Defense against Nukes.
- Thread starter Alfster
- Start date
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
The old SDI was silly. It was overpowered and when coupled with Bomb Shelters rendered nuclear weapons virtually useless.
In Civ 5 there is no defence against nuclear weapons except for your own vigilance. Look out for another Civ completing the Manhattan Project and then make sure they don't have uranium and keep on their good side.
Another thread currently thrashing out the subject.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=435220
In Civ 5 there is no defence against nuclear weapons except for your own vigilance. Look out for another Civ completing the Manhattan Project and then make sure they don't have uranium and keep on their good side.
Another thread currently thrashing out the subject.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=435220
Welcome to the forums. 
There isn't any SDI as Becomedeath says, but there are ways of dealing with opponents with nukes. You can either minimise danger, or avoid getting hit at all. To minimise damage, extricate your units from the likely target area. To prevent getting hit, make sure you know where your enemy's nukes are. If you take cities containing nukes, the nukes are destroyed. If you nuke cities containing nukes, the nukes are destroyed. So it's largely a matter of first strike. IIRC, destroying uranium mines will only prevent them from building more; it doesn't actually stop the use of already existing nukes.
Another way to avoid getting hit by nukes is to attack before your opponent actually has them.
There isn't any SDI as Becomedeath says, but there are ways of dealing with opponents with nukes. You can either minimise danger, or avoid getting hit at all. To minimise damage, extricate your units from the likely target area. To prevent getting hit, make sure you know where your enemy's nukes are. If you take cities containing nukes, the nukes are destroyed. If you nuke cities containing nukes, the nukes are destroyed. So it's largely a matter of first strike. IIRC, destroying uranium mines will only prevent them from building more; it doesn't actually stop the use of already existing nukes.
Another way to avoid getting hit by nukes is to attack before your opponent actually has them.
CTH
Prince
No defense, it could be pretty devastating and I dont use nukes myself because they are too good. The UN should have the nuke ban resolution and I would not mind if you had to launch the nuke the turn before it hits and give all other players a warning about it (you would not see where it is going to hit but just that it is launched)
muhtesem insan
Amateur Revolutionary
I think we should be able to shot down coming nukes. Better chance at atomic bombs, very little with missiles(maybe only with sams)
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
I used to love the UN Non-proliferation ban. Build tonnes of nukes and then vote them out of the game = POWER! UNBELIEVABLE COSMIC POWER!!!!
Ahem, anyhoo...I've seen the suggestion of a 1 turn notice for nukes before and it's filled with issues. In 1 turn, you can move all of your units out of the way, you can reorganise the rest of your cities (assuming you have a wide and not tall empire) to absorb the loss of the most likely target city and you can organise a counter strike.
Basically, any notice you get serves as complete mitigation to the event.
I would go into my support of nukes as they are, but I'm already doing that in another thread and so will wait for this one to warm up!
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
Maybe they should have a Star Wars Program wonder so at least one civ, and civs going to war alongside that civ, can get protection. Maybe even make it a costly project that everyone can research, that needs to be done for each city.
But I don't like the idea of needing Manhattan Project to do so. I think you should be able to guard against a-bombs without going out of the way of a space or UN victory, but it should otherwise be very costly (probably in terms of hammers), so getting MP isn't a waste. By making it city-by-city, you have to ask yourself the question "is it worth all these hammers to make this city more effective against a-bombs"? (if it is on the frontier next to Gandhi, the answer is yes)
But I don't like the idea of needing Manhattan Project to do so. I think you should be able to guard against a-bombs without going out of the way of a space or UN victory, but it should otherwise be very costly (probably in terms of hammers), so getting MP isn't a waste. By making it city-by-city, you have to ask yourself the question "is it worth all these hammers to make this city more effective against a-bombs"? (if it is on the frontier next to Gandhi, the answer is yes)
This is a confirmed Fix. Pre June patch, the AI used them as a standard, if expensive, weapon. And nuked indiscrimently.
They have patched it now where the AI will have a 'nuke option' strategy and will not use it willy nilly.
This is in conjunction with adding a permanent relationship penalty diplomatically if you nuke someone. I'll reiterate that I kind of like the 'danger' of being nuked with no defense.
This adds strategy and danger.
They have patched it now where the AI will have a 'nuke option' strategy and will not use it willy nilly.
This is in conjunction with adding a permanent relationship penalty diplomatically if you nuke someone. I'll reiterate that I kind of like the 'danger' of being nuked with no defense.
This adds strategy and danger.
There is not enough negatives for using nukes. I've had the AI nuke me for 5 turns in a row and still be fine with the rest of the world (albeit there was only a couple nations left at that point). This was also the game that I learned you can't intercept atomic bombs 
I'd read there was an option to disable nukes, but I couldn't find it in the advanced setup.
I'd read there was an option to disable nukes, but I couldn't find it in the advanced setup.
Becomedeath
The Destroyer
Thank to all who have answered..
I just nuked my friendIts actually fun, until he nuked me back 3 times
That, in my opinion, is all the defense against nukes the game needs, the prospect of being sent return post!
HappyBuilder
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2011
- Messages
- 99
As a cold war kid, I avoid nuclear confrontation as much as possible - usually by winning the game before it becomes an option. I almost never use them myself. I had to drop a bomb on the last turn of a science victory to earn the Steam achievement. (They are kind of fun.)
Now that I've upped my difficulty level to Emperor, I suspect I will get involved in struggles where nuclear war is unavoidable. It will be interesting, to say the least. I don't mind having no defense against it short of diplomacy; that's fair enough. I am a little concerned that I'm playing against madmen.
HB
Now that I've upped my difficulty level to Emperor, I suspect I will get involved in struggles where nuclear war is unavoidable. It will be interesting, to say the least. I don't mind having no defense against it short of diplomacy; that's fair enough. I am a little concerned that I'm playing against madmen.
HB
Randall Turner
King
- Joined
- Feb 8, 2011
- Messages
- 679
As a cold war kid, I avoid nuclear confrontation as much as possible - usually by winning the game before it becomes an option. I almost never use them myself. I had to drop a bomb on the last turn of a science victory to earn the Steam achievement. (They are kind of fun.)
Now that I've upped my difficulty level to Emperor, I suspect I will get involved in struggles where nuclear war is unavoidable. It will be interesting, to say the least. I don't mind having no defense against it short of diplomacy; that's fair enough. I am a little concerned that I'm playing against madmen.
Dude, we are! Short of defending against some sort of sci-fi alien invasion where the survival of the race is at stake, large-scale use of nuclear weapons is just insanity.
