ICBM sucks?

[CivNoobie]

Charlemagne declared war on me and took 4 of my cities in about 15 turns. my cities were under-defended and I was aiming for a tech victory. He had cavalry and infantry while I had guided missiles.

So I finally finished my Manhatten project and decided to nuke his capital city Aachen....one bomb goes down, another, then another one then finally another one. His city population went from 11 down to 4 after all those nukes....

let's face it...Nukes are supposed to be the weapon that decides the fate of the game. I can't imagine how all those nukes can't decimate even a medium sized city. And no, he does not have nuke shelters since he was in Industrial Age and I was in future age.

Tactical nukes suck as well p.s.

 

[xenex]

If nukes were insta-win in this game there would be little point to the game after someone gets them, there would be no point to space and anyone going for it would be stupid to do so.

There are many playability reasons some things in this game don't work like they do in the real world. How the hell does a caveman with a club beat a trained soldier with a bow?

Gameplay before reality, if after that you can make the gameplay more realistic then that's a bonus.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

I never build them, on account of making sure I get the UN and pass the no-nuke resolution. More trouble than they're worth - they're not cheap - and, though not as much as in RL, nuclear war scenarios are just too unpredictable.

I would like to see better nuclear logic in the game that would make the late period more fun. A graduated improvement in yields, ranges and accuracy might help, especially range, but there is one deep flaw, why are ICBMs based in cities? They should be in dedicated silo complexes or - if SLBMs - on subs.

That immediately starts to fire up Cold War game theory. Provided launched ICBMs have a chance of destroying others before they are launched, you are into counterstrike, as opposed to countercity - logic. And the need for early warning systems. It gets very byzantine. To make this work, tho, you would have to make ICBMs much more fearsome when used against civilian/industrial targets. So I guess that would address the OP's point. Though in a very complex way.

 

[Sueff]

So bringing a city down from 11 to 4 pop, killing every unit in the city's and its adjacent squares while rendering all surrounding area (almost) useless to work really sounds underpowered.

 

[SyntaxError]

If nukes were insta-win in this game there would be little point to the game after someone gets them, there would be no point to space and anyone going for it would be stupid to do so.

There are many playability reasons some things in this game don't work like they do in the real world. How the hell does a caveman with a club beat a trained soldier with a bow?

Gameplay before reality, if after that you can make the gameplay more realistic then that's a bonus.

Heh, how are Indian workers faster than any horse unit?

 

[AdamCrock]

I loved the system that was implemented in SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri .... ah the good memories!) ^^ It wasn't really that stupid to go for Transcendental Victory (something equivalent of a Space Race in Civ 4 - for those unfamiliar with SMAC) Even when the "Quantum Planet Busters" were so powerfull that they could actually "terraform" mountain ranges into deep ocean. Anything in the 4 tile radius of a Quantum Planet Buster (BANG! WHOOOSH!) It's deep ocean now ... hence the name "Planet Buster" In Civ 4 nukes are really underpowered and broken imho ... Not even a lousy global warming ... meh ... not worth it I Agree with the OP Nuke in Civ 4 really does suck a big time (Tactical's are pretty decent tho)

EDIT: Of course using such a device like "Planet Buster" in SMAC was considered a SERIOUS Atrocity and an act of war against all of mankind. It has also placed one using Planet Buster in war with all of the remaining factions (civ's) with virtually no chance for peace untill the ofender was completly eliminated.... but it was fun nonetheless to see that nearly all cities of one faction completly eliminated along with a big chunk of a continend our victim was placed upon

 

[xenex]

I would like to see better nuclear logic in the game that would make the late period more fun. A graduated improvement in yields, ranges and accuracy might help, especially range, but there is one deep flaw, why are ICBMs based in cities? They should be in dedicated silo complexes or - if SLBMs - on subs.

So True!

Reading what you posted I came up with a few ideas in my head. A new tile improvement "Silo"" When missiles are launched from this improvement they have X% of not being intercepted. Nukes set here can not be destroyed or explode accidentally. (although the improvement itself can be destroyed, which will require you to defend it with soldiers). Silo can be built outside cultural boundaries.

If based in cities they have an inherit chance of accidentally going off,doing half the damage it would do if it were launched. This chance is increased each time the city is attacked by a Heavy attack (Tank,Modern Armor,Units that can bombard city defenses etc) the chance is increased a lot more when attacked by missile type units.

 

[Jastrow]

Hiroshima was a relatively small city (150K people or so). Droping a bomb on it killed about half the population.

You droped 3 bombs on a capital (i.e a much bigger city), and killed 2/3 of its people.

That does not sound that for off, historically speaking...

Indeed, when you include the damage in-game nukes do to millitary in-game, they are actually over-powered, not under-powered, compared to their real world counterparts.

 

[AdamCrock]

Hiroshima was a relatively small city (150K people or so). Droping a bomb on it killed about half the population.

You droped 3 bombs on a capital (i.e a much bigger city), and killed 2/3 of its people.

That does not sound that for off, historically speaking...

Indeed, when you include the damage in-game nukes do to millitary in-game, they are actually over-powered, not under-powered, compared to their real world counterparts.

hmmm.... It all depends on what kind of bomb we are talking about... "Fat Man" (Bomb from Hiroshima) was rather experimental device for it's time + it was an Atomic/Nuclear bomb (aka. A-Bomb) dropped by an aircraft. Let's say it was a tactical nuke... Not happy to say it was but a small time toy in comparison for Hydrogen/Nuclear bombs in G8's arsenal known as the H-Bomb - mounted on a huge missile that fly as far as to space and back.

Remember we're talking an ICBM missile which stands for InterContinental Balistic Missile . Now taking that into consideration using such a device in the real world would result in blasting a hole so dang! deep that it would make a Grand Canyon look little bit shallow ......

 

[gja102]

I loved the system that was implemented in SMAC (Sid Meier's Alpha Centauri .... ah the good memories!) ^^ It wasn't really that stupid to go for Transcendental Victory (something equivalent of a Space Race in Civ 4 - for those unfamiliar with SMAC) Even when the "Quantum Planet Busters" were so powerfull that they could actually "terraform" mountain ranges into deep ocean.

Yeah the Planet Busters in SMAC were great, you actually had the feeling that you had genuine, continent-destroying power.

Also, in my experience, they didn't even unbalance the game - both AI and humans using them as 'last resort' weapons rather than a viable victory strategy (due to cost, every Civ turning on you as a mass-murderer, etc). So I don't fully understand the argument that you can't have cities being destroyed due to gameplay reasons.

 

[Ghpstage]

ICBMs only suck when compared to the much better tactical nukes in this game. And the reason for that is that tacticals bizarrely have the same firepower for half the cost, and their evasion chance makes them more than 4 times as cost effective when facing SDI.
They are just meant to be used against unit stacks rather than cities in this game, of course units defending cities are fair game too. Just make sure you follow nukes up with units to take the empty cities they leave behind.

More trouble than they're worth - they're not cheap - and, though not as much as in RL, nuclear war scenarios are just too unpredictable.

When used correctly they are very cheap. 2 tactical nukes costing a less than 4 infantry units can effectively wipe out stacks of any size when SDI and bunkers aren't in play, and when they are its not going to take enough more to make wiping out a 40-100+ unit stack look expensive!

As for unpredictability, as this is a turn based game where nukes can only be launched on a players turn, M.A.D simply doesn't exist, meaning against AIs you can reliably wipe out a civ in its entirity in a single turn using nukes and paratroopers in many games, or inflict enough damage to force capitulation on the next turn or at least prevent any significant counterstrike.

 

[Doctor Phibes]

Hiroshima was a relatively small city (150K people or so). Droping a bomb on it killed about half the population.

You droped 3 bombs on a capital (i.e a much bigger city), and killed 2/3 of its people.

That does not sound that for off, historically speaking...

Indeed, when you include the damage in-game nukes do to millitary in-game, they are actually over-powered, not under-powered, compared to their real world counterparts.

Except that Hiroshima/Nagasaki involved weapons of around 20kt. Those would simply count as theatre weapons by Cold War standards. Contemporary weapons typically yield about 500kt or so. And then there's MIRV, which really multiplies things up, though it's largely phased out now. (The US has no MIRVed land-based missiles any more and it seems likely that this will soon be true for SLBMs too. Happier days, phew...)

For real fireworks, there's always the Tsar Bomba at 50,000kt. Just a crowdpleaser in reality, but the nearest thing to SMAC's Planetbuster:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_bomba

So True!

Reading what you posted I came up with a few ideas in my head. A new tile improvement "Silo"" When missiles are launched from this improvement they have X% of not being intercepted. Nukes set here can not be destroyed or explode accidentally. (although the improvement itself can be destroyed, which will require you to defend it with soldiers). Silo can be built outside cultural boundaries.

If based in cities they have an inherit chance of accidentally going off,doing half the damage it would do if it were launched. This chance is increased each time the city is attacked by a Heavy attack (Tank,Modern Armor,Units that can bombard city defenses etc) the chance is increased a lot more when attacked by missile type units.

Yeah, this sounds pretty good. It does have the idea of placing silos in remote spots to avoid collateral city damage. But it is essential, in replicating Cold War logic, to have nukes capable of killing nukes - the silos themselves have to be targettable...

[...]

When used correctly they are very cheap. 2 tactical nukes costing a less than 4 infantry units can effectively wipe out stacks of any size when SDI and bunkers aren't in play, and when they are its not going to take enough more to make wiping out a 40-100+ unit stack look expensive!

As for unpredictability, as this is a turn based game where nukes can only be launched on a players turn, M.A.D simply doesn't exist, meaning against AIs you can reliably wipe out a civ in its entirity in a single turn using nukes and paratroopers in many games, or inflict enough damage to force capitulation on the next turn or at least prevent any significant counterstrike.

