Are there ICBMs in CiV?

[migkillertwo]

So far we have only seen nuclear missiles and "atomic bombs" in Civilization 5. It seems that nuclear missiles are analogous to tactical nukes from Civilization 3 and 4.

Oh, and does anyone know if nuclear missiles replace atomic bombs?

 

[Sarda]

Im really hopeing that the ICBM simply wasnt omitted since there a very real thing that holds alot of sway in the end game. Reducing your nuclear arsenal to 8-10 tiles is absurd. If they dont exist in the game you can basically count on a day 1 mod of them, which ill be using til there eventually readded wether thru xpansion or dlc.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Consider this:

1. There seems to be no (or insubstantial) diplomatic penalties for using nukes, since AI acts as human player now. So nukes will be usable much more often.

2. Combat is much more rich in tactics. So game developers don't want it to be broken with ICBM while all other units require careful delivery.

So I totally agree with game developers here.

 

[AriochIV]

It does seem like they included only tactical nukes so that it is more practical to use them in a "limited" fashion without blowing up the whole planet. Which I guess is +gameplay and -realism.

There seems to be no (or insubstantial) diplomatic penalties for using nukes, since AI acts as human player now.

That is, as far as I know, pure speculation.

 

[12agnar0k]

No, just atomic bombs and nuclear missiles, will missiles replace the atom bomb, i.e no longer able to build atom bombs? Not sure, but, why would you build atom bombs when you have nukes, the atom bomb has a slightly bigger range I think, but the Missile is much stronger, but the fact that atom bombers can go on aircraft carriers and nukes can go on nuclear subs really seperates them, I don't think Nuclear Missiles will replace Atom Bombs, I recon you will be able to build / deploy / bloweverythingup with both types of ultimate devestation at the same time. Although any true Megalomaniac will start using Nuclear Missiles more than the "inefficient" Atom bomb when they become available, if not completely replace them in their army, after all, if you have already commited resources to building a fleet of aircraft carriers to hold atom bombers would you really want to scrap them all and build lots of nuclear subs and nuclear missiles.

I think the idea behind removing the ICBM hit anything model is to allow units such as nuclear subs and aircraft carriers be the method of deployment to using your nukes on other continents or the other end of your own continent, having a big red button that allows you to blow any city on the game world up from your capital isn't really good for gameplay. You will have to work harder to get your nukes into place now, and also they will be vunerable sitting around in ships, however if someone is silly enough to come close to your home base, your atom bombs and nuclear missiles have a good 8-10 range so you can blow them to kingdom come if they try to invade.
As Arioch said, tactical gameplay > realism, which is how every single decision should be based, this will be great for gameplay, so who cares if it is realistic.

 

[Specs112]

I think it makes gameplay sense - more strategy required to get your nukes in range.

 

[Sarda]

Consider this:

1. There seems to be no (or insubstantial) diplomatic penalties for using nukes, since AI acts as human player now. So nukes will be usable much more often.

2. Combat is much more rich in tactics. So game developers don't want it to be broken with ICBM while all other units require careful delivery.

So I totally agree with game developers here.

But if your playing on a huge map, were on average a large 50 city empire only is covering like 10% of the map, your nuke arsenal is still pretty worthless if you want to attack someone on the opposite side of the world (200+ tiles away) and there not litterally established on beach front property for subs to reach them.

The nukes of Civ5 are basically the tactical nukes of Civ4 which I rarely if ever used because. 1. They had such a lousy range they were worthless for anything but border defense and maybe island chain maps. 2. They cost alot of hammers, and your putting them in harms way on submarines and cruisers which the computer seemed to always perfer putting first on defense. 3. They cost alot of time since you had to micromanage them into ports, on to ships, the ships to coasts, and then finally fire them before treking back for more. OR you shot 1 ICBM from your capital.

 

[stealth_nsk]

That is, as far as I know, pure speculation.

First:

We wanted to make sure that the AI leaders were taking into account the same things as the player was taking into account.

Second - we know what there are no visible diplomatic modifiers.

So I'd suggest that speculation to be 90% accurate. The only possible diplomatic restrictions I can see are with city-states.

 

[stealth_nsk]

But if your playing on a huge map, were on average a large 50 city empire only is covering like 10% of the map, your nuke arsenal is still pretty worthless if you want to attack someone on the opposite side of the world (200+ tiles away) and there not litterally established on beach front property for subs to reach them.

This way you can't just attack anyone on the opposite side of the world. You need to prepare and launch a well-laced attack. Sounds more strategic for me.

