Atomic bombs overpowered?

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

That doesn't make sense because you say they aren't great as military units (which they are very powerful) but they shouldn't destroy units... Without the unit destruction or city destruction then it's just a thing that causes some annoying terrain damage.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

I have said before, they should be great vs cities, but not the unit killers they are in the game, civ 4 had the same problem 2-3 nukes = whole stack gone making but that made more sense than they do in civ 5 OUPT.

Bombers should also be able to heavly damage cities but not that great against units atleast not the pre stealth ones.
Both nukes and bombers should be able to destroy improvements.
Nukes advantage over bombers would be fallout and lower cost but disadvantage would be the need of manhatan project, both should have very sever effect on reputation if used against cities.

 

[Socratatus]

I have said before, they should be great vs cities, but not the unit killers they are in the game, civ 4 had the same problem 2-3 nukes = whole stack gone making but that made more sense than they do in civ 5 OUPT.

But drop a nuke on a ton of tanks and army in one spot in real life and they would all be gone. Makes sense to me.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

It makes perfect sense. They are weapons on mass destruction. No human can survive the explosion or radiation in the immediate radius. Not everyone uses them as city killers. Quite a few times it's used to protect yourself from invasion and even using it on yourself to protect your city.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The area of total destruction is not large and units tends to be rather outspread.
In HOI forum this was debated someone said that if an infantry division was in the province that was hitted with a ww2 nuke would lose like 1% of it soldiers.

 

[qemist]

The area of total destruction is not large and units tends to be rather outspread.
In HOI forum this was debated someone said that if an infantry division was in the province that was hitted with a ww2 nuke would lose like 1% of it soldiers.

Did that count the ones who would run away?

 

[beetle]

Maybe its an oddity of my playstyle, but I've never seen nukes used once in many hundred of games, either by myself or the AI.

What level are you playing? For me, it mostly the AIs nuking each other end game, to no real effect. I just notice areas of radioactivity, and city size dropping. But I would love to figure out how settings where nukes really tipped the balance on winning or losing.

 

[Socratatus]

Did that count the ones who would run away?

I`ve looked at effects of nuclear weapons at close range and while it`s possible to survive one at close range (someone in a bank vault did survive the hiroshima bomb somehow at near ground zero) the resulting chaos would render anyone still alive useless for many, many miles. You have basically like a 2% chance of surviving intact.

And today`s nukes are many times more powerful than anything at Hiroshima.

Anyway, as a side note, it always saddens me that we have such things. In game it`s fine, but in real life? What man thought making such things was a good thing? You`d have thought someone would`ve buried this insane idea. It`s a sad reflection on Humans that we seem unable to get along without such weapons in existence.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Nukes have gotten more powerful but so have the defense against their effects.
The game should have some way to destroy them before they hit.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

The Hiroshima bomb and Nagasaki bomb are so incredibly weak. They don't even compare to the ones existing today. The defenses against nukes are hardly even defenses. There are missiles stationed to hopefully intercept an ICBM and some lasers but that's more for a rogue launch, not a full out Armageddon strike.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

The Hiroshima bomb and Nagasaki bomb are so incredibly weak. They don't even compare to the ones existing today. The defenses against nukes are hardly even defenses. There are missiles stationed to hopefully intercept an ICBM and some lasers but that's more for a rogue launch, not a full out Armageddon strike.


Sent from my iPod touch using Tapatalk

Radiation defense have improved alot, the weak ww2 bombs would do alot of its damage in radiation not in explosion.
The amout of damage a single missile to in civilization 5 is ridiculous.

From the wiki:

With a range of 12, a Nuclear Missile will heavily damage cities and destroy all units within its blast radius of 2 tiles. It is automatically destroyed when it attacks. See the rules on Nuclear Weapons for more details.

 

[Greyhawk1]

Nuclear weapons are the terror they are today because of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Unlike the game, IRL there is a lot of fissile material around which means a *lot* of bombs big and small.

You start the war then everyone is dead. In Civ 5 exchanges are small scale and nothing like as destructive as the real thing.

If the game wanted to simulate the real thing, 80% of the city pop would be dead, with another 15% in the turns thereafter, units up to 3 tiles out would be killed or heavily damaged. Not only that but a cone some 10 or more hexes long should badly damage or kill citizens and military alike.

Also in the years to come, the population growth of the cities immediately near the blast would be halved.

Nukes in the game are pale imitations of the actual thing.

 

[Socratatus]

Radiation defense have improved alot, the weak ww2 bombs would do alot of its damage in radiation not in explosion.
The amout of damage a single missile to in civilization 5 is ridiculous.

From the wiki:

Well with all due respect, I think you`re just in denial about the effectiveness of nukes and what they can do.

CaterpillarKing is correct. Even nuke defenses I believe are just a placebo to make people feel `safer` than they really are. We know if they even did work it would make almost no difference.

However, I don`t blame you for being optimistic as it is a depressing thought that there really is no defence against nukes.

Guess we just have to keep the peace then- at least in real life!

 

[CaterpillarKing]

Anyone who knows me knows my fear is not that I will get robbed or that my house will catch on fire, but that I will get nuked. I lived very close to the second highest target for an attack. To show how powerful nuclear weapons are let me show this. Bravo is the largest US nuclear test and the Tsar Bomba is the largest Soviet test.

Spoiler :

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

In civilization 4 you can stack them they also are rather cheap.
You dow them and send them all of leaving other civilization with 1 pop cities and no millitary at all.

In civilization 5 its harder to build up an arsenal of nukes but they are still powerful.

They are to weak vs cities however a single missile should not destroy every unit in such a large radius, instead it should be something like unit in center destroyed, 1 tile heavy damage like 80+ hitpoints lost, 2 tiles 50+ hitpoints lost 3 tiles 20+ hitpoints lost.

Nukes are not the only reason to keep peace in real life, today even conventional weapons can destroy nations completly and make the bombing runs of ww2 look like nothing like how ww2 nukes looks compared to modern ones, in.
But in civilization bombers don't destroy cities, they did in civilization 3 but not in 4 and 5.

 

[CaterpillarKing]

In civilization 4 you can stack them they also are rather cheap.
You dow them and send them all of leaving other civilization with 1 pop cities and no millitary at all.

In civilization 5 its harder to build up an arsenal of nukes but they are still powerful.

They are to weak vs cities however a single missile should not destroy every unit in such a large radius, instead it should be something like unit in center destroyed, 1 tile heavy damage like 80+ hitpoints lost, 2 tiles 50+ hitpoints lost 3 tiles 20+ hitpoints lost.

Nukes are not the only reason to keep peace in real life, today even conventional weapons can destroy nations completly and make the bombing runs of ww2 look like nothing like how ww2 nukes looks compared to modern ones, in.
But in civilization bombers don't destroy cities, they did in civilization 3 but not in 4 and 5.

Because you aren't immediately incinerated within a 5 mile radius of a conventional bomb. Bremen was rebuilt, Tokyo was rebuilt, even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt. But, if you dropped a modern nuclear weapon on New York City, there would be nothing left to rebuild off of. Everything in a 3 mile radius of a simple 5 megaton bomb is immediately incinerated. 3-5 miles everything is damaged so very far beyond repair. 5-10 miles there is serious damage. Now imagine something 3 times more powerful. If anything the nukes are nerfed. They were built in the thousands and had the ability to wipe out a city in one explosion. They are actually too weak in the civ games if you wanted to be extremely realistic. That wouldn't be fun though because there would be nothing left once fission was founded

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

Because you aren't immediately incinerated within a 5 mile radius of a conventional bomb. Bremen was rebuilt, Tokyo was rebuilt, even Hiroshima and Nagasaki were rebuilt. But, if you dropped a modern nuclear weapon on New York City, there would be nothing left to rebuild off of. Everything in a 3 mile radius of a simple 5 megaton bomb is immediately incinerated. 3-5 miles everything is damaged so very far beyond repair. 5-10 miles there is serious damage. Now imagine something 3 times more powerful. If anything the nukes are nerfed. They were built in the thousands and had the ability to wipe out a city in one explosion. They are actually too weak in the civ games if you wanted to be extremely realistic. That wouldn't be fun though because there would be nothing left once fission was founded

In reality nothing in the game would be fun in information times with nukes or not at the end game you should be able to just take like 10 bomber unit, pick a city many tiles away and that city would not exist anymore in any usefull way.
You can drop a nuke but you can also drop thousends if not millions of conventional bombs, with modern caculation allowing for maximum destruction and the effect would be much the same.

Basicly everything modern have to be nerfed to make the game interesting.

The OP ask if the nukes are op in the game, yes in because their effectivness for their cost add in uncounterable, far to strong and make lategame crazy however you can ban them.

Other things are way underpowered like bombers.

 

[qemist]

Nuclear weapons are the terror they are today because of the principle of Mutually Assured Destruction. Unlike the game, IRL there is a lot of fissile material around which means a *lot* of bombs big and small.

You start the war then everyone is dead. In Civ 5 exchanges are small scale and nothing like as destructive as the real thing.

What real thing? there has been no nuclear exchange. The theory that someone would be crazy enough to respond to a limited nuclear strike with a "wargasm" counter-strike is untested.

 

[reddishrecue]

Atomic bombs aren't even used that often.. I think large earlier unit armies and navies are used more often than atomic bombs. Atomic bombs can be OP if you are going for a science victory or something and then the AI suddenly nukes one of your cities in a surprise attack and you don't have a bomb shelter up in time. Once you have bomb shelters up in your cities, a bombs aren't that problematic..

 

[CaterpillarKing]

It's actually easier in civ 5 because you can protect your seas with submarines because they need to be within a certain distance. Also, now in BNW nukes can be banned.

 

[Socratatus]

It's actually easier in civ 4 because you can protect your seas with submarines because they need to be within a certain distance. Also, now in BNW nukes can be banned.

True, although I wonder how this is actually enforced!