Are thermonukes too strong?

Qarnix

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
14
So after my post about intercepting nukes some weeks ago I played a game of multiplayer with my friends where we ended up with a nuclear war. We all had the knowledge of how to intercept nukes, but the blast radius from thermonukes can still take out a city, as long as you target 2 tiles away from the city. This generated a lot of salt with the idea that "Thermonukes are too strong"

To prevent a thermonuke, you would need 5 Mobile SAMs per City to protect them fully. And even then, with two thermonuclear strikes, you can target 2 tiles from a SAM, kill the SAM, then target the tile where it stood, and Destroy the city.
upload_2019-11-11_12-0-26.png


Things I though of that could maybe fix it are:
- Give mobile SAMs a intercept radius of 2. (Might be way too OP)
- A third building in the Aerodrome disctrict that give new build fighter planes an intercept radius of 2. Fighter planes don't intercept Missile Silo attacks and Nuclear Submarine attacks.
- Less powerfull outring damage. A city in the outerring of the blast will receive half wall and half health damage and only the last building in each hit district will be pillaged. All hit units receive 50HP of damage and all improvements are still pillaged. Contamination also remains the same.
 

Qarnix

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
14
I don't see mobile SAM having 2 range as being any overpowered, they can still only shoot once per turn (I'm pretty sure but not 100%)
Im talking about intercept range, doens't neccessarily mean the ranged shot range I think.
 

MrRadar

Deity
Joined
Nov 8, 2014
Messages
2,030
This generated a lot of salt with the idea that "Thermonukes are too strong"
Isn't this an incentive to develop some kind of in-game START (Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty) between the players? ;)

I feel that nukes in VI are about right - finally a real Armageddon weapon if used more widely.
And if you want watertight defense, well carpet all your territory with SAMs
 

Victoria

Regina
Supporter
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
11,883
Things I though of that could maybe fix it are:
It is for end of game. No grievances nor war weariness. I quite like it, especially as deterrence does not really work in a turn based game.
The thread I originally had this conversation in did point out thermo 2 tiles being nasty.
 

Sostratus

Deity
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Location
Minnesota, USA
It is for end of game. No grievances nor war weariness. I quite like it, especially as deterrence does not really work in a turn based game.
The thread I originally had this conversation in did point out thermo 2 tiles being nasty.
I recall nominating the thermonuclear “creeping barrage” as particularly problematic- from the point of view of there being any pretense of defense.
If mobile sams had 2 intercept range then at worst you’d paradrop in your spec ops to snipe out one Sam site, then you could start making headway. It’s quite the deal.
What’s the story on missile delivery vs bombers again? I know nuke subs have a “missile launch failure” animation, but aren’t missiles the better option? (And Civ4 has global range icbms! Talk about MAD!)
 

Sostratus

Deity
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Location
Minnesota, USA
I never use nukes or thermonukes.
Even one thermal nuke cost 3,000 production and no purchase. That's crazy.
One death robot costs 1500, imo they are the best bargain for what you get. (Maybe tied with jet bombers.)
But a modern armor army costs ~2000 before the military academy discount. Given how many units/cities a thermonuclear warhead can vaporize, they are quite production efficient. They literally just delete stuff with no counterplay.
 

Tech Osen

Emperor
Joined
Nov 13, 2016
Messages
1,866
Well, they are kindda OP IRL too.
 

Bitterman

Warlord
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
261
Location
Granada, Spain
I don't think they need a fix. They're probably overpowered by design, like in real life. Nuclear weapons were never designed to be used in a war like any other asset, but more like a way to totally decimate and destroy the enemy beyond any possible reparation.

If you are willing to use them, better be prepared for retaliation.
 

Jkchart

Emperor
Joined
Jul 13, 2016
Messages
1,246
Location
Texas
This is the first Civ game where I feel Nukes are actually as powerful as they should be (though I do miss the infinite range ICBMs, their destructiveness makes up for it), and they SHOULD be super powerful. Because they are.
 