3. They cost alot of time since you had to micromanage them into ports, on to ships, the ships to coasts, and then finally fire them before treking back for more. OR you shot 1 ICBM from your capital.

That means what without ICBM you'll use them. Argument for taking ICBM away.

 

[AriochIV]

Second - we know what there are no visible diplomatic modifiers.

Yeah, we've been specifically told that to improve the feel of diplomacy, the diplomatic modifers are no longer shown to the player. That doesn't mean there are no diplomatic modifiers.

 

[Sarda]

That means what without ICBM you'll use them. Argument for taking ICBM away.

Or we'll be seeing the supposed new power of those new modding tools, and we can change missles to unlimited like they should be, id even nominate the change for the first inevitable fan patch. Cruise missles should have range, tactical nukes fine, but when 100's of icbms exist today and a entire section of human history was fear of them for their extreme range, them simplying not existing is inexcusable.

 

[Zhahz]

Civ is the ultimate game of building and developing and empire.

Why people are fascinated with vaporizing everything with nukes is beyond me.

Nukes are also a cheesy/cheap way out of using real strategy and tactics to win battes gameplay-wise that kind of belittle the combat system (IMO). So I would understand why devs would want to limit nukes. If you put a lot of time and effort into a meaningful combat system you don't want to have it all blown up.

I always stress gameplay > realism but still, softening up your enemies with cannons/ranged whatever then moving in with troops is reasonable. Dropping a nuke to soften up your enemies then mopping up isn't very reasonable because it's just not how it works.

Atomic weapons actually are not a big part of history - they've only been used in war twice, more to end a war than anything. They've mostly been used for threatening, posturing, and "diplomacy." ICBMs have never been used. So saying they must be in the game does not compute.

I guess I'll never understand the fascination with nukes in civ games.

Second - we know what there are no visible diplomatic modifiers.

I could've sworn I read or saw somewhere that you got a big diplo penalty with city states for using nukes, but I could be mistaken - so many previews and such floating around. I kinda doubt the AIs think kindly of it either.

IMO, if they're not going to include the nasty side-effects of using nukes, there should at least be huge diplomatic impact for using them. As with other elements of the game, there should be strategic decisions - use the WMD, but lose some allies, that kind of thing.

Of course, if you're a major warmonger on a roll, you probably don't care about diplomatic penalties.

 

[Sarda]

Civ is the ultimate game of building and developing and empire.

Why people are fascinated with vaporizing everything with nukes is beyond me.

Nukes are also a cheesy/cheap way out of using real strategy and tactics to win battes gameplay-wise that kind of belittle the combat system (IMO). So I would understand why devs would want to limit nukes. If you put a lot of time and effort into a meaningful combat system you don't want to have it all blown up.

I always stress gameplay > realism but still, softening up your enemies with cannons/ranged whatever then moving in with troops is reasonable. Dropping a nuke to soften up your enemies then mopping up isn't very reasonable because it's just not how it works.

Atomic weapons actually are not a big part of history - they've only been used in war twice, more to end a war than anything. They've mostly been used for threatening, posturing, and "diplomacy." ICBMs have never been used. So saying they must be in the game does not compute.

I guess I'll never understand the fascination with nukes in civ games.

Actually, if a modern war between 2 powerful nations such as China and America were to break out its exactly how it would work. First a nuke exchange, then if anyone's left to mop up, they will. Atomic's are a huge part of history since WW2, the reason theres never been a war among the 1st world nations of earth is basically because of mutally assured distruction via nuclear exchange. Its nuke diplomacy that makes the modern world today what it is.

 

[Thoughtful Thug]

Well it is may be well clear that the Lead Designer's philosophy on military tactics is that new game will take a different approach on how we engage with the enemy by careful planning on how to utilize your military units to your advantage in different hex places on the map. ICBM, however, seems to take away all the fun in that by simply ending all what you had been accustomed to while playing through the game from ancient to modern time. Even though ICBM does actually represent reality since most wars now - in our day and age - is deterred because of the threat of many Nations' capability of using them.

 

[HG_CassiusA]

Perhaps ICBMs could work if:

1) There was a missile silo tile improvement, and
2) ICBMs could only be fired from silos or subs, and
3) Each silo or sub could only fire one ICBM per turn, and
4) ICBMs can only be targeted on cities or silos, and finally
5) ICBMs are highly expensive to maintain.

Perhaps merely possessing such weapons could give a small-moderate diplomacy penalty.

 

[Auncien]

In my opinion they should include ICBMs but the cost should be significant. You should only have a few even if you're a hyperpower.