nukes underpowered?

[aahz_capone]

Holy crap there is a lot of nuke fanaticism on theis forum!

Look, if we are so hung up about it (and I am, really ) Why don't we create a game that only takes place in the nuclear age, and the only units are various versions of atomic weapons?

Hey, I have this brilliant idea for a mod....

But seriously, I'm afraid that MAD would happen so late in the game, that there is no real point in developing all these tactically different nukes. I enjoyed slipping my subs near enemy capitols too, but in the end the effect is much the same: thing go BOOM!

If the game went on to 2200 a.d. there might be a point to all this, but its doesn't, unfortunately.

 

[Mr. Blonde]

There seem to be a lot of nuke fans around

Anyhow, the point is that in real history nukes were used only twice and then never again although we see raging wars all arount the world including between nuclear powers (think India and Pakistan). If we stick to reality the point is to possess them, not to use them, therefore 1 type is imo enough.

What I would like to see is chemical weapons implemented. They could act like an extra strong artillery (or like a cruise missile with only 1 or 2 tiles of range for one time usage) with diplomatic mali if used. However, I am positive we will see them in WW1 scenarios or mods.

 

[Rexflex]

IMHO it's not realistic not to have nukes at all. We live in a dangerous world. That's a fact.

It's certainly not realistic to consider a global nuclear war to be a winning scenerio.

 

[LauriL]

It's certainly not realistic to consider a global nuclear war to be a winning scenerio.

True, if your enemy has nukes, too. But if you're the only one with nukes there's not going to be a global nuclear war. I think nukes should be part of this kind of strategy game. Although Civ games aren't supposed to be exact simulations, they are based in reality and that's why they are popular.

That doesn't mean it wouldn't be fun.

Indeed!

 

[LauriL]

There seem to be a lot of nuke fans around

Anyhow, the point is that in real history nukes were used only twice and then never again although we see raging wars all arount the world including between nuclear powers (think India and Pakistan). If we stick to reality the point is to possess them, not to use them, therefore 1 type is imo enough.

What I would like to see is chemical weapons implemented. They could act like an extra strong artillery (or like a cruise missile with only 1 or 2 tiles of range for one time usage) with diplomatic mali if used. However, I am positive we will see them in WW1 scenarios or mods.

Yes, good idea. That shouldn't be hard to mod. And biological weapons (like anthrax), too.

 

[aahz_capone]

Mr Blonde haas a point. I'm for chemical weapons, like in SMAC! Oh the atrocities.....

 

[Harrier]

How about a post-nucleur devestation mod.

You start the game with a settler etc on an unexplored map (like the standard game) but your initial warrior unit has a rifle.

Barbarians will also be armed.

As you explore the map you come across ruined cities which act as resources.

You still have to develop (or should I say redevelop) your civilization from scratch. i.e. a newly built warrior will only have a basic weapon - club, until you fined an arms-cache resource.

The difference is you start with some modern equipment found as early resources - these should expire at a certain point in the game. As you have to research the technology to make them again.

A sort of 'planet of the apes' type game without the apes.

 

[LauriL]

Mr Blonde haas a point. I'm for chemical weapons, like in SMAC! Oh the atrocities.....

It was fun! Are we sick or what??

 

[Rexflex]

True, if your enemy has nukes, too. But if you're the only one with nukes there's not going to be a global nuclear war. I think nukes should be part of this kind of strategy game. Although Civ games aren't supposed to be exact simulations, they are based in reality and that's why they are popular.

Be it one sided or MAD, the game penalties for using nukes has never got close reality. The political and climatical damage that has been simulated in previous Civs and will be simulated in Civ IV is insufficient in comparison to what is at stake in real life. There are reasons why only once* in sixty years of nuclear weapons have they been used against an enemy - and that was at a time even the scientists who designed the bomb didn't know the true extent of damage it would cause and most of the world didn't even know what they were. And it wasn't just MAD that stopped further usage - there have been plenty of times when only one of two agressive opposing nations had nuclear weapons and still they were not used after that first occasion.

But as plenty of posts in this thread indicates if it was not already well known, there are plenty of people prepared to use the weapons at a whim in the game.

Sure, nukes have their place in the game, but they can just as easily be taken out without losing any more realism than having them in as they are.

* Well, okay - twice. But they were so close together in time and part of the same hostilities that it is usually seen as just one event.

 

[LauriL]

Nevertheless, nukes affect decisions made in the goverments all over the world. For example, take India and Pakistan. I think the nukes calm their relationship so that they are not so willing to wage war even with conventional arms.