Results 1 to 19 of 19

Thread: The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,873

    Lightbulb The Effects of Nuclear Weapons.

    I can remember if Civilization 3, if you fired too many nuclear weapons, then a warning sign would pop up letting you know that global warming would start (I don't recall this in Civilization 4?), and if you continued, you would gradually see the terrain change from lush to desert.
    I had a go at using lots of nukes in Civilization 5, just as an experiment, yet I haven't noticed any global warming happing, or warnings about it.

    I'd like to see such effects if a player was to decide to use lots of nuclear weapons, or a nuclear war was to start, global warming effecting the terrain, either turning the land into a wasteland, or a nuclear winter, if it gets really serious. Early on, after a few nukes have exploded, the player should get at least one warning, so a player who wants to use nuclear weapons, but doesn't want to change the environment, would know when to stop. Also, a lot of people like the Post-Apocalyptic genre, so if the world's environment was to change into the classical wasteland of a Post-Apocalyptic setting, some people might find this aspect very appealing (I know I certainly would). This leads to another possibility...choosing the starting map to be a Post-Apocalyptic landscape! (Then you wouldn't have to go as far as nuking the place to get the map looking the way you want it to) So most of the landscape would be wasteland and desert, with some oasis here and there, and destroyed cities left in ruins, and of course lots of radiation. They could also add a similar map for a Nuclear winter.

    Would these be good ideas for the game, to add a bit more realism and variety, or would it just be unnecessary and overly difficult to incorporate into the game?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    1,689
    Latest weather data shows we are entering a little ICE AGE with severe cooling coming up in the near future. It had started in 1645 and was deferred slightly from 1850 to 2000 by the rise of our industrial age (global warming).

    However, it is over now and using nukes will NOT have any appreciable effect. In fact if too many nukes were used in a future war, the cooling effect could be exacerbated since the sun would be obscured by a nuclear winter.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,873
    Would there be a chance that they might consider adding this to the game as a patch or as part of an expansion pack though? (It would make an interesting theme for the expansion pack! They could have a Post-Apocalyptic scenario with it.)

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Glorious Republic of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,085
    Quote Originally Posted by SirMaru View Post
    Latest weather data shows we are entering a little ICE AGE with severe cooling coming up in the near future. It had started in 1645 and was deferred slightly from 1850 to 2000 by the rise of our industrial age (global warming).

    However, it is over now and using nukes will NOT have any appreciable effect. In fact if too many nukes were used in a future war, the cooling effect could be exacerbated since the sun would be obscured by a nuclear winter.
    And too many nukes actually isn't a lot. All you need is about seventy nukes fired over Pakistan and India and you have a worldwide disaster.

  5. #5
    I really do wish there was some consequence of sending out a nuke like that on the enviorment.

    Along with trading along rivers, or roads (Destroying roads dosnt acually stop you from getting iron from somewhere else)

    So much strategy removed >.<

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,873
    I personally feel that this is necessary to the game's realism. How can nothing happen to the environment when you fire off loads of nukes?

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    101
    I for one dont enjoy having my actions engendering any consequences. So i'm all for the no global warming scenario. We can all just pretend Al Gore doesn't exist in Civ 5.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    2
    Perhaps someone could write a script where hexs with Fallout randomly produce Radscorpions, Ghouls or Super Mutants and they behave like Barbarians

