Nuclear war

[klr]

Is it many who tend to use ICBM's in grand scale wars here?
I'm currently fighting babylon who had a much bigger army than me,so I nuked their big army (about 30 tanks/modern armor in one tile)and all of their major cities.I was really afraid of their respond,but it turned out they had just 3 icbm's and two of them hit nonimportant cities

 

[jc011]

I launched one just to see what would happen....I recieved about 5 ICBM's hitting my capital, and most important cities, the Germans, who were right next to me declared war on me and took over 2 of my cities with their panzers, and bombed a lot of my units and cities. I then loaded back, and won by space race!

 

[Rock]

You got so many nukes flying here and there, better prepare for melt down, all grassland to desert. ......

 

[Ohwell]

Been in two nuclear wars in one game, one for conquest vs the Japanese, they and me were the best nations. Soon, they were worst. Took all thier land, rebuilt their cities. Then, me, Russea, and France were in a arms race of all branches of military. (Of COURSE I was winning!) I had about 24 ICBMs and 6 Tact. Russia and France go to war, and Russia nukes me! They only had 4 nukes, used them all on boston. Only one hit( I had SDI)
I then made a nuclear holocaust, hitting roughly 100% of all cities above size 2 . The leftover nukes went devoted to irrigation squares and such. O boy, it sure is fun just getting deesert everywere! JUst after, nearly 10% of all MY squares turned into desert. Kinda sucks, but still playing that game. I won for culture, then space race, and diplomatic, now im going for conquest! In one game!

 

[Smirk]

Sea detonation is very effective. I've taken out whole navies that way. Right off my coast.


Someone should tell firaxis that global warming will increase vegetation, not reduce it. Didn't SMAC do this correctly with raising water levels, etc?

 

[perryrutherford]

I have to say that espescially with CIV3 being advertised in New Scientist, that it's climate and ecology aren't any better than Civilization ca. 1990, which is very amateurish. This is just one of several giant leaps backward from Alpha Centari. Rising sea levels would be a good start. Why doesn't cleared jungle undergo desertification like happened to the Congo? My final environmental objection is how cheap it is to clean up pollution.

 

[Zouave]

What I'd really like is a patch that turns off the nuclear option. I hated it in Civ II and think in Civ III it should be optional.

 

[dozenlong]

I rather like how many nations frown on those using nuclear weapons--it provides a balance, so if some small country (like a modern day Pakistan or India) wants to try to exert its will on another small country they will be scorned by the world in Civ3 and probably crushed.

I do also like that the first place scoring civ tends to go after the second place scoring civ...unfortunately it often is me, but it seems to be a good strategy to put more distance between you and number two if you are number one.

 

[Exocet]

I generally try to steer as far away from Nuclear war as possible. Using them can cause civilizations you considered 'friends' to instantly turn on you. Like someone else mentioned, I've used them to destroy large navies (after stealing global troop locations via espionage first) Even doing that can get you in trouble, unfortunately.

Yea, I'd stay away from nukes. I hate seeing my poor cities reduced to nothing. I've seen integrated defence hiccup and let 75% of the missiles *through*

 

[tetley]

Global warming doesn't raise sea levels. If you have ice sticking up from out of the sea, it still displaces just as much water as if it were melted, so melting it doesn't raise sea levels. Experiment yourself: put a bunch of ice in a bowl of water (make sure the ice is floating), and melt the ice. See if the water level changes.

OTOH, if land-based ice melts and drains off into the sea, that could raise sea level. But a higher global temperature means the air can hold more moisture, which counteracts that. All-in-all it balances out.

 

[eggyweg]

Protect and Survive

The principles of nuclear attack -

The best tactic is to plan, it may seem easy to obliterate your enemy but always remember, some cities are more important than others. A good tactic is use ICBM's to take out the less important cities. Under 8 is pretty useless as a city so nuke them first. After this, use a few tacticals to take out any resources your primary target city has. DO NOT NUKE THIS CITY! Take this city the conventinal way. At least this way you have a fully functional city to use and dont have to worry about retaliation to much.

2 - If you are worrying about another country using nukes on you, always enter a protection pact with another country that has ICBM's. At least you will know that the agressor is going to get some pain.

3 - If you cant get a pact, then use spys to sniff out where the enemy keeps their nukes. If you feel that relations are failing then strike at those citys, that will eliminate there most of their nuclear capability

4- - If you are attacked, not much can be done. If the enemy is pusing through your border after a nuclear attack, send any units you have (offensive or defensive) to defend your most valuble citys. Be prepared to lose cities though, but at least you will have enough large cities to rebuild.

5 - Finally, create a 'emergency city' - Put a settler, 2 workers and 2 of your best defensive units in a transport and send it to the remotest point on the globe and build a city. This will be your last hope sometimes, so make sure to look after it and do your best to keep it hidden.

Good luck

 

[Psychlone]

I've found that with the increased tech research time as well as the more aggressive AI in the patch, leading to broader wars and less research, that most games end right about the time nukes appear, so they're not much of a threat. Has anyone else noticed this tendency?

The best way to bottle up nukes is to play "Uranium Police." Scour the map for all sources of uranium, and make it yours by whatever means necessary. And never EVER trade uranium to anyone. It was most distressing to me that the first time I got nuked was by my longtime ally Germany, with nukes built using uranium I had supplied.

 

[Mesopotamia]

As soon as he nuked you, he would have lost his source of uranium, so then he couldn't build any more, correct?

 

[D.Shaffer]

Originally posted by tetley
Global warming doesn't raise sea levels.

To be honest, I dont think anyone's quite sure what global warming would REALLY do. Some people still arent convinced its a real problem. In fact, there's a theory out there that global warming would start a new ice age...in which case you'd be getting more tundra

And isnt a nuclear war supposed to cool the earth cause of nuclear winter?

