nukes underpowered?
- Thread starter Vietcong
- Start date
SuperBeaverInc.
Groucho
It was only 50% in Civ III, yet you never complained about that.
Janos
Prince
Let's put it this way: I will not be impressed if my capital is nuked and 50% of the population destroyed, along with possible radiation effects. I'd say they can be very effective if used properly.
They've always been underpowered. And a good thing too - there isn't near enough disinsentive even with the new rules to balance out the usage of nukes as they are balanced out in real life. I prefer them to be underpowered rather than weapons that provide little disincentive for absolute destruction.
In my experience, people use nukes when they've run out of clever ways to defeat the enemy. Such manouvers should not be well rewarded.
In my experience, people use nukes when they've run out of clever ways to defeat the enemy. Such manouvers should not be well rewarded.
Grohan
Bug-hunter
I hate games where nukes are overpowered so I would rather have underpowered than overpowered nukes.
Willowmound
Wordbug
This website: http://www.english.uiuc.edu/maps/poets/g_l/levine/bombing.htm
...says this:
Maybe 50% isn't so wrong.
...says this:
Maybe 50% isn't so wrong.
the city thats bombed shold be leveled!!!!!
it shold kill 75% of the population, Maby 50% in the blast, but over the next few turns ther shold be No groth and anotehr 25% shold disaper due to ppl leaveing and dieing
75% of the buldings shold be destroyed
units shold have a 75% chance of being wiped out
90% of being damaged.
any units in the sqears with radation shold lose one hp per a turn in it.
it shold kill 75% of the population, Maby 50% in the blast, but over the next few turns ther shold be No groth and anotehr 25% shold disaper due to ppl leaveing and dieing
75% of the buldings shold be destroyed
units shold have a 75% chance of being wiped out
90% of being damaged.
any units in the sqears with radation shold lose one hp per a turn in it.
Yeah it's gotta be underpowered for the sake of balance in thee game. In a multiplayer game who cares about global warming if you can nuke your opponent and win. It's not like you have to continue playing on that ecologically destroyed planet after you win that game. You start a fresh new one!
Rameau's Nephew
Bureaucrat
What the game really needs re: Nukes is an option for a retalitory strike. You should be able to build spy satelites that notify you (during opponent's turn) when an ICBM is launched at your territory. You should then have the option of ordering retaliation.
You can make Nukes as damaging as you want then-- Mutually Assured Destruction will provide protection, just like in the real Cold War (without the whole SDI pipe dream).
You can make Nukes as damaging as you want then-- Mutually Assured Destruction will provide protection, just like in the real Cold War (without the whole SDI pipe dream).
Rameau's Nephew said:
No, MAD would still not be a deterrant. Here is the scenario: You are clearly going to win, your civilization is noticeably larger than mine, and you will clearly get one of the victory conditions before I do. So what do I do? This virtual planet is, in fact, entirely disposable, but victory is not. So I am left with "Let Rameau's Nephew win" or "Level" the playing field(literally in this case). MAD works in real life because the people with their finger on the button live *IN* a world, and don't have a ready supply of new worlds. The immortal god-kings of Civ could give a rat's ass, and would let the nukes fly, even just to make their opponents lead less meaningful.
So MAD would NOT be a good substitute for balancing nukes.
Rameau's Nephew
Bureaucrat
Goombaz:
Fair point. The Russians may love their children, too, but Catherine the Great does not.
I suppose I was valiantly hoping that we would be noble and avoid meta-gaming based on arbitrary victory measurements. Silly me.
Fair point. The Russians may love their children, too, but Catherine the Great does not.
I suppose I was valiantly hoping that we would be noble and avoid meta-gaming based on arbitrary victory measurements. Silly me.
Rexflex said:
I disagree. The only correct and realistic penalty for nuking is to be nuked back (plus diplomatic penalty). If nukes are underpowered then the counterstrike is to be feared *less* not more.
However, my main quibble against the CivIII style nukes is that pounding a size 8 city with 100 nukes is no more effective than pounding it with 3 nukes. After you have reduced the population to 1 and polluted all surrounding squares then more nukes will do absolutely nothing. You can pour in megadeath after megadeath and the size 1 city will still be there.
Now, I don't mind if a nuke, or even three, won't kill a city completely. That's even realistic. However, a city still standing after 100 nuclear hits is just plain ridiculous. I'd hoped they would have done something to fix this. Now I just hope the nukes are moddable enough...
The whole nuclear fear of retaliation could have been implemented by giving the opponent a chance to launch his arsenal right after you've launched, for example by having the nukes hit the target only at the start of your *next* turn. Your target civ could then pay you back in kind before your strike hits.
Rameau's Nephew said:
I sympathize. However, Devs have to make EVERYTHING with metagaming in mind. Metagaming, unfortunately, is the only objective standard. You simply can't RELY on your opponent being willing to roleplay as a means of balance.
The only sad part is though when you see the AI say "Our words are backed with nuclear weapons!" it may only trigger a yawn response. 
I think the way nukes are described will be ok for multiplayer games for the balance reasons described. For the epic single player games though I'll be looking forward to mods which make some really nasty nukes
I think the way nukes are described will be ok for multiplayer games for the balance reasons described. For the epic single player games though I'll be looking forward to mods which make some really nasty nukes
I think you should be able to build a "suicide tower". It's not something that *DID* happen, but it is something that *COULD* happen. Think of it as a giant nuke, but simply built into a building instead of being deployable. It would cause a huge amount of unrest that you would have to counter, but it's ability would be that you could simply choose to blow the entire city off the map if anyone took it over. 
EDIT: Didn't they have something like this in IG 2?
EDIT: Didn't they have something like this in IG 2?
Mr. Blonde
Dr. techn.
Who would start nuking with only 1 nuke/city anyhow??
Imo, the destruction output is OK and fits gameplay. SMAC like planetbusters would be cool, but the game would practically be over if you got 6-7 of them.
Imo, the destruction output is OK and fits gameplay. SMAC like planetbusters would be cool, but the game would practically be over if you got 6-7 of them.
Similar threads