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    219
    If you remember in Civ3 there was not just nuclear fallout that had to be cleaned up or you risked global warming but also cities constantly created waste depending on it's size and buildings being used, granted some buildings would lessen or remove alot of waste that was produced by cities but still as they grew larger it was inevitable that some waste would appear on the map so you either had to try to balance your cities growth to prevent it OR put workers out there to constantly clean up the mess. I do like how this time when you fire off a nuke it not just obliterates everything but the fallout area causes damage to units who end a turn in there. It could be possible that they put less focus on the game being a lesson on global pollution and more about the rest of the aspects but a mod setup as a post apocolyptic scenario would be nice to see.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,873
    Quote Originally Posted by Olenthros View Post
    If you remember in Civ3 there was not just nuclear fallout that had to be cleaned up or you risked global warming but also cities constantly created waste depending on it's size and buildings being used, granted some buildings would lessen or remove alot of waste that was produced by cities but still as they grew larger it was inevitable that some waste would appear on the map so you either had to try to balance your cities growth to prevent it OR put workers out there to constantly clean up the mess. I do like how this time when you fire off a nuke it not just obliterates everything but the fallout area causes damage to units who end a turn in there. It could be possible that they put less focus on the game being a lesson on global pollution and more about the rest of the aspects but a mod setup as a post apocolyptic scenario would be nice to see.
    There's another aspect that they could introduce into the game again...litter! Big cities do produce a lot of waste, and there can be buildings that help to reduce this (and maybe for a future tech, a building that stops this completely would be cool!). This would give your workers a bit more work to do, but it'd add to the realism of the game. This makes sense to me.

    If there are a lot of people who don't like the idea of litter and nuclear effects on the environment, then they could always put it as an option that you can click off if you don't want it to ever happen, or restrict it to a scenario even.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    9
    Generally speaking, Pollution was most annoying in CIV3(with engineers having to play whac-a-mole to clear polluted tiles), minimized in CIV4(pollution simply causing a food penalty), and completely eliminated in CIV5. Pollution does play a prominent role in real life politics(E.G. The Kyoto protocol, illegal waste in China), but has ultimately been deemed a "non-fun" mechanic by the developers. I've always found it slightly annoying though, trying to keep my population at a manageable level, especially at higher difficulties.
    I can remember if Civilization 3, if you fired too many nuclear weapons, then a warning sign would pop up letting you know that global warming would start (I don't recall this in Civilization 4?), and if you continued, you would gradually see the terrain change from lush to desert.
    I don't remember the exact formula used, but even firing one nuke could cause global warming. As could spamming factories.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by Black Gate of Mordor View Post
    And too many nukes actually isn't a lot. All you need is about seventy nukes fired over Pakistan and India and you have a worldwide disaster.
    Actually, you could fire all the nukes in the world and it would have nearly zero effect on climate. The Icelandic volcano earlier this year gave out far more particle's than all the nukes would to block the sun and that has had less than 0.0001% of global temperatures.

    The Nuclear Winter is a just the most extreme of the possible scenarios. It was so bad that the media picked up on it and ran with it. A small volcano would have more effect, and this is taking into account all the other fires caused by a nuke. Nuclear warfare does not affect the weather.

    It is akin to the population predictions. By 2100 that could be several trillion people living on Earth... but this is just the most extreme prediction. It is so unlikely that scientists laugh at it but accept through the laws of probability it is theoretically possible. Same with Nuclear Winter, the guy who first came up with thinks it is absurd.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Glorious Republic of Melbourne
    Posts
    3,085
    Quote Originally Posted by ProjectVRD View Post
    Actually, you could fire all the nukes in the world and it would have nearly zero effect on climate. The Icelandic volcano earlier this year gave out far more particle's than all the nukes would to block the sun and that has had less than 0.0001% of global temperatures.

    The Nuclear Winter is a just the most extreme of the possible scenarios. It was so bad that the media picked up on it and ran with it. A small volcano would have more effect, and this is taking into account all the other fires caused by a nuke. Nuclear warfare does not affect the weather.

    It is akin to the population predictions. By 2100 that could be several trillion people living on Earth... but this is just the most extreme prediction. It is so unlikely that scientists laugh at it but accept through the laws of probability it is theoretically possible. Same with Nuclear Winter, the guy who first came up with thinks it is absurd.
    No, seriously, you only need seventy to a hundred nukes to be fired in a regional war and you'd have a worldwide nuclear winter. Within forty-nine days the pollutants from those nukes would have spread throughout the stratosphere and all over the world. And I'm pretty sure that the population extreme is only 236 million, 7 trillion is a bit unbelievable.

