good solution after all. One or two nukes shouldn't have regional effects, but 1,000 nukes should carry some severe consequences.

[Ayayay]

Would be nice if it was a scale, nothing would happen until 15-20 nukes went off then food production would be lowered by 1-2% per 10 detonated down to a minimum of -20%

[WISD0MTREE]

I never heard of a nuclear winter in Asia following Hiroshima. I don't think one (airburst) nuke would/should affect a whole region much.

Those were atomic bombs. Slight difference. 

[SoS]

Those were atomic bombs. Slight difference.

True, but there's also been many high yield hydrogen bombs tested without causing nuclear winter. Bottom line - there shouldn't be any effect on regional food production, until nukes are flying like the apocalypse.

[Alex]

True, but there's also been many high yield hydrogen bombs tested without causing nuclear winter. Bottom line - there shouldn't be any effect on regional food production, until nukes are flying like the apocalypse.

 

I never intended it any other way.