1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

please make nukes better!

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by hossam, Jul 6, 2010.

  1. paradigmx

    paradigmx Say yes to Steam

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2009
    Messages:
    205
    Whatever you do, don't give us the BS 1 nuke per game crap that Revolutions stuck us with
     
  2. PieceOfMind

    PieceOfMind Drill IV Defender Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2006
    Messages:
    9,319
    Location:
    Australia
    I was going to say the same thing.
     
  3. 99wattr89

    99wattr89 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    205
    Once you've nuked a city down to 1 population and leveled all the improvements, leaving it in a sea of fallout, it can't meaningfully work on a spaceship part anyway. You've already stopped that city ever being productive again, so being able to finish it off once every building and the entire population are dead makes no real difference at all. And would make a lot more sense.

    I'm very much against making nukes any stronger, but if you use enough of them that the target city is nothing but cinders and fallout, then it should end up destroyed. Without that capacity, nukes feel a lot weaker than they actually are.
     
  4. Windsor

    Windsor Flawless

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2008
    Messages:
    1,385
    Location:
    Norway
    I was thinking of BTS where razing the capital will stop an already launched ship :)
     
  5. 99wattr89

    99wattr89 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    205
    Razing just the capital stops a launched ship? That's wierd. I don't think that's ever come up in a game for me.
    You might as well just have a proviso that nukes can't destroy capitals.

    Nukes never destroying cities at all is just frustrating - it makes them feel like blunted weapons, and doesn't really limit thier power, since other than for supporting a spaceship in flight, that 1 population city with no buildings in a sea of fallout is worthless.
     
  6. Johnny Be

    Johnny Be Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    I'm not a fan of "hard limits" as well, but I think the number of nukes should be kept small for game balance.

    IMO the best way to implement in CiV would be making them depend on resources (uranium), expensive and with high maintenance cost. That way you can have some, if you are a large empire, BUT you have to decide were to use them and IF using them is a sensible idea, since it will make other nations hate you (or even declare war) before you can build more.
     
  7. Samez

    Samez ION GUNNER

    Joined:
    Jan 31, 2005
    Messages:
    1,556
    Location:
    center of nowhere
    It will be interesting to see how nukes are handled while there is only one unit per tile... (and no units in cities).
    I would guess they will deal damage to all 6 adjacent tiles. (so 7 tiles in total)
     
  8. TCB

    TCB Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 21, 2009
    Messages:
    21
    My guess is that nukes will at the very least reduce the health bar of a city to zero, making it completely defenceless, as well as a population reduction. It would be good to see tactical nukes that have an area of affect, whereby all units in the surrounding hexes of the target would be badly damaged.
     
  9. 99wattr89

    99wattr89 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    205
    Ew, no.
    Making a city defenceless in one hit is far too powerful, that's a horrible idea.
    It should do some damage with each hit, not make a city defenceless after just one.
     
  10. rjaco31

    rjaco31 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2009
    Messages:
    32
    I must disagree with a lot of people here. A 1 population is totally different from a razed city because nukes don't destroy wonders. Thus, you cannot prevent a cultural victory even with an unlimited ammount of nukes & you just have to send some land troops. I find it kind of odd.
     
  11. Ddude97

    Ddude97 King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    761
    So you want nukes to be glorified artillery/conventional missiles with big diplo impact?
    Personally, I think nukes should be stronger, but super expensive.
     
  12. Johnny Be

    Johnny Be Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    :agree:
     
  13. 99wattr89

    99wattr89 Warlord

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2007
    Messages:
    205
    That's a point. Still, a city nuked to 1 population shouldn't produce much culture at all - everyone's dead! xD
    In any case, if you have enough nukes to do that to a city after it has a bunker and whatnot, then the enemy can't possibly stop you conquering the city anyway, all it does it buy the enemy a few turns of impotence before you get there.

    So you want nukes to completely break the game?
    They're already powerful enough, and making them cost more is meaningless, because big civs will still build all they want.
    I also said they should have a lesser diplomatic impact - check my earlier posts.
     