Sostratus

Deity
Joined
Jul 31, 2017
Messages
2,375
Location
Minnesota, USA
This is the first Civ game where I feel Nukes are actually as powerful as they should be (though I do miss the infinite range ICBMs, their destructiveness makes up for it), and they SHOULD be super powerful. Because they are
I'm glad they can at least delete a city instead of the older games like civ4 where you had to send in a unit for cleanup of 1 pop, burned out husks.

That said they had done some nuclear airbursts over navy ships after ww2 and iirc the steel hulls held up quite well. (An underwater test was extremely effective at sinking them though, basically a super cavitation torpedo turned up to 11.) I wonder with a modern metropolis of concrete+steel high rises what the effects of a more moderate warhead (several hundred kt, not multi megaton) would actually be like- the absolute annihilation we saw in japan, where the wood buildings just burned away, or just lots of ruined buildings- but loosely intact- like tokyo after godzilla runs through the place?. It's morbid speculation, but we thankfully just have no real idea of exactly what would happen.
 

Qarnix

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 22, 2019
Messages
14
If mobile sams had 2 intercept range then at worst you’d paradrop in your spec ops to snipe out one Sam site, then you could start making headway.
You can also priority target SAMs with planes.
If you are willing to use them, better be prepared for retaliation.
But that's just the thing, when i nuked my friend, he became hopeless and useless and couldn't fight back anymore.
 

AsH2

Prince
Joined
Aug 2, 2002
Messages
486
Location
Sweden
I'm glad they can at least delete a city instead of the older games like civ4 where you had to send in a unit for cleanup of 1 pop, burned out husks.
..
But that 1 pop represent civ4 players sitting in their nuke-proof bunkers.. At least that's how I looked at it, back in the days.. :cooool:
 
Joined
Sep 16, 2003
Messages
3,198
Location
Eindhoven, the Netherlands
To make it more real life like, it might be good to have 1 turn delay on them. This way the enemy can have a turn to retaliate and insure mutual destruction.
 

Bitterman

Warlord
Joined
Mar 1, 2018
Messages
261
Location
Granada, Spain
But that's just the thing, when i nuked my friend, he became hopeless and useless and couldn't fight back anymore.

If he has a couple submarines and/or missile silos, he can retaliate, as far as I know.

If he doesn't, then the blame is on him.
 

klail

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 28, 2012
Messages
99
I think gameplay should be more important than realism -- especially multiplayer. I'm still bummed that the esport Civ 6 thing they talked about never came to fruition. I'd LOVE to watch a multiplayer tournament at online speed that was commentated well.

Maybe the fix is to implement START/treaty mechanics into the world congress that have real bite to them and that can be reliably worked with.
 

TheMeInTeam

If A implies B...
Joined
Jan 26, 2008
Messages
27,438
I'm glad they can at least delete a city instead of the older games like civ4 where you had to send in a unit for cleanup of 1 pop, burned out husks.

That said they had done some nuclear airbursts over navy ships after ww2 and iirc the steel hulls held up quite well. (An underwater test was extremely effective at sinking them though, basically a super cavitation torpedo turned up to 11.) I wonder with a modern metropolis of concrete+steel high rises what the effects of a more moderate warhead (several hundred kt, not multi megaton) would actually be like- the absolute annihilation we saw in japan, where the wood buildings just burned away, or just lots of ruined buildings- but loosely intact- like tokyo after godzilla runs through the place?. It's morbid speculation, but we thankfully just have no real idea of exactly what would happen.

Modern nukes are much stronger than those used in Japan, but the game's representation of nukes is cartoon ridiculousness. Broken in both balance and realism terms.

A single city in Civ necessarily represents multiple cities IRL. A nuke hitting everything in a 2 hex radius and destroying it is comparable to destroying the entire state of Texas with a single nuke. Yet IRL even a dozen nukes wouldn't completely annihilate Texas. It would screw it over really badly, many people would die and the radiation would be a serious problem (depending on how nukes were detonated). Anything near blast radius would be very unproductive for a long time. But it would not delete all traces of civilization in Texas or even kill every human.

The Civ 4 representation is actually more accurate.
 
Top Bottom