Nukes, Unfair?

[qemist]

I have seen that the AI use the atomic bomb over the missile for the most part. The A-bomb will not take out units on the first hit and the AI will keep lobbing them at the same city 3 times in a row until the units are dead. Go for the missile and take out any uranium mines directly. This will stop the production of future A-bombs, take out any units within two tile radius, and also have the same damaging effect on nearby cities (two tiles) as if hit directly.

Reasonable advice. The AI doesn't use atom bombs very well. Try to keep the AI's bases out of range of your core cities before it gets them. Once it has them it likes to bomb the same cities over and over, so keep your units away from a city that has been hit.

AA should have some chance of intercepting the an atom bomb, and SAM a much larger chance. A jet fighter should also have some chance. The idea of a bullet proof SDI against ICBMs is silly and not necessary in SP.

 

[Buccaneer]

People wanting a way to stop the AI from nuking you?? To me, it's sort of an equalizer when the AI uses it against the human player. Without it, the human player would have even more of an advantage and what fun would that be if they can't fight back in some significant way?

 

[Bamboocha]

People wanting a way to stop the AI from nuking you?? To me, it's sort of an equalizer when the AI uses it against the human player. Without it, the human player would have even more of an advantage and what fun would that be if they can't fight back in some significant way?

I agree with Buccaneer

 

[Mad2rix]

We will need some sort of SDI improvement to counter those overpowered nukes

 

[thectexperience]

/sigh

If you want realism, look at how the world actually reacted to the only government ever to have used nuclear weapons as an act of war.

There was no defence, there were very few diplomatic reprocussions and the country in question, overall, was rather chuffed about it. Moreover, if civilisations do not already have nuclear weapons, what on earth would make them dumb enough to suddenly go to war with a country that A: does have them and B: just proved they're willing to use them?

Yes, but at that point no-one knew about the charred corpses, incinerated cities, radiation poisoning and generations of leukaemia

There's no possible way to argue that it doesn't deserve a MASSIVE diplo hit. I've never seen a post-nuking denunciation in Civ V tho.

So my 2cents: the diplo needs fixing, fighters should shoot down atom bombs, but the rest is fine

 

[thectexperience]

This is why we need bombers/artillery to be able to bombard and destroy tile improvmentd like in the older Civs, it would be a realistic and fun way to stop uranium deposts

Yeah, I liked this in older Civs too

 

[The Pilgrim]

I'd like to have some sort of SDI defense not for my protection, but AI's protection.
As previous posters mentioned, due to its tactical incompetence AI fails to leverage even nukes to its benefit. The more powerful units in use the more obvious and overwhelming human superiority appears to be. The only hope for AI is a tech lead. In the case of tech parity it's completely toasted.
As for improvements bombing, once again, human will use it wisely, while AI will become even more vulnerable.
But diplo hits for using WMD should be back. No doubt.

 

[Jodien37]

I don't think the nukes are overpowered. Quite the contrary, the devastation a single A-bomb does in game is much less than the real life consequences. But using nukes should have very big global diplomatic punishment. When one starts building an atomic bomb, he should start to get negative reactions from the others, when one bomb is built reaction should increase (trade refusals maybe), then mass-denounce when a nuclear hit comes. IMO, to the contrary to most of you, the nukes should be powered up to the level that even the neighboring nations face the ill effects of it. Chernobyl and the dilemma of the eastern European countries is a good example.

 

[timtofly]

At least they do not use them against the CS's. Or have they?

 

[DavidCAD]

I think that nukes are fairly balanced as they are - nukes are powerful in real life. After WWII many planners where expecting conventional armies and navies to disappear given how much damage a single bomber crew could do (instead we got MAD and regional proxy wars).

In the Civ context I agree that nukes should be thought of as an end game technology. If you look at the tech tree you see 3 pathes - the top path leads to diplomatic victory, the middle path to science victory, and the bottom is domination victory - nukes are a stalemate breaker so that someone will win before the clock runs out.

About the only changes I might consider to 'balance' things a bit are:

Add a severe diplomatic penality - everytime a player or Civ uses a nuke it increases the other civs fear/hostility toward that Civ, even if they are friendly (they are a nuclear warmonger!). And every city state, even allied ones, suffer a relationship hit, possibly compounded by the number of nukes dropped so far. Even your allies don't want to live on a planet covered in radioactive ash under the leadership of a genocidal maniac.

Make the atom bomber plane (but not the ICBM) open to interception - it gets turned back and takes some damage (-4) instead of reaching the target and dropping the bomb. (BTW, the original atom bombs didn't detonate when they hit the ground, they had to be armed and the nuclear reaction was triggered a few stories above ground to maximize the damage radius. An atom bomb falling out of a plane and hitting the ground would not trigger a nuclear detonation - at worst a dirty conventional explosion of a few pounds of explosives carrying radioactive dust)

 

[kafka1945]

Nuke attacks are manageable, but as Red Rover notes, you probably must go wide. Keep ground forces near but not in strong cities. Keep air units out of strong cities except for a single fighter or jet fighter. Uranium is scarce, so nuke attacks will be limited. And, after all, AI must put boots on the turf. From Civ4, I have carried over the idea of producing no nuclear capacity of my own. It does not prevent AI nuke attacks, but may reduce them and has the advantage of avoiding the rebuilding nuked, annexed AI cities. And you gain the production time. Nukes are irritating, but I think not a game breaker, even at Deity.

