ICBM overpowered?

[digitCruncher]

I put a vote for "mostly balanced / Overpowered"

Pre-SDI, Nukes are epic. Killing almost any given size of an army for just the price of 4 regular units (2 ICBMs)? Yes please!!

Post-SDI, Nukes are pathetic. Now you need to pay around 16 regular units to kill any given stack. OK... so it IS still very very strong, but with nuke bunkers, it jumps to a massive 32 regular units (16 nukes)!! (Fallout Shelters give +50% defence, not +75% defence).

So... yes. I say that Nukes are slightly overpowered. But for a weapon that comes rather late in the game, it is a nice thing to have...

That said... although ICBMs are strong, they are nothing compared to the sheer might of the Tactical nuke. OK... so it has stuff-all range. But for a tiny bit more of the price, you get up to triple the bang for your buck (after the SDI is built), than ICBMs.

If I were to tweak it, I would make it cost the same as 4 Modern Armours (about double the cost), require Aluminium AND Uranium, and give Nuke Bunkers +90% defence vs. nukes (but reduce the SDI penalty to +40% interception chance).

But finally... the ICBM labelled in game is NOTHING compared to the Hiroshima bomb. You know the Hiroshima bomb? It is a sharpened stick compared to todays modern nuclear weapons, and whats more, it STILL wiped a city off the map for a good 50 years.

IMO, nuclear weapons should be anti-city, rather than anti-unit, if only for the fact that it would be easier to balance that way. But oh well...

 

[Mad2rix]

Ugh.. I always hated them in every civ games I played.

 

[Kranden]

This thread is full of fail.

ICBMS are NOT overpowered, 25% hit rate with SDI and huge reduced damage from fallout shelters.

l2p and DO NOT stack every one of your units in a single city during the Nuclear age, spread them out among cities with fallout shelters. If your enemy is going to declare war on you with nukes he will use every nuke on a single city if your stacks there.

 

[digitCruncher]

Alas... in the nuclear age, the AI STILL stacks it's units in giant stacks. This means that nukes make the game far too easy for the human player.

The argument makes sense in a human player (That said... to take a city by force, you either need a large stack of units, or lots of bombers. The latter being a problem with 3.17, on account of the fact that anti-tanks and machine guns now ALSO have (a sizable) advantage over air units.

 

[Skell Jell]

I put a vote for "mostly balanced / Overpowered"

Pre-SDI, Nukes are epic. Killing almost any given size of an army for just the price of 4 regular units (2 ICBMs)? Yes please!!

Post-SDI, Nukes are pathetic. Now you need to pay around 16 regular units to kill any given stack. OK... so it IS still very very strong, but with nuke bunkers, it jumps to a massive 32 regular units (16 nukes)!! (Fallout Shelters give +50% defence, not +75% defence).

So... yes. I say that Nukes are slightly overpowered. But for a weapon that comes rather late in the game, it is a nice thing to have...

That said... although ICBMs are strong, they are nothing compared to the sheer might of the Tactical nuke. OK... so it has stuff-all range. But for a tiny bit more of the price, you get up to triple the bang for your buck (after the SDI is built), than ICBMs.

If I were to tweak it, I would make it cost the same as 4 Modern Armours (about double the cost), require Aluminium AND Uranium, and give Nuke Bunkers +90% defence vs. nukes (but reduce the SDI penalty to +40% interception chance).

But finally... the ICBM labelled in game is NOTHING compared to the Hiroshima bomb. You know the Hiroshima bomb? It is a sharpened stick compared to todays modern nuclear weapons, and whats more, it STILL wiped a city off the map for a good 50 years.

IMO, nuclear weapons should be anti-city, rather than anti-unit, if only for the fact that it would be easier to balance that way. But oh well...

I agree. I hate how you can keep nuking the city again and again and again and do not much damage to many buildings. I hate how you can never kill everyone in the city. I would like to have something pop up such as "You have destroyed (city name) and (blank) # of of citizens" This would be after many nukes fall on the city. Nuclear fallout should also spread disease.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I agree. I hate how you can keep nuking the city again and again and again and do not much damage to many buildings. I hate how you can never kill everyone in the city. I would like to have something pop up such as "You have destroyed (city name) and (blank) # of of citizens" This would be after many nukes fall on the city. Nuclear fallout should also spread disease.

And what scientific or game-play balance reason might you have for "fallout" (although with modern nukes the current application of it is questionable) spreading disease again?

 

[kelemvor]

ICBM overpowered? Remember the Planet Buster? Now that was a weapon to be feared. City gone, all units gone, terrain gone.

 

[Skell Jell]

The ICBM is not overpowered in ways and overpowered in others.

 

[Skell Jell]

And what scientific or game-play balance reason might you have for "fallout" (although with modern nukes the current application of it is questionable) spreading disease again?

Its there because it what a NUCLEAR weapon gives off. It comes form the NUKE. Read about it!

 

[Turquoiside]

ICBMs are almost as much as a joke as Monty; The U.N. usually comes before the AI decides to nuke a nation. The AI is too stupid to say no before they realize they want nukes, heck even have them.

 

[Skell Jell]

That's completely true. I agree.

