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

[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.

 

[CppMaster]

Hmm, imho bombers are OP. Much better than rest of units from the era in attacking both units and cities.

 

[L. Vern]

I've played a ton of lategame with air combat and bombers are really good if they don't have interception, like insanely good per slot cause they can get logistics promo. But if they have a lot of interception you have to have a good portion of fighters with sweep, but still good value mixing in a few bombers per base

 

[JamesNinelives]

I hate nuclear missiles. IMO they just create micro-management (I hate cleaning up fallout and rebuilding nuked cities).

Nuclear missiles are meaningful IRL because we have diplomacy - you let people know you have them and that is an incentive for peace.

In CIV the AI just launches missiles at you, or you launch missiles at them. There's no option for a MAD agreement.

 

[Solic]

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.

I agree with this sentiment and I think individual pieces might have a better chance of passing. I like all of the mentioned changes except neutering the anti nuke building.

 

[Slyceth]

I hate nuclear missiles. IMO they just create micro-management (I hate cleaning up fallout and rebuilding nuked cities).

Nuclear missiles are meaningful IRL because we have diplomacy - you let people know you have them and that is an incentive for peace.

In CIV the AI just launches missiles at you, or you launch missiles at them. There's no option for a MAD agreement.

I suggest a giant diplomatic penalty with ALL civs for using a nuke then

 

[azum4roll]

If nukes are going to be that strong we'll need an automatic sanction if a nuke is used.

 

[josh4]

Nukes are very hard to use right now, even in domination games. Civ is for alternative scenarios guys. Let's make them easier to use. Thermonuclear weapons are really powerful.

Here's a simulator of detonating various nuclear weapons used now and from history on a target you choose

 

[JamesNinelives]

Civ is for alternative scenarios guys.

Civ is for whatever we want it to be for

 

[Recursive]

Timestamp post to arrange all the threads in a neat order.