Removing atom bomb and Nuke missile from Civ5

What do you think of AI nuking in Civ 5?

  • It doesn't bother me at all

    Votes: 36 76.6%
  • It is somewhat irritating

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • It's BAD, but I manage.

    Votes: 2 4.3%
  • I HATE IT!!!

    Votes: 7 14.9%

  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .

zarnivop

Chieftain
Joined
Dec 17, 2015
Messages
21
I really dislike atomic weapons in Civ5. The lack of defense (contrary to the Real World) and the AI dealing nukes all over the place as if the environmental damage means nothing. It really forces me to rush my game, which I dislike.

So - what should I do to remove either the units or the techs? I gathered it is a matter of some XML editing, but failed to locate specific file and procedure docs.

<snip> GHANDI! :mad:

Moderator Action: Please do not try to evade the autocensor by replacing parts of a word with special chars. Swear word snipped.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
 
I've been playing for going on three years and I've never been nuked. And I've only used nukes two or three times (which was after I had already won but continued the game).

If you don't want nukes, take the lead in the World Congress and ban nukes in that game.

Besides, I've usually won my games long before nukes are involved.
 
It's not that simple, DocBud.

First of all, you need to research Advanced Ballistics to even propose the thing in World Congress. Which means you could still potentially have 19 turns after researching it before the resolution even comes to a vote (and the tech itself is off the ideal tech path) where others could get the tech and build Nuclear Missiles.

Second, Advanced Ballistics requires Nuclear Fission...which unlocks Atomic Bombs. Meaning people can be building Atomic Bombs before you even hit Advanced Ballistics.

Third, it doesn't ban nukes, it simply stops them from being constructed. Any existing weapons remain.

Fourth, requires enough control of Congress to even get the resolution passed.

While I don't like nukes in general (talking real life stuff here)...I do understand it's a game and nuclear weapons are a reality, like it or not. I say that to emphasize that the following objections are not grounded in any kind of moral outrage but rather purely based on game mechanics:

1, you cannot intercept any nuclear weapon. I get that intercepting Nuclear Missiles is extremely difficult (hence the whole attempted development of the "Star Wars" defense), but...Atomic Bombs? It's a freaking slow flying plane. I can have 40 Jet Fighters able to defend the target tile and none of them can shoot down that slow plane. Really?

2, there is no MAD. There is no "if they send a nuke at us, send our nukes in response" option or plan or anything. That alone eliminates a huge part of the nuclear stand-off in reality.

3, nukes destroy all enemy nukes in a city. You may think that's realistic, but it actually is extremely unrealistic. Nuclear weapons (especially missiles) are stored in underground facilities specifically designed to make it difficult to take them out with other nukes. Sure, an enemy nuclear missile landing directly on top of the silo will "kill" the nuke in the silo...but it won't affect the other silos (maybe a few in close proximity, but you can't wipe out all the nukes in a "city" with one of your own...unlike Civ). Also, those silos? THEY'RE NOT IN CITIES. Dropping a nuke on New York is not going to destroy a bunch of nuclear missiles. Dropping a nuke on actual missile silos won't impact any nearby cities much (nearby towns, potentially) -- because they're more isolated for that exact reason.

4, there are no global diplomatic consequences. Sure, your target has a permanent "You nuked them!" negative modifier...but the rest of the world doesn't give a damn. Hint: if Russia decided to nuke a nearby neighbor it wanted to conquer, the rest of the world would be up in arms, both metaphorically and potentially literally.

5, the lasting damage (both fallout and literally physical changing of the landscape) is severely underrepresented. I don't know if that's to make it so using nukes on offense is less of a problem, so that getting nuked isn't as devastating, both, or other reasons entirely.

But yeah...gameplay wise I don't have an issue with nukes in Command in Conquer, Starcraft, or several other games. But in Civ V? Really hate them and wish they were either removed or majorly overhauled.
 
The success of Iron Dome in the Gaza conflict just drives it home - the Hetz project is probably the true "SDI defense" of Civ1. It is now in its 3rd generation, so I think it is safe to say that Israel - a very small and tight-budgeted country - has protection. :scan: The game does not reflect this.