  14. #14
    I know, that is why the trillions is laughed at, but it is the theoretical maximum. But all the pollutants, which includes dust and smoke particles from a destructed cities etc is not enough to cause the winter.

    The Volcano in Iceland pushed out more atmospheric particles than the bushes fires across the entire planet for the whole year, alot more in fact. The nuclear winter really is nothing more than the extreme scenario that will not happen but has to be accepted as theory. In reality, all 50,000 nukes couldn't do it.

  15. #15
    I like the idea of there being adverse consequences on the environment as a result of a nuclear war, but the global warming scenario is absurd; it would be the opposite: a nuclear winter. ProjectVRD is skeptical of this, particularly in the case of smaller nuclear wars, so I can only point him to what Carl Sagan has said on the matter (from the 'Nuclear Winter' 1983):

    But what if nuclear wars can be contained, and much less than 5000 megatons is detonated? Perhaps the greatest surprise in our work was that even small nuclear wars can have devastating climatic effects. We considered a war in which a mere 100 megatons were exploded, less than one percent of the world arsenals, and only in low-yield airbursts over cities. This scenario, we found, would ignite thousands of fires, and the smoke from these fires alone would be enough to generate an epoch of cold and dark almost as severe as in the 5000 megaton case. The threshold for what Richard Turco has called The Nuclear Winter is very low.

    Many biologists, considering the nuclear winter that these calculations describe, believe they carry somber implications for life on Earth. Many species of plants and animals would become extinct. Vast numbers of surviving humans would starve to death. The delicate ecological relations that bind together organisms on Earth in a fabric of mutual dependency would be torn, perhaps irreparably. There is little question that our global civilization would be destroyed. The human population would be reduced to prehistoric levels, or less. Life for any survivors would be extremely hard. And there seems to be a real possibility of the extinction of the human species.


    His is not a lone voice. See the Cold and the Dark: The World after Nuclear War (1984) which is a summary of a major conference on the long-term biological consequences of nuclear war. It considered every scenario conceivable from an all-out nuclear holocaust to a smaller exchange of a hundred or so. In short, even a hundred missiles would be catastrophic for mankind and the environment. If we 'fired all the nukes' in the world like you suggest, there is no doubt that mankind, and the vast majority of species above bacteria, would become extinct.

    An extract from The Cold and the Dark:

    http://www.mindfully.org/Nucs/Sagan-...ces31oct83.htm

    An interesting, if terrifying, read.

  16. #16
    I know you guys, let's launch a bunch of nukes and find out for sure! I'll meet you guys at the nuke launch center in 6 hours!

  17. #17
    lol... sounds like a plan but i wanna be the one that presses the red button!

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    2,873
    Thank you everyone, especially evilsooty, for your input - reading your comments has been very interesting!

    I would still like to see something happen if I go crazy with nukes in Civilization 5, even if it is relatively minor, like slight changes to the environment. I can see why they wouldn't want to make this too major (like the Nuclear Winter evilsooty described), because that would damage all the civilizations and players too much. Maybe something like that, but not overwhelming to the players, and only if you keep pressing on at nuking the place, ignoring all the warnings.

    As a possibility for a scenario centred on a Nuclear Winter, or radiative desert wasteland, it could be done as more of a fantasy (like many Post-Apocalyptic storys), with realistic elements in it, but not exactly the way it would really happen. Even if it's scientifically inaccurate for a situation like this to exist, I would still very much enjoy playing that scenario - as I think would so many others - because it opens up a situation with new ideas, and a very different world to exist in, alien to what we are used to, and the focus is all about survival, so you could expect a lot more action from your neighbours!

  19. #19
    I too agree that the scenario in the game is warranted. I personally think it would be amazing to see the snow tiles expanding towards the equator somewhat, as this would completely blow yours and the other civilisations tactics out of water. It is no longer a case of expansion but survival if you are very northen/southern civ.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •