nukes underpowered?
- Thread starter Vietcong
- Start date
LauriL
prince
But MIRVs could act as ICBMs with a reduced cost. MIRVs would be available after certain techs and you would have the option to use all warheads to one city or choose the cities.
Anyway, the improvement I want most to nukes, is more methods to deliver them. Not only different missiles. In Civ3 there was nuclear sub where you could put TN. In Civ2 there was also the suitcase option. Those should have been in Civ4 as well. And nuke bombers also. And why not other WMDs, too?
Anyway, the improvement I want most to nukes, is more methods to deliver them. Not only different missiles. In Civ3 there was nuclear sub where you could put TN. In Civ2 there was also the suitcase option. Those should have been in Civ4 as well. And nuke bombers also. And why not other WMDs, too?
Tenjo_Kalle
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2005
- Messages
- 2
I think nukes worked very well in civ II.
One could not send them everywhere. They could move 16 hexes a turn. As stated above they could be transported and launched from submarines and also from carriers.
Thus it required some good sneeking if wanting them into the heartland of your powerful enemy sitting on some other continent and it also gave the opponent a chance to hunt down the nuke while being transported.
Furthermore you could build airfields outside of cities where you could keep your nukes so that they wouldnt be destroyed in case someone nuked you first.
The effect of a nuke in civ 2 was that half the population of a city that was hit was destroyed and also all units in the city and surrounding hexes were killed + pollution in a random number of the hexes bordering the nuclear hit.
Also a SDI defence within 3 hexes of the hit nullified the nuke.
All in all I think this worked well and dunno why it was changed. Especially the nukes on submarines and carriers was a feature that was more exciting then nukes having to be in the city where created and able to reach eveywhere.
Kalle
One could not send them everywhere. They could move 16 hexes a turn. As stated above they could be transported and launched from submarines and also from carriers.
Thus it required some good sneeking if wanting them into the heartland of your powerful enemy sitting on some other continent and it also gave the opponent a chance to hunt down the nuke while being transported.
Furthermore you could build airfields outside of cities where you could keep your nukes so that they wouldnt be destroyed in case someone nuked you first.
The effect of a nuke in civ 2 was that half the population of a city that was hit was destroyed and also all units in the city and surrounding hexes were killed + pollution in a random number of the hexes bordering the nuclear hit.
Also a SDI defence within 3 hexes of the hit nullified the nuke.
All in all I think this worked well and dunno why it was changed. Especially the nukes on submarines and carriers was a feature that was more exciting then nukes having to be in the city where created and able to reach eveywhere.
Kalle
m15a
Emperor
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2005
- Messages
- 1,471
it seems like people are still ignoring the pollution factor. sure, my guess is that it's not that harsh, but it certainly could be. we don't really know, right?
as far as changing the cost is concerned, i think that's a reasonable mod. by which i mean that i could see how some players would feel that nukes should play a bigger part in the game. making them auto-destroy weapons is bad for reasons listed above, but i think the decrease in price and/or modification to the after effects (radiation) are probably reasonable for gameplay. (again, assuming that they don't make the after effects harsh in standard game.)
as far as changing the cost is concerned, i think that's a reasonable mod. by which i mean that i could see how some players would feel that nukes should play a bigger part in the game. making them auto-destroy weapons is bad for reasons listed above, but i think the decrease in price and/or modification to the after effects (radiation) are probably reasonable for gameplay. (again, assuming that they don't make the after effects harsh in standard game.)
Besuchov said:
What I meant was that since they've never been used on a real city, we can only estimate the amount of damage. With Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we can make a direct observation, not so with today's bombs. If they're 30 times more powerful as has been stated, and judging from what I've seen of Hiroshima afterwards, that's going to be pretty devastating.
Dark Russell
Octagonecologyst
My $.02 on the whole nuke thing is this: The game is about building a "Civilization" and not about ending all life on earth. For this reason, I plan to mod out the nukes just as I have done in Civ3.
On the other hand, if people want to wipe out all life in more ways than just one, they can always mod in more WMD's for themselves to use.
On the other hand, if people want to wipe out all life in more ways than just one, they can always mod in more WMD's for themselves to use.
Dark Russell said:
I agree - I tended to mod them out of civ3 also.
As for civ4 I have a suggested mod idea for those that like nukes.
A new weapon 'a super fusion neutron bomb'. The first civ to use it destroys the entire world.
This is to be used when you are so far behind the AI you can not possibly win. But you can force a draw. The game is a draw because all civs have been destroyed - therefore no winner.
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
Chieftess said:
This would kind of take the strategy out of it and just devolve it to a race, wouldn't it?
elderotter
Otter King
This would kind of take the strategy out of it and just devolve it to a race, wouldn't it?
Which would, indeed, make it life-like
Which would, indeed, make it life-like
LauriL
prince
IMHO it's not realistic not to have nukes at all. We live in a dangerous world. That's a fact.Dark Russell said:
Zhahz
PC Gamer
Dark Russell said:
Agreed. For a game that centers around building and conquering with intelligence and strategy there are a seemingly a lot of people overly concerned with easy ways to invoke mass destruction!
I dunno about modding out nukes, but I think the repercussions for using them at all should be exceptionally high, just like in reality.
I am the Future
Oi Oi Oi !!!
It is a VIDEO GAME, everyone wants to play in a world destroyyed by nuclear Holocaust, so why not make that dream a reality with Civ. 4 It even Makes a good cold war scenario.
I really don't like how you can't nuke your own people or within your own borders. I think the ability to do this should hinge on your civics type. If you're a police state or evil despot I think should be allowed to do whatever you want. If you're a democracy, I think you should have to have a revolution first.
Also I think nukes should play out more like real life. That is as a nuclear power, if you nuke another nuclear power you should stand a good chance of losing the game through MAD. In multiplayer, this would probably be quite annoying and I'd probably disable nukes, but for single player I think it'd be great.
Also I think nukes should play out more like real life. That is as a nuclear power, if you nuke another nuclear power you should stand a good chance of losing the game through MAD. In multiplayer, this would probably be quite annoying and I'd probably disable nukes, but for single player I think it'd be great.
elderotter
Otter King
I am the Future said:
I am part of everyone and I definitely Don't want to play in a world destroyed by a Nuclear Holocaust...so I vote make it an option(maybe) in a mod.
Rupe
Chieftain
I recall seeing that one of the new tile improvements was a village or town. That village or town would also count as part of the population of the "city" wouldn't it? So nuking a major city center in real life would not directly effect outlying towns so why should it in game? Fallout would be a factor for the outlying towns but it would also be a global factor.
Similar threads
