Jump to content

Nuclear Power Plant Meltdowns


Alex
 Share

Recommended Posts

If this is moving forward alex I suggest you apply the same logic to everything. Make a nuclear strike wipe out a city also just to make it fair. Hell even change the odds of a successful strike to reflect the 25 percent odds you displayed. Pretty please have all things nuclear wipe out cities completely. Pretty please pretty please. Some days it wont be windy. Some attacks wont have full strength. Machines break down. Why is this being directed towards the nuclear reactors only? I mean I'm all for realism but make it universally implemented. 

Edited by Apeman
Pretty please
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah this idea isn't going to accomplish what it is supposed to.

High city count players will pretty much invariably have the resources/infra to be able to just swap improvement types. So the end result is just going to be another wrinkle/complicating factor in developing builds.

  • Like 1

Slaughter the shits of the world. They poison the air you breathe.

 

~ William S. Burroughs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you really want to address whales, make cities progressively cheaper over time. This will make it easier for smaller nations to grow, while imposing an implicit whale tax on all whales to force them to buy additional cities just to stay where they are. It also helps whales in a way, in that it gives them something to do as the game gets older and gives whales better opportunities to compete with each other for head whale.

  • Downvote 1

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Spaceman Thrax said:

Yeah this idea isn't going to accomplish what it is supposed to.

This.

 

On top of that it's highly highly unrealistic. Nuclear incidents happen, sure but no where near on the scale or magnitude of what is proposed here. Chernobyl I think most people would agree is probably the worst nuclear incident outside the WW2 bombings; the number of people who directly died as a result of Chernobyl is 31 - the IAEA estimate around 4000 premature deaths associated with the disaster.

 

And the proposal is to wipe out entire cities at a fairly high % chance? (so if for example you have 30+ cities pretty much guaranteed to have a meltdown killing hundreds of thousands of people at least once a year...??) Sorry but no. If you want to introduce this sort of mechanic do it with nuclear weapons rather than imposing an ultra unrealistic mechanic on power plants.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't like city destruction, but I wouldn't oppose doing this with a beefed up radiation mechanic.  Have it add radiation like a nuke does.

Boost the baseline radiation from a nuke and meltdown to 300 or 400 points... So it takes around 30 days to clear up rather than 8.

  • Upvote 1
GnWq7CW.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why not allow nukes to wipe out cities instead?
Nukes in the game have no point but taking away infra and 2 random improvements.
This allows people to go out there and take a nuke like it is any other day.

If we allow nukes, say if a city were nuked 5 times within a week, to erase the city, it will bring in the real fear of a nuke.

However, I've already thought up of a way to abuse my recommendation so be careful kek.
 

  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem is, why even bother with the game when growth objectives are impossible? The game is already at the edge of a pure war-game, i.e, nation-building doesn't matter, etc. Allowing nukes is incredibly drastic, i.e, players simply won't go to war to protect their cities, and alliances that do go to war, get savaged and have to start over from scratch due to massive attritional damage.

Edited by Inst

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
On 12/18/2018 at 12:48 PM, Alex said:

image.png

 

 

As much as I respect you, I'm going to have to tell you to check your math. Reason? You can't have more than 100% chance of anything happening.

I don't know what formula you used (By the looks of it, you just simply multiplied the percentage per turn by the number of turns in that length of time), but it's definitely not right. Since you're finding the chance that at least one nuclear meltdown occurs, you could calculate that by subtracting the probability that no meltdown occurs from 100%.

How do you calculate the chance that no meltdown occurs over a year? Let's instead simplify it and ask how we calculate the chance that no meltdown occurs over three turns. Given that with 60 NPP, the chance of no meltdown occuring per turn is 99.976%, then the chance of no meltdown occuring over three turns would be 99.928%, or a 0.072% chance of a meltdown occuring over three turns, because .99928 = .99976*.99976*.99976 .

Using that idea and given that a year is 4380 turns, and we have 60 NPP, the chance of no meltdown occuring is (.99976)^4380 = 34.952%, or a 65.048% of a meltdown occuring. That's still not good odds, but a long way from a beyond certain chance.

That was nerdy, but those misleading numbers are causing hysteria, especially since a nuclear meltdown is planned to remove cities entirely.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nuclear meltdowns should have a linear increase compared to the number of plants and should only be possible when you are not paying the upkeep, the upkeep of nuclear power plants should be increased for both resources and income by at least what it already is, effectively doubling it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What about a nuclear meltdown more likely if the nuclear power plant is older?

Like first 6 months after making the nuclear power plant 0% chance of nuclear meltdown

6 to 12 months 1% chance

12 to 18 months 2% chance

etc.

So you can spend money to destroy and rebuild your power plant every 6 months or accept the chance to have a nuclear meltdown

Nuclear meltdown = same effect of a nuke, city not destroyed

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It doesn't play well with the inactivity mechanics, say, a ton of whales who go inactive will end up burning their cities. Prat of the point of the present inactivity mechanics is that some nations will log on, drop out of vacmode, and start playing again. But if their reactors went nuclear and took out cities, that makes it less likely.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe reduce infastracture. The same as if a nuke went off. It maybe reduce a city's infastracture to zero, but don't destroy the city all together. That is unfair. Some of us spend time thinking of a name...

No.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Pardon the thread necromancy here, but I have kind of a twist on this idea, and didn't know if it warranted a new thread or not.

I was thinking the following, in regards to a Nuclear Power Plant Meltdown:

1.  The effect should be equal to that of a Nuclear Bomb (not a whole city destroyed)
2.  Instead of a small chance every turn, make it so you have a decent chance of meltdown if you can no longer afford to maintain it (the $10,500 per day).
3.  If the plant gets destroyed in a battle, the effect would be of a nuclear bomb. If it was destroyed by a nuclear bomb, the effect is a double-nuke. This could daisy chain if each nuke effect destroys another plant, but that would be very bad luck indeed.

I also live near a plant that was closed because it had been leaking small amounts of radiation for years, so I do think having a small chance of some pollution works, too, but what I would really like to see is the above. Nuclear energy is not always 100% clean and safe, and the game should reflect that.

  • Like 1
  • Downvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use and the Guidelines of the game and community.