Yeah, and then they claim the game is broken. I do wonder, however, if Civ5 had done a better job at turning around fortunes compared to Civ4. Civ4 had too much of getting a good start and you will not lose, but Civ5 has too much of being way behind yet getting a cheesy win. While I still think that nukes offer a good equalizer, other units (and tactics) should also be used more against the human player.
Nukes, Unfair?
- Thread starter EsoEs
- Start date
Yeah, and then they claim the game is broken. I do wonder, however, if Civ5 had done a better job at turning around fortunes compared to Civ4. Civ4 had too much of getting a good start and you will not lose, but Civ5 has too much of being way behind yet getting a cheesy win. While I still think that nukes offer a good equalizer, other units (and tactics) should also be used more against the human player.
automator
King
Rome has made some nuclear war on me from time to time. Oddest was in a non-stop war on an archi map. For whatever reason, they never tried to deliver a nuke via any method than bombing from a city of theirs to a minor city I'd conquored ... so I just kept a couple boats around there to intercept any invaders and dealt with seeing a nuke hit my crummy city every few turns.
duxup
Prince
- Joined
- Dec 31, 2001
- Messages
- 385
The modern era faces some crazy threats with potentially apocalyptic results. Both historically and in terms of end gameplay makes sense to me. Much like the death robot thing it is all about just ending the damn game already (although IMO the robot(s) should have a chance of going haywire and attacking whomever it chooses).
Anyway I rarely ever get to the modern era and the game hasn't been pretty much decided. By that time I have a good advantage, or I'm too far behind to win (usually I figure that out by the time industrial era).
In Civ IV the nukes were also largely pointless. When you built nukes you likely went and built the SDI shortly after anyhow to protect yourself if you had any worry about being nuked. They were pretty much just a fun toy, if you really could pelt someone with nukes, you likely could also wipe them out via other methods too.
I'm ok with the nukes. I wouldn't mind some method of stopping the game in various eras for some awesome long modern era combat or industrial, or otherwise... but the nukes being a trump card of chaos makes sense to me.
Anyway I rarely ever get to the modern era and the game hasn't been pretty much decided. By that time I have a good advantage, or I'm too far behind to win (usually I figure that out by the time industrial era).
In Civ IV the nukes were also largely pointless. When you built nukes you likely went and built the SDI shortly after anyhow to protect yourself if you had any worry about being nuked. They were pretty much just a fun toy, if you really could pelt someone with nukes, you likely could also wipe them out via other methods too.
I'm ok with the nukes. I wouldn't mind some method of stopping the game in various eras for some awesome long modern era combat or industrial, or otherwise... but the nukes being a trump card of chaos makes sense to me.
I assume it may if you go below -20 happiness. They need to lose that barbarian combat penalty, though.
[WTN]Manhattan
Chieftain
I found a good (but expensive) strategy is to simple buy all uranium on the market. That way, the AI won't build nukes and you can build a huge stock by your own.
As I never had to fight a nuclear war, there is one thing I would like to know: Are nukes still immune to nuclear explosion as they were in Civ4? This was one of the changes I liked most since Civ2 as it gives you (and the AI) the chance of an retaliatory strike which makes nukes much more interesting.
As I never had to fight a nuclear war, there is one thing I would like to know: Are nukes still immune to nuclear explosion as they were in Civ4? This was one of the changes I liked most since Civ2 as it gives you (and the AI) the chance of an retaliatory strike which makes nukes much more interesting.
khrag
Chieftain
Why not just make it so that if you mine uranium your civ takes a hit in health and population?
What are you talking about?Ofcourse there exist defense against planes and rockets man...
But do you know what doesen't exist?A space ship flying in a few years a length of 4 light years lol
You can fight against planes ALTHOUGH they have an atomic bomb in it...yes yes
There are also defense systems to shot down flying rockets
And yes there are intercontinal nuclear rockets too.
But do you know what doesen't exist?A space ship flying in a few years a length of 4 light years lol
You can fight against planes ALTHOUGH they have an atomic bomb in it...yes yes
There are also defense systems to shot down flying rockets
And yes there are intercontinal nuclear rockets too.
