Nukes, Unfair?

[gaiko]

Jet Fighters <-> Atom Bombers (some % chance). Not prop fighters, this creates an incentive to get that tech.

ICBM <-> either some city build defense or a Wonder that gives some not overpowered % chance - 25%/33%

 

[generalwar]

There should be some rocket units that would shoot nukes down. You know that there are some types of rockets used vs other rockets in the real world? So, that would be pretty realistic.
WW2 fighters can't have ability to shoot nukes down, it would be apsurd shooting nukes down with machineguns .

 

[Randall Turner]

Well, fighters shouldn't be able to shoot nuclear missiles down, but they should be able to shoot down atomic bombs, of course.

Then, the effectiveness of SDI is pretty grossly underestimated on these forums. I used to work in the defense industry on these systems before switching to games when peace broke out, the theory isn't to shoot down every single incoming missile - it's to force a potential adversary to spend tons of money or live with the chance that any one particular target will have a chance to survive.

Most of the contemporary (1980's) anti-SDI buzz was primarily worried about the USA actually increasing the risk of a nuclear confrontation. ie, that the US would succeed and continue to improve pre-mirv interception capability enough that the Soviet Union might feel the need to actually execute a first-strike, and/or spend more on a similar project than they could afford to protect themselves against a USA first strike.

It's very true that a post-mirv interception system is more expensive than the ICBM system it's countering, but if you've got the money, well...

There wasn't much science in their (can't remember the name of the anti-SDI organization) objections. We used to get a chuckle out of some of their stuff, we already had POC's of things they insisted were impossible. Plus, of course, some of it was political - any monies spent on Manhattan-project scale military systems is lost to other (ie, domestic) programs.

At the end of the day, SDI was a good thing - it contributed greatly to ending the cold war.

tl;dr - we should have fighter-based A-bomb interception capability and have the option to develop a near-future ICBM defense system, I think. It would just make the game more fun, I don't get to use my GDR's enough.

 

[Artingel78]

I now the nukes is very strong but they is part of the game and how you think the fighter can intercept nuke in RL?
In game i think there are no point to be a direct way to defend against AB.
Just be first ho have them and then build them and destroy the world.
For me it's not needed.

 

[Vasil]

I voted "no" but with some notes:
- as they are now it is more or less fair to have no direct defense against nukes.
They are quite expensive - 920 / 1200 shields for atomic bomb / nuclear missile which is equal to:
2 / 3 mech infantries
1.5 / 2 (almost) modern armor
1.5 / 2 rocket artillery
4.5 / 6 guided missiles

and once you use a nuke it is lost.
Compare having 4 nukes OR 3 mech inf, 2 modern armor, 2 rocket artillery and 6 guided missiles. Honestly even now I would prefer 6 guided missiles over 1 nuke.

- on the other side - as expensive as they are - nukes are actually no problem for the AI to build on higher difficulties because of the production bonuses AI gets.
It is ok for the AI to get production bonuses for building other units because it is stupid and doesn't use them effectively. On the other side there is no big brain needed to use nukes (especially if you have lots of them) - just point and boom.

As a couple of ideas how to equalize this:
- make the AI conservative on using nukes
For example AI could use nukes :
Only as a counter to a nuke attack (which on the other side gives the human player the first strike advantage)
or
If clearly losing the conventional war - like lost 1-2 cities and/or heavily outnumbered

- introduce some production penalty to the AI especially for nukes - as they are much easier to use than any other unit some of the AI advantages could be removed too


Note: I haven't played on difficulties beyond Emperor and I usually play on small maps so perhaps some of my thoughts are valid only there but not in general

 

[Becomedeath]

Nukes are fine as they are.

By the time you get to the modern era, you're pretty much in end game. End game is supposed to be hard and the way nukes work, works.

I mean, if the big flashing icon telling you that someone has completed the Manhattan Project isn't enough to put you on your toes, then surely defending your borders a wise move anyway. Moreover, look at what your enemies have in terms of resources. the glowing green of uranium is hardly subtle.