 

[Inky]

The UN really shouldn't be able to ban nukes until someone has them. There isn't much incentive to build the Manhattan Project in the game, and the UN can ban it from being built before it starts. That don't make sense to me.

 

[Skell Jell]

I agree with your idea, Inky.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Its there because it what a NUCLEAR weapon gives off. It comes form the NUKE. Read about it!

I wonder if you shouldn't instead? Or did you just misunderstand me?

First of all, radiation poisoning isn't quite the same thing as disease, although it can contribute to some kinds of disease.

Second, while complete eradication of a city with nukes is possible with enough nukes, THAT would make them overpowered. Maybe you can picture it as some people holing up somewhere or moving back in following the carnage.

Third, do you know the extent of fallout damage? The world doesn't have a tremendous deal of experience with it, and it would be difficult to implement. Why? Radiation poisoning in the acute nuclear bomb sense would kill someone very fast - much faster than the length of ANY civ turn on any speed. Long term effects are considerable for those exposed, but note that fallout itself ALSO remains a problem for a pretty short time - what like 2 months tops usually? Sure, the people exposed during that time get radiation poisoning - but this doesn't function like a disease spread or typical unhealth - in game terms it makes more sense just just kill the pop rather than bothering with variable degrees of "unhealth".

By the way, nukes detonated before hitting the ground cause less fallout, so modern nukes would have less fallout than the ones used in Japan unless something goes wrong. The military doesn't want fallout, they want the blast to do the killing .

I do get annoyed with the often inflated fear of nuclear in general (especially power, which is amazingly ignorant but a topic for elsewhere), so I apologize if I'm coming off a bit strongly here. Still, many turns in civ game terms extend well past the time any meaningful population levels would be affected by radiation poisoning, this pop is likely represented in the amounts killed in the city, and the fallout itself ALREADY LASTS WAY, WAY LONGER THAN REAL LIFE.

There's no realistic way to do this in civ, and in fact some of the perceptions on nuclear weapons I see aren't realistic in real life terms either.

 

[Skell Jell]

I wonder if you shouldn't instead? Or did you just misunderstand me?

First of all, radiation poisoning isn't quite the same thing as disease, although it can contribute to some kinds of disease.

Second, while complete eradication of a city with nukes is possible with enough nukes, THAT would make them overpowered. Maybe you can picture it as some people holing up somewhere or moving back in following the carnage.

Third, do you know the extent of fallout damage? The world doesn't have a tremendous deal of experience with it, and it would be difficult to implement. Why? Radiation poisoning in the acute nuclear bomb sense would kill someone very fast - much faster than the length of ANY civ turn on any speed. Long term effects are considerable for those exposed, but note that fallout itself ALSO remains a problem for a pretty short time - what like 2 months tops usually? Sure, the people exposed during that time get radiation poisoning - but this doesn't function like a disease spread or typical unhealth - in game terms it makes more sense just just kill the pop rather than bothering with variable degrees of "unhealth".

By the way, nukes detonated before hitting the ground cause less fallout, so modern nukes would have less fallout than the ones used in Japan unless something goes wrong. The military doesn't want fallout, they want the blast to do the killing .

I do get annoyed with the often inflated fear of nuclear in general (especially power, which is amazingly ignorant but a topic for elsewhere), so I apologize if I'm coming off a bit strongly here. Still, many turns in civ game terms extend well past the time any meaningful population levels would be affected by radiation poisoning, this pop is likely represented in the amounts killed in the city, and the fallout itself ALREADY LASTS WAY, WAY LONGER THAN REAL LIFE.

There's no realistic way to do this in civ, and in fact some of the perceptions on nuclear weapons I see aren't realistic in real life terms either.

Ok. Not all nukes explode overhead. You would launch it at the ground not blow it up above them. Think of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. People still have effects of the atomic bombs today. Over time, in the game the effects of radiation should disappear and by 100 years they should be gone.

 

[JujuLautre]

Even the 1945's atomic bombs exploded way over the ground, you know

 

[Jimmyballz]

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.
well, just to know your opinion...

Unbalanced/Underpowered(slightly)

Unbalanced due to the range; able to attack anywhere visible on globe. It is allright for the Duel, Tiny, Small, and possibly Standard sizes, but for the Large and Huge maps the unlimited range is a bit unrealistic and therefore unbalanced.

Slightly underpowered where 3 nukes are sometimes needed to wipe out a heavily defended city. Two nukes needed can be okay, if the city has a Bomb Shelter that leaves some hurt, mutated survivors after the 1st bomb. But the 2nd nuke should finish them all. Too many times I have used more than 2 nukes on a city.

 

[Skell Jell]

Even the 1945's atomic bombs exploded way over the ground, you know

I am going to check to see if you are right.

 

[UncleJJ]

Wiki has all the basic information about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. See Atomic Bombings

The airbursts were at 600 metres and 469 metres according to that information.

 

[Skell Jell]

Wiki has all the basic information about the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombings. See Atomic Bombings

The airbursts were at 600 metres and 469 metres according to that information.

Ok. But in Hiroshima it exploded over the ground but nor up very high. Thank you UncleJJ for supporting my point.