Some good points there. I guess by the late game, I'm either idly watching my cultural boundaries explode outwards or I'm rolling merrily over the opposition with modern armor. Either way it's just a little stroll in the park really, while waiting for the win. Nukes make a godawful mess and spoil my mood. But as regards cheapness, don't forget that ICBMs are not reusable. Changes the cost equation, and of course, no promotions. I do agree that tac nukes are pretty cost-effective though.

By unpredictability, I meant diplomatic repercussions, though I admit they are not strong in Civ4 compared with SMAC.

 

[AdamCrock]

Interesting fact about "Tsar Bomba" (or the Emperor Bomb) is that if it were to be detonated at initially planned 100Mt yield it would have a great chance to change original planet Earth's orbit

 

[xenex]

hmmm.... It all depends on what kind of bomb we are talking about... "Fat Man" (Bomb from Hiroshima) was rather experimental device for it's time + it was an Atomic/Nuclear bomb (aka. A-Bomb) dropped by an aircraft. Let's say it was a tactical nuke... Not happy to say it was but a small time toy in comparison for Hydrogen/Nuclear bombs in G8's arsenal known as the H-Bomb - mounted on a huge missile that fly as far as to space and back.

Remember we're talking an ICBM missile which stands for InterContinental Balistic Missile . Now taking that into consideration using such a device in the real world would result in blasting a hole so dang! deep that it would make a Grand Canyon look little bit shallow ......

Indeed, when we see the ICBM's in the game we should think more of current day nukes, capable of changing the world with just a few.

Yeah, this sounds pretty good. It does have the idea of placing silos in remote spots to avoid collateral city damage. But it is essential, in replicating Cold War logic, to have nukes capable of killing nukes - the silos themselves have to be targettable...

The Silo building itself would be destroyed by nukes, once the building is destroyed you could destroy the nuke stack with nukes, not only setting off the targeted nuke but possibly the whole stack.

 

[Ataxerxes]

hmmm.... It all depends on what kind of bomb we are talking about... "Fat Man" (Bomb from Hiroshima) was rather experimental device for it's time + it was an Atomic/Nuclear bomb (aka. A-Bomb) dropped by an aircraft. Let's say it was a tactical nuke... Not happy to say it was but a small time toy in comparison for Hydrogen/Nuclear bombs in G8's arsenal known as the H-Bomb - mounted on a huge missile that fly as far as to space and back.

Remember we're talking an ICBM missile which stands for InterContinental Balistic Missile . Now taking that into consideration using such a device in the real world would result in blasting a hole so dang! deep that it would make a Grand Canyon look little bit shallow ......

Sorry to be a stickler, but the more experimental "Fat Man" was the Nagasaki bomb which was twice as strong as the bomb that hit Hiroshima (which they were sure would work). Hiroshima bomb (Little Boy) did more damage because it hit where it was supposed to - Fat Man was a little off target.

It's true that the more modern ICBM's would do a lot more damage.

 

[Alchemind]

For the same amount of hammers of two modern armor, a nuke will halve a population, damage all enemy units on a tile, create 4-5 tiles of fallout rendering tiles useless and decimate the cities health to where they rapidly starve to death.


I don't know how anyone could ever consider nukes weak. You seem to emphasize how weak it is compared to real nukes, but we're playing a video game where players prefer balance.

 

[lindsay40k]

Having used Spies to locate Stalin's gigantic Stack of Doom and then completely removed it from play with a decapitation strike of a few Nukes, I can assure you that they're by no means underpowered.

My main beef with Civ IV nuclear warfare is the lack of Cold War politics (including MAD, but also positioning of short-range rockets a la Cuban Missile Crisis) or option to drop a pre-Rocketry bomb from aircraft.

 

[jarhead_leif]

.,what if ICBMs in cIV were like earth's crust busters??
,.and the enemy nuked your capital..
.,with 3 nukes, it would become as small as a cottage then (or even turn into ruins)..
.,and what if your trying to achieve a cultural victory??

 

[kochman]

As for unpredictability, as this is a turn based game where nukes can only be launched on a players turn, M.A.D simply doesn't exist, meaning against AIs you can reliably wipe out a civ in its entirity in a single turn using nukes and paratroopers in many games, or inflict enough damage to force capitulation on the next turn or at least prevent any significant counterstrike.

First strike capability... that's pretty much awesome in terms of destroying your enemy and why both the USSR and USA always sought it.
I love how GP, etc ALWAYS survive. Like cockroaches.

 

[The7Sins]

This is why one of the Mods I use makes nukes automatically reduce a cities' population by half (rounded down). And once the city has one population getting hit with a nuke auto destroys it.
Oh and the building that reduces damage from nukes in normal Civ (bunker I think) now makes it so instead of your units in the city being auto destroyed they take half there health in damage. But if @ or below 50% health they still die.
And on top of that it makes the rounded down aspect of the city population halving be rounding up.