Nukes are Weak?

[Maugan]

I just launched my first nuclear war with 4 tac. nukes fired out of subs at the biggest French cities. (Thats what they get for getting ahead of me in the ship building race) While i'm sure it wasn't plesant to get 8 squares corrupted/destroyed and the city halved in population, I thought the affect was a little weak for a nuclear missle. Espicaly since I had spent a ton of cash spying for the 1 french nuke, found the city, nuked it, and their nuke is still there.

IMHO there should be a 'nuclear silo' improvement that keeps nukes safe during nuke attack, and they should be wiped out if this improvement is not present when a nuke gets nuked.

It would be nice if there was an additional diplomatic threat added once you built nuclear weapons. 'Threaten with Nuclear Force' to tag onto a demand. If they have information showing enemy nukes on the boarder of their prime cities, and they have no nukes of their own, and said enemy treatens to fire nukes, they should be more compelled to bow to the demands. The biggest use of nukes over all in reality has been in the threat of using them, not the use of them.

Also, shouldnt stealth bombers be able to carry a tac. nuke? That is the main reason they were built.

 

[PolarisXP]

I agree, i nuked a destroyer to "test" what happened. The destroyer was killed but a small galley (which was in the same square) just rowed off with almost no damage. The survival chance should only apply to units fortified inside a city or fort, not on open ground or sea.

The range of the tactical nuke needs doubling at least. The cruise missile also needs the range improving.

 

[Maugan]

So I was on the receiving end of an ICBM for the first time last night. Not a single building destroyed when I was hit by this nuke. Only 1 of 4 units there (mech infintry) were killed. I cheated by reloading and blowing all my cash spying on the French who I had just nuked, and what a suprise, all 4 cities I had nuked the turn before all had full sets of improvements in them.

If this is all a nuclear bomb can do, what the hell has the world been so worried about? I would rather get hit by 2 nukes than have 1 city occupied for 1 turn.

It is absolutly absurd that moving into a city with military force will ALWAYS destroy buildings no matter how peace loving you are, but nuking a city will never remove buildings?

 

[Ohwell]

Just an Idea for a Great Wonder-

NORAD- It is a Command Center that only one person can build, and if a nuclear missle is launched anywhere that can harm your units or territory, then you can retaliate that SAME turn, so your nukes wont get blown apart the turn after. Your nukes will have a new button- Auto- This, when activated, will use one of these nukes in the retaliation, so if you dont want all your nukes to be launched in the auto- retaliate.

Also, the nukes SHOULD be able to destroy improvements, I hated this in Civ2. thought theyd fix it .

 

[jc011]

That would be cool if the nukes inside a city were set off when that city is nuked!! HEHEHE

Well, I really think nukes should be able to affect all the units on one square, I mean common..

 

[Ohwell]

Well, I partially agree. The units should have only a 25 percent chance of surviving, and ancient/Medieval units should only have a 5 percent chance. Bring back my Super Nukes Firaxis!!

 

[Giorgicus]

Let's face it, ever since Civ I, civ-nukes don't live up to their real-life counterparts. If my memory serves me correctly, this was an acknowledged concession to making the game more playable.

In real life, one g0ddam nuke can just ruin your whole day.