Air defense systems that don't even work unless its by the best circumstances (ie. a test facility)
People here are afraid of nukes, but I haven't seen a game where the AI plays like a human player does with nuclear missiles and finger-delete their cities like a God to Sodom. Thus, there exists no reason to be afraid of nukes.
People here are afraid of nukes, but I haven't seen a game where the AI plays like a human player does with nuclear missiles and finger-delete their cities like a God to Sodom. Thus, there exists no reason to be afraid of nukes.
I wonder if there should be nuclear weapons at all in Civ. In real world history, they were only used twice in very short period of time. Even the ultra-paranoid, Stalinist Soviets, at the height of Cold War tensions, understood the concept of mutually assured total destruction. Thus, the use of nuclear weapons in warfare is universally agreed upon to be an impossible option.
If anything, the fact that both sides had overwhelming stockpiles of nukes actually prevented large scale war, and the "Cold War" was fought by proxy in small Third World nations. All wars since WW2 have been fairly small, regional conflicts.
If anything, the fact that both sides had overwhelming stockpiles of nukes actually prevented large scale war, and the "Cold War" was fought by proxy in small Third World nations. All wars since WW2 have been fairly small, regional conflicts.
I made a suggestion for this earlier but there was no support.
I think a simple treaty that once signed forbids a civilization from using nukes would be fine.
Sign it and you get a huge diplomatic bonus towards others that signed it.
Don't sign it and you will never have friendly relations with those that did sign it.
Use a nuke anyway? Permanent hostile or some other diplomatic penalty like that.
I think a simple treaty that once signed forbids a civilization from using nukes would be fine.
Sign it and you get a huge diplomatic bonus towards others that signed it.
Don't sign it and you will never have friendly relations with those that did sign it.
Use a nuke anyway? Permanent hostile or some other diplomatic penalty like that.
In civ 1 and civ 2 an SDI didn't destroy all your plans...you can be creative and take a spy to break the nuke defense of a city and destroy the SDI before it destroys your missiles.In civ 2 I liked bringing an atomic bomb with a spy into a city xD.
In civ 4, there are ICBMs, but they can be easily shot down by SDI and I think if SDI is once built, you can't destroy it.Therefor you can be creative enough and make some tactical nukes and for example bring them secretly with submarines to huge enemy coast cities, or put the nukes to some of your forts from where you maybe can reach big cities surrounded only by land.Now the chanche that 1 or 2 of 3 will blast the city is higher and the bomb shelters can destroyed by spies too hehe
.That's why I liked the systems around nuclear weapons in civ 1-civ 4. You also can destroy enemy production of nukes, SDI and uranium mines and defend yours.
But in civ 5 there are only nuclear weapons but no contra to have a chanche to defend yourself against them.In my opinion this is boring...SDI defense has to be in civ too.Or maybe we will have in civ 6 SDI defense but no nukes lol.
In civ 4, there are ICBMs, but they can be easily shot down by SDI and I think if SDI is once built, you can't destroy it.Therefor you can be creative enough and make some tactical nukes and for example bring them secretly with submarines to huge enemy coast cities, or put the nukes to some of your forts from where you maybe can reach big cities surrounded only by land.Now the chanche that 1 or 2 of 3 will blast the city is higher and the bomb shelters can destroyed by spies too hehe
.That's why I liked the systems around nuclear weapons in civ 1-civ 4. You also can destroy enemy production of nukes, SDI and uranium mines and defend yours.But in civ 5 there are only nuclear weapons but no contra to have a chanche to defend yourself against them.In my opinion this is boring...SDI defense has to be in civ too.Or maybe we will have in civ 6 SDI defense but no nukes lol.
Spread your forces out three tiles apart from your border cities.
Designate one or two of your border cities as "Target"
Go on the offense against that civ with nukes on your borders, push as hard and fast before he gets to nuclear missiles, take out those cities that he is basing his nukes from.
