why are nukes always so weak?

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

This has to be some of the most comically terrible advice I've ever seen.

Nukes are well-documented as game-changing and game-breaking in civ IV, with examples of their intelligent usage crushing 100's of units and wiping out civs in a single turn.

If someone remotely competent gets enough of a tech lead to initiate a serious/coordinated nuclear attack on you, you won't recover. You are dead.

No other unit in the game can flatline the strongest high-level AI in the world's power so readily, and considering the damage to tile improvements, city improvements, and units, the amount of time it takes in years (remember, 1 turn in this game = multiple years for most of the game) for a city to truly recover from that is realistically enormous.

Just because people don't know how to use the strongest unit in the game (tactical nuke) doesn't mean it is underpowered SMH.

I honestly don't get the point of tactical nukes. Sure, they have a 50% interception evasion chance, but you can only launch them within a range of about 50 squares? And they do less damage than normal nukes, which can't even destroy a flimsy little city? AND they can still be intercepted, just less likely? If I want to nuke someone, which I usually don't because it's a waste of time, I don't want to build a nuke in the cities near the front lines, because in those cities not only can they be nuked, destroying my newly made nuke, but they can also be captured quickest by enemy marines or tanks.

Costs fewer hammers, has no true counter (SDI intercepts less than 40% of them), does the same damage as ICBMs, *can be gifted* to AI to get them to ruin their reputation, and can be carried by missile cruisers and more importantly, submarines.

Once you capture a city, you can also rebase them into that city from anywhere in the world and either launch them there or re-load subs. The ICBM is a strictly inferior unit for the lazy.

 

[calibur]

The ICBM could also be the proper choice for low production reasons.

 

[JoeyB98]

I sometimes use the ICBM for convenience purposes, as well as psychological at times if I am playing against a human: there's just something magical and terrifying about the red "JoeyB2198 launches an ICBM, and it explodes!" ... it's not rational, but I like it.

 

[Ataxerxes]

The ICBM could also be the proper choice for low production reasons.

I don't get this. If you have low production the tactical nukes are a lot cheaper and will work for 90-95% of the cases you need nukes. You build the tactical nuke, move it to a nearby city and ruin an AI's day next turn. You can actually use tactical nukes faster than ICBM's unless you have an amazing production city.

The only difference would be if you want to nuke someone far away. However, I prefer TMIT's usage of killing a nearby army. I don't care about the army on the other side of the world because I can't finish them off.

Joey's reasoning I understand. There is something about "The Red Button!" and nuking anywhere.

 

[calibur]

The only difference would be if you want to nuke someone far away. However, I prefer TMIT's usage of killing a nearby army. I don't care about the army on the other side of the world because I can't finish them off.

Of course, I refer to this. The transports would make it less production-worthy. And, I don't know why I didn't actually say this, but meant if you had to hurry up and nuke that civ's capital/major city before they get culture/space victory.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Of course, I refer to this. The transports would make it less production-worthy. And, I don't know why I didn't actually say this, but meant if you had to hurry up and nuke that civ's capital/major city before they get culture/space victory.

3 tac nuke + sub is less expensive than 3 icbm, and considerably so. The sub is not consumed once you fire them, either.

Even the travel time is pretty non-factor, since if you can get open borders with someone you can just build a sub first, move it into their city (even across the world), rebase the tac nukes there, and load the sub on the same turn you rebase them. You can then fire 3 tactical nukes on the following turn. Bonus points for doing this en masse' to the civ you had open borders with <3.

If you want to actually take the cities, you need transports no matter what else you do, to carry troops. Tac nukes simply make ICBM redundant in almost every case, especially since you can build subs with uranium too. I suppose you at least need radio, so there is a small window where you can't build subs to carry the missiles. That's the one time an ICBM is worth it if going for intercontinental wars. You could nuke a city, take it, move in, unload a bunch of junk chariots and pillage all the roads and/or rails, then rebase all your tactical nukes there while their stack trying to retaliate gets stuck killing a couple chariots or similar cheap 2 mover to pillage. (Note that you usually won't even need ICBM in this case, since you can just put your initial nuke stockpile in a nearby open border city, nuke the target city, then rebase into it with the unused tac nukes to protect them post-pillage lol)

AI will keep sending units at that city too, quite ludicrous as it will always bottleneck outside such a city (due to no roads) and then get tac nuked to oblivion. Once that stack is gone, simply move out (or use boats to attack nuked cities amphibiously) and slaughter everything.

Still, nuke doomfall is the best/most satisfying. Nothing beats turning a 12+ city empire into a 0 city empire in a single turn . If they don't have SDI you just need a sub with 3 tac nukes per city (or sometimes you can use open borders + neighboring cities instead), with a couple extra to nuke/para on any inland cities.

 

[AdamCrock]

3 tac nuke + sub is less expensive than 3 icbm, and considerably so. The sub is not consumed once you fire them, either.

That post pretty much explains it all. Tac nukes are far more superior to ICBM's in every way.

 

[Lennier]

Still, nuke doomfall is the best/most satisfying. Nothing beats turning a 12+ city empire into a 0 city empire in a single turn .

Actually, I find using nukes aesthetically displeasing. They just seem such a cheap way of winning. But to each his own. (Note: I will use nukes when absolutely necessary, but prefer to beat the AI with non-nuke armies.)