If you don't have the tech to see uranium, then how do you expect to defend yourself against a nuclear weapon anyway. A couple of lousy fighters might shoot down the bomber, but it's carrying a nuclear bomb dude, when the plane goes down that bomb isn't teleported out!

Nuclear weapons work well, in my experience if I have the manhattan project and a few nukes on standby then other civs are less likely to attack me, why? Because a nuclear deterrent is exactly that.

If you attack a late game Civ who have nukes, then the chances are they'll send one in your direction, so take out their capability to do so. Pillage their uranium supply, get your borders sorted.


Nukes, IMO, pretty much raise the stakes of the game. You have to be more vigilant, you have to take a bit more responsibility for defending your people and you have to keep up with the arms race.

The way they currently work, is not entirely far off the reality of the 40's - 60's period where you either had them, or you were at risk.

Is it a pain when you get nuked, yes. Are there more than a few ways of ensuring that you're less at risk, yes. Should you be encouraged to just take some ownership of the situation and defend your civilisations people? Hell yes.

Just think of it this way, that little warning about the Manhattan project, coupled with the fact that the Civ in question have uranium basically means that you need your guard up because they now posess the capability to destroy your cities at will.

I've nuked and I've been nuked. And in my view, the only thing that needs changing is the scarcity of uranium!

Nuclear weapons, never leave home without one!


PS - Your poll questions are heinously one sided

 

[DEY123]

I finally won for the first time on Immortal last night (early this morning really). I had always tried for culture in the past but this time I went for domination / science.

As the game went on I realized I could win science (domination looked tough as Alexander had a whole continent and I had poor coastal production).

I never built the manhattan project. I was constantly at war with Askia. In the end he nuked my cities 4 times (once he smoked about half my army down to 1 or 2 health as well). Although annoying I was able to win as I kept him at a distance from my capital (I took out his close cities prior to nuke time to avoid him nuking my capital). He did nuke my top production site once but I was able to win anyways.

As such Nukes are powerful but I think realistic so I would leave as is. I would actualy say that this game was one of the most satisying and fun games I have played at any game. Getting nuked added to the suspense and challenge.

 

[Randall Turner]

I now the nukes is very strong but they is part of the game and how you think the fighter can intercept nuke in RL?
In game i think there are no point to be a direct way to defend against AB.
Just be first ho have them and then build them and destroy the world.
For me it's not needed.

Well, it's the delivery system. Atomic bombs are bombs, dropped from airplanes. You shoot down the airplane, the bomb is gone. And @Becomedeath, detonating an atomic device is a complicated operation. When the bomber goes down, the bomb is inert, it won't explode. (checking...)

yep, just chatted with my brother, who drops those things. It's even more unlikely than I thought - basically, if the bomber doesn't go through its delivery steps exactly, the bomb is at most an environmental hazard.

 

[ComradeKino]

First post!
I'll put in my two yen here... it all boils down to Uranium, resource allocation, and map size. I played a game on a small size small continents map the other night where there was only one uranium source in Mongolia's turf. Luckily I could see it before Khan got the Manhattan Project. He developed one bomb while I was throwing tanks and battleships into his turf. He's unlikely to nuke his own city nearby my units... so I pillaged the Uranium. Then I focused on the city with the bomb and kept units near the uranium. Took out the city with the bomb. (Former CS, liberated it) and went back to the city with the uranium. Took it out, puppeted it, and switched to defense. Eventually made peace with Khan and prepped for a second war that never came because I got a science victory.

My main point is that you need to take out that city with the uranium unless it is in a CS and you're going for a diplo victory. In that case, you can simply befriend the CS but it is gonna take a lot of cash or CS quests. If it is a larger map and there are two uranium, then you might just wanna befriend the civ unless it is a warmongerer... in that case trick it into warring you (unless you don't have the units) and take out that one city. I think puppeting the one or two cities with uranium is worth it if you're trying to squeak out a modern victory and you need to keep the A-bomb off your back.

