ICBM overpowered?

[Roller123]

Soviet Satan rocket has a range of 16.000km, 10x500Kt mirv. (Hiroshima was 1x15Kt) Plus, they are mobile and Russia isnt small. So yes, ICBMs can reach every tile on the planet. Our planet at least. For quite an impact.

In the game i think they are spectacular, but very underpowered. Bomb shelter to protect against a nuke? Thats just not realistic at all. sure it can protect people maybe. but people are of no use, if there is no city above, which is turned entirely to dust. SDI giving 75% nuke protection. Thats even more unrealistic.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's only 75% from ICBMs. Tac nukes fare much better.

Nukes can't be any stronger without ruining balance. As they are, getting them first with a decent window = game over. EVERYTHING BEFORE THEM DIES INSTANTLY. Shaka's 100 unit stack? Gone in a flash. To 2 tac nukes that cost a laughable fraction of the hammers. Every city follows.

 

[ventrue]

Tactical nukes are great for capturing 6 or 7 cities on or near the coast in 1 turn. You just load up 2 missile cruisers with 8 tacticals, load a sub with 3 more, bring 2 transports of Mechs, 2 transports of Modern Armor, 2 transports of Mobile Sams and 2 transports of Mobile Artilleries for each city you are going to attack.

Unfortunately, the game has usually already been decided by then. I will sometimes play on after the game is over and kill off my enemies just for fun.

 

[Roller123]

Yes, they are currently the usual decent "window" weapon. Not the unique endgame weapon, they are supposed to be. It is way too easy to defend against. Having anti-nuke defence running should really hurt the player, so he actually would do something to eliminate the thread, either by making pacts or disabling the potential enemy. As for now its a build&forget tactic. Which is very strange considering how powerful nuclear weapons are, how difficult to intercept, and how they significantly influence the course of history.

 

[LukeUeda-Sarson]

With regard to ICBM range, the only reason modern ICBMs have a range, as such, is that orbital systems have been banned by treaty. It isn't all that hard to put a weapon into orbit; from such a position it can be dropped anywhere you like with a minimal amount of thrust.

 

[Roller123]

Earth rotation disagrees. The only reason ICBM have a range is because it is unnecessary to create rockets which can reach Antarctica. But still possible. A stationary Satan rocket based near lets say Moscow, can already reach everything important. And that includes Sydney, Buenos Aires and aircarriers. American rockets use inferior technology, but still 10'000km is more than enough.

 

[malfuriouspete]

someone earlier mentioned Nukes and Subs.

Can I put tactical nukes in missinle subs?? or only guided missiles in them?

 

[Skell Jell]

Soviet Satan rocket has a range of 16.000km, 10x500Kt mirv. (Hiroshima was 1x15Kt) Plus, they are mobile and Russia isnt small. So yes, ICBMs can reach every tile on the planet. Our planet at least. For quite an impact.

In the game i think they are spectacular, but very underpowered. Bomb shelter to protect against a nuke? Thats just not realistic at all. sure it can protect people maybe. but people are of no use, if there is no city above, which is turned entirely to dust. SDI giving 75% nuke protection. Thats even more unrealistic.

There should be fallout shelters to stop nukes not bomb shelters.

 

[PieceOfMind]

someone earlier mentioned Nukes and Subs.

Can I put tactical nukes in missinle subs?? or only guided missiles in them?

Yes you can put tactical nukes in subs. Tactical nukes are far more useful than ICBMs, particularly if you have better navy than your enemy and especially if they have built the SDI.

Generally speaking, 2 tactical nukes will wipe out every unit on a tile (same as ICBMs). The exception is when there is a bomb shelter IIRC.

To the OP, no, the ICBM is not overpowered. Any references to real life missiles are going to be largely pointless due to the abstraction in this game. Even the area of effect you are referring to scales. If you play a tiny terra map and a huge terra map would you consider tiles to represent the same area?

Concerns about their effect on gameplay are far more important than any real life considerations when considering whether ICBMs are overpowered or not.

EDIT: The reason tactical nukes are better than ICBMs once SDI has been built is that they have a far better chance of getting through AND they cost half as much. Only waste hammers on ICBMs if you are (a) lazy or (b) landlocked or have a really bad navy.

