Does anyone find nukes in civ4 at all usefull because I don't. I find 99% of the time, when I use them on an enemy city they ether get intercepted or explode over the city doing nothing but destroying a few buildings and improvments and leaving some radiation. Plus they are very time consuming to build and starts global warming which is always irritating. Are my feelings shared?
Does anyone find nukes in civ4 at all usefull?
- Thread starter Bill Odie
- Start date
Does anyone find nukes in civ4 at all usefull because I don't. I find 99% of the time, when I use them on an enemy city they ether get intercepted or explode over the city doing nothing but destroying a few buildings and improvments and leaving some radiation. Plus they are very time consuming to build and starts global warming which is always irritating. Are my feelings shared?Powerslave
Prince
Yeah. They really aren't that great. I still hate to see nukes launched against me, but it's not the worst thing that could happen. Planet Busters, on the other hand, were a weapon to be feared.
I don't find them at all useful. Only 25% or so will hit against an enemy with SDI (which is any enemy worth using nukes on), and all it will do is destroy improvements and buildings that you'll want for your own use later. The units damaged/killed are replaced quickly, unless you're waiting to invade right after nuking.
You can't even use them to take out the AI's nukes before it can use them on you. ICBM's are never damaged or killed when their city is nuked.
In Warlords, your city's Military Academy can be destroyed by a nuke, making it all the more desirable to ban them (which you can only do if UN victories are enabled, because otherwise the UN doesn't exist).
You can't even use them to take out the AI's nukes before it can use them on you. ICBM's are never damaged or killed when their city is nuked.
In Warlords, your city's Military Academy can be destroyed by a nuke, making it all the more desirable to ban them (which you can only do if UN victories are enabled, because otherwise the UN doesn't exist).
I used a usefull Nuke once... I was about to lose to a space ship.. like 10 turn left to their last piece and I was conquering on another continent (to either dominate or force diplomatic victory dont remember) well too far away!!!
So I nuked the city to stone age and delay them long enough to win by 3 or so turn!!!
At the other nukes I launch was in an artist effort to build the perfect radiating orange matter world, too finish of a poor country faster at the end of an already finished game or to avenge being nuke by 10!
So I nuked the city to stone age and delay them long enough to win by 3 or so turn!!!
At the other nukes I launch was in an artist effort to build the perfect radiating orange matter world, too finish of a poor country faster at the end of an already finished game or to avenge being nuke by 10!
National Wonders can definitely be destroyed by nukes. They are also always destroyed when you invade a city.
World Wonders cannot be destroyed except by razing the capture city they are in.
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
nukes useless? Nuke border cities 2 each- paratroop in- demolish city-
same for coastal cities except u use troops in transports.
Destroy a competitor's 4 or 5 cities and then use any other icbm's to casually lob into their infra structure or to obliterate incoming fleets.
The only horror of nukes is when the UN votes to ban them and u have a few in que or a plan of invasion based upon it.
same for coastal cities except u use troops in transports.
Destroy a competitor's 4 or 5 cities and then use any other icbm's to casually lob into their infra structure or to obliterate incoming fleets.
The only horror of nukes is when the UN votes to ban them and u have a few in que or a plan of invasion based upon it.
Nukes are very useful. For one the A.I usualy doesn't research ecology until later. When you fire a nuke on an improvement or city they cannot clean the fallout up. This causes the improvement to be usless. they are also good if you want to invade a border city.
SwordofStriker
Prince
If I'm put into the situation where I feel like I have to use nukes, then they are very useful. They are stack busters without equal. They decimate cities that don't have SDI protection, and sometimes they decimate cities with SDI protection.
Italian Celtic
real european
is there a way to destroy enemy's SDI protection?
air attack or artillery?
air attack or artillery?
shyuhe
Deity
nukes are great in bts for stopping cultural victory. I've definitely done it more than once because I couldn't kill the AI stacks using conventional weapons fast enough. 2 nukes = nearly empty city that you can easily raze.
I miss those, except IIRC, every civ automatically declared war on you unless atrocities are voted out of the UN charter. For some reason I always loved the 'haughty' tone other leaders took on in diplomacy. Even when they were on the the brink of destruction, "We do not fear you and your planet busting weapons". I miss leaders with personality.
I miss SMAC...The other night, facing a PA of Khyber and Hannibal. Massive stacks of armies decending on me when I finished the manhattan project. I couldn't produce enough nukes to change the outcome of the war. However, the satisfaction of seeing the mushroom clouds over their capitals and the knowledge that Khyber and Hannibal needed to conquer my land because their land was radioactive was something.
I have to agree with general consensus here, ICBM are not that useful.
However the tactical nukes that you can get in BTS are very effective.
Build a couple subs, load them up with nukes, then station the subs under some ocean ice and wait until the time is right!
However the tactical nukes that you can get in BTS are very effective.
Build a couple subs, load them up with nukes, then station the subs under some ocean ice and wait until the time is right!
troytheface
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,262
those last two posts make no sense. Brownie - why did you not nuke the enemy stack invasions instead of capitols?
Party- How is a sub with tactical nukes under ice more "effective" (a weaker nuke, with shorter range) to an ICBM -stronger with unlimited range?
(unless they refer to game fun , in which case i understand both- after all , nuke'n capitols and subs under ice are more fun than a ICBM- but in so far as game mechanics/efficiency aimed to win ect i am at a loss to see the benefit the way they were implemented)
Party- How is a sub with tactical nukes under ice more "effective" (a weaker nuke, with shorter range) to an ICBM -stronger with unlimited range?
(unless they refer to game fun , in which case i understand both- after all , nuke'n capitols and subs under ice are more fun than a ICBM- but in so far as game mechanics/efficiency aimed to win ect i am at a loss to see the benefit the way they were implemented)
Under ice is better because then you have a cache of nukes that can be only attacked by a sub. Surface navel units (not to mention ground and air units) are not threats.
Also since the are based at sea and hidden they do not risk being destroyed if an enemy nukes your cities- they have a chance to be destroyed same as any other unit.
They also have a much lower chance of interception, the main reason that I consider them better.
Not to mention they are cheaper to build so you can stock up on more nukes then if you where building ICBM's.
Shorter range has never been an issue with me since a sub can sneak in close, never had a nuke destroyed while still at sea. Though I do admit I miss Tactical Nukes with unlimited range from civ3.
Cool?
I'm going to guess to weaken the stack to prevent one of his own cities from being taken over, i've done the same many times.
In case you all couldn't tell by now I am an extreamly heavy nuke user.
