Nucleur War?

[Baleog]

Put quite simply have you, like me, never had a nucleur war (let alone never built a nuke, also like me ).
Just posting because it's kind of strange that after a year of playing civ3 I've never had one. I've never even seen a nuke used by the AI on the AI. This is normally because I tend to have the game finished up by the late modern stage. Either I've already won, am on the verge of achieving conquest/domination or am just so far aheadin techs that I go for diplomatic/spaceship victory.

I don't reallt mean this as a thread on the civ related merits of nucleur warfare, but if that's what you feel the issue is talk away.

(Now that I think of it I've never played a game as far as the year 2050! :crazyeyes:, though I have played many to the yea2049/48/47 etc. .... ... off topic ramble ... ...)

 

[JMac]

oh yah ive had quite a few wars with nukes. It happens so often that i always spread my army around so that the ai doesn't nuke it in my cities.

i guess im a warmonger

 

[RobOz]

I answered the poll to soon. I thought it was an opinion poll on whether or not you like to have nuclear war. So, one nope is a yes! I have had nuclear war and it sucks on many levels...

 

[werdhertz]

Had the game for a year, but have never had a nuclear war. Ive built them only in one game, and i had about 20 ICBMs. Never used em though... I cant wait for PtW when a human player meets the wraith of my nukes!

 

[RobOz]

Hey! Don't nuke me!

Holy crap I hate nukes.

 

[Hellfire]

I've had a few. By the time I get into the whole Nuclear era of combat, I'm well ahead of the competition and turning out a lot of units.

When I get to this point, the only time war becomes nuclear is when the AI gets desperate.

Let me summarize a recent game I played after winning the space race. I decided to move on and conquer the world for giggles.

It was down to France and myself. France had about 20 nukes by the time I attacked. I stopped at 30 because it was a small map. That little french tart also had about 200 MIs and a few minimally effective but annoying stealth bombers, but no MAs and nothing else of major consequence. I decided to be cruel, get a ROP agreement and then put a lot of guys on her continent and attack.

I should have extended the agreement and put up more units. I took half the continent as planned in one turn. I was worried about the ability for france to simply run me over with the sheer numbers of MIs as holding about 10 cities would divide my forces, so I bombed the roads/RRs halfway between the continents. This created a "firebreak" which the MI's had to cross. About 150 of them crossed, and I let lose with radar artillery and MA and decimated them on the next turn.

What does this have to do with nukes? Well, in my conquest, I only got half the continent, and about half the nukes. After I decimated his MI stack, the AI got desperate and shot off 10 ICBMs and 1 tac nuke. I got 7 ICBMs with my SDI.

I didn't fire nukes back until the end of the game when I simply nuked a couple of cities on islands (minimal pollution) and ended my conquest. Most often nuclear war is something I avoid because the polution can damage your productivity in the long run and in reality can slow your advance as it destroys the roads around a city.

As an experiment I also nuked France at one point and found I could not destroy their nukes with my nukes. My philosophy was "Either I nuke them and get pollution or they nuke me and I get pollution." However, since no ICBMs were destroyed, it was overall a waste to nuke them for any reason. If anyone has input on nuclear wars in order to minimize damage to yourself by taking out your enemies nukes I'd like to hear it myself.

 

[Hellfire]

I've had a few. By the time I get into the whole Nuclear era of combat, I'm well ahead of the competition and turning out a lot of units.

When I get to this point, the only time war becomes nuclear is when the AI gets desperate.

Let me summarize a recent game I played after winning the space race. I decided to move on and conquer the world for giggles.

It was down to France and myself. France had about 20 nukes by the time I attacked. I stopped at 30 because it was a small map. That little french tart also had about 200 MIs and a few minimally effective but annoying stealth bombers, but no MAs and nothing else of major consequence. I decided to be cruel, get a ROP agreement and then put a lot of guys on her continent and attack.

I should have extended the agreement and put up more units. I took half the continent as planned in one turn. I was worried about the ability for france to simply run me over with the sheer numbers of MIs as holding about 10 cities would divide my forces, so I bombed the roads/RRs halfway between the continents. This created a "firebreak" which the MI's had to cross. About 150 of them crossed, and I let lose with radar artillery and MA and decimated them on the next turn.

What does this have to do with nukes? Well, in my conquest, I only got half the continent, and about half the nukes. After I decimated his MI stack, the AI got desperate and shot off 10 ICBMs and 1 tac nuke. I got 7 ICBMs with my SDI.

I didn't fire nukes back until the end of the game when I simply nuked a couple of cities on islands (minimal pollution) and ended my conquest. Most often nuclear war is something I avoid because the polution can damage your productivity in the long run and in reality can slow your advance as it destroys the roads around a city.

As an experiment I also nuked France at one point and found I could not destroy their nukes with my nukes. My philosophy was "Either I nuke them and get pollution or they nuke me and I get pollution." However, since no ICBMs were destroyed, it was overall a waste to nuke them for any reason. If anyone has input on nuclear wars in order to minimize damage to yourself by taking out your enemies nukes I'd like to hear it myself.