Dropping the Bomb in Civ6

[SupremacyKing2]

IGN video explains how nukes work in civ6.

There are two nukes in the game, atomic bombs and thermonuclear bombs. They not just do physical damage but also add radioactivity to surrounding tiles for 10 to 20 turns which will damage units that enter those tiles.

Nukes are not units. They are launched from missile silos (tile improvement) or subs. I love the animation of launching a missile from a sub.

There is no defense against nukes in civ6.

The thermonuclear bomb is OMG!

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

I wonder if nukes mean you do not wan't to get to the end game if you are hated by everyone because they are going to nuke you. It mean diplomacy may be more important then in older games if you are unable to keep the other civs from getting uranium.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

The tool tip for AA gun and Mobile same specifically say it provides cover against air and nuclear attacks. Some defence is possible.

It would make sense that AA and Mobile SAM can shoot down bombers and we saw in BAStartGaming's LP that you can use nukes from bombers. So maybe that is what the tooltip is referencing? I am guessing that AA and SAM can't shoot down ICBMs from missile silos or subs.

 

[redwings1340]

Those animations though. I don't normally pay that much attention to art, but those poor cities that were hit by a nuke really makes you feel for the devastation they cause. So many buildings and improvements in rubble.

Nuclear missiles sound very powerful, as they should be. I wonder if using nuclear missiles gets you treated differently diplomatically than just engaging in regular war. I imagine using nukes in the atomic and information eras should give you severe diplomatic penalties.

 

[Cyon]

Looks awesome!!!
I hope spies can sabotage bombs or at least warn you about which civs that have nukes. They probably still stay that their words are backed by nuclear weapons!

Sent from my Redmi Note 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

So it's actually an ability performed by Bombers, Nuclear Subs, and Silos? Is it constrained by the quantity of Uranium you have on hand?

 

[kampori]

Those animations though. I don't normally pay that much attention to art, but those poor cities that were hit by a nuke really makes you feel for the devastation they cause. So many buildings and improvements in rubble.

Nuclear missiles sound very powerful, as they should be. I wonder if using nuclear missiles gets you treated differently diplomatically than just engaging in regular war. I imagine using nukes in the atomic and information eras should give you severe diplomatic penalties.

In Civ 5, the AI reacted very strongly to nukes. Just building one makes them all fear you. Using a nuke, even in a war someone declared against you, will cause almost every Civ to denounce you. Even staunch allies you've had for the whole game.
And having used a nuke, the AI will almost definitely vote for nuclear proliferation in the next UN vote, and almost all will vote for it.

So I imagine 6 would carry this on.

 

[Zenstrive]

whittle your enemies to their last cities, and nuke them for fully sadistic victory

 

[fmm]

It would make sense that AA and Mobile SAM can shoot down bombers and we saw in BAStartGaming's LP that you can use nukes from bombers. So maybe that is what the tooltip is referencing? I am guessing that AA and SAM can't shoot down ICBMs from missile silos or subs.

I doubt the tooltips would say "provides nuclear cover" if they could only cover against nukes deployed via bombers.

Anyways seems like this IGN video is wrong in several points (i.e. they mention silos and subs but not bombers as a way to deliver nukes).

 

[King Jason]

Mildly related: I've never actually fired a single Nuclear Weapon in civ5.

Never got why Nukes had such an appeal.

 

[Suho1004]

This is probably going to sound silly, but... after visiting Hiroshima I have not been able to bring myself to use nuclear weapons in Civ. Yeah, it's just a game, and nukes are just tools to win like any other. I know that. And I know that conventional warfare is also pretty horrible, yet I don't really have a problem with running a spearman over with a tank. Maybe it's the detailed animation for a nuke? Normal combat in Civ feels quite abstracted, but nuclear warfare... it just conjures up too many images I'd honestly rather not remember.

 

[Veras]

Ironically, Japanese cities could be extremelly vulnerable to nukes for being so close from one another

 

[qadams]

Mildly related: I've never actually fired a single Nuclear Weapon in civ5.

Never got why Nukes had such an appeal.

I'm with you. I used a nuke once in a simple game merely to see what it looked like, but then never again. I can't stomach the RL implications.

 

[Krajzen]

I very rarely use nuclear weapons because I roleplay being 'rather good guys' or 'cynical but not that evil empire' and in civ5 using nukes translates to the genocide of 7 civilian pops. Really hard to justify from roleplaying perspective

By the way...
There is NO DEFENSE against them?!

 

[need my speed]

By the way...
There is NO DEFENSE against them?!

The very first reply in this thread...

The tool tip for AA gun and Mobile same specifically say it provides cover against air and nuclear attacks. Some defence is possible.

 

[Metecury]

I hope Russia gets a TZAR bomba UU, can't wait to purge the land with nuclear fire!

 

[Ryika]

That animation... AWEfreakingSOME.

No word about diplomatic penalties though. I hoped they would return, but it appears nuclear endgame will play out like it did in Civ 5 - nuke to win. Bummer.

 

[cazaderonus]

Mildly related: I've never actually fired a single Nuclear Weapon in civ5.

Never got why Nukes had such an appeal.

Well, they're pretty usefull to wrap up a domination victory when you screwed up and missed you tech advantage window. On Deity, it helped me real good a few times.

Also, it's an efficient defensive tool when a carpet of doom shows up.

 

[GermanSettler]

I like that when two civs have a thermonuclear arsenal and use it against each other, it basically means mutual assured destruction.

 

[benjamin28]

This is probably going to sound silly, but... after visiting Hiroshima I have not been able to bring myself to use nuclear weapons in Civ. Yeah, it's just a game, and nukes are just tools to win like any other. I know that. And I know that conventional warfare is also pretty horrible, yet I don't really have a problem with running a spearman over with a tank. Maybe it's the detailed animation for a nuke? Normal combat in Civ feels quite abstracted, but nuclear warfare... it just conjures up too many images I'd honestly rather not remember.

Even though I've never been to Hiroshima, I get what you mean: I only used a nuke once, and not even because I needed to. I just wanted to see what happened. And then the animation of the explosion appeared and "Field of poppies" started being played in the background. It was horrifying. I know, you have to do a lot of horrifying things during a game, but, as you said, this felt very graphic and touching.