This expansion pack needs a patch fix

[GoodSarmatian]

Sounds scary . Guess I shall need to be alert. SDI Defense... quick!!

A major advantage of tactical nukes is that they have a 50% chance to evade interception.
It will make modern wars much more interesting. The AI almost never used nukes but now you really have a reason to hunt subs and keep your opponents from getting uranium.
The greatest annoyance might be global warming though...

 

[Dom Pedro II]

"My dad spent years turning [the basement] into a bomb shelter."

"And yet you guys never had a single nuclear war..."

"What a waste..."

We've had two nuclear weapons detonated in anger in all of the years since their development, and they were dropped just days apart by a country that had the complete monopoly on them. Obviously they're not something used casually. The most powerful nuke is the one that isn't used. They are an effective deterrent against war (full scale war at least) between two nuclear powers and were more directly responsible for keeping the cold war cold than any diplomat or promises of peace from politicians.

If the late game just turns into a nuclear shooting fest, it'll not only be highly unrealistic, it will also make a lot of the unit diversity in the later era a completely moot point. The best formula is for them to be built frequently but used sparingly.

 

[The Navy Seal]

If the late game just turns into a nuclear shooting fest, it'll not only be highly unrealistic, it will also make a lot of the unit diversity in the later era a completely moot point. The best formula is for them to be built frequently but used sparingly.

I agree I think the Ai shouldn't just shoot you everywhere at once only if your beating them. They should only use it as a last resort.

How can you say the Expansion needs a patch when you've only had it for a day it can't be that buggy.

 

[0R4NG3]

I think it is too unrealistic if the AI uses so many nukes. Maybe there should be some sort of penalty for them like the global warming or people getting very unhappy when nukes are used.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

I remember back in Civ3 days when I always used to build a heckofalot of nukes, and then try to nuke everyone, just the problem was everyone had built the SDI by then, always made me pissed.. hehe

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Perhaps they should fix it so that for every nuke you have, it will give all your cities 1 unhappiness

No! Please, no! They did this in Civ 2 and it used to drive me crazy!

How does global warming now seem in the late game with so many nukes going off?

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

No! Please, no! They did this in Civ 2 and it used to drive me crazy!

How does global warming now seem in the late game with so many nukes going off?

Well it is historically accurate, I'm very anti-nuclear proliferation.

I would think with the AI who likes to spam, global warming makes the world a living hell.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

See, I predicted this crap would happen. I KNEW modern warfare would become a bloody nightmare when I saw all the new units for the modern era. This is just all the more reason to wage early wars, beat everyone to Physics and Fission, then use spies to sabotage the crap out of everyone's Uranium mines.

 

[Badesumofu]

If the late game just turns into a nuclear shooting fest, it'll not only be highly unrealistic, it will also make a lot of the unit diversity in the later era a completely moot point. The best formula is for them to be built frequently but used sparingly

Perhaps the only unrealistic part is a player declaring war and marching large conventional armies towards the cities of an opponent who he knows has nuclear weapons stockpiled within? Those AIs aren't so toothless anymore. Why do you suppose we haven't had any major wars between two nuclear powers since WWII? This change sounds entirely realistic to me, we'll just have to adjust our stratergies.

 

[CIVPhilzilla]

For those who have the game, anybody else not able to build more than one atomic bomb in the World War II: European Theater scenario?

 

[MangleMeElmo]

Perhaps the only unrealistic part is a player declaring war and marching large conventional armies towards the cities of an opponent who he knows has nuclear weapons stockpiled within? Those AIs aren't so toothless anymore. Why do you suppose we haven't had any major wars between two nuclear powers since WWII? This change sounds entirely realistic to me, we'll just have to adjust our stratergies.

Good point. It looks like modern wars in BTS will be fought largely in the air and at sea. Largescale ground wars will only take place when one side loses access to uranium. Blackades/road pillaging will be needed to prevent civs from simply trading for uranium.

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Good point. It looks like modern wars in BTS will be fought largely in the air and at sea. Largescale ground wars will only take place when one side loses access to uranium. Blackades/road pillaging will be needed to prevent civs from simply trading for uranium.

Losing access to uranium won't nullify existing nuclear weapons.

 

[Dale]

For those who have the game, anybody else not able to build more than one atomic bomb in the World War II: European Theater scenario?

Did you lose access to uranium?

 

[Gaius Octavius]

Have a sook.

Wanna tissue?

What's a sook?

Nevermind...

sook (plural sooks)

noun ((Australian English) (informal) A moaner. Person always complaining.
Don't be such a sook.

 

[MangleMeElmo]

What's a sook?

http://www.magsook.jp/

 

[frob2900]

We've had two nuclear weapons detonated in anger in all of the years since their development, and they were dropped just days apart by a country that had the complete monopoly on them. Obviously they're not something used casually. The most powerful nuke is the one that isn't used. They are an effective deterrent against war (full scale war at least) between two nuclear powers and were more directly responsible for keeping the cold war cold than any diplomat or promises of peace from politicians.

If the late game just turns into a nuclear shooting fest, it'll not only be highly unrealistic, it will also make a lot of the unit diversity in the later era a completely moot point. The best formula is for them to be built frequently but used sparingly.

But we don't have Montezuma, Napoleon, Stalin and Shaka Zulu running major countries either

 

[Gaius Octavius]

No, we have Ahmadinejad, "Kim-long-ill," and Putin.

 

[IronCrown]

I guess it's still possible to negotiate the ban on nuclear weapons via the UN. So players who don't want nukes should be able to play without them.

I never play until the year 2000 anyway. I think my longest game finished in 1984. Someone has always won by that time, and playing on after the game is finished is lame.

 

[frob2900]

No, we have Ahmadinejad, "Kim-long-ill," and Putin.

You think those compare to the some of the modern era situations in Civ games?

I don't think they are quite as crazy as you'd like them to be, but more importantly these are not major world players. Imagine if there were two world countries with the same economic output/industrial strength/military might as the US, except they were lead by an alliance of Genghis Khan and Shaka Zulu?

That happens all the time in Civ.

I don't think the 178 tactical nuke "issue" is unrealistic at all. There is no "truth" to the doctrine that nuclear weapons are a universal deterrent, it's just that world leaders in our current world have just not been quite crazy enough.

As I think you are implying, though, a slight push further out on the craziness scale and who knows..

 

[Toni1]

No, we have Ahmadinejad, "Kim-long-ill," and Putin.

You're forgetting George W. Bush.

I don't think the 178 tactical nuke "issue" is unrealistic at all. There is no "truth" to the doctrine that nuclear weapons are a universal deterrent, it's just that world leaders in our current world have just not been quite crazy enough.

As I think you are implying, though, a slight push further out on the craziness scale and who knows..

Real world is not turn based so in it you can't get to strike first effectively enough to knock out opponents nuclear arsenal so that they can't retaliate. In Civ game you can (so first to use is the winner as long as he knows where opponents nukes are and takes at least most of them out before his turn ends). If you translate RL situation to civ, nukes do not hit on turn they're launched and opponents gets a warning about coming nuklear attack and has change to retaliate and next turn both sides would be nuked back to stoneage.