More Nuclear Units

[HermanCherusker]

I dislike the limitation of the ICBM being the only nuclear weapon.

I believe there should be 3 or 4 generations of bombers all of which can be nuclear capable with the manhattan project . To be nuclear bomber should be an expensive option.

First generation: Prop-Bomber(Aka. The B-17 or B-29)

Second generation: Jet-Bomber (Aka. The B-52)

Third Generation: Low Altitude Evasive Bomber (Aka. The B-1)

Fourth Generation: The Stealth Bomber (Aka. The B-2)

A nuclear bomber should basically work just like a regular bomber such as the possibility of being shot down. The differences are that you could not produce any more with the Nuclear Proliferation Treaty and their attack has the same effect as being hit by an ICBM both in physical and diplomatic damage.

Also, it might be nice to be able to have upgrade/downgrade nuclear/conventional bomber cycles. What this means is that a nuclear bomber can be downgraded to a conventional bomber and a conventional bomber can be upgraded to a nuclear bomber.

Herman der Cherusker
(Scourge of Rome)

 

[j45kilo10]

What about special tactical nukes, like those designed to be fired from artillery, to be used to destroy smaller chunks of cities/improved tiles instead of the larger area of a 'normal' nuke? It could have limited nuclear efffects without destroying so much of the affected area. This way, a civ could employ these tactical nukes as a payload to be loaded into artillery units, cruise missiles, or even deployed by spies, without having to build a single purpose nuclear weapon.

 

[Suki]

yep,
the smallest nuclear weap-on i know of is a shell for a 120mm recoilless gun...

anyway, don't make the mistake they did in empire earth: you pay for the bomber then the bombs are free...

if you wanted to do it right you'd have long and short range bombers and missiles, and artillery pieces. some would be nuclear capable, if so when you built a warhead you could load it into one of those.
it's just never worth it to use an ICBM with a non nuclear warhead.
unless of course you install a "rod of god"- 1x20' tungsten rod for hitting hard deeply buried targets, like other ICBM's, or tunnel systems (modernized fortifications), or nuclear bunkers.

 

[Orion66]

You little military nuclear maniacs....

 

[Colonel]

Im for some more nukes, B-52, Stealth Bomber takes care of the B-2. both of these bombers should be able to bomb with Conventionial and Nuclear weapons-note they wont be destrioed on use. Also up the amount of tacts on subs. Then have the ICBMs but if this is going to be anywhere its going to be in a mod, hopefully that can be modded in.

 

[doronron]

It would have been nice if nukes could non-com move and had a significantly shorter range -- all to force the player to consider how best to deploy them vs. whomever he considers a threat.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think it would make for sense for nuclear weapon delivery systems, (bombers, subs, or Rockets) to be destroyed on use (assume the majority of the cost is the warhead itself...and these things have one purpose.)

Not as much for realism but for ease of play (build nuke, build bomber, find empty bomber load nuke onto bomber, prepare to nuke when ready) is too many steps.

 

[Suki]

Not as much for realism but for ease of play (build nuke, build bomber, find empty bomber load nuke onto bomber, prepare to nuke when ready) is too many steps.

well that's the way to go, haven't you heard of that game Rise of Complexity IV: Dawn of the Modern Empires.

 

[Red Door]

There should be 3 nuclear units:
ICBM
Tactical Nuke
A or H Bomb

 

[elderotter]

Why not the ever popular and many times rumored "suitcase bomb"?

 

[Colonel]

I think it would make for sense for nuclear weapon delivery systems, (bombers, subs, or Rockets) to be destroyed on use (assume the majority of the cost is the warhead itself...and these things have one purpose.)

Not as much for realism but for ease of play (build nuke, build bomber, find empty bomber load nuke onto bomber, prepare to nuke when ready) is too many steps.

When I said the bomber wouldnt be destrioed I didnt mean we had to create a bomber which has to options on the orders Convential Bombing, Nuclear Bombing. The bomber would cost as much as a ICBM but say half the range.

 

[Tarascan_King]

I wanna fire nukes from subs again like in CIV II!

 

[irishlamma]

i think tatctical nukes or some other kind of nuke shuould be oaded on bombers
like in civ3 with subs

 

[Kissamies]

Yeah, the bombs should be manufactured separately and loaded on bombers. You could move one on ground too and detonate it there, but that would be very risky, as enemy might capture it before you get it in position.

 

[Mondo_]

I can't believe they coped out with 1 nuclear unit, nukes changed the way countries deal with each other, there should be alot more strategy involving them.

 

[Atrebates]

Why not the ever popular and many times rumored "suitcase bomb"?

Because Fireaxis don't want Civ banned! And tactically there's no massive difference to other, more PC delivery systems.
Do you mean a spy based nuke? (ie. atomic weaponry as an espionage option)

 

[Ultima Dragoon]

I heartily endorse this thread.

And you can have historical nukes, like "little boy" and "fat man".

Or singularity planet busters

 

[SilentMage]

If we start adding more nuclear weapons to CIV, I recommend also considering a new promotion for both modern infantry and tank units: DUM's (depleted uranium munitions).

This new promotion could come, say, with the Composites tech, as this seems to be the last tech that offers new warfare units.

There would be drawbacks to giving units this promotion; a hit to your reputation whenever they are in combat. Why? DUM's are still radioactive and not only will kill whoever is hit with DU rounds, but also irradiates the area if they are used extensively; DUM's would pose a long-term health hazard long after the battle is over, hurting the enemy over time, even if they won the battle. Because of their radioactive quality and long-term health effects, DUM's would give your units a 50% increase in their strength.

The UN should have a resolution that would specifically ban the use of DUM units (any units that have the DUM promotion). I wouldn't couple this with the Nuclear bomb ban resolution because DUM's aren't bombs and I don't think that resolution in real life actually covers DU and anything made from DU.

What do you think?

 

[Suki]

Because Fireaxis don't want Civ banned! And tactically there's no massive difference to other, more PC delivery systems.
Do you mean a spy based nuke? (ie. atomic weaponry as an espionage option)

banned?
ploitically correct nuclear delivery systems?


what???

they had it as an option in civ2, was civ 2 banned anywhere because of it? I think they're making just one nuclear unit for simplicity. they could also put in a seperation between nuclear and thermonuclear weapons hitting 1 square or 9... but is the extra fun/level of strategy worth the extra complexity? for most people it's not. most people want to play a couple of hours not a couple of days to finish a game.

 

[Panzer Ace]

How about some nuclear bazookas? I'm not kidding they tried it... I wouldn't have liked to have been the guy who had to test it