Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center  

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions > Civ - Ideas & Suggestions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Jun 10, 2009, 12:22 PM   #1
MosheLevi
Warlord
 
MosheLevi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Dallas, TX
Posts: 261
Nuclear Weapons should be More Expensive

It is always fun to use Nuclear weapons against stronger AI and gain the upper hand that way.
So far in my games the AI hasn’t use nuclear weapons against me and that is a good thing.
It’s definitely not fun to get nuked, so I am glad the AI is not using nukes.

However, I found it too easy just to spam nuclear missiles in all my big cities and take out the AI’s cities with nukes one by one.
Doing so is just too easy and it takes away the challenge.

So I just wanted to say that it would make more sense, challenging, and fun if Nuclear weapons cost 3 times more.
They can still have a devastating effect if used right, but at the same time players would be more selective when using them (if they are more expensive).

This change will still allow players to change the tide of the battle with nuclear weapons but at the same time the game will continue to stay challenging since players cannot just spam nukes.
MosheLevi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 10, 2009, 03:14 PM   #2
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
Civ3 got it right. Nukes cost a lot, the AIs would use them on you if you used one, they're so devastating that you don't want to use them anyway, and the biggest thing: if you use even one, the only civs that won't automatically declare war on you are the ones that you are VERY good friends with.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2009, 12:03 AM   #3
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
I agree that nukes should be more expensive. I also think that naval units should be more expensive, to reflect the ridiculous cost of producing them. Also, stealth bombers should be much more expensive.

However, with naval units, I don't want to discourage people from using them even more so, so meh, I don't know.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2009, 11:32 AM   #4
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
I got it! Don't make the units more expensive, make them take up resources. The more of the specific resource that the unit needs, the faster it is produced. If you are running low, then production will suffer as a result. This could apply to the performance of the units themselves. For example, the Luftwaffe (WWII German air force) was put at a serious disadvantage due to lack of fuel, the same with the Afrika Korps, headed by Rommel.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 12, 2009, 04:38 PM   #5
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
Very good idea. That would tie in nicely with resource depletion, as well promoting resource based wars, or wars centred around a quest for resources. That would be beneficial for the game.

The only problem I can see, however, is that realistically, if you don't have a certain resource, you can still create units that require that resource (through using ersatz resources). I mean, even now it isn't all that realistic, cutting out the ability to create units instantaneously when you lose your connection to a resource. If the slightly more tedious resource stocks (I think you mentioned it in the other thread), whereby you can store resources for later use, then this would be a lot more realistic, although it would still have the small problem of lacking the ability to use ersatz resources. Or perhaps you could still produce the units, but that they would be half strength? Actually, that probably wouldn't be a very good idea, in that if you were playing a really easy game, and had far superior units, this wouldn't greatly disadvantage you. But, it could be worked out, in a way.

But, the general idea is a lot more realistic than what it is now.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2009, 03:01 PM   #6
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
Ersatz resources should be a possibility, the Germans were developing artificial oil by the time that WWII ended If I have not posted the stock idea, I was definitely thinking it. You should only be able to use ersatz resources if you have already produced it. I don't know about civ4, but in Civ3 you are allowed to finish your project in your cities after the resource required is cut off. That also reminds me of after you produce something, the remaining hammers (?) are transferred to the next projekt. Why is this? The two things being produced are probably comepletely different, so why shouldn't it start over? With the question of what effect resource depletion would do on an active unit: Each unit should have two types of resource requirements: A construction resource, and an operation resource. The construction resource is for building (surprise). And the operation resource is of the type we are covering in the thread on supply lines.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2009, 04:32 PM   #7
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
How would ersatz resources be produced? Would they be separate resources on the map, being more common, or would you actually produce them out of existing resources, eg. combine dye and banana (why not?) to produce oil. Sure, this isn't very realistic, but it gets to the point of ersatz resources.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2009, 07:18 PM   #8
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
Yes, by using common resources to make a substitute for a rare one. Many rubbers are now synthetic. You could also use a common resource to build something that requires a rare, or limited resource. Like using wood to build the main structure of a plane, less expensive, but causes the performance of the plane to decline (unless it was designed for wood, like the Mosquito)
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 13, 2009, 11:20 PM   #9
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
My problem with this is in realism. There isn't the range of resources in Civ, currently, to allow for realistic ersatz products. It might work for some things, but there is such a range of possibilities that the only way it could be implemented is in an unrealistic fashion.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2009, 09:33 AM   #10
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
How about plastics? They are not found naturally, how are you going to use it in civ? The only way is if you produce it from existing resources; oil, I believe.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 14, 2009, 11:48 PM   #11
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
Yeah, I suppose. But I was more meaning that creating ersatz oil out of sheep and incense, or making ersatz iron out of cow and sugar, may not be all that realistic.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2009, 02:12 AM   #12
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
 