 

[cat98]

A few years ago, I recall scientists and eco-nuts going on and on about global 'cooling'. You would think that they would welcome some warmth. I certainly would, I live in Canada, it is as cold here as always. Besides, I dont care about a bunch of polar bears and seals that enjoy life on ice. If it melts, tough sh*t. I am leaning toward the theory that warming is natural. Our sun is a big nuke that has been blowing up for the past umpteen million years. It has not stayed at the same temperature all that time. If it is not a temperature change, it could verywell be a change in the Earths orbit. We might have drifted a bit closer to the sun. We dont produce enough gas emmisions to affect the planet on such a grand scale, in fact, according to many an eco-nut, global warming began before we started to use a lot of cars. (Also according to many an eco-nut, the avarage temperature around the world changed a wopping 2 degrees celcius... The HORROR!)

BTW, How in holy h*ll would a nuke cause this oh so very terrible global warming? Would it not just mess up land and make the air in that and surounding areas unfit to breath? Why would global warming produce desert? Why would the water level rise? Why should we care? We have far more pressing matters on the mainland. Like the depletion of forests for example. (I shall be very pleased when they finally do run out of lumber, I wonder what they will say then?) How about dealing with the smog that stays over most major citys? Or maby water pollution would suit your taste? No? What about the curios lack of fish in our waters?

-By the by, this is not ment to be offencive or derogatory in any way. I have nothing against people who say that fish dont have meat, that cloning is evil, that the world ended 2 years ago, that god is on their side, that Americans know nothing about the world, that Canadians spend their entire lives finding new ways to say ay?, that the world is flat, that the world is at the center of the universe, that dogs are better than cats, that Civ 3 stinks, that video games make kids want to kill each other and that cats are boring. Really, I dont...



ALL HAIL PHARAOH!

 

[amadeus]

I'd like an option to turn off pollution like in Civ2 (but not from ICBMs or tactical nuclear weapons)...

I really don't think there is the scentific evidence to support global warming, either...

I mean, we've only recorded the temperature for what, less than 150 years?

The earth's been around for billions more...maybe it is just a natural cycle.

 

[Furry Spatula]

Ok so whats the strategy? if you go in a nuclear war hit hard and fast and lots? Also after you get 2 global warmings then it doesn't realy matter you can just nuke everyone to hell?

 

[Ackrite99]

Those of you interested in a specific and successful nuclear story should see my "Nuclear Strategies" thread.

I love nukes: they give the ultimate defence. And if you use them, it gives you a real satisfaction knowing that not only did you beat them; you maimed and killed millions, and that the kids of this bastard empire are running around with skin peeling of their backs.

SDI is quite poor in the game, so you've gotta be prepared to take a strikeback. But sometimes the computer doesn't even bother with tactical nukes (or runs out uranium midway through its nuclear programme), so you know that by nuking every city, you have real chance of eliminating their entire nuclear force. Thus, if you are gonna nuke: don't dance around like a fairy. Strike hard, fast, and comprehensively. After all, once you've used one ICBM, the computer will think you're a nasty piece of work anyway. So use twenty and be safe in the knowledge that you did everything you could.

Place subs around rival empires that are farthest away from you, and keep tacs around your borders. That way, you can use the ICBMs for where they're really needed.

Finally, in the next patch, I would like to see their destructive power increased. All city improvements shouldbe wiped out, and if the capital city of a civ gets nuked, they should automatically go into anarchy. 50% of the population should die as a result of the bomb (just like now), but another 25% should die next turn, and the at least once citizen per turn for 5 years, until the city gets to one of course. Also, the polution should not be able to be cleaned up until 10 turns afterwards. That would make a nuclear war far more realistic, and thus probably less likely.

 

[Zouave]

The use of nuclear weapons suggests that such are survivable - and nuclear wars winnable - with that option. Neither is true. It is an unrealistic as any other aspect of Civ III. I despise this false concept in Civ III appealing to vicarious warmongers.

The nuclear option should be optional, and toggleable.

I went into the Editor and pushed the cost of the Manhattan Project to the max, while taking AWAY culture points and increasing pollution. Anyone dumb enough to build it is going to pay quite a cost.

 

[Psychlone]

Well, I have to agree with Ackrite99, if you're going to use nukes, don't pussyfoot around. Blast your enemy into the Stone Age. Never build one nuke, build dozens if you can. Unfortunately, this game doesn't seem to have the concept of deterrent force when considering nukes. I have had computer opponents launch a first strike (with all the subsequent declarations of war unto them) with a piddly arsenal of 3 or 4 nukes at me when I've had 20 to respond with. Needless to say, they didn't last long after I devastated all of their cities, and the troops of about 4 civs, including mine, poured across their borders.

I don't think the concept that nuclear wars are winnable and survivable is a fallacy. Personally I think it's insanity. But, this is a game, not real life. We can all thank God that IRL, those with nukes have apparently realized the ultimate futility of using them. They're the ultimate spolier, the brat breaking another kid's toy because he can't have it. However, this game isn't a mirror of history, it's a what-if history, at best. And certainly, "what if there was a nuclear war?" has been a question that has fascinated millions, from science fiction writers to generals to scientists, to parents wondering if they live far enough from a major city to survive.

In the context of that "what if" mentality, I think nukes fit perfectly into this game. You or I might have different ideas of what the results of massive nuclear strikes are, compared to the game designers. Personally, I'd lean toward total city destruction and long-term unusuabilty of surrounding terrain, but the current game method works, for game purposes.

Let's just all be sure to say a word of thanks that this discussion revolves solely around game rules and animated pixels!

With that in mind, if they go nuclear, nuke em til they glow, then shoot em in the dark!