Do you use nuclear missiles in CivII?

Do you use nuclear weapons in your game?

  • Yes, I do

    Votes: 76 48.7%
  • No, I don't

    Votes: 49 31.4%
  • Only when the AI uses them against me first

    Votes: 31 19.9%

  • Total voters
    156
Trouble with rail networks is;
a) you can't put them all the way to every civ unless there is only 1 continent OR you have a city on every continent with a civ
b) you can't build them all the way to a civ as they will normally kick you out of their territory
c) Enemy dips/spies can penetrate your civ with ease.
 
Rail connections to foreign civs are a weak point. I would expect them to be fortified with multiple units to prevent the obvious diplomatic buyout. If that is the only link then defense/offense is easily channeled. The alternative is land and build or capture a city in foreign territory and then hook it up to the rail net. Humans are certainly better at amphibious invasions than the computer is. As for what to do when the enemy civ is railed but not hooked up. Then it's two turn warfare. One turn to move in and tell the computer to get stuffed, usually on a railroaded hill or mountain for preference with some fortified mech inf and some engineers to build a fortification if the computer didn't leave one handy somewhere on it's periphery which it does all to often late game. Now you forces are in it's rail net, let the party begin. On pangean worlds with one big continent having the engineers rail the lines to the enemies homelands is obvious. On more archipelagic lands, the use of amphibs to assault with, or land in coastal fortifications or at least mountainous terrain is straightforward. Though beating up the coastal city with naval and air forces followed by marines and then the transports full of trouble who then use the rail net to slaughter all the immediate partisans and then get to work on the enemy's other cities.

There are always tactics appropriate to the situation. The key is having at least a smidgen of the proper forces available to spearhead such attack situations, even if the units are rarely useful or used otherwise.

That variety argues for the balance and replayability found in CIV2 as compared to CIV3 where the tactics seem far simpler given the reduced utility of naval and air units as well as the vast increase in the cost of diplomacy and spying. I will say as per this threads original thrust that nukes are available in CIV3 but are both weaker and stronger than in CIV2. Weaker due to vastly increased cost and the fact that some military units in heavily garrisoned cities may survive especially if they're elite units. Stronger in that the ICBM's are worldwide in range while the tacnukes are only 8 hexes and can only be carried by nuclear subs, one per sub. Also there is the problem that it will usually be a great many turns before the (leaky 75%) SDI system is available due to the minimum 4 turn limit on researching techs unknown to anyone.

The whole thrust of CIV3 seems to be to reduce the ability of the player to turn the various AI players against each other and your ability to wage military offensives of any sort. And with the latest patch, the AI's tech trading is just wild in CIV3.

David Dwyer
 
I had a nuke war just to see how it was. had every city on my third of the max size map build nukes, and launched them every turn, two or three. bombarded the vikings to bits, annhilated their starting pt, hit every city 2-7 times, and turned into a skull scape.

my retirement went down 40%, lol, but it was fun.
 
1 Nuclear Missile...2-3 Engineers...1 Mechanized Infantry. Enough to take over any city and convert it to productivity. As long as you pick up your pollution it should be no problem to the masses.
 
Last time I did that I sent an invading force of about 20-30 engineers and 6 veteran spies... used the spies to nuke the city and the next group to buy the partisans that were generated. Partisans captured cities, spies continued blowing them up, engineers cleaned up mess. Those pesky Vikings who had nagged me for 1500 years were destroyed in 3 turns. :cool:
 
Thats one of the best stategies. Ussually its easier to just buy the cities though.
 
Theben said:
It's hard to buy a capital. ;)

That's why you take it out first and buy the rest later :D

(Getting rid of their capital also makes their cities cheaper than they were. It makes sense, too--if there's no "higher-ups" nearby to keep tabs on you, you're more willing to take a bribes, right? ;) )
 
The capitol is the best place to use nukes. Ussually the only one I nuke (unless I'm out of range...It's ussually by water though)
 
Specialist290 said:
That's why you take it out first and buy the rest later :D

(Getting rid of their capital also makes their cities cheaper than they were. It makes sense, too--if there's no "higher-ups" nearby to keep tabs on you, you're more willing to take a bribes, right? ;) )


Yeah, yeah, I know. Suffice to say that in this game the capital was too far away to take early. ;)
 
There are cases where nukes are useful. Generally I don't need them, but on the Europe map, if I'm playing a maritime power (England, Spain) and I'm trying to make gains versus the Mongols, sometimes nukes are necessary. Then they build SDI defenses and I have to use my Spies.

The WW79 scenario is great for nukes. Playing as the Americans I managed to nuke Moscow and Leningrad very early on, then send in Paratroopers... sold off a couple improvements and stopped production until the Soviets could retake their (formerly) biggest cities.

The AI uses nukes well in that scenario sometimes. I fought my way up the coast of North Africa, taking out the Middle East on my way to attack Russia through the Black Sea. The Soviets repeatedly nuked just captured (and therefore surrounded by significant American forces) Middle Eastern cities. And they nuked Jerusalem, allowing the Middle East to take it.

Of course, playing as the Soviets you can cripple Western Europe on the first turn of the war. Then hit China... and nuking the Japanese and seizing the whole island with paratroopers is essential to attempting to develop a naval presence in the Pacific.
 
Theben said:
Yeah, yeah, I know. Suffice to say that in this game the capital was too far away to take early. ;)



Can you say "Sub/Carrier mass invasion army" :goodjob:
 
I only use Nuc. Missels in Scenarios when the AI used it or will use it against anybody. In normal games I've always enough common army. But when I use them I always clean everything up(I hate pollution!), except I'm too weak(very seldon) then I use Spies and Nuc. Missels even as main weaponsystems.
 
I try to avoid using nukes, just because i am a bit of a perfectionist, and can't stand the sight of dirty great welts of pollution covering my nice empire... even if they are clean-up-able.

I also don't like how the AI becomes nuke-happy as soon as you build MP, it's really annoying when one of those things manages to get though and despoil a burgeoning metropolis.

~Robin
 
My feeling is -- if you're questioning the use of nukes, then the game has gotten away from you.

It is a tool in the toolbox, but one may feel a little uncomfortable when the surgeons all carry bone saws when walking into the OR.
 
My preferred strategy is to split the AI empire in two parts. I like to bribe cities next to the AI capital - even if the cost 20000 gold or more (in the endgame I make 30000-40000 gold a turn by sending freights via "air mail" to far away cities of my empire - maximum bonus I ever made for one freight: 5000 gold).
I also bribe partisans and let them occupy all the production fields of an AI capital.
So the city cannot support a lot of troops (maximum 3). Now the time for howitzer has come.
A little trick to end a cease fire: bribe a city. The cease fire expires the next turn.

Edit: air mail. Sorry.
 
@la fayette
nice to see you here, monsieur la fayette. Chez apolyton, je m'appele "ramses II."
 
Back
Top Bottom