Where are your own nukes in this? Keeping up in tech is extremely crucial here
There, that's how you defend against nukes.
e: keep in mind that I've tested this strategy out in games where I've been vastly out-teched by a neighboring runaway, and he wasn't on another continent. How bad was the matchup? I didn't have enough cash to upgrade my crossbows and pikemen to Riflemen, while he had the Atomic Bomb.
Spread your forces out three tiles apart from your border cities.
Designate one or two of your border cities as "Target"
Go on the offense against that civ with nukes on your borders, push as hard and fast before he gets to nuclear missiles, take out those cities that he is basing his nukes from.
Where are your own nukes in this? Keeping up in tech is extremely crucial here
There, that's how you defend against nukes.
e: keep in mind that I've tested this strategy out in games where I've been vastly out-teched by a neighboring runaway, and he wasn't on another continent. How bad was the matchup? I didn't have enough cash to upgrade my crossbows and pikemen to Riflemen, while he had the Atomic Bomb.
But you are still not save against already started nuclear missiles or started planes with atomic bombs, and thats what we are talking about.In my opinion only having nukes or having nukes should make your people unhappy and make worse diplomacy.
The AI, for the most part, doesn't seem to be able to grasp the tactical significance of nuclear weapons ie. they tend to aim for cities rather than troop concentrations
In my opinion nukes should be a viable method of clearing out entire tiles of AI unit and city spam. They really shouldn't have any other gameplay effect other than diplomacy wise, and really, by the endgame, diplomacy has mostly gone to pot.
Disgustipated
Deity
will a city state use a nuke? That might be interesting.
With all the people saying SDI is impossible (I'm guessing they are liberals, since liberals always oppose any nuke defense), I present this article. I'm not saying it can't be defeated. But probably only one nation (Russia) has the capability of designing missiles to defeat it.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...s-new-missile-defense-system/?intcmp=features
So just because something is impossible today, doesn't mean it will be impossible in the future. SDI is entirely plausible, if you throw enough money at it. I think the missile in the article is a medium range ballistic missile. These defense system would be great to defend against countries like North Korea and Iran when they get nukes. Certainly not useful on a full scale WW3 attack.
As for in game, I'm okay with having no SDI. I admit it was a little too powerful in Civ4. Nukes still seem a little weak, but at least they are better than Civ4. Now if we could go back to how powerful planetbusters were in SMAC, now that would be something.
All kinds of people would be complaining then. I think I only got PB'd a couple of times in SMAC, but it sure sucks losing your city completely.
With all the people saying SDI is impossible (I'm guessing they are liberals, since liberals always oppose any nuke defense), I present this article. I'm not saying it can't be defeated. But probably only one nation (Russia) has the capability of designing missiles to defeat it.
http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2012...s-new-missile-defense-system/?intcmp=features
So just because something is impossible today, doesn't mean it will be impossible in the future. SDI is entirely plausible, if you throw enough money at it. I think the missile in the article is a medium range ballistic missile. These defense system would be great to defend against countries like North Korea and Iran when they get nukes. Certainly not useful on a full scale WW3 attack.
As for in game, I'm okay with having no SDI. I admit it was a little too powerful in Civ4. Nukes still seem a little weak, but at least they are better than Civ4. Now if we could go back to how powerful planetbusters were in SMAC, now that would be something.
All kinds of people would be complaining then. I think I only got PB'd a couple of times in SMAC, but it sure sucks losing your city completely.
Gaizokubanou
Warlord
- Joined
- Jan 15, 2006
- Messages
- 253
SDI is not impossible in a sense that yes, we can have better protection against ICBMs sure.
The problem is that it's not the most reassuring idea of working defense, because even if SDI have success rate of say, 95% (that's AMAZINGLY high probability I'm assigning for sake of the argument btw, reality will be much lower), that 5% of nukes that make it through will utterly ruin everything.
The problem is that it's not the most reassuring idea of working defense, because even if SDI have success rate of say, 95% (that's AMAZINGLY high probability I'm assigning for sake of the argument btw, reality will be much lower), that 5% of nukes that make it through will utterly ruin everything.
Minervis
Chieftain
how about sdi having like 10% than after each level of future tech it increases the odds by 10%
