I hate to qq but.. my first time hitting Modern era in a Deity game. Been warring Rome since like, turn 20 and they refuse to give any peace all game. Freakin guy has nuked me FIVE times in less than 30 turns. Hit my cap twice for about 14 pop total, and hit 3 of my puppets raping all my improvements and pop. I get that nukes should be powerful, but should there really be NO DEFENSE against them AT ALL?? Seems to me, going on history, for atomic bombs you would need a plane to deliver it, since its a bomb^^ Moving on to missiles, there are anti missile countermeasures available to modern countries, they may not be 100% guarentee to stop them, but it seems that implementing these mechanics into the game would be healthy i.e. you have to win the sky to nuke me, or at least hit from an angle where my air defense is low etc. What do you guys think?
Nukes, Unfair?
- Thread starter EsoEs
- Start date
Glücklich
Chieftain
Yeah nukes seem to be way overpowered in Civ 5. There should be a way to counter them or atleast put in some chance they don't go off.
Nukes make most games time based.
I've seen some degree of nuke defense from the pro's on youtube -> IF you manage to keep all of the enemies uranium deposits pillaged you are safe ...[need to be able to "see" uranium, to have scouted enemy territory and some fast moving troops or some nukes of your own..]
I've seen some degree of nuke defense from the pro's on youtube -> IF you manage to keep all of the enemies uranium deposits pillaged you are safe ...[need to be able to "see" uranium, to have scouted enemy territory and some fast moving troops or some nukes of your own..]
chgrogers
Prince
That was a worry for me my last game. I grabbed Atomic Theory just to see were all the uranium was & lo and behold it was mostly in Babaylon/ Askias territory. So if the IA had a brain it would have wonder why I started a war with 2 powers that placed my conquered territory right in the middle. And so it became the war of the Uraniam Deposits and to the AI it was the war of the Human messing up our perfectly good borders. The AI never did build the Manhatten project.
Nightshades
Chieftain
Well earlier Civ games had ICBM's which had unlimited range - that's overpowered!
But maybe the devs should implement the building from Civ 2: SDI defense. It's a type of Starwars -kind of building that takes out incomming nukes. But if so, the building shouldn't be cheap and have a very limited cover area. That way you can at least protect your capital and your main cities.
I also think that there should be bigger diplomatic effects for nuking someone. The current diplomatic nuke-status is rather pathetic.
If you nuke a friendly nation, the rest of the world should turn against you. And if you nuke a warmonger, you shouldn't get hated. (The USA didn't get hated for nuking Japan and ending WWII in the pacific after all. But if North Korea nuked Tokyo, hell would break lose).
But maybe the devs should implement the building from Civ 2: SDI defense. It's a type of Starwars -kind of building that takes out incomming nukes. But if so, the building shouldn't be cheap and have a very limited cover area. That way you can at least protect your capital and your main cities.
I also think that there should be bigger diplomatic effects for nuking someone. The current diplomatic nuke-status is rather pathetic.
If you nuke a friendly nation, the rest of the world should turn against you. And if you nuke a warmonger, you shouldn't get hated. (The USA didn't get hated for nuking Japan and ending WWII in the pacific after all. But if North Korea nuked Tokyo, hell would break lose).
grandad1982
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2007
- Messages
- 2,552
I think Atomic Bombs should has a chance at being fighter intercepted.
A Warmonger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 9
I wouldn't make it so you can neutralise most nukes, it takes the fun out of it. But I agree that the diplomatic repercussions should be alot more extreme and also, the AI should use them less than they do, not just as standard retaliation because they have them. How much are nukes used in the real world? So rarely they're almost never used due to the mass instability it causes. I think it would be more fun if AI's used them only in mass desperation. I.e. Against warmongers and when badly losing battles. Except if you're Gandhi of course. He's usually so docial throughout the most of the game, you've gotta let him pop his cork eventually.
chazzycat
Deity
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2010
- Messages
- 2,918
Came to say this. It doesn't have to be a given to shoot it down, but give us a chance! Having multiple intercept-promoted planes in the right time & place should be a factor. Maybe enable it with radar?
RedRover57
Emperor
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2010
- Messages
- 1,014
The biggest problem is that having nukes in the game heavily favors going wide with your empire rather than tall. If you are going to try for a victory with a tall empire on Deity your only real choices are to either win before the other civs get nukes (e.g., science victory around turn 200 or so) or create a wall of puppets so that your main cities can't be reached.
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
My beef is the AI doesn't seem to care much about MAD (ie going out of your way to make the Manhattan Project only deters them slightly if at all), but then again that's not entirely nonsensical in this game.
Maybe if nukes razed cities entirely regardless of health no questions asked, I'd like it more, but of course that would make them even more game-breaking in the wrong hands, so maybe I wouldn't. Just the idea of "if you go to war with a country with Manhattan and Uranium, even if their military is weaker, you will be destroyed even if you have it as well, so AI won't do it" appeals to me even if it doesn't work for game balance.
The idea of getting science victory at turn 200 blows my mind. I got one in the year 2020 on Prince (Standard length), still have a long ways to go obviously.
Maybe if nukes razed cities entirely regardless of health no questions asked, I'd like it more, but of course that would make them even more game-breaking in the wrong hands, so maybe I wouldn't. Just the idea of "if you go to war with a country with Manhattan and Uranium, even if their military is weaker, you will be destroyed even if you have it as well, so AI won't do it" appeals to me even if it doesn't work for game balance.
The idea of getting science victory at turn 200 blows my mind. I got one in the year 2020 on Prince (Standard length), still have a long ways to go obviously.
