Nukes or Death Robots?

[Tarvok]

Kind of a silly question, maybe, but I've got this Mayan game I'm playing where my plan has been to play peaceful for most of the game until the nuclear age, build up a massive, nuclear-supported force, and go for a simultaneous capital blitz victory. (It could be that the only reason this should work is because I'm playing King level.)

So here's my question. You've got a limited supply of uranium, and you're determined to use it in the Mayan Armageddon. Which do you prefer: nuclear missiles, or giant death robots?

 

[Callonia]

giant death robots is funnier.

Nuclear missles require too much work.

There's nothing quite like tons of giant death robots rumbling their way into opposing territory. The AI just don't quite know what to do about them but watchout for them gunships. They can pop your giant death robots like there's no tomorrow.

 

[Monthar]

In BNW, then definitely nukes and XCOM Squads instead of GDRs.

Don't forget, there's a Steam achievement to have the Mayan's nuke a city in 2012.

 

[justanotherturn]

I remember a vanilla game with GDR, the IA send tons of missile to kill them.
In BnW i never see IA build a single missile. (not nuclear, just a missile)

In BNW, then definitely nukes and XCOM Squads instead of GDRs.

+1

and for the X-com achievment, the easiest way to get your 100 HP Xcom kill in one IA turn is to put it in the water near an enemy city.

 

[Idleray]

I have this kind of weird perception of nukes carried down from Civ2, SMAC, which is that they screw up the world even though that's been removed in Civ V. In Civ 2 and SMAC using nukes caused environmental damage, and I forgot if this was also the case for 4.

Anyway I just don't use nukes and find the game perfectly winnable on the highest difficulties without them.

 

[Browd]

Nukes to demolish the capitals and X-COM squads to take them simultaneously.

You should be able to win without both, but go for the Mayan 2012 apocolypse (either turn 432 or 433 on Standard). Great fun!