I read Cresson Kearney "Nuclear survival skills", and I think I can really call bulls##t to ANY other aspect of Civ5 nuking. Units will be relatively safe, being in an armored vehicle with ABC filtration. Fallout shot fade over time - truth is that after two weeks radiation falls low enough to allow for outdoor operations.

The only aspect where nukes are UNDER represented is range. ICBMS are with us for over a generation now!
 
Doesn't bother me at all. And this is coming from a person who had alot of his important cities nuked and came back from the brink.

Their existence help keep me from falling asleep.
 
Oh hell no, how do you suppose one could win a late game domination victory otherwise
 
There's plenty of mods that will do this for you, no real reason to touch the base game.
 
Oh hell no, how do you suppose one could win a late game domination victory otherwise

Quite easily.

If anything, enemy nukes cause more of a problem for me as the conqueror. Don't mind if I just wipe out a stack of 10 highly promoted planes, do you?
 
The success of Iron Dome in the Gaza conflict just drives it home - the Hetz project is probably the true "SDI defense" of Civ1. It is now in its 3rd generation, so I think it is safe to say that Israel - a very small and tight-budgeted country - has protection. :scan: The game does not reflect this.

I read Cresson Kearney "Nuclear survival skills", and I think I can really call bulls##t to ANY other aspect of Civ5 nuking. Units will be relatively safe, being in an armored vehicle with ABC filtration. Fallout shot fade over time - truth is that after two weeks radiation falls low enough to allow for outdoor operations.

The only aspect where nukes are UNDER represented is range. ICBMS are with us for over a generation now!

Sorry man, but this bit about Iron Dome is complete nonsense. Iron Dome is designed to deflect the crappy Katyusha-derived rockets fired by Palestinian militants. It could not even come close to defending against ICBMs.

And in fact it is not even clear whether Iron Dome deflects the cheap, low-tech missiles it's meant to defend against. I'll see if I can find the articles, but some experts have definitely claimed the real reason for the drop in deaths from missile attacks was garden-variety civil defense (shelters and alarms) rather than Iron Dome.
 
I've been playing for going on three years and I've never been nuked. And I've only used nukes two or three times (which was after I had already won but continued the game).

If you don't want nukes, take the lead in the World Congress and ban nukes in that game.

Besides, I've usually won my games long before nukes are involved.

Weird. In addition to Alex nuking me repeatedly (thank goodness it was a worthless city I threw next to his border) in a recent game, I had to send my last great musician across half the world for a culture victory. Everywhere it stepped in the other nations was nothing but fallout. I have no idea what happened in those other wars, but by the time the musician sang the last song it probably glowed in the dark.... :lol:

I've been nuked consistently by the AI since Gods & Kings (provided I'm in a late game war). Maybe level makes a difference in terms of aggression (I usually play Emperor and just stepped up to Immortal).
 
Yes, higher level AI are more likely to go to war, and therefore nukes. I would say it's 50/50 whether I get nuked when I war against an AI that has nukes. Usually it doesn't matter as he only nukes his closest target which is usually a city I took from him anyway.
 
Quite easily.

If anything, enemy nukes cause more of a problem for me as the conqueror. Don't mind if I just wipe out a stack of 10 highly promoted planes, do you?

never, ever keep your planes/nukes in range of AI nukes. Alternatively, nuke cities that have nukes ready to nuke your cities that have nukes, i.e. nuke their nukes before their nukes nuke your nukes
 
never, ever keep your planes/nukes in range of AI nukes.

My bombers have a range of 10. Enemy Atomic Bombs have a range of 10. Do the math.

Alternatively, nuke cities that have nukes ready to nuke your cities that have nukes, i.e. nuke their nukes before their nukes nuke your nukes

Laying aside the fact I'm trying to avoid that (using nukes) in the first place for a moment, that also requires me to have access to Uranium (which, several times, has not happened).
 
Extra range promotion?

Which only "solves" the issue if you have a city that's exactly 11 or 12 hexes away. Not to mention you are then delaying Air Repair an entire promotion as well (or it has to be a highly promoted plane stack).
 
The lack of defense (contrary to the Real World)

Erm... what defense is that exactly. You can't intercept them very easily at all. Modern ICMBs arrive in around 30 mins from USA to Russia so there's no time to evacuate. All you can do is hit the red button back.