 

[Dai]

I don't think that nukes are unfair in a balance sense (that is, I don't think that they're too powerful for the resource investment, although they're certainly situationally quite strong), nor do I think that nukes are too powerful in-game for how powerful atomic weapons are in real life (although I don't think that that's a particularly strong concern either way). I do think that nukes make modern warfare much, much, much less interesting. The late industrial and modern and future eras have a interesting and complex system of lots of different units and counters for them unlike any previous game era... and then they have nuclear weapons, which kind of make that whole pile kind of irrelevant. Modern combat is MUCH more interesting with the no nukes mod. (Although as others have said, it does also make it a bit easier for a human player.)

 

[qemist]

About the only changes I might consider to 'balance' things a bit are:

Add a severe diplomatic penality - everytime a player or Civ uses a nuke it increases the other civs fear/hostility toward that Civ, even if they are friendly (they are a nuclear warmonger!). And every city state, even allied ones, suffer a relationship hit, possibly compounded by the number of nukes dropped so far. Even your allies don't want to live on a planet covered in radioactive ash under the leadership of a genocidal maniac.

Diplo is often fairly irrelevant by nuking time. In reality having enormous military strength and an obvious will to use it is a diplomatic plus, not a minus.

Make the atom bomber plane (but not the ICBM) open to interception - it gets turned back and takes some damage (-4) instead of reaching the target and dropping the bomb.

Good suggestion. Same as the one made by myself and others.

 

[Resonance]

To me it seems like nukes are a necessary threat. They only appear in meaningful numbers on the high difficulties, that is emperor, immortal, deity. They are the only means by which the AI can seriously prevent a player from winning in modern era if he or she played successfully until that point.
Without this, the game would be decided as soon as the player overcomes her starting disadvantage and pulls herself onto the development level of the AI. Of course the player can make a lot of mistakes and bad decisions and thus lose the parity, but generally speaking, if the player was good enough to reach an even footing in the first place, she is good enough to stay on that level or even push ahead.



My understanding is, that a single player game in modern era on the high difficulty levels has the player close to reaching his victory condition of choice or else, the player being close to be wiped out. Parity with the AI in this game is de facto a winning position.
This is why:
In games on these difficulty levels, I would assume that one has a good grip and understanding of the game and how to win it. The AI does not have such a thing as understanding and on top of that, many AIs are even programmed not to pursue a victory condition with full power. There is a number attached to each leader, that describes how consequently he or she works towards the victory condition of their choice.

For Alex, this number is high. For most AIs, it is not.


Consequently, the player has a large advantage. The better she understands the game mechanics, the more she can use them to make their victory happen. Everything up to and including immortal difficulty can be beaten by the player if she learns the mechanics and uses them. Even without the 'tricks' people might or might not consider fishy.

So, nukes are the only real challenge the game provides aside from overcoming the starting situation. If you take this out, the game becomes boring as soon as you reach parity.

 

[thectexperience]

... many AIs are even programmed not to pursue a victory condition with full power. There is a number attached to each leader, that describes how consequently he or she works towards the victory condition of their choice.

For Alex, this number is high. For most AIs, it is not.

I wonder why every AI doesn't have this figure set to 10 ... ??

 

[joncnunn]

Perhaps because it decides on turn 1 which victory condition is the primary one?

A human once he figures out his desired victory condition would pursue it at 10, but often a human will wait a few turns before desiring which condition to win by.

I wonder why every AI doesn't have this figure set to 10 ... ??

 

[Buccaneer]

I wonder why every AI doesn't have this figure set to 10 ... ??

While I think it should (if it works properly), there would be way too many more rants of how the AI is playing to win and not rolling over for the human player. How dare and UNFAIR the AI use an equalizer like a nuke against us!

 

[CELTICEMPIRE]

It's not Civ if there aren't any Nukes!

anyway, I rarely use Nukes considering that I usually don't go into the Modern era, but, with that said, Nukes are always satisfying. However the 1 upt makes them a lot less formidable

 

[Captsac]

I've destroyed cities with nukes in quite a few games and I strictly play MP. Starting positions are unfair. Fix that and this game would be a lot more balanced.

 

[qemist]

While I think it should (if it works properly), there would be way too many more rants of how the AI is playing to win and not rolling over for the human player. How dare and UNFAIR the AI use an equalizer like a nuke against us!

Such rants shed much heat but little light. They come from newbies who are confused and enraged when they lose a game they thought they were winning.