I dont want nukes disabled... It is a game afterall...
-
We created a new subforum for the Civ7 reviews, please check them here!
Armies
- Thread starter ianinsane
- Start date
cheesemijit
Prince
untill a better use than vanilla nukes is thought of and coded, i think we just can't have them. but this will be one of the top priotities, i think.
ianinsane
Prince
That's very good if you say that for the last time. Nevertheless I'll repeat: Let's keep presage, prophecy and prediction out of the mod as far as possible and concentrate on building the world the way it exists.
Honestly: I can see no way to seriously predict the actions of a madman leader like Kim Jong-Il or all the other persons history has shown us.
civ editor11
Ruler
Until the AI learn to correctly use nukes we can not let them have any it would result in utter anhilation of anyone who plays
Adhesive86
Warlord
Can't you just give users the option of off or on?
cheesemijit
Prince
that does sound easy, but it depends if it is easy to do. we should definately test it with nukes before disabling them, it might turn out to be ok. though i doubt it will.
civ editor11
Ruler
We could try adhesives idea of making them an option
That should work
That should work
jsweeney
American
why don't we make a system where two nations can go to war but if one nation uses nukes that would be like a special defensive pact where nations like US, China, and Russia get involved on the side of the attacked nation. Nuclear Non-profileration violation really and the security council of the UN would get involved. I think the AI is smart enough not to realize if a decision gets them at war with the world.
Mattygerst
Prince
That would require extensive SDK work that no one knows how to do.
civ editor11
Ruler
If we had someone who knew how to do it we could do it otherwise we can just use something else to make it work or we don't need to use nukes
Mattygerst
Prince
Another question about the Armies.
For example:
The USA Army has about 1.09 million troops. But, they also have an extensive amount of vehicles used (tanks, IFV, etc.). How are we going to come to a consensus on the numbers to use? For example: The USA has about 6,000 M1 Abrams tanks in service. Along with numerous other vehicles. How are we going to accurately represent how many combat troops in terms of infantry we actually use? Obviously, not all 1.09 million troops of the army are actual combat troops. Is there a place we can find out this information?
For example:
The USA Army has about 1.09 million troops. But, they also have an extensive amount of vehicles used (tanks, IFV, etc.). How are we going to come to a consensus on the numbers to use? For example: The USA has about 6,000 M1 Abrams tanks in service. Along with numerous other vehicles. How are we going to accurately represent how many combat troops in terms of infantry we actually use? Obviously, not all 1.09 million troops of the army are actual combat troops. Is there a place we can find out this information?
Big Rob
Lord Protector and Heir
Don't look at an infantry "icon" as just infantry soldiers, but as a complete infantry unit. That includes support elements and vehicles as well.
