ICBM overpowered?

[mushutoku]

Good Morning!
On nukes, again...
It seems to me the ICBM are overpowered..do not forget they can reach ANY tile on the map, and this is just umbelievable...the modern ICBMs like the Minuteman III have a range of 10,000 Km, not 40,000...you cannot, say, hit Australia with a land based ICBM from England.

Of course there are the SLBM, but these are a totally different matter: and for what I know, they do not exist in BTS, unlike they did in Civ II

And, the most annoying to me> they erase 9 (NINE) tiles! I do not know if you realize that 9 tile in this game is the size of France...or more...
just to remind tha the most powerful nuclear device ever designed by human race (Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb in 1961) was 50 Mt. When it detonated had a fireball of 4,6 Km, that is very much, but still not the size of a 9 tiles square..

well, just to know your opinion...

 

[Levgre]

Good Morning!
On nukes, again...
It seems to me the ICBM are overpowered..do not forget they can reach ANY tile on the map, and this is just umbelievable...the modern ICBMs like the Minuteman III have a range of 10,000 Km, not 40,000...you cannot, say, hit Australia with a land based ICBM from England.

Of course there are the SLBM, but these are a totally different matter: and for what I know, they do not exist in BTS, unlike they did in Civ II

And, the most annoying to me> they erase 9 (NINE) tiles! I do not know if you realize that 9 tile in this game is the size of France...or more...
just to remind tha the most powerful nuclear device ever designed by human race (Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb in 1961) was 50 Mt. When it detonated had a fireball of 4,6 Km, that is very much, but still not the size of a 9 tiles square..

well, just to know your opinion...

9 tiles isn't the size of france in this game... it is one city, or county or such.
It only has a chance to erase each of the 9 tiles, I think about 30%-40% for each. I usually get 3-4 per nuke.

And they are quite expensive compared to other military units.

But yes, they are extremely powerful before fallout shelters are built, and are still quite powerful until SDI. More so because of the damage they do to military units, not the damage they do to cities.

 

[Munch]

Unrealistic? Arguably.

Overpowered? Arguably not.

If the enemy has bomb shelters and the SDI, ICBMs certainly aren't worth the hammers (each of these reduces the ICBM effectiveness by a massive 75%, meaning that in effect you need to fire 16 to get the same effect as 1 ICBM on a target without either bomb shelters or SDI). Prior to this though, they are very powerful, and if the opponent doesn't have ecology then even more so.

So if you get there first and launch against unprepared opponents then they are devastating. However they quickly become counterable in a more effective way than any other kind of unit.

 

[Charonicus]

Well it *is* a game. Believe it or not Lincoln didn't live from 4000BC to 2050AD either. The maps aren't to any scale either, you could fit far more cities on a continent in Real Life™.
The ICBMs aren't *that* overpowered. You still have to build them. They can't capture or even destroy cities on their own. They require uranium and a late game tech to use. There are consequences, both diplomatic and otherwise for using them. Gaining access to them yourself with the Manhattan Wonder also enables them for all players simultaneously. And they are permanently and easily disabled with one simple UN resolution.
Oh and they can be shot down with the SDI and have their impact lessened by bomb shelters I think.
I'm far too lazy to go research the ranges of modern ICBMs but China has the DF-31A which allegedly has a range of over 11'200km.

 

[mushutoku]

9 tiles isn't the size of france in this game... it is one city, or county or such.



well...according to the "earth scenario", nine tile is the size of an average european country.
It is true that you can protect from their effect...the SDI is really a nightmare. I do not think the UN resolutions realy works: you can defy it!
It gives you penalities, but, hey, who cares? I am the bad guy with the bomb anyway!

OK, probably Firaxis found the way to balance all the matter...

But...there exist a way to carry a nuclear device on a submarine in BTS?

 

[Fabien]

I feel they're probably overpowered, but since the games are usually won anyway by then, it's not soo much of a problem.

I mean they're like a very heavy siege engine that can actually wipe / cripple a stack badly. Sometimes I use nukes (tactical nukes are cheaper and most of the time getting them in range is a no brainer...) to soften enemy stacks before I clean them up; one nuke is more than enough to ensure a lot of dead units (of course you need your stack nearby, but that's the whole point ).

 

[Fabien]

Aaargh, a double post....

 

[Scaramanga]

More like underpowered; nukes should wipe entire cities off the map like in real life.

 

[UncleJJ]

An ICBM unit doesn't represent just one weapon. Just like an axeman isn't a single man and an infantry unit isn't one man but a whole group maybe as much as a division of infantry (typically 10,000 to 20,000 men). So the damage an ICBM does is just as arbitrary and can't be scaled from a real life example. It's just a game mechanic to give you some flavour of nuclear war and is no more realistic than an axeman is.

 

[Ormur]

More like underpowered; nukes should wipe entire cities off the map like in real life.

They really aren't that powerful, Hiroshima is a testament to that. Lots of people died but it's still there.

But as has been said, a single ICBM could be a MIRv or many rockets, a city can be the city itself and the surrounding suburbs, hamlets and countryside, etc. etc.

The only thing that matters is whether they hurt gameplay. SDI nerfs them a lot so I don't really think so. My only real gripe the global warming mechanism.

Also you don't need a 40.000 km range to reach every place on earth, only 20.000 km.

 

[Charonicus]

But...there exist a way to carry a nuclear device on a submarine in BTS?

An odd question. Whilst in Real Life using a submarine to launch an ICBM is extremely useful (Trident II, range 11'300km seems the furthest reaching) allowing you to hit a target that would otherwise be too far away, in the game the ICBM can already hit everywhere so what advantage would there be in firing from a sub?

 

[Terpoma]

Most likely the same reason they do it in real life - to prevent your enemies from knowing where they are.

Even in BTS, the best way to prevent nuclear counter attack is to scout out ICBM locations with spies, then try and rush those cities in your first turn of attack.

So the ability to hide them on subs, as britain does in real life, would be quite handy.

That said, I don't think it's a mechanism BTS requires, and I admit I'm quite happy with the current nuclear warfare mechanics and nuances!

 

[SheaD]

I think they are underpowered.

 

[Skell Jell]

Good Morning!
On nukes, again...
It seems to me the ICBM are overpowered..do not forget they can reach ANY tile on the map, and this is just umbelievable...the modern ICBMs like the Minuteman III have a range of 10,000 Km, not 40,000...you cannot, say, hit Australia with a land based ICBM from England.

Of course there are the SLBM, but these are a totally different matter: and for what I know, they do not exist in BTS, unlike they did in Civ II

And, the most annoying to me> they erase 9 (NINE) tiles! I do not know if you realize that 9 tile in this game is the size of France...or more...
just to remind tha the most powerful nuclear device ever designed by human race (Soviet Union's Tsar Bomb in 1961) was 50 Mt. When it detonated had a fireball of 4,6 Km, that is very much, but still not the size of a 9 tiles square..

well, just to know your opinion...

Yes. Nukes have too much Power. But some should be able to traverse the whole map. I think there should be levels of Nukes such as:
Short range
Medium range
Long range

 

[King Flevance]

Another vote for underpowered here.

First, they cost so much for 1 shot that is easily avoided. (Techs that allow nuclear defense/banning come before ICBMs do generally.) It is very easy to ban them or have shelters in most if not all cities before anyone even has a nuke. So most games, on marathon at least, ICBMs are worthless upon entering the scene. If the enemy has shelters (not hard to do), the ICBM is weak. You can waste your hammers on them if you wish, but I would invest in bombers and ground forces myself. Then when you take the city you don't have to repair surrounding land to boot.

As for fallout, its easily fixed with the workers usually in the nearby area. So the only time ICBMs can truly be seen as powerful, is when you have a large enough tech lead - which can be said for any unit in the game.

I think nukes should do something like:
Destroy 2-4 infrastructure and 1-2 population as well as regular damage to units on the tile but with a twist. If you have enough nukes hit that destroy all the population and all the infrastructure in the city (excluding bomb shelters), the city is destroyed to 'ruins'. This makes stacks of nukes that hit able to wipe a city off the map entirely. Maybe not the units on the tile but the city. However, range becomes much shorter than it currently is to balance this. I much preferred when nuclear weaponry was a threat in the old days of civ 1-3. Many things have become less effective in the new model and I don't fear nukes anymore in 4.

 

[Skell Jell]

I respect your opinion

 

[Inky]

9 tiles isn't the size of france in this game... it is one city, or county or such.



well...according to the "earth scenario", nine tile is the size of an average european country.
It is true that you can protect from their effect...the SDI is really a nightmare. I do not think the UN resolutions realy works: you can defy it!
It gives you penalities, but, hey, who cares? I am the bad guy with the bomb anyway!

OK, probably Firaxis found the way to balance all the matter...

But...there exist a way to carry a nuclear device on a submarine in BTS?

Nukes are balanced by cost and defenses. Prior to SDI, bomb shelters cut down much of the devastation, though they still do enough damage. Even without that (and the AI will build them), nukes can't take cities. You can mess up the enemy economy, but won't do much permanent harm unless you can follow up quickly with conventional military.

They are the ultimate stack destroyer. Two nukes on a stack pretty much toasts anything, unless reduced by bomb shelters or SDI.

A single nuclear unit in Civ probably represents a squadron of MIRV missiles, based on the damage. How big is a city in CIV exactly? It depends on the map, but it represents a good portion of many European nations on a standard size map.


Tactical nukes can be carried on submarines (regular, not attack subs), and missile cruisers. While the range is small, they are hard for SDI to intercept. Best of all, they are invisible when loaded. The enemy can find your ships, but can't see which ones have missiles on them. Subs under the ice are immune to anything other than subs (and cruise missiles).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

They're pretty balanced. They won't be a factor in all games (which prevents an overpowering argument to a large extent) because of SDI, banning, diplomacy, or other reasons like winning before they're around (or functionally doing so).

However, you DO get those games where Monty has 30 cities and 100+ unit stacks, but isn't keeping up with you in techs.

Nothing, there's nothing in the game that can utterly flatten rifles, cavalry, and even infantry in 100+ man stacks faster than 2-3 nukes. They can completely obliterate that stack, allowing you to vault into enemy cities with minimal resistance. Against smaller empires they'll capitulate pretty quick after getting their SoD wiped out and losing a city or two.

As for it being "realistic" that a nuke would wipe out a city - I suggest some fact checking.

Fireaxis could use some too, before they implemented the idiotic meltdown chances on nuclear plants, which serve neither balance nor realism (there was only ONE meltdown in history that caused meaningful damage outside of just losing the plant, and it wasn't anywhere NEAR what a nuclear bomb would have done in terms of damage! Based on history the chance of a meltdown is EXTREMELY EXAGGERATED in civ IV, as is the damage (hydro power and coal power kill more people than nuclear). And in terms of balance? Who uses nuke plants? So why nerf them to hell again?

 

[dozenlong]

I wanted to voice my agreement that units in civ represent an arbitrary number of said units which scales relative to civ and world size. One infantry is not one single soldier, nor is one nuke one single nuclear weapon. Consider it regional strike, it appears.

I think nukes should have a wipe the city off of the map option as well, to create real fear and hatred for using them.

 

[Skell Jell]

You all have good ideas.