Atomic bombs overpowered?

qemist said:

What real thing? there has been no nuclear exchange. The theory that someone would be crazy enough to respond to a limited nuclear strike with a "wargasm" counter-strike is untested.

Click to expand...

Its untested because how can you possibly test it?

If a launch was detected and verified then a counter strike would automatically launch. That was the whole theory behind MAD. Any war with nukes guarantees the annihilation of all parties. This guarantee literally kept the peace for so many years. There's no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange.

If it didn't, it wouldn't have worked for so many decades. The only time there has been a nuclear monopoly, the country involved had no hesitation using it in anger.

Socratatus said:

True, although I wonder how this is actually enforced!

Click to expand...

I meant civ 5. With infinite range icbms in civ 4, unless you have SDI you're screwed. That doesn't always work either anyways.

No one knows about how the a bomb era could end up because a bombs also require a lot of production and uranium which both aren't always available in the latter eras.

Greyhawk1 said:

Its untested because how can you possibly test it?

Click to expand...

Is that a question or a statement?

Greyhawk1 said:

If a launch was detected and verified then a counter strike would automatically launch.

Click to expand...

Incorrect. It is a human decision.

Greyhawk1 said:

That was the whole theory behind MAD. Any war with nukes guarantees the annihilation of all parties. This guarantee literally kept the peace for so many years. There's no such thing as a limited nuclear exchange.

Click to expand...

How do you know?

wikipedia said:

The first, a limited nuclear war (sometimes attack or exchange), refers to a small-scale use of nuclear weapons by two (or more) belligerents. A "limited nuclear war" could include targeting military facilities - either as an attempt to pre-emptively cripple the enemy's ability to attack as a defensive measure, or as a prelude to an invasion by conventional forces, as an offensive measure. This term could apply to any small-scale use of nuclear weapons that may involve military or civilian targets (or both).

Click to expand...

There ya go.

If it were trusted to computers we would have been dead by now. There were several false alarms that were caught purely because of people. Nuclear war almost began several times on accident.

It's not like the Cold War was much of a "peace" anyway. "Peace" in the same way a mexican standoff is peace between the two people holding the gun to each other's faces. Someone must not have been around for those drills and edutainment videos in school, about what to do if the bombs fall. Duck and cover!

Just adding my two cents, grant you I just picked up Civ 5 last week and play on marathon pace, nukes are a very very far away concern, so I am simply going off the information from this post, and what other players have told me.

The first thing people told me when I picked up the game is Gandhi loves his nukes, and they felt that it wasn't realistic for him to get Nukes. My response to that is, if Gandhi 100% authentic to his real life persona he would get steam rolled ever game. He preached none violence, meaning he should build no units, and only focus on a culture victory, which then would make it easy with anyone who could field a decent army to take him out. By coding him to go for nukes, it allows him to play as a pacifist yet keep everyone in line as a AI.

Secondly that Nukes are overpowered. Now if you have looked into Civ Beyond Earth, the idea is that some kind of cataclysm happen roughly 25 years where you end Civ 5 campaign. Also this event was devastating enough to bring ever world power to its knees and was known as the great mistake. Also at the Pax Panel they suggested that was a "small" nuclear war that occurred in Asia.

Which makes me think that Nukes play a fundamental role in the begging story of Civ BE. If that is the case, then it would make sense for Nukes to be the end all in Civ 5. Also noting that the Nuclear War happen in Asia, I would assume the Gandhi had something to do with. I personally would like to believe, that even though you can create history how you see fit in Civ 5 it would be very hard to bridge the Story Lines. Yet everyone knows Gandhi is Nuke happy...............

So in short, are Nukes Overpower and should Gandhi have them? I guess we have to wait three more months to see what the great mistake is. If it Gandhi starting a small Nuclear War, then I see nothing wrong having them being OP in Civ 5 or Gandhi being one the first to hit the button.

The reason Gandhi has them has nothing to do with his pacisfism. It's a gag. Look here. And that is one theory that I think could be true, that Civ BE could be from a nuclear war in Civ V.

I think civ be comes more from the science victory from bnw. Atomic bombs have been held by many leaders throughout the world in different books. The only issue is that atomic bombs aren't even used that much because of their opness.

Civ beyond earth is really a `what if` scenario of many possible scenarios that could come from Civ 5. Maybe the Earth destroyed itself just after the spaceships took off. Maybe the ships that went into space never made it. CBE is really a separate game and shouldn`t be included regarding Civ 5 and nukes.

As for Gandhi, I think it`s a common misunderstanding to say he would not have nukes. I think what should be said is that he would not USE them. It`s not impossible to imagine Ghandi deciding that for the safety of his country Nukes were needed as a deterrent.

Just because he was all about peace doesn`t mean he wouldn`t have had nukes just as he would still have had an army as a defence even if he never used them.

The only problem in Civ 5 is that Ghandi actually uses them.

I do not see Gandhi using Nukes not that odd when you consider the first nukes used was to end a World War and where successful in doing so. Yes a lot of civilian lives where lost but a lot more lives where saved by not committing to a land battle. Roughly over 100,000 personal where lost in the Battle of the Pacific where 90,000 Civilians died due to the Atomic Bombs. In addition over 90 Million lives where lost over the span World War II. So I find very it likely Gandhi to use a Nuke when the only time there where used in a war time situation was to end one the bloodiest conflicts in human history. To take it a step further I could even see Gandhi launching first to prevent a massive conflict. The real question for Gandhi should be does end justify the means?

As for the Nukes themselves being to powerful. I remind you that they where used to end World War II and where successful in doing so. Also it was the only time they where used to attack enemy target. Ever time after that has been simple testing to finds way to improve them.

As for a Nuclear War in Asia occurring twenty five years after the Civ 5 timeline I direct you to this youtube video.
Link to video.. With the lead designer hinting to this, I easy see Gandhi implying Nukes for the first time in human history to prevent a conflict and the great mistake being he made Asia inhabitable by not knowing the repercussions of using them.