If it also increases chances of nuclear evasion by 15% too, sure, why not.
Nukes, Unfair?
- Thread starter EsoEs
- Start date
If it also increases chances of nuclear evasion by 15% too, sure, why not.
utgotye
Warlord
Nukes are fine. Irritating at times, like two games in a row where I was probably about 30 turns away from a cultural victory and I got DPed by two civs that had been blood enemies since the medieval era. 400 turns of emnity that I worked hard to keep going gone in less than 40 turns. Seriously not cool.
As for nuclear defense, at the atomic level, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Enola Gay and Bock's Car had NO fighter escort whatsoever. They also had their defense armament considerably reduced if not eliminated completely. They could have been shot down by a trainee in a WWI biplane. Thus prop fighters being able to intercept atomic bombs should be almost a sure thing (80%+), at least if you are nuking a city with fighters based there. Maybe force those fighters to have at least Intercept II or something but otherwise it should be fine. Ditto with jet fighters intercepting atomic bombs.
ICBMs, that's another matter entirely. IMO, they should be stratified as they were in real life. First gen: single warhead that CAN be intercepted by Mobile SAMs. Then either as a unit-like upgrade to the silo or as an additional component (like with the Spaceship), the second gen could incorporate multiple warheads that are still defensible by Mobile SAMs but the defense can only reduce the damage by no more than half.
Intercept of a ballistic inbound is possible. The US Navy has conducted successful tests in that regard. The process is basically just an exercise in math, though real life execution is always another matter entirely.
The diplomacy is screwy to begin with. The whole thing needs an overhaul.
As for nuclear defense, at the atomic level, it shouldn't be a problem at all. Enola Gay and Bock's Car had NO fighter escort whatsoever. They also had their defense armament considerably reduced if not eliminated completely. They could have been shot down by a trainee in a WWI biplane. Thus prop fighters being able to intercept atomic bombs should be almost a sure thing (80%+), at least if you are nuking a city with fighters based there. Maybe force those fighters to have at least Intercept II or something but otherwise it should be fine. Ditto with jet fighters intercepting atomic bombs.
ICBMs, that's another matter entirely. IMO, they should be stratified as they were in real life. First gen: single warhead that CAN be intercepted by Mobile SAMs. Then either as a unit-like upgrade to the silo or as an additional component (like with the Spaceship), the second gen could incorporate multiple warheads that are still defensible by Mobile SAMs but the defense can only reduce the damage by no more than half.
Intercept of a ballistic inbound is possible. The US Navy has conducted successful tests in that regard. The process is basically just an exercise in math, though real life execution is always another matter entirely.
The diplomacy is screwy to begin with. The whole thing needs an overhaul.
I don't think unlimited range is overpowered, because for countries like the United States and Russia every square inch of the planet is within range of their ICBM's.
But there should be a way to intercept them, otherwise they are overpowred. And ICBM's should be extremely expensive to build. And there should serious diplomatic consequences for using nukes.
gopher666
Chieftain
As frustrating as being nuked is, the shoe's usually on the other foot. At least, that's been my experience. I've been caught off guard and had some cities demolished occasionally, sure. The times I've used them to great effect? Lost count.
Last time was particularly wonderful. I was struggling to reach a cultural victory (on King). Arabia was getting closer and closer to a space victory, having finished all parts but one. Realizing it was now or never, I gathered my fleet, bought three nukes and a carrier, and set sail. About fifteen turns later, Mecca was an irradiated hellhole. Hee hee.
With that said, I rather worry about what nukes do to game balance in multiplayer. I figure some measure of defence might be nice, but overdo it just a little bit and you may as well not have nukes at all.
Last time was particularly wonderful. I was struggling to reach a cultural victory (on King). Arabia was getting closer and closer to a space victory, having finished all parts but one. Realizing it was now or never, I gathered my fleet, bought three nukes and a carrier, and set sail. About fifteen turns later, Mecca was an irradiated hellhole. Hee hee.
With that said, I rather worry about what nukes do to game balance in multiplayer. I figure some measure of defence might be nice, but overdo it just a little bit and you may as well not have nukes at all.
So please tell me why Russia was mad at the U.S for putting a missile shield over Europe until Obama laid down for him . No one believed we could land on the moon until we did . It is possible or it might as well be possible soon as we continue to work on the tech . No one else has the tech or the money to do it so they don 't work on it .
Nuclear weapons in Civ 5 really ought to carry more repercussions than just being a simple 'I WIN' button. There should be increased detection/prevention (particularly with the A-bomb), major diplomatic penalties, long term side effects, and, perhaps, plummeting happiness with their presence/use.
Yeah, not really. Atomic Bombs are pretty weak in terms of killing power and range, and even just having 5 of them is not going to help you survive an onslaught by a serious runaway.
Nuclear Missles on the other hand... are just hellishly expensive and take ages to produce.
Nukes R Us
M.A.D. Man
I did not read all 6 pages, but with the pages I did read you guys seem to be forgetting something.
When I normally play, I play on smaller maps (4-8 players) and I use a nuclear involved strategy
. I play going technological and economical (advanced, and lots of GPT) Normally with 1-2 cities that are super buffed. I settle or.. confiscate lands with uranium deposits, then I build 2 nuclear warheads per capital and take them all in 1 turn. (it can vary)
On larger games on the other hand, I have to use bombers and overwhelming force because I cannot take every capital in a blitzkrieg very often. I want to be able to use the cities I conquer for monetary gain, or to annex and build things from. Without mods, if I use nuclear conquest, I am basically gaining empty shells of land, and a lot of un-happyness.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal currently is about 1/10 the size as it was during the cold war. Yet it takes up 14% of the defense budget for maintenance. Timesing that by 10 to make the cold war cost, assuming the cold war in-game would be about 10-12 nuclear missiles in a normal sized map, the maintenance per/warhead should be ridiculously high! Maybe 20 gpt for 1 nuke? Instead of asking for defense against them, maybe a deterrent to build them would be it would take 140% of your money to build them, and maybe if you sudenly fall very short (say you hit 0 money and have - gpt) a nuke goes unstable and explodes right in your city. That would make you scared to build too many :b I certanly wouldn't want an all-unit killing nuclear missile going off in one of my cities.
On a partly unrelated note, maybe it is just pure chance, but I have NEVER been nuked!
[this is assuming people don't count nuking a city you own to kill an enemy surrounding army or to destroy it so the enemy doesn't get it.. (I irrationally value not losing a city over having a functioning city, and I like it)]
I love nuclear strategies, and I would love to face another nation using nukes against me but it has never happened!!! I play on deity and all but no being nuked. Ever. I was once a 3rd world (ish) nation too! The only reason I was alive was because I was allied to a huge civ whose lands engulfed mine. 20 techs behind and still never nuked! (it was an awesome game, 2 huge superpowers both having 2000 points from land alone, and they left 5 lesser nations with about 300 points from land, then they declared war on eachother. The enemy superpower won the space race
)
When I normally play, I play on smaller maps (4-8 players) and I use a nuclear involved strategy
. I play going technological and economical (advanced, and lots of GPT) Normally with 1-2 cities that are super buffed. I settle or.. confiscate lands with uranium deposits, then I build 2 nuclear warheads per capital and take them all in 1 turn. (it can vary)On larger games on the other hand, I have to use bombers and overwhelming force because I cannot take every capital in a blitzkrieg very often. I want to be able to use the cities I conquer for monetary gain, or to annex and build things from. Without mods, if I use nuclear conquest, I am basically gaining empty shells of land, and a lot of un-happyness.
The U.S. nuclear arsenal currently is about 1/10 the size as it was during the cold war. Yet it takes up 14% of the defense budget for maintenance. Timesing that by 10 to make the cold war cost, assuming the cold war in-game would be about 10-12 nuclear missiles in a normal sized map, the maintenance per/warhead should be ridiculously high! Maybe 20 gpt for 1 nuke? Instead of asking for defense against them, maybe a deterrent to build them would be it would take 140% of your money to build them, and maybe if you sudenly fall very short (say you hit 0 money and have - gpt) a nuke goes unstable and explodes right in your city. That would make you scared to build too many :b I certanly wouldn't want an all-unit killing nuclear missile going off in one of my cities.
