ICBM joy!

[OmniMower]

Hey Thisismysn20 and everybody else!
Is it me or doesnt the AI take the Nuke threat seriously? I think it was in Civ1 you allways got a AI to give you a Peace Treaty option if you possesed Nuklaer Weapons.

maybe its me....hehe....

 

[thisismysn20]

I agree, I don't think they take them seriously enough. If you have 2-3 nuke's and another country has 20-30... and the first country uses both nukes... WTH?

That would never happen in real life but it does happen in the game. Plus the game doesn't differentiate between nukes and conventional weapons. So it doesn't have just a one type of war, instead it blends the wars.

Oh well, what can you do... wait for ptw

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by smallstepforman
I hope you had enough nukes for everyone else.

I know it's old, but I just had to say that this cracked me up.

"I hope you brought enough for everyone!"

 

[kb2tvl]

in the latter stages of the game, I seem to fight one enemy with constant nuking and the last player with sdi/nukes. The civ has no fear when it comes to nukes. They dont seem to care and if you are poised to win, it does not matter much either.

 

[bburke40]

Does anyone have a theory on whether or not having a batch of tactical nukes or ICBMs is recognized by the AI? If it's recognized (spying) does it act as a deterrent to AI aggression?

Seems like once I built a few ICBMs the agression level against me dropped off quite a bit.

CIV left once I got ICBMs (Iroquois, England, Zulu, France, America)

 

[hbdragon88]

I think it ties in well with how many soliders you have. If you have a huge army then they'll leave you alone. If you have a lot of nukes they'll also leave you alone. The AI cheats, at least on higher levels, so they know a lot about you and they'll step off the aggression if they know you have a lot of nukes.

This is just a theory - so it may be wrong...

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I had SDI built and was invading Persia when they shot off about sixteen nukes at me. Exactly one got through. Nobody had shot a nuke in the game yet, but I sure had a stockpile ready. I fired one at every one of there cities, and guess what, they didn't have SDI yet! Jackass AI!!! Didn't take long to kill them.

If the realism of nukes bothers you, pretend they are nuetron bombs or, like me, I pretend that the nukes are REAL bombs and that the bombers are CATAPULTS!!!

 

[hbdragon88]

Yeah, the AI never has built SDI before in my games! I hit six cities in one war after they spun me with 3 nukes aimed at my former capital. One got through, slashed my pop in half, killed my most valuable units (left me w/ longbowmen and all), damaged the improvements list, and left be without RRs and lots of polution. They didn't have SDI and each one struck with catastrohpic effects.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

In that same game, Aztecs did build SDI and it did foil alot of my plans. During an invasion I once had to nuke a square I controlled just to weaken their tank column. After capturing half of their cities including the capital, they still had SDI! Only once they were isolated on an island did I able to finish them with nukes+paratrooper landing. The AI will build SDI if it has time, in that particular game I was playing Conquest only victory so no spaceship to worry about. And after all those nukes, we were seeing twenty spaces a turn succumb to global warming, the planet ended up looking like Tattoine...

 

[Phoenix]

ELK- Have you research Satellites (I think that is the right tech) as you need this to build ICBMs. You should though be able to build Nuclear Subs.

Particle-I normaly land enough offencive troops to take out most/all of the enemy without needing reinforcments as I am a big believer of hitting them hard and above all FAST. Hit them fast enough and they cannot get anybody else in on the war.

 

[soyerabtu]

Heh - I recall one time using 38 nukes in one turn. Needless to say, I was never EVER forgiven for what I did. I should load the game up and post the pic sometime - the entire earth is a large desert.

Trav

 

[hbdragon88]

No MPPs, no ROPs no trades? I would hate that. It's already bad enough that they are so stupid as to offer unfair deals, but now they have to refuse to trade? One time I tinkered with a game to give myself a huge advantage. I had control over half the world, with an awesome tech lead (they were still medieval when I was exploding into Rocketry) and Iriquois come up to me and tell me that tell me that I only exist because they let me to. Like yeah right!

 

[DB_Terror]

I haven't used nukes yet but am getting curious now. Do nukes harm your overall score?

 

[epscilon]

I thought it did affedt your overall score. In CIV 2 you used to get penalised for each square that had pollution. Is that the case in CIV 3? I don't remember seeing the score taken down for pollution ever in CIV 3 or does it just happen on the higher levels?

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Epscilon - sadly it is not a factor in score. For one thing, instead of your score being a frozen picture of a single turn, score is now averaged through the life of the game. So even if you were hit by 30 nukes in 2049 the resulting pollution and even citizen loss would do little to your score. Much less to fear.

It could be argued that the consequence of global warming and desertification will lower your total potential population, but again, that would only be a factor if you had all victory conditions turned off or were very bad at conquest.

 

[hbdragon88]

If you got hit by 30 nukes your score would be affected vastly. There'd be less happy and content citizens - depending how many were happy. Nukes kill half the pop and it's not all the unhappy ones, I'm sure. But pollution doesn't affect your score so that's something not to worry about.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

Pollution if left unchecked would kill nearby citizens off through starvation. Global warming in the game replaces fertiller tiles with less fertile ones meaning you would support fewer citizens in the long run.

Again, I prefer the challenge and the moral of Civ2 pollution: ten points off per square and it looks like skulls instead of marmalade...

 

[hbdragon88]

So you didn't use nukes at all in Civ2 or what? From what I heard the fallout effects on use of nukes in Civ2 was devestating enough to provide nuclear deterrence for yourself

Speaking of ICBMs I think it's unrealistic for the Manhattan Project to be able for ALL civs to build nukes. Soviets only managed to explode an a-bomb b/c they infiltrated the MP. And only a handful of nations have them: India, Pakistan, Iraq, US, and Russia, from what I know - I'm wrong, probably.

 

[Sultan Bhargash]

I very rarely used nukes in Civ2, unless 1. I had had them used against me, and 2. I was confident that I could take out the city I was nuking with paratroopers (back then nukes cleared out all units and you could paratroop right in and capture the city) and hold it long enough to clean up the pollution. It did make it more realistic than Civ3 in that regard because you just wouldn't hit the button on something that was going to cause you 80 points of pollution damage if left undealt with.

You are right about Manhattan project, Hb. The thing is, though, that other civs might not be advanced enough on the tech tree to actually make the nukes, or they might not have the resources/population/infrastructure to do it quickly.

As someone posted in the other forum, anyone getting the Manhattan Project in Civ2 it was like the horn of the apocalypse blowing. Very scary. You fought tooth and claw to make sure it wouldnt happen or researched your assets off trying to get SDI.

 

[Pi Seti]

I found i could get away with using Nukes if I had made a coalition against a certain nation. Once the nukes fell, my allies wouldn't mind at all, and neither would any civs I was at peace with after long wars.