Atomic Bombs Should Be Interceptable

[Borninchaos]

WMD, blah blah blah, But they are NUKES! blah blah blah... I know, I know. But hear me out. I am going to post what i did on the 2k Forums:

So, i play and watch a lot of multiplayer Civilization 5. One of the most deciding factors if the game gets to late game is who gets uranium / to nuclear bombs earliest. Unfortunately there are no defenses against atomic bombs (bomb shelters are not a defense and come too late to make an impact against Nuke Bombs) If an enemy is in range to nuke you it will 100% of the time land. While getting nuked is recoverable, if you lose the uranium gamble, are slightly behind in tech, if you have significantly lower production, or if your enemy can buy a nuke every turn you will almost always lose. So i propose a balance change, But Only For Nuclear Bombs. NOT NUCLEAR MISSILES.

Make Atomic Bombs interceptable like a Great War Bomber or Bomber, but give it interception resistance (Evasion?) like the B17 Bomber. Whether or not it is destroyed should be tested. (i vote destroyed) This would significantly better balance the Nuclear Bomb and make the Advanced Ballistics more important and give people more time to get to Bomb Shelters. This would make Atomic Bombs more easily dealt with if you are prepared and but still massively destructive if you are unprepared.

If such a balance change were implemented it would make multiplayer combat much more diverse.

So, opinions?

 

[Primacide]

I'm so biased on this it's not even fair. I agree. Nukes are made to close the game out militarily, but the atomic bomb comes way too soon. (I realize one can argue that this is the way it happened historically, but we will stay away from hubris.) In addition to your suggestions, I would add that severe diplomatic consequences should occur. Using nukes is a clear enough signal that the AI should be able to regard this action as an immediate threat and the human's clear intention of continued aggression. First use should trigger at least a number of DoWs.

 

[orasis]

I agree, but, only for multi-player. Not, for 1 player games. Having the nuke is fun in one player games and nuclear war is almost always initiated by the player, not the A.I.

Nuke spam in MP can be a pain.

 

[myclan]

Actully nukes are intended to be interceptable, which explains why it has evasion promotion. But there is just a bug in the game so it can't be intercepted.

 

[Agent327]

Unfortunately there are no defenses against atomic bombs

That's the point. To all intents and purpose nuclear missiles can't really be intercepted. With a lucky shot you might get one, possibly two down, but of course a nuclear attack would consist of multiple multiple-headed missiles. In practice there just isn't a defense against such an attack. That's why a nuclear arms race results in a mutually assured destruction stand-off (MAD). Though obviously not in Civ.

 

[reddishrecue]

That's right.. Atomic bombs should be interceptable in civilization 5 but aren't. If you want to intercept bombs then go back to civilization 4.. there's a primitive interceptor there that intercepts nuclear weapons.. As for nuke prevention in civilization 5, you could try out the no nuke proposal in the world congress... AIs could team up and vote for it so that way nukes won't be used anymore..

 

[orasis]

That's right.. Atomic bombs should be interceptable in civilization 5 but aren't. If you want to intercept bombs then go back to civilization 4.. there's a primitive interceptor there that intercepts nuclear weapons.. As for nuke prevention in civilization 5, you could try out the no nuke proposal in the world congress... AIs could team up and vote for it so that way nukes won't be used anymore..

I suppose you're referring to the NPT treaty proposal? That only stops new nukes from being built... all existing nukes can still be used. That's why I try to load up on nukes and then pass the NPT leaving me as the sole superpower regardless of what happens in the future really.

 

[Callonia]

I agree, but, only for multi-player. Not, for 1 player games. Having the nuke is fun in one player games and nuclear war is almost always initiated by the player, not the A.I.

Nuke spam in MP can be a pain.

Nope, AIs is always the one that's first to use a nuke on me then I retaliate in return if I got my feelings sufficiently hurt by that nuke. Otherwise I basically never use them. Well I might will use them if I start to feel like I might will lose cities otherwise.

 

[AW Arcaeca]

I suppose you're referring to the NPT treaty proposal? That only stops new nukes from being built... all existing nukes can still be used. That's why I try to load up on nukes and then pass the NPT leaving me as the sole superpower regardless of what happens in the future really.

I believe reddishrescue is referring to the SDI Defense NW. That, or jet fighters, except I'm not sure if ICBMs classify as aircraft.

Perhaps Civ5 could take a lesson from Civ4 and add two things -

1) SDI defense NW. In civ4 it gives a 75% chance to evade ICBMs launched at any city in your empire. Those numbers and effect will need to be tweaked to fit Civ5 requirements, but you get the idea.

2) Tactical nukes. In civ4 they have a drastically shorter range (range of TN = 4 plots vs. range of ICBM not existing) than conventional nukes but have a chance (50% IIRC) to evade evasion. (Which sounds a little funny )

 

[Callonia]

I believe reddishrescue is referring to the SDI Defense NW. That, or jet fighters, except I'm not sure if ICBMs classify as aircraft.

Perhaps Civ5 could take a lesson from Civ4 and add two things -

1) SDI defense NW. In civ4 it gives a 75% chance to evade ICBMs launched at any city in your empire. Those numbers and effect will need to be tweaked to fit Civ5 requirements, but you get the idea.

2) Tactical nukes. In civ4 they have a drastically shorter range (range of TN = 4 plots vs. range of ICBM not existing) than conventional nukes but have a chance (50% IIRC) to evade evasion. (Which sounds a little funny )

I remember SDI, whenever a civ builds one, you had to launch so many nukes just to do appreciable damage to whoever built it. Its probably was kinda strong.

 

[reddishrecue]

I tried out SDI once and it did intercept nukes.. The interception chance used to be 75% if I remember correctly..

 

[docbud]

...That's why I try to load up on nukes and then pass the NPT leaving me as the sole superpower regardless of what happens in the future really.

I just did that in a game last night.

 

[PreLynMax]

You know, I have yet to get into a nuke war with the AI...

 

[reddishrecue]

I've had the ai nuke me before... Siam has nuked me twice and Elizabeth nuked me once... in bnw... i only nuked gandhi once. ..

 

[lmuk2011]

I agree, but, only for multi-player. Not, for 1 player games. Having the nuke is fun in one player games and nuclear war is almost always initiated by the player, not the A.I.

Nuke spam in MP can be a pain.

I disagree that the player always starts nuclear war, I played a singleplayer game and was at war against Arabia, as I was taking there cities, they started nuking the crap out of my with Atomic bombs, so I retaliated with Nuclear missiles, so A.I do sometimes push the red button first

 

[andreafin]

the sam launcher should have a 95% chance to intercept atomic bombs since they are dropped from aircraft not missile launched. nuclear missiles should come as 2 kinds, the first a single warhead icbm which has less range than the advanced mirv missile. an sdi defence should be able to handle the first kind shooting down maybe 75% but only intercept a low percentage of the mirv reflecting its unlikely to get all the multiple warheads. sdi and mirv should both require future tech to have been researched at least once. there should be a window between a civ developing the icbm and developing the mirv. maybe have one in atomic era and the other information age, or atomic bomb is atomic age, icbm information age, and mirv in the future tech era, and mirv needs sdi researched (since its developed to try and find a way to defeat sdi defence?)