Naokaukodem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by MosheLevi View Post
It is always fun to use Nuclear weapons against stronger AI and gain the upper hand that way.
So far in my games the AI hasn’t use nuclear weapons against me and that is a good thing.
It’s definitely not fun to get nuked, so I am glad the AI is not using nukes.

However, I found it too easy just to spam nuclear missiles in all my big cities and take out the AI’s cities with nukes one by one.
Doing so is just too easy and it takes away the challenge.

So I just wanted to say that it would make more sense, challenging, and fun if Nuclear weapons cost 3 times more.
They can still have a devastating effect if used right, but at the same time players would be more selective when using them (if they are more expensive).

This change will still allow players to change the tide of the battle with nuclear weapons but at the same time the game will continue to stay challenging since players cannot just spam nukes.
Hell no. That's not because you managed to play a Noble game with a nice advance that the game should obey to your impressions on that.

To be competitive, the player needs to build a high range of different units in modern era. Classic defense and attack ground units, such as Infantry and Tanks, but also SAM Infantry, Machine Guns, Fighters, Bombers, Battleships, Cruisers, Nuclear Bombs... If any of those would be more expansive, it would be impossible to catch up with the AI in highest difficulty levels.

So no, that's not a "good idea" at all.
Naokaukodem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 15, 2009, 03:10 PM   #13
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
SAM Infantry, what is that supposed to be for?
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2009, 12:01 AM   #14
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naokaukodem View Post
Hell no. That's not because you managed to play a Noble game with a nice advance that the game should obey to your impressions on that.

To be competitive, the player needs to build a high range of different units in modern era. Classic defense and attack ground units, such as Infantry and Tanks, but also SAM Infantry, Machine Guns, Fighters, Bombers, Battleships, Cruisers, Nuclear Bombs... If any of those would be more expansive, it would be impossible to catch up with the AI in highest difficulty levels.

So no, that's not a "good idea" at all.
Nuclear programs are expensive. Very expensive. If you are behind the AI in the game, it is rightfully so very expensive and hard to catch up to them. You shouldn't be allowed to just build a few nukes and suddenly become the king of the world.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2009, 12:08 AM   #15
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
Quote:
Originally Posted by Naokaukodem View Post
Hell no. That's not because you managed to play a Noble game with a nice advance that the game should obey to your impressions on that.

To be competitive, the player needs to build a high range of different units in modern era. Classic defense and attack ground units, such as Infantry and Tanks, but also SAM Infantry, Machine Guns, Fighters, Bombers, Battleships, Cruisers, Nuclear Bombs... If any of those would be more expansive, it would be impossible to catch up with the AI in highest difficulty levels.

So no, that's not a "good idea" at all.
Nuclear programs are expensive. Very expensive. If you are behind the AI in the game, it is rightfully so very expensive and hard to catch up to them. You shouldn't be allowed to just build a few nukes and suddenly become the king of the world.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2009, 09:28 AM   #16
Naokaukodem
Millenary King
 
Naokaukodem's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 2,709
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camikaze View Post
Nuclear programs are expensive. Very expensive. If you are behind the AI in the game, it is rightfully so very expensive and hard to catch up to them. You shouldn't be allowed to just build a few nukes and suddenly become the king of the world.
The proliferation of nuclear weapon shouldn't be toned down because "they are expansive". Iran and North Korea are on the verge to build them, if they don't that would be because international pressure. I think that the Manathan Project should be a condition sine qua non to build nuclear weapons for EVERY civ. Then, our spies could (automatically, i don't want to move spies on the map and check every city) alert us of "this civ is building the manathan project", we could then alert other countries and go to war against it very fast (Iraq).
Naokaukodem is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 16, 2009, 11:03 AM   #17
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
That's too drastic a measure. Embargoes and blockades are enough, but war? Bring back the spies of Civ3, they are much more useful, since you did not have to worry about moving them around.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2009, 04:45 AM   #18
Camikaze
Deity
 
Camikaze's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Sydney
Posts: 23,728
Perhaps the expense of nuclear weapons isn't quite as clear as it should be.