  14. Johnny Be

    Johnny Be Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2010
    Messages:
    152
    Location:
    Lisbon - Portugal
    I defend exactly the opposite...

    A Nuclear Bomb is a very big thing! It was a huge human effort to produce and It causes huge destruction and suffering if used. It's game version should be true to the fact.

    There are several reasons why they aren't used in real life (apart from the 2 over Japan). To account for this and prevent breaking the game, I think they should have a huge maintenance/unhappiness/diplomatic impact. The high cost is just one of the factors.

    Launching a Nuke should be a very tactical and reflected decision game wise. :nuke:

    But we'll see how they implement and what the result is in 76 days. :)
     
  15. Schuesseled

    Schuesseled Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    2,081
    Well one nuke can't estroy a city, a portion of it certainly, but not the whole shebang, that would require multiple nukes, and isn't really necessary as one nuke basically makes a city worthless.

    In civ 5 with city health one nuke won't destroy the city, but will probably let a fast unit take the city the very next turn, and then you can raise it properly. If you make it feel better you can imagine a nuke going off in the city every turn till its levelled.
     
  16. Ddude97

    Ddude97 King

    Joined:
    Sep 4, 2008
    Messages:
    761
    Yeah, not quite sure about that one, what size are you talking about because with megaton and multiple megaton nukes, bye bye city (unless of course it was bunkered, but then they'd all become zombies trying to eat everyone, right?)
     
  17. hossam

    hossam Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2007
    Messages:
    2,478
    Location:
    Texas
    i remember in SMAC the planet buster completely leveled a city and the terrain surrounding it, why cant civ nukes also level cities? i agree with the sentiment that nukes should be expensive to produce and maintain, as well as incurring a diplo hit for simply having them, and a HUGE diplo hit for actually using them, and the fact that they should be limited by how much uranium you have.
     
  18. Carver

    Carver King

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2002
    Messages:
    951
    Location:
    USA
    I've never agreed with this argument. The first (successful) nuclear weapons program was immeasurably more difficult than later programs - much of the technology is now in the public domain. Iraq was able to build nuclear facilities that were reproductions of America's facilities due to the accessibility of information.

    Civ has always acknowledged the diffusion of technology, by making techs cheaper to research when other civs already had those techs. The same principle should apply to nukes.

    Yes, in C4 the AI seems to treat nukes (when deciding to use them) like any other weapon. It would be nice if they were more reflective, and showed a softer side: consideration, restraint, concern for civilians, and concern for one's legacy.
     
  19. Songkok

    Songkok Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 26, 2010
    Messages:
    60
    Maybe they should make the use of nukes causing massive unhappiness (war weariness?) in the civ that uses them. :mad:
    If the civ are more towards the liberty bend, then this might results in massive revolts in their own cities due to the inhumanity of this act. If the civ are more towards the police states, then they need more units to do policing duties to prevent unhappiness. Or maybe extensive propoganda to convince their citizens that the other civ are not pple but demons that are needed to be wiped off the surface of earth...:devil:
     
  20. blitzkrieg1980

    blitzkrieg1980 Octobrist

    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2006
    Messages:
    4,899
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Here's where the whole discussion of realism vs. balanced play comes in. Realistically speaking, if a city suffered an ICBM thermonuclear attack, it would be basically defenseless against an incoming army that had not just endured a 4 megaton blast.

    Small cities should be completely destroyed, larger cities should be basically reduced to a skeleton. Raise the cost of nukes, require large amounts of uranium, and add in diplo hits for having nukes (ICBMs specifically). Increase diplo penalties for using nukes.

    In my opinion, this not only balances the game, but adds even more realism. An offensive nuclear strike would nearly alienate a nation from its allies but would be an extremely powerful tool to use for domination. After all, do you really give a crap about what your "allies" think when the end game arrives in a domination scenario?
     

Share This Page