 

[Randall Turner]

I usually like to play large maps. Sometimes then the resource-denial strategy is tough to pull off, but you should still try. That's one of the clear advantages a player has over the AI at higher levels - it won't prioritize resource pillaging like we do.

 

[rudibr]

Hey guys, first post here. Been playing lots of civ since civ 1. skipped civ 4 entirely tho (too much going on), am back at V.

I dont think defending against nukes is the ONLY problem with it. Nukes used to be a lot more interesting in the past civs. Harsher diplomatic reactions, global warming, really bad fallout to deal with...and at least some basic defense attempt.

Many have said it , Ill just repeat, its a bomber on the sky, you need air superiority to drop a nuke from the air or its no go...an improved air system where you could set fighters on escort missions (for nukes or regular bombers) would work rather well.

If you aint got no fighters, or if the enemy escort outnumbers/outclass your defending air force, well, you have no defense. On the other hand, if you do have air superiority on your territory, it would be rather impossible for the enemy to just send a plane and nuke you.

Also, Id make it a little more troublesome to set up the nuke mission. On the bomber case, you would need to build a bomber and assign the nuke to it...And either atomic bombs or icbms REALLY should need a mighty expensive / special building just so you can assemble the thing.

On the other hand, Id really make it MORE powerfull actually. Id like it to be able at some capacity to wipe out improvements, make fertile squares barren, cause earthquakes, completly wipe out small cities (maybe size 3 or less), create deadly and long-lasting fallout, and whatever other hellish nightmare of a consequence people have already said nukes are capable of doing.
And you could expect to be treated like the worlds no1 enemy if you decide to use this weapons, or even produce them in quantity.

All in all, Id just be happy if there have been made a little (or at least some) effort to make nukes interesting and in-context like in past civs.

BUT , this type of complexity clearly is not in the same direction civ is taking (in civ5 at least) so I wont hold my breath on anything of that order to be implemented.

cheers

 

[generalwar]

The UN should get the ability to vote for no nukes like in civ 4. I miss those days when UN was really used for what it was built. To unite civs on general problems.
They should definitely introduce back again UN voting about using nukes.

 

[BranjoHello]

Give us at least some sort of defence against those damn nukes. Pretty please.

 

[benxz88]

I think that what needs to be changed is the rest of the world's reaction to the bombing. The civ that is doing the nuking (AI or human) should face immediate war with other civs and potentially be nuked in return. Not only is this more realistic, but it creates a standoff in which nukes are less likely to fly because of the severe repercussions involved in their use. City States could also take part in this by decreasing your influence with them after the bombing. Using nukes could also lower your own happiness because of protesters. Just an idea.

 

[Becomedeath]

I think that what needs to be changed is the rest of the world's reaction to the bombing. The civ that is doing the nuking (AI or human) should face immediate war with other civs and potentially be nuked in return. Not only is this more realistic, but it creates a standoff in which nukes are less likely to fly because of the severe repercussions involved in their use. City States could also take part in this by decreasing your influence with them after the bombing. Using nukes could also lower your own happiness because of protesters. Just an idea.

/sigh

If you want realism, look at how the world actually reacted to the only government ever to have used nuclear weapons as an act of war.

There was no defence, there were very few diplomatic reprocussions and the country in question, overall, was rather chuffed about it. Moreover, if civilisations do not already have nuclear weapons, what on earth would make them dumb enough to suddenly go to war with a country that A: does have them and B: just proved they're willing to use them?

Nukes in game present a strategic and tactical challenge. Going back to the Civ4 options of SDI them to pointlessness, bomb shelter them to immunity and then UN vote them out of the game was quite frankly an utter pain.

If the whiners have to be appeased, nuclear weapons should be a game setting. Not something that can be mitigated to the point where you might as well be chucking potatoes at each other.

