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

[Recursive]

Voting Instructions
Players, please cast your votes in the poll above. Vote "Yea" if you'd be okay if this proposal was implemented. Vote "Nay" if you'd be okay if this proposal wasn't implemented. You can vote for both options.

All votes are public. If you wish, you can discuss your choice(s) in the thread below. You can change your vote as many times as you want until the poll closes.

VP Congress: Session 1, Proposal 3
Proposer: @Zanteogo
Sponsor(s): @Recursive
Previous Discussion Thread: https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/07-proposal-make-nuclear-missiles-better.678975/page-2

Proposal Details
Nuclear missiles are probably one of the most underpowered units compared to their real life counter parts. They have so many things against them that they are way under used. Considering they have shaped the global map of the modern world, we should give them a look.
They take too many resources to build, they take too much production, they have a crazy short range considering they should be able to target most of the world and they can be useless with a few random rolls of the dice due to the nuclear defense building.

Suggestion:
Change their resource requirement to 1 rather than 2
Lessen their production cost by 20%
Increase their range by 100%
Change the nuclear defense building so that if it does block a nuclear missile, it halves all the effects of the missile.

 

[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.

 

[jtpavlock]

This proposal may be easier to digest as individual suggestions. I like the idea of increase in range, but am against making them easier to build.

 

[CppMaster]

This proposal may be easier to digest as individual suggestions. I like the idea of increase in range, but am against making them easier to build.

Ok, which one is more important to you?

 

[Stalker0]

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.

so SDS currently reduces pop loss by 75%. So with this proposal, would it halve that again?

 

[nekokon]

Unrelated but with this many ppl voting and not a lot of double dippers, kind of obvious even if this proposal doesn't pass ppl still want to have some kind of good long range AoE to deal with late game doom carpet.
What do you guy think about giving splash damage I and II (flat 10 dmg to enemies around the target) to bomber lines by default next congress ? Pretty simple I can probably sponsor that. Would make air supremacy more strategic and anti-air more important.

 

[Delvemor]

What do you guy think about giving splash damage I and II (flat 10 dmg to enemies around the target) to bomber lines by default next congress ? Pretty simple I can probably sponsor that. Would make air supremacy more strategic and anti-air more important.

I would support that. Bombers in VP don't feel as powerful as in vanilla, probably because the AI counters it better but that's yet another topic I guess.