Civ5 Nuclear Missile (Atomic bomb video)

[Forty-Two]

Wait till Mont gets a hold of this.

 

[Shurdus]

i think the biggest problem with ICMB's is rush buying a conquest, you can rush-buy stuff instantly rather than the next turn system they ahd in civ 4, and you can do it repeadtedly, so if i had the money i could buy and launch enough ICBM's in just one turn to destroy every city in the game.

If you have that much money I am sure you could have dinished the game by then at an earlier date too...

 

[qwerty25]

If you have that much money I am sure you could have dinished the game by then at an earlier date too...

But that makes victory a lot better when the entire world is glowing green.

 

[Centurio]

Wait till Mont gets a hold of this.

He'll be quivering in his head-dress. I wonder if the game makers created a Nahuatl phrase for 'atomic bomb'?

Also, thanks for posting this.

 

[Disgustipated]

actually not going to watch the video. I don't want to spoil it when I use it in game.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

It requires and CONSUMES 1 uranium. I don't think I'll be using too many nukes!

I might be mistaken, but don't strategic resources come in variable sizes now? Like I've seen some screen-shots where a player has over 10 horse units, I'm guessing it will be the same with uranium. That said, I'm glad that units like nukes will be more limited in number-makes them much more valuable!

Aussie.

 

[EmpireOfCats]

Maybe I missed it, but am I right that SDI is not in the game anymore? That would be nice, because being able to block nukes somehow turned them into just another weapon, not the one you really, really want to think about using for a while.

 

[jkp1187]

Why? There is probably a game-balance reason for not to include something so powerful (if it is truly gone). Modding something like this in without taking something out of equal value would be introducing a cheat.

I disagree....

Modding something in when the AI doesn't know how to use it might be unbalancing, but not a 'cheat'. But there's no reason the AI wouldn't necessarily know how to use an ICBM. The Civ IV AI was able to properly use new units modded in.... It just looks at the strengths, etc. It already knows it's a nuke, so it'll factor in whatever issues come with that. The human player(s) already know what the ICBM is for, and how it should be used.

Now, it's probably a good idea to bring a counter-measure in (an ABM unit or an SDI satellite or something,) lest the game become nothing more than a global thermonuclear war festival at the end....

But none of that is the same as cheating. Cheating would be, say, letting the human player ONLY have access to ICBMs.

 

[Disgustipated]

I'm not sure I like the idea of limiting nukes. But I suppose if SDI isn't in, it's not as big a deal.

And some of us like a global thermonuclear fest at the end. I haven't actually done it, but I did watch the Let's Play Civ video where he nuked pretty much everything. You wouldn't be able to do that with nukes being limited. He must have built well over 50 nukes. Nuking each city 3 times to eliminate all troops in the city.

maybe they just didn't want to program in a global warming/nuclear winter feature? Sounds like laziness to me. You should be able to destroy the whole world. A lot of people take great enjoyment out of that.

 

[r_rolo1]

I disagree....

Modding something in when the AI doesn't know how to use it might be unbalancing, but not a 'cheat'. But there's no reason the AI wouldn't necessarily know how to use an ICBM. The Civ IV AI was able to properly use new units modded in.... It just looks at the strengths, etc. It already knows it's a nuke, so it'll factor in whatever issues come with that. The human player(s) already know what the ICBM is for, and how it should be used.

Now, it's probably a good idea to bring a counter-measure in (an ABM unit or an SDI satellite or something,) lest the game become nothing more than a global thermonuclear war festival at the end....

But none of that is the same as cheating. Cheating would be, say, letting the human player ONLY have access to ICBMs.

Be careful with what you're saying ... by obvious reasons, nukes can't be considered regular units in terms of combat In fact the AI in civ IV actually had specific code just for nuke usage ( to be precise, it had one for ICBM and other for tac nukes, and the ICBM one is pretty bad ... let's just say that in civ IV AI ICBM never target anything besides cities ). If it hadn't that code , it would not use nukes simply because they are not combat units.

 

[Theon]

ICBM's are basically 'you can't win' buttons to use against civ's that are about to complete a spaceship victory. No way they'd ever get a spaceship part to their capital if you kept nuking it from halfway across the world.

 

[Buccaneer]

I think that was what I was getting at in saying "taking something out of equal value". A better term would be a counter-balance, like ICBM and SDI that was mentioned. While the AI may know how to use new units modded in, they would not know how to use them effectively; thus, giving yet another advantage to the human player. Many mods, imo, unbalances the game even further, for the purpose of giving the human players more "toys" to play with - like units, resources and bonuses. I am a firm believer in balancing in single-player games and one must offer a counter-balance to every new element added in; otherwise, it would be like giving free bonuses to the human player - thus, cheating (like what the AI does at higher levels).

 

[Helmling]

No, because there seems to be no (or very small indirect) diplomatic penalties for using nukes. So they're going to be more common.

I'd like to ask about this conclusion. Where's this information coming from? I hope this isn't accurate. I would hope at least that some civilized leader heads would object to the use of nuclear weapons.

 

[stealth_nsk]

I'd like to ask about this conclusion. Where's this information coming from? I hope this isn't accurate. I would hope at least that some civilized leader heads would object to the use of nuclear weapons.

I posted this several times in threads related to diplomacy. In short - there are no direct confirmation, since we don't have much diplomacy info, but several things poit o that. However, diplomatic penalties from city-states are quite possible.

 

[moysturfurmer]

In this video, the player got 2 uraniums (resource points or w/e) after his nuclear missile exploded.

So that leads me to figure using a nuke doesn't "consume" any resource pints.

 

[Fragtopian]

In this video, the player got 2 uraniums (resource points or w/e) after his nuclear missile exploded.

So that leads me to figure using a nuke doesn't "consume" any resource pints.

He also points out that he's not going to be winning diplo after that nuke, so I guess the AI doesn't look too kindly towards nukes after all. Who would have thought

 

[migkillertwo]

I might be mistaken, but don't strategic resources come in variable sizes now? Like I've seen some screen-shots where a player has over 10 horse units, I'm guessing it will be the same with uranium. That said, I'm glad that units like nukes will be more limited in number-makes them much more valuable!

Aussie.

That makes a whole lot of sense, and I really hope it's in the game.

 

[mjs0]

He also points out that he's not going to be winning diplo after that nuke, so I guess the AI doesn't look too kindly towards nukes after all. Who would have thought

I suspect the "not going to be winning diplo" line is because of the attitudes of city states to use of nuclear weapons, rather than that of other Civs who would not have voted for you anyway!

 

[stealth_nsk]

I suspect the "not going to be winning diplo" line is because of the attitudes of city states to use of nuclear weapons, rather than that of other Civs who would not have voted for you anyway!

Agree here.

 

[GlobularFoody]

Any word on the after-effects of nuking? I want permanent destruction of nuked cities/tiles and roaming cloud of fallout death over the world.