Bomb shelters are useless.

Aaron90495

Aaron90495

King
Joined
May 17, 2012
Messages
928
Location
'Murica
In both G&K and vanilla, nukes are incredibly powerful. They probably SHOULD be incredibly powerful, as they are weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is, in real life, there are massive diplomatic consequences of using nukes, and morals come into play as well. Morals don't really come into play in Civ; if someone's closer to a victory condition than me, I simply nuke them into oblivion (that's how I win about half my games on King). Don't get me wrong, nukes need to be powerful, but there needs to be a bigger diplomatic backlash than a bullet point for foreign civs.

And then the biggest problem is the bomb shelters. I was hoping G&K would make it a viable option to defend against nukes, but the problem is the shelters come INCREDIBLY late in the tech tree, even later than nuclear missiles. First of all, as a game concept, that makes no sense - if you want to even the playing-field, why not make them available a little earlier? I figured nuke shelters would be a way for tall civs (likely going for a cultural victory) to defend themselves when they get a little behind in science. And in real life, the concept makes no life either. You're telling me I need to be able to build the UN before I'm able to build a measly bomb shelter?

It makes no sense.
 
Agree on all points.

From a gameplay perspective there is no counter balance
 
1.) They protect against 75% of the population loss so that when Ceasar nukes your main science/production hubs with 20+ people, they aren't gimped for the rest of the game with only 4 people left in them.

2.) Abombs at least aren't that strong and don't really require protection against anyways. Wu dropped one on my main army last night and failed to kill a single unit (even the atomic aged ones). I laughed and nuked Beijing.

3.) You get shelters the tech line before the UN/Globalization, and at the same tech line as you have access to nukes. You ask why not make them available a little earlier? What would be the point? Any earlier and no one would have anything to nuke you with and the AI would likely have built them in all their cities well in advance of you being able to drop one on them.
 
Khadroth said:
3.) You get shelters the tech line before the UN/Globalization, and at the same tech line as you have access to nukes. You ask why not make them available a little earlier? What would be the point? Any earlier and no one would have anything to nuke you with and the AI would likely have built them in all their cities well in advance of you being able to drop one on them.
Click to expand...

This.

Extremely tedious to deal with. CiV is a game of many things, but extreme tediousness it is not.
 
Aaron90495 said:
In both G&K and vanilla, nukes are incredibly powerful. They probably SHOULD be incredibly powerful, as they are weapons of mass destruction.

The problem is, in real life, there are massive diplomatic consequences of using nukes, and morals come into play as well. Morals don't really come into play in Civ; if someone's closer to a victory condition than me, I simply nuke them into oblivion (that's how I win about half my games on King). Don't get me wrong, nukes need to be powerful, but there needs to be a bigger diplomatic backlash than a bullet point for foreign civs.

And then the biggest problem is the bomb shelters. I was hoping G&K would make it a viable option to defend against nukes, but the problem is the shelters come INCREDIBLY late in the tech tree, even later than nuclear missiles. First of all, as a game concept, that makes no sense - if you want to even the playing-field, why not make them available a little earlier? I figured nuke shelters would be a way for tall civs (likely going for a cultural victory) to defend themselves when they get a little behind in science. And in real life, the concept makes no life either. You're telling me I need to be able to build the UN before I'm able to build a measly bomb shelter?

It makes no sense.
Click to expand...


well it does make sense for nukes to exist for nuclear bomb shelters to be a thing...

I almost wonder if a better solution is to treat it a little like espionage, I.E. the second someone gets nuclear technology, everybody can build bomb shelters...though that might nerf nukes a little too hard
 
fenwayb said:
well it does make sense for nukes to exist for nuclear bomb shelters to be a thing...

I almost wonder if a better solution is to treat it a little like espionage, I.E. the second someone gets nuclear technology, everybody can build bomb shelters...though that might nerf nukes a little too hard
Click to expand...

That's a really good idea, I hadn't thought of that. Maybe the closer you are to being able to build nukes the quicker you can build a bomb shelter? I.e. A civ that's 2 eras behind takes much longer to build a shelter, thus preventing nukes from being too nerfed?
 