France has spent $1 500 000 000 000 on its nuclear weapons program. That translates to $5 000 000 000 per weapon (not considering economies of scale). That is a very, very substantial sum of money. Now, compare that to the cost of an aircraft carrier (an exceptionally large vessel), which (according to wikipedia, Nimitz Class) is $4 500 000 000, a battleship (Iowa Class) $1 800 000 000, and a destroyer (Type 42) about $100 000 000. That means that the cost of a destroyer should be one-fiftieth of that of a nuclear weapon. Now, considering that ICBM's are expensive versions of nuclear weapons, this is inflated even more so.

But that would be ridiculous, and make ICBM's unplayable/unusable, so I'm happy with a more restricted cost for nukes.
__________________
CivFanatics on Facebook >>> /civfanatics
CivFanatics on Twitter >>> @civfanatics
Camikaze is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 17, 2009, 03:58 PM   #19
Argetnyx
Der Führer
 
Argetnyx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Rockford, Illinois 'blah'
Posts: 1,047
Much of that is not construction, but transportation of materials, security, transportation of the finished product, and making sure everything is perfect, every time.
__________________
Where were we?
A work in progress: Projekt Totenkopf
I don't care what they're called now, I'm a Civ3 player and THEY'RE STILL TILES!!!
Argetnyx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2009, 10:25 PM   #20
TheMeInTeam
GiftOfNukes
 
TheMeInTeam's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Orlando
Posts: 20,480
Quote:
Originally Posted by Camikaze View Post
Perhaps the expense of nuclear weapons isn't quite as clear as it should be.

France has spent $1 500 000 000 000 on its nuclear weapons program. That translates to $5 000 000 000 per weapon (not considering economies of scale). That is a very, very substantial sum of money. Now, compare that to the cost of an aircraft carrier (an exceptionally large vessel), which (according to wikipedia, Nimitz Class) is $4 500 000 000, a battleship (Iowa Class) $1 800 000 000, and a destroyer (Type 42) about $100 000 000. That means that the cost of a destroyer should be one-fiftieth of that of a nuclear weapon. Now, considering that ICBM's are expensive versions of nuclear weapons, this is inflated even more so.

But that would be ridiculous, and make ICBM's unplayable/unusable, so I'm happy with a more restricted cost for nukes.
If you're going this route you're going to need to scale other things to real life cost too. That's not exactly balanced.

If you think nukes are SO OVERPOWERING, try being an immortal or deity game consistently using them and see what happens. You have to build the manhattan project (or in rare cases the AI might), hold off the UN resolution (requires defiance or to control the UN...), and build enough that they make a difference. And if you're too backwards, the targets will get SDI before you launch, making them very expensive to land consistently...even with tacs only 5/8 or so get through.

The game already has diplo penalties for it (kind of silly depending on situation), and already ties it to global warming (completely ridiculous on a lot of levels). What more do you want? Notice that every time you fire one, your power drops, so to compensate that you need to build conventional forces or you won't get capitulation...and war weariness might be a problem too.

They're balanced pretty well. If you have survived that long, you deserve at least a CHANCE. Don't forget that the AI *will* build them and launch them back unless you take steps to prevent that...

And of course against humans, they can be a lot more creative with ways to derail nukes or use them back...if the game isn't functionally over by then that is.
__________________
- There is no "I" in team. There is no "we" either. There is a me.
- Play Faster!
- YouTube Civ Walkthroughs and Map Creation!
- PolyCast Co-Host! Listen in!
- Watch me play LIVE

TheMeInTeam is online now   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions > Civ - Ideas & Suggestions > Nuclear Weapons should be More Expensive

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Nuclear Weapons? henyo10 Civ4 - General Discussions 28 Jun 14, 2008 10:27 AM
Nuclear Weapons TonyW Civ4 - General Discussions 6 Oct 31, 2007 04:09 PM
need more nuclear weapons The Dragoon Civ3 - Creation & Customization 9 Jul 22, 2007 03:35 PM
Nuclear Weapons? HamaticBabylon Off-Topic 66 May 27, 2005 07:34 PM
When do you use your nuclear weapons? Jezner Civ3 - Strategy & Tips 0 Nov 05, 2001 09:40 PM


Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:53 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR