Consequences to using nuclear weapons?

[kylan]

I've been searching around but I can't find any consequences to using nuclear weapons in Civ 5. Are there any, such as other Civs won't trade with you or changing the physical layout of the land?

 

[aceflamingo23]

everyone gets dead

 

[kylan]

everyone gets dead

I suppose I should have asked: Are there any consequences to the Attacker using the nuclear weapon?

Seems like whoever gets nukes first wins in a multiplayer game.

 

[headcase]

I suppose I should have asked: Are there any consequences to the Attacker using the nuclear weapon?

Nothing except MAD if the victim builds a bomb before being wiped out.

So... no.

Edit: Oh, and the captured cities will have fallout that can't really be worked on. Until they get a worker to scrub it. Which only takes a few turns because fallout's pretty easy to scrub apparently.

 

[FeiLing]

Of course there are consequences. The world will hate you. I believe after a few everyone will even declare war on you (and those still pretending to be your friends will tell you they hate you already).

The Fallout is pretty severe too; destroys tile improvements and has to be removed by workers before the land yields anything. And of course city population is halved.

Nukes aren't for conquerors in this game... only for people who like to use nukes.

 

[darbyjack]

Forgive me for reviving an old thread, but I've been playing Civ II all these years until now. I played through a long game of Civ 5 and won by having the highest score by the 2050 year limit.

I decided to mess around and nuked a bunch of other civs cities. I mean, a lot of nukes. In the space of just a few turns maybe 10 or more nukes.

I noticed that cities everywhere are struggling to make food all of a sudden. Could the usage of nukes be the cause? Even if the nukes weren't near my far away cities.

This is my first proper game of a new Civ really... Was in prince setting. I dunno why I never played it until now, Civ 5 is pretty cool! It's the Brave new World one thingy.

 

[Ryika]

Forgive me for reviving an old thread, but I've been playing Civ II all these years until now. I played through a long game of Civ 5 and won by having the highest score by the 2050 year limit.

I decided to mess around and nuked a bunch of other civs cities. I mean, a lot of nukes. In the space of just a few turns maybe 10 or more nukes.

I noticed that cities everywhere are struggling to make food all of a sudden. Could the usage of nukes be the cause? Even if the nukes weren't near my far away cities.

This is my first proper game of a new Civ really... Was in prince setting. I dunno why I never played it until now, Civ 5 is pretty cool! It's the Brave new World one thingy.

You might have accidentially hit a maritime city state that was your ally -> you don't get any food from them any more. Other than that, no, nukes don't have any influence on "global" food production.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

And to continue to making something clear

There are no direct consequences of "using" the bombs. i.e doesn't change the terrain, relations etc.

HOWEVER. the hate comes from the warmonger penalty.

But there IS a subtle penalty. If any allied units happen to be near the blast radius, you will AUTOMATICALLY declar war on them

So if there's a worker esides Constantinople, and the worker belongs to Poland, you will attack by default Byzantine AND Poland.

 

[darbyjack]

Hmmm maybe my warmongering caused the population to be unhappy and not produce food effectively? I'm new to the game and still figuring out the mechanics.

It's a shame there's lots of stuff in Civ2 that Civ5 doesn't have... Then again, Civ5 has a whole load of other crazy new stuff anyway!

It's also quite disappointing there are no graphs at the end of the game.. Ah well.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

Which version are you using

If you are using Brave New World, the only thing that would cause unhappiness is natural growth (1 pop causes 1 unhappy face without any modifiers) OR ideology pressure, i.e if there's someone who is outputting more tourism than you have culture (gradually) then they inflict ideological pressure which causes your people to be unhappy.

 

[Trackmaster]

Nukes are basically good for two things:

A: Defense against being nuked yourself. It's basically the one way I've found to protect yourself when the enemy has 3 nukes in a city within striking distance of your city. If you nuke that city all of those nukes die. Better to nuke than to be nuked.

B: The game is close to being over, and you need the final push for a domination victory, or you need to stop the Civ from getting that science victory. Kind of a Hail Mary where either you can wrap the game up in a few turns, or if you don't, that Civ will win anyway.

 

[darbyjack]

Yes it's the Brave New World. I think because I just captured a couple large cities it caused unhappiness to go down.

I'm looking forward to doing some interesting things with nukes (such as bombarding coastal cities with battle ships and finishing them off with a nuke from a sub)

I've spent a few solid days playing Civ 5 now. Great game. But bloody hell, why did they have to take out so many features from Civ 2? Seems to be very stripped/ dumbed down in many core aspects behind the pretty interface and graphics.

 

[Primacide]

They really emphasized a shift away from ICS (infinite city sprawl) in civ v. That may be why it feels so different to you. It makes the game seem a little more simple, but I find the changes are very good. I tend to play into the late game now, whereas in civ ii, I never went into the later techs cause I had already won.

 

[darbyjack]

You're right, I agree, it's a very different game, which is good, otherwise I'd probably still be playing Civ 2! The new combat system is very much welcome from me. Seems more tactical than unit stacking.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Nukes do indeed change terrain. They can remove features, meaning floodplains can disappear.

The only thing using nukes changes is the willingness of the AI to use nukes against you. Normally the AI only considers using nukes if its projected war outcome is catastrophic. Once you use a nuclear weapon, it considers it's own nukes the same as any other unit.

 

[Ryoga]

Normally the AI only considers using nukes if its projected war outcome is catastrophic.

Unless it's Ghandi, then he pushes the button as soon as the war begins.

Anyway I haven't seen any diplomatic consequences for using nukes except for the victims of the nukes themselves. For the rest of the world you just get the usual warmonger penalties.

 

[beetle]

Nukes do indeed change terrain. They can remove features, meaning floodplains can disappear.

I have noticed forests disappearing. I will have to keep an eye out for floodplains too. Do they turn into desert? I think maybe sometimes grasslands turn to plains. Anything else?

Normally the AI only considers using nukes if its projected war outcome is catastrophic. Once you use a nuclear weapon, it considers it's own nukes the same as any other unit.

I agree that there does seem to be some reluctance by the AI to nuke the player first, but more often than not, they nuke me before I nuke them. Please tell me more about “its projected war outcome is catastrophic”? For example, what kind of peace offering does that correlate with? I have not looked for it specifically, but I am pretty sure the AI still thinks it is winning when I get nuked first. The most common scenario is that I capture a decent AI city, and AI nukes it in an attempt to capture the city back.

 

[Magma_Dragoon]

Yes they turn to desert, or rather the flood plain feature is removed from the desert tile. Flood plains are a feature, same as forest, jungle, and atolls. Grassland and plains are terrain types, nothing in the base game changes those. There is lua set up to update terrain type, but Firaxis never used it because the game engine can't rerender terrain without reloading the map.

I would assume it would correlate to the most costly of peace deals. Every turn, the tactical AI calculated the probable outcome of current or planned war based on... something. Military rating is part of it, I didn't read too deep into it. I wouldn't be surprised if cities lost was a huge factor in it's projection calculation. Also, if the city had air units stationed there, that hurts its military rating, and population contribute points as well.

 

[Primacide]

Nukes do indeed change terrain. They can remove features, meaning floodplains can disappear.

The only thing using nukes changes is the willingness of the AI to use nukes against you. Normally the AI only considers using nukes if its projected war outcome is catastrophic. Once you use a nuclear weapon, it considers it's own nukes the same as any other unit.

Appreciate you sharing this! I'm not a big fan of nukes in CiV, but I get that they're such a huge part of modern politics that the game wouldn't really make sense without them. I play to avoid exchanges if possible, and this info sheds some light on the AI behavior.

 

[VicRatlhead5199]

victory, or you need to stop the Civ from getting that science victory. Kind of a Hail Mary where either you can wrap the game up in a few turns, or if you don't, that Civ will win anyway.

That's about all I ever use em for. Nuking the capital of an AI getting close to a SV will slow down ship part production and if you happen to be really lucky you might even kill a ship part itself. Heck even against humans it's not a bad strategy since humans tend to make their capital the big beaker producer sometimes you can delay their next part tech a couple turns by decimating the population in the capital. I like to keep a loaded sub outside my main competitors in any given game. Might not use em but they're there if i need em