I agree that its a pity there's no automatic return fire option like there would be in reality.

For those complaining about not being able to intercept the Atomic Bomb. I think the graphic of a plane is not a literal representation. It could represent a terrorist style attack or suitcase bomb, or any kind of disguised aircraft dropping it. I admit its not clear though.

I for one feel nukes are underrepresented in that there are no ICMBs like in Civ IV. Easy to mod in, more expensive version of the tactical nuke but with unlimited range.

I hate the way fallout is so easy to scrub though. I have no idea if this could be done in reality. Does anybody know this? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable but the Chernobyl area isn't (yeah I know a meltdown would have different fallout effects but I'm not that well read in physics).

Also, I've found in game building fallout shelters remove a lot of the threat to your cities. Keep your units in a loose formation.
 
For those complaining about not being able to intercept the Atomic Bomb. I think the graphic of a plane is not a literal representation. It could represent a terrorist style attack or suitcase bomb, or any kind of disguised aircraft dropping it. I admit its not clear though.

As far as I can tell, it's supposed to be a representation of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One plane, one bomb, one destroyed city. The Japanese couldn't imagine one plane being a threat worth intercepting.

...but, y'know, I think my military would get the idea after the tenth Atomic Bomb dropped on our heads.

I hate the way fallout is so easy to scrub though. I have no idea if this could be done in reality. Does anybody know this? Hiroshima and Nagasaki are habitable but the Chernobyl area isn't (yeah I know a meltdown would have different fallout effects but I'm not that well read in physics).

Well (keep in mind I'm not a physics expert), a large part of decontamination is removing the irradiated topsoil, basically. You're not so much "cleaning it" as "moving it." I *think* (but am definitely not sure) in the case of Hiroshima and Nagasaki the fact that it was an air burst weapon meant most of the fallout was scattered (the surrounding areas got hit by the fallout too rather than it being concentrated).
 
I've hated nukes in civ since I started playing to win on higher levels. For roleplaying/screwing around, they can be a lot of fun, but for serious gaming I find they are not. Nukes are not balanced and throw the game waaaay off. Are they realistic? I frankly don't care. It's a computer game. Realism is second priority to fun and game balance. Nukes are something that is difficult to balance and Firaxis has never done it. I always play with mods removing nuclear weapons from the game.
 
I really dislike atomic weapons in Civ5.
I picked the first choice because I am mostly okay with how they work game-balance wise.

Oh hell no, how do you suppose one could win a late game domination victory otherwise
Yes, I definitely need this option. I hate it when non-proliferation gets passed -- because then my only option is pretty much to wait for Stealth Bombers.

Don't mind if I just wipe out a stack of 10 highly promoted planes, do you?
I wish I could get rolling with planes. I frequently try, and almost as frequently fail. I can almost never get going before the enemy has Mobile SAMs.

Usually it doesn't matter as he only nukes his closest target which is usually a city I took from him anyway.
To me, this is one of the more immersion-breaking aspects of the game. Should not the AI think twice about nuking his own citizens?

As far as I can tell, it's supposed to be a representation of the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. One plane, one bomb, one destroyed city.
This is an excellent point, one that I had not considered before. It really disproves the idea that units represent multiple troops. Actually, air carriers would be single units as well. Maybe this applies to all naval units? Nuts, I like the game less now!
 
Sorry man, but this bit about Iron Dome is complete nonsense. Iron Dome is designed to deflect the crappy Katyusha-derived rockets fired by Palestinian militants. It could not even come close to defending against ICBMs.

And in fact it is not even clear whether Iron Dome deflects the cheap, low-tech missiles it's meant to defend against. I'll see if I can find the articles, but some experts have definitely claimed the real reason for the drop in deaths from missile attacks was garden-variety civil defense (shelters and alarms) rather than Iron Dome.

Since I actually live here, I have seen several interceptions. Of course, you may go on and think otherwise, your own choice.

As for the claim " you can not deduce from iron dome to ____ " I think Iron Dome proves that when the industry goes to develop and build interception tool, and claims success, it is well based. The Hetz and Sharvit Ksamim systems are designed to answer ICBMs and their like.
 
Top Bottom