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Actually, I find using nukes aesthetically displeasing. They just seem such a cheap way of winning. But to each his own. (Note: I will use nukes when absolutely necessary, but prefer to beat the AI with non-nuke armies.)

If they're more cheap than rifle pushes, HA rushes, or even infantry/arty, they're only marginally more so.

Honestly I'm not willing to listen to this argument if tech trading is considered acceptable . While nukes are pretty broken, TAP, tech trades, and early renaissance war are all comparably broken.

 

[Lennier]

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of nukes. I agree they're cheap. It's just that I find them to be aesthetically displeasing, while you find them to be "best/most satisfying."

A difference in taste, shall we say?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I'm not arguing the effectiveness of nukes. I agree they're cheap. It's just that I find them to be aesthetically displeasing, while you find them to be "best/most satisfying."

A difference in taste, shall we say?

Indeed. If you just don't like the concept of nuclear warfare, there's nothing relevant I can say on such a preference.

I do balk at the notion that nukes are significantly more "cheap" or "unfair" in the game vs the AI than a myriad of other typical high-level fare though. They're the best unit in the game, but it is also quite difficult to reach them, and build enough of them for lethal strikes without getting hit by retaliations by larger empires who can also build them.

90% of a winning game in civ IV happens in the BCs and early ADs. The rest is just playing the turns out in most cases. Nukes can turn an outcome late game, but only if it's fairly close.

 

[Lennier]

I misread your original use of the word cheap. When i said they were "cheap," I was meaning fewer , not being an unfairly easy route.

 

[Bulletti]

The thing is that during the cold war, the USSR and USA built up their arsenals to have thousands of nukes. Although not every square inch of either country would be in the blast radius of even that number, the destruction on that scale would effectively destroy both countries. In addition, the smoke and soot thrown up into the atmosphere by the thousands of firestorms ignited by all those nukes would start a "nuclear winter" that would kill off most of the survivors in the countryside.

It's not that the 1-MT warhead with your city's name on it was going to kill your country (although a couple of million casualties wouldn't be something to easily shrug off), it was the specter of having the largest 500 cities or so triple-nuked plus all major infrastructure, political, and military nodes nuked at the same time that would leave your country effectively no longer in existence.

My idea for Civ-nukes is that after a certain number, all victory conditions except space be disabled, and a time limit put on how long you have to launch your spaceship. If no one can launch by that time, everybody looses.

In Finland's case, that would be almost half the population in the country.

 

[reddishrecue]

So this is why the AI recommends building paratroopers even when there are 2 turned tanks available to build. Why does whoever recommends, recommends paratroopers when everything else is not built such as Intelligence Agencies for the spies and espionage. Are you saying that nukes are recommended? Why?

Editaratroopers can paradrop in nuked areas to occupy towns easier.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

So this is why the AI recommends building paratroopers even when there are 2 turned tanks available to build. Why does whoever recommends, recommends paratroopers when everything else is not built such as Intelligence Agencies for the spies and espionage. Are you saying that nukes are recommended? Why?

Editaratroopers can paradrop in nuked areas to occupy towns easier.

Paras can capture the city the same turn they drop if it's empty. They work very, very well with gunships or nukes.

Nukes are just the most cost-effective stack killer in the game and even the SDI is a poor counter. Nothing else can do the same destruction so quickly.

 

[AdamCrock]

Paras can capture the city the same turn they drop if it's empty. They work very, very well with gunships or nukes.

Nukes are just the most cost-effective stack killer in the game and even the SDI is a poor counter. Nothing else can do the same destruction so quickly.

Are You implying a para-nuke combo ?

 

[AdamCrock]

Sorry for double post but this is good and it will work ... probably I have not testet it yet but I have a good feeling about it

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The only thing that stops nuke/para is executives and missionaries stuck in the target city; nukes CAN destroy them, but the odds are extremely poor (poor enough to pretend they can't). They prevent paras who just dropped from capturing the city.

If there are no civilians in the city you can easily nuke it and capture it with paratroopers on the same turn. This can abuse both culture spam AI bordering another AI (launch tacticals and paradrop from a border city) and inland space AI capitols.

Of course, if you triple-nuke every AI city, there won't be anything to stop the paras from just capturing the city the following turn anyway. While expensive, triple-nuking all AI cities with any decent unit count will basically 1-shot even the largest AI empires.

For AI without corporations, it is frequently possible to kill them on the same turn you declare, or 1 turn later. What makes nukes so obscene is that you can do this even if your target has twice your power on the power graph and is ahead of you in tech. There is no stronger unit.

 

[Lennier]

I had an enemy airship survive a double-nuke once. I had to bring up a commando cavalry to take that city. (Well, I could have used a commando infantry, but the cavalry was what I picked.)

And I don't use nukes that often.

 

[reddishrecue]

Paras can capture the city the same turn they drop if it's empty. They work very, very well with gunships or nukes.

Nukes are just the most cost-effective stack killer in the game and even the SDI is a poor counter. Nothing else can do the same destruction so quickly.

I once was online in a modern multiplayer game and I had built SDI. Someone nuked me and SDI worked and stopped the nuke. So you mean SDI doesn't always stop the nuke then? Its not a 100% chance that SDI can stop the nuke then.