Ya know, just earlier today i won my second full GaK game through science victory and right around the time i knew id have the space ship parts in the bag is the same time my icbm were coming online. So as a gift to the world i was leaving i nuked the hell out of England. She was a world power and when i was done she was smoking irradiated ruins. The only person who cared was England. That made me laugh. No bullet points for me
 
Aaron90495 said:
Oops :blush:
Well regardless, the point was that bomb shelters come too late in the tech tree. They should be available at least come at the same time as nukes, not after.
Click to expand...

I think it would make more sense for them to come after nukes. First nukes get created, then people realize how much of a threat they are, than they build a deterrent/protection.

The following situation seems silly to me:

Scientist: “Guess what? I just developed a new weapon called a nuke!”
Engineer: “What a coincidence! I just designed a shelter to protect against the nukes you just created”
 
I think it's not so much the shelter (since a cave can be a bomb shelter) as it is the warning system that gets your people into the shelters fast enough that requires the technology; that's why they become available in telecommunications and not sooner (like...mining).

Since the goal here is to protect you against population loss (since that's what nukes are actually good for), I think it's fine where it is. They're mainly good for preserving your ability to win a science victory for that reason, and you're not going to draw fire just for being close to winning until you're higher than telecom anyway.
 
It's really simple - when they put it as Bomb Shelter, they didn't really mean that.

They meant Vaults.
 
I'd say it makes more sense to have Bomb Shelters become available with Nuclear Fission.
Both from a gameplay perspective and a realism perspective.

Then again the later era's have been changed in such a poor way which makes the issue of Bomb Shelters only one of many.
 
Shelter placement can be discussed. But I think the great balancer in CIV5 is that nukes are used rather than being back rare event. A bombs are fairly tame and they cannot destroy cities.
. Bomb shelters are meant to protect. Against nuclear missiles not a bombs which are more like tactical nukes but with a smaller damage profile and arriving much earlier.
 
I'd like to see a penalty to influence with every City State for the use of nukes.

The penalty could increase with increased use.

They could also add a bonus for the Civ that was hit, as a 'sympathy' simulation.

I would do this only if a city was nuked and 'civilians' were killed. Nukes used on teh battlefield that don't kill population wouldn't have this effect.

this way there is a penalty fo rnuking, but people who want to nuke can still do so with impunity, but only against military units in the field. Nuking cities would be reserved fo rimportant occasions.
 
In RL a country that uses a nuke risks losing it's relations with other nations. In Civ this doesn't mean much because civs are pretty self sufficient. In RL being cut off from the rest of world trade pretty much means your economy is doomed. Perhaps Civ V needs a more inter civ connected economy in the end game, so war and nukes mean that your gold per turn pretty much goes to 0 if not negative if you use a nuke, at least in the short term unless everyone really hates who you're nuking ofc.

And if they do all hate who you're nuking, perhaps you need to ask other civs permission to use a nuke on an enemy before using it. If they agree then you don't get any diplomatic hit from that civ.
 
Snuffleupagus said:
I'd like to see a penalty to influence with every City State for the use of nukes.

The penalty could increase with increased use.

They could also add a bonus for the Civ that was hit, as a 'sympathy' simulation.

I would do this only if a city was nuked and 'civilians' were killed. Nukes used on teh battlefield that don't kill population wouldn't have this effect.

this way there is a penalty fo rnuking, but people who want to nuke can still do so with impunity, but only against military units in the field. Nuking cities would be reserved fo rimportant occasions.
Click to expand...

The game im playing at the moment Japan has decleared attacked bullied and generally pissed off every CS they found if i was to nuke tokyo at the moment you wouldnt be able to hear the explosion for the sound of cheering from the CS

Why should i get a penalty?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
  • Locked
  • Poll
[Vote] (6-15) Nuclear Non-Proliferation WC Changes
Replies
4
Views
794
azum4roll
A
clif9710
Enjoying the changes with BNW vs G+K
Replies
0
Views
852
clif9710
clif9710
Blake00
CivBattleRoyale Season 4 (CBR X4)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
M
  • Locked
[Complex] (6-20a) Nuclear Non-Proliferation Forces Everyone To Declare War When Nukes Are Used, then Repeals Itself
Replies
3
Views
438
rkkn
R
ruby_sauce
New Unit: Bomb Thrower "Improved" (25th aug, 2023)
Replies
3
Views
516
monticone
monticone
Top Bottom