[Vote] (1-03) Make Nuclear Missiles Better

[nekokon]

I was only speaking within current VP situation, reducing supply would certainly help against doom carpet but that's another topic entirely.

In term of actual use for nuke there's little that can be done to make it fun, either all in or nobody touching it, thus if you're to put in the effort to make things interesting I would say improving tactical combat would be better, as there're a lot more chance for the changes to actually be used. The changes you mentioned (aside from nuclear winter threat) are also mostly tactical anyway, locking them behind the diplomacy of nuke isn't very nice.

 

[Jippes]

How about also doubling fallout radius but halving the damage it does.

I support increasing range and reducing costs.

 

[beginner_]

I was only speaking within current VP situation, reducing supply would certainly help against doom carpet but that's another topic entirely.

In term of actual use for nuke there's little that can be done to make it fun, either all in or nobody touching it, thus if you're to put in the effort to make things interesting I would say improving tactical combat would be better, as there're a lot more chance for the changes to actually be used. The changes you mentioned (aside from nuclear winter threat) are also mostly tactical anyway, locking them behind the diplomacy of nuke isn't very nice.

One could leave the missle as-is except greatly increase range. ICBMS can hit basically any target in the world. Therefore if you use it, it's guaranteed your capital will be decimated.
Then add a tactical nuke that is cheaper, with low range (4? 5?), and lower damage(1-tile radius). The anti-nuke bunker makes the city immune to it (but not ICBMS). I would imagine a land unit that can carry guided missiles and tactical nukes like missile cruiser can on sea.

 

[nekokon]

I think you're missing my point. The thing with nuke is once you use it you can almost say goodbye to all diplomacy option (or any other options but warfare), thus it can only be used within a very limited timeframe (shortly before the game ends, either you dominate the world or the whole world gang up on you). Spending time and effort just for that small timeframe isn't a very good investment, and it's better to put them into other tactical combat options which can be used a lot more.
Just my opinion, since there might be ppl who simply enjoy dropping a nuke on their enemies and want to have more ways to drop nukes on enemies.

 

[Legen]

Once utilized, the diplomatic penalty should be particularly harsh, including with City-States

I don't think it is necessary, it isn't like the USA became a world pariah after dropping two in WWII. However, it makes sense to add major diplo penalties on the Non-nuclear Proliferation in the World Congress, which makes it easy to communicate to the player what they are getting for nuking. It also gives diplo civs a way to deal with a nuclear Gandhi runaway.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal Sponsors: Recursive.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)

 

[youngsteve]

I have voted no, mainly as I disagree about nuclear weapons in game, & anything that makes them easier to build & use is not something I want.

This is not a moral issue, though obviously I wouldn't want them to be ever used, but more that the game doesn't take them seriously. Oh so & so has fired one, lets fire one in return, when in reality a nuclear war would be the end of the world as we know it & should be in game as well. I wish there was a way I could turn them of in game.

 

[bitula]

Voted no. It's not fun to diligently build up something, invest in defense and then let it easily be destroyed anyway. Nukes are OK as somewhat underpowered units if someone seriously invests in missile defense: I like current impl, where it is harder to actually mass destruct.

 

[nekokon]

Voted No because nuclear is binary option, you use it and either you win quickly or you get gang up to death, thus there's no meaning in making it better (to encourage more usage).

 

[Stalker0]

I need some clarity on this line: "Change the nuclear defense building so that if it does block a nuclear missile, it halves all the effects of the missile."

 

[Delvemor]

I wish there was a way I could turn them of in game.

Mods in the Steam workshop exist for that. They could be compatible with VP.

Steam Workshop::No Nukes

steamcommunity.com

 

[Deljade]

Agree on the range (because I play on huge) and possibly nuclear defense building. I, however, don't think they should be easier to build. Maybe a mechanic like each missile built reduces the production cost of the next? That would make sense and turn it into a sort of win or lose, depending on how you see it, condition.

 

[L. Vern]

I have voted no, mainly as I disagree about nuclear weapons in game, & anything that makes them easier to build & use is not something I want.

This is not a moral issue, though obviously I wouldn't want them to be ever used, but more that the game doesn't take them seriously. Oh so & so has fired one, lets fire one in return, when in reality a nuclear war would be the end of the world as we know it & should be in game as well. I wish there was a way I could turn them of in game.

Sorry that this is slightly off topic but really advanced setup mod lets you completely disable nuclear weapons for a game

 

[saamohod]

How is it even possible

 

[Tekamthi]

How is it even possible

View attachment 642236

you can vote both yea and nay -- this is effectively saying "i voted but i don't care"

 

[Dimmy]

I would vote yes but actually no thinking that maybe it should remove 1 uranium PERMANENTLY. The more nukes are used, the less are avail and you need to manage your total of Ur. Maybe a next congress proposal.

 

[CppMaster]

I votes yes, because I've never seen them used by AI and I'm curious.

 

[Recursive]

I need some clarity on this line: "Change the nuclear defense building so that if it does block a nuclear missile, it halves all the effects of the missile."

Strategic Defense System would halve all effects of getting struck by a nuke if it triggers:
- Damage
- Radius/number of tiles affected
- Chances of buildings getting destroyed
- etc.

 

[Slyceth]

I definitely think they deserved to be looked at. Nuclear weapons should be a counter to lots of weak units, and to lots of weak cities, which the AI can have.

It should not half the health of a capital

 

[CppMaster]

Should not? Hiroshima might disagree.