I think I was really tired when I posted this. Fixed a few typos.

 

[Skell Jell]

Yes you can put tactical missiles in subs. Tactical subs are far more useful than ICBMs, particularly if you have better navy than your enemy and especially if they have built the SDI.

Generally speaking, 2 tactical missiles will wipe out every unit on a tile (same as ICBMs). The exception is when there is a bomb shelter IIRC.

To the OP, no, the ICBM is not overpowered. Any references to real life missiles are going to be largely pointless due to the abstraction in this game. Even the area of effect you are referring to scales. If you play a tiny terra map and a huge terra map would you consider tiles to represent the same area?

Concerns about their effect on gameplay are far more important than any real life considerations when considering whether ICBMs are overpowered or not.

The ICBM should have a short range and Long range. Tactical nukes are more effective because you can nuke the civ from a closer distance with more effect.

 

[Negator_UK]

Nukes are balanced out by the fact that the other side can have them too.....

 

[sheep21]

The ICBM should have a short range and Long range. Tactical nukes are more effective because you can nuke the civ from a closer distance with more effect.

erm,mate.

what does ICBM stand for... wait for it. InterContinental Balistic Missile they are meant to be long range.

Agree the need for tactical Nukes, although why smaller yeild, shorter range missiles should be more powerful than ICBM's I do not know.

 

[whitelaughter]

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.

No, no it didn't. It destroyed half the buildings, and killed about 140K of a population of 255K. (So, about what a Civ nuke does.) The city was promptly rebuild after the war.
RW, the nukes were minor compared to firebombing.

A point that hasn't been considered yet - nukes are an endgame weapons. They are for when you are racing the clock, trying to avoid someone else's time/diplomatic victory. So they have to be powerful to even matter.; and the damage they do doesn't matter much because that city only has a few turns of building left anyway.

 

[IPEX-731BA5DD06]

yeah yeah, and tank can't run for thousands of Km's or Helicopter fly hat far, it a game nor real life....some things are going to be overpowered and some not...SDI is TOO ACCURATE...

 

[InigoMontoya]

I vote underpowered. I spend 10+ turns in one of my best production cities to do nothing but decrease the enemy population by 4 or 5 (at most) and erase 3 or 4 improvements, which they can scrub and rebuild in 20 turns/tile!

 

[Joshua368]

I vote underpowered. I spend 10+ turns in one of my best production cities to do nothing but decrease the enemy population by 4 or 5 (at most) and erase 3 or 4 improvements, which they can scrub and rebuild in 20 turns/tile!

You need better production cities. You should be able to build them in 2-3 turns easy in your ironworks city at least.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I vote underpowered. I spend 10+ turns in one of my best production cities to do nothing but decrease the enemy population by 4 or 5 (at most) and erase 3 or 4 improvements, which they can scrub and rebuild in 20 turns/tile!

You don't use them for that. You use one to turn a stack of 70+ units into a stack of 30 very, very badly damaged units, and 2 to kill just about all of them.

Just in case you were ever wondering how to deal with shaka and his stacks over 100 cavalry, this is your answer. Doesn't seem like such a waste then.

 

[PieceOfMind]

You don't use them for that. You use one to turn a stack of 70+ units into a stack of 30 very, very badly damaged units, and 2 to kill just about all of them.

Just in case you were ever wondering how to deal with shaka and his stacks over 100 cavalry, this is your answer. Doesn't seem like such a waste then.

Quoted for truth. The sole reason I use nukes these days is to wipe out large stacks like this. Often at peace the AI keeps their massive stack in one of their border cities. If you can find out which one, you can plant two tactical nukes on the first turn of war to pretty much guarantee you the victory. Since tactical nukes are both cheaper and more likely to get through the SDI, there is hardly ever any reason to buiild an ICBM at all. Remember you can launch them from forts as well as submarines. I can't remember if you can from friendly cities.

I wish there was more discussion about the tactical nuke than the ICBM. These sorts of nukes should be used tactically anyway and would you pick 20 nukes or 10 nukes to have in your stockpile? (Yes tacticals are half the price).

 

[civ_king]

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?

Here is a little tip, they built it so you could run it fine if you met the minimum specs for BTS...