Nuclear weapons

[BliTTzZ]

I was thinking about nuclear warfare recently. Sure it's very annoying once your cities are bombed into oblivion. But this strategic defense structure offers too much of safety against nuclear bombardment. Plus nuclear missiles feel somewhat underwhelming considering their resource price.

1. Not too long ago I thought nuclear bombs can be shot down by fighters/mobile AA and this balanced them with nuclear missiles quite nicely. However considering how things really are (both weapons being invulnerable to AA), nuclear missile feels very underwhelming by providing just a bit more range and detonation radius over nuclear bomb. It's really a lot better to build 2 bombs instead of 1 missile, especially when uranium is scarce and you're not Russia/chose Autocracy. Even while being Russia with Autocracy I chose bombs over missiles quite often. So at least make range of ICMBs almost global? For example leave other parameters the same, but increase the range to twice as large that of the bomb's.

2. Strategic defense building also indirectly encourages you to build bombs, since it has identical modifiers against both these weapons. What about having different modifiers? Also lowering chances to detonate a bomb/missile without damage to the city? In return it could decrease damage done to population and city buildings.

Curious to hear your opinions.

 

[SuperNoobCamper]

2. Strategic defense building also indirectly encourages you to build bombs, since it has identical modifiers against both these weapons. What about having different modifiers? Also lowering chances to detonate a bomb/missile without damage to the city? In return it could decrease damage done to population and city buildings.

So you want a scarce mineral-required extremely expensive & extremely late in the game unit/bomb detonation to be chance based ? why not also bring the spearmen destroying tanks from civ 3 ?
With all due respect but adding more RNG/chance based mechanics to the game is one of the worst things that could be done.... i really don't want to spend 10-15 turns building an ICBM and have an oopsie, the fuse is not working because my opponent had strategic defenses.

 

[BliTTzZ]

So you want a scarce mineral-required extremely expensive & extremely late in the game unit/bomb detonation to be chance based ? why not also bring the spearmen destroying tanks from civ 3 ?
With all due respect but adding more RNG/chance based mechanics to the game is one of the worst things that could be done.... i really don't want to spend 10-15 turns building an ICBM and have an oopsie, the fuse is not working because my opponent had strategic defenses.

From what I know these buildings already have 50% chance to detonate nuclear weapons without any damage done to the city. So what I propose is to lower this value. In return this building could increase survivability of citizens (less population dies from nuclear attack).

EDIT: I checked. It already has 50% chance to detonate nuclear weapons without damaging city or surrounding tiles. And it already reduces population loss by 75% from nuclear attack.
This RNG should be toned down or removed in my opinion.

 

[BliTTzZ]

Or at least nuclear missiles could cost 1 uranium instead and be considered as atomic bomb upgrade and not standalone unit.