Like I've already said, watch out for the Manhattan Project, get their uranium and cover your own a$$.

 

[Becomedeath]

Well, it's the delivery system. Atomic bombs are bombs, dropped from airplanes. You shoot down the airplane, the bomb is gone. And @Becomedeath, detonating an atomic device is a complicated operation. When the bomber goes down, the bomb is inert, it won't explode. (checking...)

yep, just chatted with my brother, who drops those things. It's even more unlikely than I thought - basically, if the bomber doesn't go through its delivery steps exactly, the bomb is at most an environmental hazard.

Try again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_bomb

Both of the weapons dropped on Japan were detonate on impact. Shooting down the bomber wouldn't have saved you unless you did it well away from it's intended target. As the proposal here is city based defense that's not going to help much.

 

[Strategist83]

The problem with nukes is the advantage they yield is so massive that in an otherwise even contest, if one side pops uranium and the opponent doesn't the game is practically over right there. The ability to build a [relatively inexpensive] unit that can completely nullify the opponent's army and/or cities with no chance of stopping it is absurdly unbalanced. (Note that I am of course referring to a PvP situation here. AI nukes are a nuissance, at best.)

Yes, nukes are cool and all. "And they should be really omgpowerful, because they're nukes!!11". Problem with that is, heinously unbalanced game mechanisms aren't much fun.

They could fix this by adding at least a chance for fighters to intercept A-bombers as well as giving units in the blast radius at least a meager chance to survive a nuclear missile hit. The ability to simply destroy a complete army using a single unit is ridiculous. The return of a bunker building would also be a good addition.

 

[basta]

My 2 cents: Nukes, being nukes, can have no defense. Drop a nuke, you get exactly what the game gives you in return (and frankly, 4 turns for radiation clean-up is far too little). There is no defense: all the SDI, shoot-down and other rationalizations aside, the nuke could just as well have been delivered by the post office with a timer inside the package.

I don't have any problem with that, because sometimes I drop nukes, too. Sometimes I get them dropped on me. But by the time that happens, it should be far from my core cities, with the nuke falling on a far-off puppet. I can live with that. My only regret is that I play with quick combat, so I miss those great nuke animations.

That said, I agree there should be more "soft" defense against nukes, like in Civ4--you became a pariah, got denounced, and no one traded with you. I was really surprised that you can drop nukes with impunity in CivV, and this is too simplistic and easy.

 

[Becomedeath]

The problem with nukes is the advantage they yield is so massive that in an otherwise even contest, if one side pops uranium and the opponent doesn't the game is practically over right there. The ability to build a [relatively inexpensive] unit that can completely nullify the opponent's army and/or cities with no chance of stopping it is absurdly unbalanced. (Note that I am of course referring to a PvP situation here. AI nukes are a nuissance, at best.)

Yes, nukes are cool and all. "And they should be really omgpowerful, because they're nukes!!11". Problem with that is, heinously unbalanced game mechanisms aren't much fun.

1. largely single player games should never be "balanced" (I really hate that term, all it says to me is "aww, it's unfair that they can do XYZ and I can't despite the fact that I can do ABC", however...) around a multiplayer experience.

Civ5 has clearly not been built around a multiplayer experience or Friaxis would have put more effort into making multiplayer more viable by now. They haven't, they've focused almost exclusively on improving, modifying and enhancing the single player experience.

2. (Back to balance 'eh?) Nukes aren't supposed to be a cool and balanced mechanic. They're supposed to be game changers. In the late game, your opponents ability to destroy a city at will forces you to start reassessing your position. You have to suddenly think on an entirely different level that unites strategy and diplomacy.

Suddenly in the game, there is unmitigated risk.

And in my book, that's a lot more fun than playing against the threat of a few annoying archers coming and standing all over my map while I pick them off.

 

[Artingel78]

Maybe in tech nuclear Fusion be some Missile Defense Shield.
But it be a project and it cost 1500 .
That will be fair.(Great Engineer can't hurry production)