There is really only one chioce in this poll... so I didn't respond. I have been nuked by the AI before and I just nuked him right back and then took out any of his uranium I could see. Nukes from the AI are really only an annoyance at king level...at higher levels nukes may be a game ender I don't know.
blazerfanatic
Chieftain
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2010
- Messages
- 4
No, there should not be a defense against nuclear weapons, because they (defense systems) do not exist. Several posts have hinted that modern nations have the capability to intercept nukes, when in fact any program the United States has implemented (or attempted to implement) has failed dramatically (they are much too easy to circumvent). Furthermore, the United States is the ONLY nation to currently be researching nuclear defense. Why, you ask? Because 1) Deterrence is the only known defense against nuclear missiles. You have nukes, I have nukes, we won't nuke each other. 2) Missile defense is not actually "defense", but rather "offense", because a reliable missile defense system would give a nation the capability of delivering a first strike, thus upsetting deterrence. 3) The programs are enormous wastes of money, requiring millions (if not billions) of dollars in research for a product that will ultimately always fail because it is too easy to circumvent using simpler, cheaper technology. All other nations recognize this and don't work towards it because they have deterrence. This is why the only time nuclear weapons have been used in the history of the world was Hiroshima and Nagasaki, because the US was the only country with them, so we could use them. After that, no dice.
Sorry for the context and stuff, but I think it's fairly important. I'm not necessarily saying that maybe the game wouldn't be better in fixing nukes, but if you want the game realistic then, well, there is no such thing as missile defense, or any kind of nuclear defense (and please, please, please, don't ever let anyone tell you there is). Perhaps the diplomatic section could be improved, as some have suggested.
Sorry for the context and stuff, but I think it's fairly important. I'm not necessarily saying that maybe the game wouldn't be better in fixing nukes, but if you want the game realistic then, well, there is no such thing as missile defense, or any kind of nuclear defense (and please, please, please, don't ever let anyone tell you there is). Perhaps the diplomatic section could be improved, as some have suggested.
And you would be totally right if the game would not already have a GDR, a spaceship that wins the world and an utopia project.
A Warmonger
Chieftain
- Joined
- Jul 31, 2011
- Messages
- 9
There also isn't currently anything called a giant death robot but I have my fingers crossed that one'll be coming out on the market soon.
But seriously. Future era = things that haven't happened yet. The chances are that our technology will eventually advance to the point that we can defend against nukes so it'd be perfectly "realistic" to make a calculated assumption and say that they will and hence be placed in a future era tech.
That isn't to say I'm for this in-game.
the SDI defense in civ4 was far too over powered, 75% chance of intercepting a ICBM but every nuke i ever fired at a city never made it through. and im talking about firing a massive stock of 30 or 40 missiles at one city and zero hitting. i used to have to fire at resources around the cities to take out infrastructural stuff.
anyway, i modded civ4 and bts to remove the SDI and after that it was much more realistic.
I once was playing as the americans, most of the nations as a vassell, had not used nukes so far but i was sailing into the mediterrian to attack Greece and seen they had 1 tactical nuke. Pah! I thought out loud - "How will they ever deliver that to American shores? Theyll probably be stupid and fire it at one of my vassells on their borders! ROFL."
:?
Clever Greeks waited until the whole north Atlantic task force was in range and grouped together and took out my invasion fleet
anyway, i modded civ4 and bts to remove the SDI and after that it was much more realistic.
I once was playing as the americans, most of the nations as a vassell, had not used nukes so far but i was sailing into the mediterrian to attack Greece and seen they had 1 tactical nuke. Pah! I thought out loud - "How will they ever deliver that to American shores? Theyll probably be stupid and fire it at one of my vassells on their borders! ROFL."
:?
Clever Greeks waited until the whole north Atlantic task force was in range and grouped together and took out my invasion fleet
Nuclear bombs should be stoppable like any other bomber.
ICBM-s should be stoppable (by something unreliable) in future tech, but there should be option to automaticaly launch nukes (unreliable, but with high chance of success per missille) when they are nuked (or city with them conquered?). (And AI should reasonably fear it and sometimes KNOWINGLY accept that it will be hit back and nuke anyway).
This would make full nuclar war possible, but with MAD detterence with possibility to disable/reduce oponents second strike ability via normal units.
ICBM-s should be stoppable (by something unreliable) in future tech, but there should be option to automaticaly launch nukes (unreliable, but with high chance of success per missille) when they are nuked (or city with them conquered?). (And AI should reasonably fear it and sometimes KNOWINGLY accept that it will be hit back and nuke anyway).
This would make full nuclar war possible, but with MAD detterence with possibility to disable/reduce oponents second strike ability via normal units.
TheMeInTeam
If A implies B...
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2008
- Messages
- 27,994
Make a poll without biased options or it isn't worth anything. Thinly veiled expletives and an obviously leading-against-selecting second choice do not make for reliable results...
Nukes are a game-changer, but every side can use them and you can keep an eye on AI tech and cut uranium if it looks like it's getting there first. By the way ----> why is it getting there first?
Compared to other aspects of this game, this is a relatively minor issue. Claiming NO defense is ludicrous. No uranium for them, no nukes
. In past games they just threw more RNG crap chance into the mix, but nukes ultimately were as unstoppable as ever.
Nukes are a game-changer, but every side can use them and you can keep an eye on AI tech and cut uranium if it looks like it's getting there first. By the way ----> why is it getting there first?
Compared to other aspects of this game, this is a relatively minor issue. Claiming NO defense is ludicrous. No uranium for them, no nukes
. In past games they just threw more RNG crap chance into the mix, but nukes ultimately were as unstoppable as ever.
Gotta agree with this, the poll is absolutely awful and biased in every way possible.
A simple yes or no would've done.
That being said, I voted "yes". Nukes are incredibly unfair when there is no counter to defend against it.
Similar threads
- Poll