On a partly unrelated note, maybe it is just pure chance, but I have NEVER been nuked!
[this is assuming people don't count nuking a city you own to kill an enemy surrounding army or to destroy it so the enemy doesn't get it.. (I irrationally value not losing a city over having a functioning city, and I like it)]I love nuclear strategies, and I would love to face another nation using nukes against me but it has never happened!!! I play on deity and all but no being nuked. Ever. I was once a 3rd world (ish) nation too! The only reason I was alive was because I was allied to a huge civ whose lands engulfed mine. 20 techs behind and still never nuked! (it was an awesome game, 2 huge superpowers both having 2000 points from land alone, and they left 5 lesser nations with about 300 points from land, then they declared war on eachother. The enemy superpower won the space race
)Their effectiveness is fine, as much as I miss SDI defense. It would be realistic if they cost more to maintain though to limit the arsenal size.
Do they still cause rising sea levels and climate change etc? That was always one of my fav realistic features of a nuclear holocaust, nuke an enemy city, cause climate change, lose 5 coastal cities - decide it wasn't worth it.
Do they still cause rising sea levels and climate change etc? That was always one of my fav realistic features of a nuclear holocaust, nuke an enemy city, cause climate change, lose 5 coastal cities - decide it wasn't worth it.
GAGA Extrem
Emperor
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2008
- Messages
- 1,589
Maybe we need a "retaliation target" button like in Call To Power. Those automated counter-nukes could really messed up aggressors. 
But anyway, it would be nice if the bomb shelter would be available with the same tech that unlocks atomic bombs and if some sort of SDI national wonder ("requires bomb shelter in all cities") would be available with telecommunication tech instead...
But anyway, it would be nice if the bomb shelter would be available with the same tech that unlocks atomic bombs and if some sort of SDI national wonder ("requires bomb shelter in all cities") would be available with telecommunication tech instead...
I've been nuked before by nations that I had not nuked first.
It's not something I see very often, because I prefer games that wrap up significantly before the Modern Age.
I think nukes are quite ok the way they are represented in-game. Civ4 SDI was not even remotely fun!
Tactical nukes (beastly weapons for sure) are also quite expensive. They can raze cities off the map if you get enough nuke effect on a city! Or used to be able to.
I've had good success with them being used tactically to wipe out enemy forces around capital, and then just capture capitals for domination win.
On second thought I'd be more in favor of weakening atomic bomb power, and increasing tactical nuke power. Maybe nuclear plants should also give bonus to nuke production or something? Don't they get weapons plutonium from reactors?
I mean we got the uranium/plutonium bombs as A -bombs, and late era nukes ought to be thermonuclear weapons, and maybe even MIRVs
I'd like if nukes destroyed random buildings inside target cities, and caused much more annoying and dangerous fallout(?). The massive area destruction is pretty funny if you use nukes to wipe out carpets of doom, kind of not really representative of A-bombs (early ones).
Unless a single nuke unit represents multiple weapoons. For sure it's possible in real life, doesn't a single Ohio class sub carry about 100-200 nuclear warheads in total.
Tactical nukes (beastly weapons for sure) are also quite expensive. They can raze cities off the map if you get enough nuke effect on a city! Or used to be able to.
I've had good success with them being used tactically to wipe out enemy forces around capital, and then just capture capitals for domination win.
On second thought I'd be more in favor of weakening atomic bomb power, and increasing tactical nuke power. Maybe nuclear plants should also give bonus to nuke production or something? Don't they get weapons plutonium from reactors?
I mean we got the uranium/plutonium bombs as A -bombs, and late era nukes ought to be thermonuclear weapons, and maybe even MIRVs
I'd like if nukes destroyed random buildings inside target cities, and caused much more annoying and dangerous fallout(?). The massive area destruction is pretty funny if you use nukes to wipe out carpets of doom, kind of not really representative of A-bombs (early ones).
Unless a single nuke unit represents multiple weapoons. For sure it's possible in real life, doesn't a single Ohio class sub carry about 100-200 nuclear warheads in total.
