I just won the game through SpaceShip victory, but I decided to play a few more turns. I was the Persians and I looked and saw that the Egyptians and the Iriquois both had 3 ICBMs to my 16. So I decided to nuke them. But the nukes destroyed every other unit but the ICBM in a certain city.(I stole their troop plans) So can an ICBM be destroyed or was I just having bad luck?
-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days. For more updates please see here.
Why doesn't an ICBM destroy another ICBM?
- Thread starter Moss
- Start date
Catt
Emperor
Nukes can't be destroyed by a nuke. You can nuke the same city 10 times, and, if it holds a nuke, the nuke will be there, hovering over the enemy city, ready for launch the next turn.
I can only speculate as to why this is so (since I didn't produce the game
) -- my view is that it is solely a game play / balance issue. If nukes could be destroyed by other nukes, then a first strike nuclear attack would be devastating -- it would essentially assure a win to whomever researched the pre-requisitie tech first (Satellites? Space Flight? can't remember) and had access to uranium.
I can only speculate as to why this is so (since I didn't produce the game
) -- my view is that it is solely a game play / balance issue. If nukes could be destroyed by other nukes, then a first strike nuclear attack would be devastating -- it would essentially assure a win to whomever researched the pre-requisitie tech first (Satellites? Space Flight? can't remember) and had access to uranium.
Shabbaman
rebuffing the rebels
Ever seen those heavy shielded icbm silo's? They're blast proof...
Richard III
Duke of Gloucester
Well, no, they're not blast proof, they are just blast-protected. One reason why they spent so much time working on the accuracy of MIRVing in the 1980s was to be able to crack the silo with direct hits, which is quite possible if the missle is sited properly.
But I have some sympathy here, since in a real nuclear exchange, the opposing side wouldn't have to "wait a turn" to retaliate, they would probably do so in 10 minutes. This game feature simulates that reality.
R.III
But I have some sympathy here, since in a real nuclear exchange, the opposing side wouldn't have to "wait a turn" to retaliate, they would probably do so in 10 minutes. This game feature simulates that reality.
R.III
Graeme the mad
Certified Maniac
It doesnt entirely though because the city can be captured.
I would like the one good thing from call to power 2 implemented in civ3 - targeting nukes on enemy cities so if thye nuke you you automatically nuke them back on their turn
I would like the one good thing from call to power 2 implemented in civ3 - targeting nukes on enemy cities so if thye nuke you you automatically nuke them back on their turn
Shabbaman
rebuffing the rebels
Well, maybe in the new turnless multiplayer feat we could enscenate a nice nuclear war...
Unwittingly, what we're addressing here is that old peace-knick question: "Why do we need so many nukes that we could destroy the world 20 times over?".
The answer is/was (once upon a time), that we need to have so many, in so many different places (on subs, on bomber, in silos, in hardened silos, on mobile launchers), that the opposing nuclear power will have *NO* opportunity to think that they *might* have a chance of getting all of ours "on the ground".
That's why we always built more, and never retired the old stuff. Because, if tensions ever rose to the point where we thought they might be ready to roll into Berlin (or vice-versa), touching off WWIII . . . we had to be sure that *they* knew they'd never get enough of our nukes on the ground to avoid a massive/devastating counter-attack.
So, perversely, the most responsible thing to do was to constantly build more nukes. Because. . . imagine the horror if, in a crisis, the Russians thought that *we* were contemplating a launch. . . and therefore decided "Well, we might as well get ours off first and try to take as many of theirs out as we can".
By having so many nukes on so many different delivery platforms, we assured that flawed logic like that would not work. There was no efficacy in trying to "pre-empt" an attack. You just had to hope/pray that the other side wouldn't launch first.
I think Civ3 does a good job of modeling this if they allow ICBMs to survive nuclear attacks. Though, I think it would be cool if there was *some* chance of knocking them out. That would be more realistic.
I read in the FAQ, however, that nuclear deterrance as described above is not factored into the enemy AI. That's a shame. I hope they fix that.
Hurin
The answer is/was (once upon a time), that we need to have so many, in so many different places (on subs, on bomber, in silos, in hardened silos, on mobile launchers), that the opposing nuclear power will have *NO* opportunity to think that they *might* have a chance of getting all of ours "on the ground".
That's why we always built more, and never retired the old stuff. Because, if tensions ever rose to the point where we thought they might be ready to roll into Berlin (or vice-versa), touching off WWIII . . . we had to be sure that *they* knew they'd never get enough of our nukes on the ground to avoid a massive/devastating counter-attack.
So, perversely, the most responsible thing to do was to constantly build more nukes. Because. . . imagine the horror if, in a crisis, the Russians thought that *we* were contemplating a launch. . . and therefore decided "Well, we might as well get ours off first and try to take as many of theirs out as we can".
By having so many nukes on so many different delivery platforms, we assured that flawed logic like that would not work. There was no efficacy in trying to "pre-empt" an attack. You just had to hope/pray that the other side wouldn't launch first.
I think Civ3 does a good job of modeling this if they allow ICBMs to survive nuclear attacks. Though, I think it would be cool if there was *some* chance of knocking them out. That would be more realistic.
I read in the FAQ, however, that nuclear deterrance as described above is not factored into the enemy AI. That's a shame. I hope they fix that.
Hurin
Similar threads
