In every version of civ that I have played nukes are weak. Weak in the sense that they dont just wipe away cities etc. Nuke a size 20 city and it will shrink and units and buildings are destroyed, but shouldnt a 100 megatonne warhead effectively erase a city? The early atom bomb effectively destroyed horoshima yet a late modern era ICBM just damages cities (in the game). For me It has to be one of the most annoying things that never gets fixed. Nuclear war should effectively end the war, without needing repeated nuking.
why are nukes always so weak?
- Thread starter sammoraj
- Start date
Manco Capac
Friday,13 June,I Collapse
- Joined
- Mar 1, 2010
- Messages
- 8,051
Hey lass, have you thought about game balance?
Why no one ever think about game balance first? And it is known that nukes are already unbalanced. Some desesperate deity games with gigantic AI empire were saved thanks to nuke. Now, try to imagine it erases cities. Boom. 20 nukes and no more such AI player that was annoying. That's ridiculous. And now imagine it happens to you. Ouch, game over instantaneously. Not many players will find courage to continue a game losing a capital full of wonders and fully grown of cottages.
Nevertheless, if you still cling to this idea, perhaps some modders will show you the path how to make nuke to destroy cities entirely...just like a razing function along nukes.
Why no one ever think about game balance first? And it is known that nukes are already unbalanced. Some desesperate deity games with gigantic AI empire were saved thanks to nuke. Now, try to imagine it erases cities. Boom. 20 nukes and no more such AI player that was annoying. That's ridiculous. And now imagine it happens to you. Ouch, game over instantaneously. Not many players will find courage to continue a game losing a capital full of wonders and fully grown of cottages.
Nevertheless, if you still cling to this idea, perhaps some modders will show you the path how to make nuke to destroy cities entirely...just like a razing function along nukes.
I think it's for balance reasons; because the game is turn-based, if there are enough nukes, the first person to launch wins, no matter what. This allows the nuked civ's nukes to survive to renuke the nuker in revenge for the nuking.
EDIT: Ninja'd
EDIT: Ninja'd
True, but it should be possible to design in a mechanic that makes nukes a special weapon that can to be fired regardless, just before the "your defeated" message hops up. Also not every city could be destroyed in one shot, some cities really are too big, but most could be ashed
Why would you do that? To spite the AI? You just lost the game, and they don't give a **** regardless.
I first learnt a one turn nuclear win back in civ 3, its slightly harder in civ 4 but still way too easy, a nuclear exchance of really powerful weapons would kill that tactic. If the AI can return the favour regardless of what you do it would make those wars just a little more intresting.
Hiroshima has over a million people in it today. The city was devastated, but not destroyed.
joanne
Barbarian
- Joined
- Jun 1, 2009
- Messages
- 489
I don't think anyone ever had a 100MT nuke, much less a miniaturized warhead that could be delivered via missle; the early fission bombs were in the kilotons, whereas the fusion bombs on the ICBMs in the later Cold War era were on average mostly around the single-digit MegaTons AFAIK, with the Soviets' made slightly bigger to compensate for their disadvantage in targeting/guidance computers. The biggest nuke ever, the Tsar Bomba was designed to be 100MT but the Russians chickened out right before testing it and brought it down to "just" 50MT. (thank you Tom Clancy, lol) Then again maybe some nations do currently possess a weapon of such magnitude but are not telling us; it's not exactly something you want potential adversaries to be aware of and be able to plan against.
Regarding the question: note that as ICBM warheads have gotten larger, so did cities. Thankfully no one's ever detonated a megatonner on a modern metropolis, so there's no telling what the effects would be like. The in-game effects were most likely implemented for balance rather than realism.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Hey Sammoraj 
I would like to support Your claim that nukes are underpowered Modern era ICBM's were not used on real targets so we do not know what's their impact on real cities (presumably city would be leveled to the ground with no survivors -unless They would have a really kickass nuke shelters like in Fallout RPG xD) The major difference between bombs from Hiroshima-Nagasaki and modern ICBM's is their payload. In hirosima it was a simple fission reaction while modern ICMB's utilize fusion reaction as a payload. (Nuclear "core bomb" serves as a ignition agent - generating insane temperature for hydrogen to create uncontrolled fusion reaction - hence the term - thermonuclear. The largest detonated Hydrogen bomb was Russian Tsar ~50 MT and there are no greater payloads in any arsenal on Earth today so 100MT is science fiction
Now to the game !
The claims about unbalance are well founded - modders would have to change the way AI behave toward nukes entirely. In unmoded bts there's no need for changes but I concur - the nuclear mod would be great if it could have real ICMB power and also (idea) a chance to receive counter strike the same turn You launch Your own rockets . If You are anxious about having the real destructive power of doomsday weapons I urge You to play Sid's Alpha Centauri - it handles it pretty well ^^
To end on a "positive note" and make everyone happy here's one of my fav nuclear songs hehe:
Tom Lehrer - it takes a great artist to sing about a doomsday weapon like ICBM and make You happy about it at the same time
Link to video.
I would like to support Your claim that nukes are underpowered Modern era ICBM's were not used on real targets so we do not know what's their impact on real cities (presumably city would be leveled to the ground with no survivors -unless They would have a really kickass nuke shelters like in Fallout RPG xD) The major difference between bombs from Hiroshima-Nagasaki and modern ICBM's is their payload. In hirosima it was a simple fission reaction while modern ICMB's utilize fusion reaction as a payload. (Nuclear "core bomb" serves as a ignition agent - generating insane temperature for hydrogen to create uncontrolled fusion reaction - hence the term - thermonuclear. The largest detonated Hydrogen bomb was Russian Tsar ~50 MT and there are no greater payloads in any arsenal on Earth today so 100MT is science fiction Now to the game !
The claims about unbalance are well founded - modders would have to change the way AI behave toward nukes entirely. In unmoded bts there's no need for changes but I concur - the nuclear mod would be great if it could have real ICMB power and also (idea) a chance to receive counter strike the same turn You launch Your own rockets . If You are anxious about having the real destructive power of doomsday weapons I urge You to play Sid's Alpha Centauri - it handles it pretty well ^^ To end on a "positive note" and make everyone happy
here's one of my fav nuclear songs hehe:Tom Lehrer - it takes a great artist to sing about a doomsday weapon like ICBM and make You happy about it at the same time
Link to video.
AW Arcaeca
Deus Vult
Think of it this way: if your enemy completed the Manhattan project and had access to uranium , would you like one of your cities totally obliterated?
But I do agree, nukes should cause more damage. But they don't, they're not that useful, so I just wouldn't bother. There's not much point in expending 500 hammers on a one-use weapon that can't raze enemy cities.
But I do agree, nukes should cause more damage. But they don't, they're not that useful, so I just wouldn't bother. There's not much point in expending 500 hammers on a one-use weapon that can't raze enemy cities.
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Tactical nukes on the other hand are invaluable in erasing enemy stacks hammer-efficient wise
I'm kind of surprised no one has mentioned this, but Alpha Centauri's nukes (well, Planet Busters, but they served the same purpose) did wipe out cities- sometimes more than one, based on placement and reactor level. They let me pull off some impressive last-ditch victories, but I don't think it'd be a good idea now- the two games work rather differently.
I think the confusion is because you don't understand how powerful (or lacking in power) nuclear bombs really are. We dropped 2 on Japan and the only reason that ended the war was because they didn't want us to drop more on them, not because it "destroyed their army" or anything.
In fact, the bombs themselves didn't even completely "destroy" the cities they were dropped on. Sure, they damaged them greatly, but both cities were still there and still had massive populations (albeit a lot less than before - which is like in Civ 4 going from size 20 down to size 13 or whatever).
There was a lot of propaganda during the Cold War about how "scary" nuclear bombs were and how they could destroy the entire United States or the Soviet Union, but that's not true. Yes, nuclear bombs could have killed a lot of people in the really populated cities like New York and Moscow, but overall it would take a LOT of nuclear bombs to affect an entire country the size of either USA or USSR, and especially a LOT for either side to "destroy" the other - not just a handful as they made it sound like.
So I think Civ 4 captures this well. If you drop a nuke on someone you do weaken the one city you dropped it on, but it's not the "end all be all" that mid-20th century propaganda made it out to be. If American forces had tried to invade and fight in Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped, they would still have faced stiff resistance from local military units, just as in Civ 4 you will still have to face the Stack of Doom occupying the city even after you've dropped a nuke on it. The stack will be weaker, but it'll still be there... just like the Japanese Army was still there after having 2 nukes dropped on them.
So basically, nukes seem "weak" in Civ games because nukes ARE "weak" in real life. Propaganda has made them seem worse/scarier than they are, but the fact is, it would take a LOT of nuclear bombs to do the kind of damage you seem to think just ONE should do.
In fact, the bombs themselves didn't even completely "destroy" the cities they were dropped on. Sure, they damaged them greatly, but both cities were still there and still had massive populations (albeit a lot less than before - which is like in Civ 4 going from size 20 down to size 13 or whatever).
There was a lot of propaganda during the Cold War about how "scary" nuclear bombs were and how they could destroy the entire United States or the Soviet Union, but that's not true. Yes, nuclear bombs could have killed a lot of people in the really populated cities like New York and Moscow, but overall it would take a LOT of nuclear bombs to affect an entire country the size of either USA or USSR, and especially a LOT for either side to "destroy" the other - not just a handful as they made it sound like.
So I think Civ 4 captures this well. If you drop a nuke on someone you do weaken the one city you dropped it on, but it's not the "end all be all" that mid-20th century propaganda made it out to be. If American forces had tried to invade and fight in Hiroshima after the bomb was dropped, they would still have faced stiff resistance from local military units, just as in Civ 4 you will still have to face the Stack of Doom occupying the city even after you've dropped a nuke on it. The stack will be weaker, but it'll still be there... just like the Japanese Army was still there after having 2 nukes dropped on them.
So basically, nukes seem "weak" in Civ games because nukes ARE "weak" in real life. Propaganda has made them seem worse/scarier than they are, but the fact is, it would take a LOT of nuclear bombs to do the kind of damage you seem to think just ONE should do.
Crispy007
Chieftain
Planet busters at their finest http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJjQEoFF5Q8
AdamCrock
Polish Pirate
Not entirely true in my opinion. There are 2 factors to the nuclear warfare that we need to consider.
First and foremost is the "payload potential" - while nukes dropped on Japan were "weak" (I'd think of them as rushed prototypes - made just to end the war) the modern nukes ARE deadly (energy released in fusion reaction is three to four times greater than fission reaction) - it's not just propaganda. (http://www.diffen.com/difference/Nuclear_Fission_vs_Nuclear_Fusion)
The second issue is the radiation level. Mammals are too complicated organisms to sustain increased levels of rads. So if the hell would go loose the surviving humans would have to hide underground and eat roaches to survive - but even than they would die off from the water irradiation - so nukes "real threat" is not the imminent damage but in a long shot it's the radiation - the fallout - that everyone is so scared of - a silent killer, and guess what : in RL we cannot simply order a worker to "clear out the fallout" - it is not possible - so in a long shot if we were to push the red button - we'd all be doomed
Just approximately 11.000 humans died from cancer (And it's just from the "Nevada test site") casued by nuclear weapon testing and vast areas still remain irradiated, here's an example :
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
