Why even put Nukes in the game?
- Thread starter Zannhart
- Start date
It's possible to ban nukes even before they've been built. You get UN with mass medias and nukes with satellites. I think the option of banning nukes through the UN should only appear after manhattan project of after the first nukes have been built.
The other question is, is there nothing you can do (e.g. try to get voted in and prevent nukes getting banned by the UN) to make nukes more effective. Often, if you play along as you usually do and try to make use of things (such as nukes) as you happen to come across them you'll find that there's little opportunity to do much with them.
You can get them with Rocketry, can't you?
Corbeau
Jack of All Trades
IMO, Nukes are relatively weak once SDI comes along. I'm not so unhappy about that except for the fact that SDI often shows up either at the same time or almost directly after you get the capability to build nukes.
I did have one game where I used Nukes for fun though. The U.N. had banned Nukes just after I built the Manhattan Project, so I finished conquering my continent (over half the world, actually) and used my votes to repeal the U.N. ban.
The other continent went up in radioactive flames, as they were quite backward in tech, and I easily elected myself leader of the world. This would have been a lot cooler if the Nukes actually had an effect on the election results, but I really only dropped 'em to see the explosions (to be honest, they effectively eliminated the target civs from any chance at competing - losing your entire infrastructure can do that).
I did have one game where I used Nukes for fun though. The U.N. had banned Nukes just after I built the Manhattan Project, so I finished conquering my continent (over half the world, actually) and used my votes to repeal the U.N. ban.
The other continent went up in radioactive flames, as they were quite backward in tech, and I easily elected myself leader of the world. This would have been a lot cooler if the Nukes actually had an effect on the election results, but I really only dropped 'em to see the explosions (to be honest, they effectively eliminated the target civs from any chance at competing - losing your entire infrastructure can do that).
S.ilver
Emperor
Nukes are not useless, nothing in this game is ever useless. There are just a lot of better ways of doing what the nuke would've done for you anyways.
For starters, they are ungodly expensive. After you've built your nuke, you realise that you could've built two modern armours (which aren't one shot wonders) for the same price. As well, you realise that one nuke is pretty pointless against your rival nation, who has SDI already. You will need more than one nuke to hit. Probability wise, 1 in 4 SHOULD hit. So you would need 4 nukes to get one hit on an enemy city. You can make 8 modern armours for this, and drive it up to the city, kill the defenders and take it (or mix it up and have combined arms for cheaper). Now your new city will be productive once it comes out of revolt (with some exceptions).
When your nuke hits, if they've got a fallout shelter, it will barely scratch the enemy. Even without, I have never seen a nuke kill all the units in the city. Now you still need to drive units into it to take the city. To make matters worse, once you have it, you need to parade some workers up to clean up the guck to make it productive. It also starts global warming, which creates useless deserts, many in your own territory no doubt.
So there's really no sane reason to build and use nukes. They aren't even a good deterrent weapon, like planet busters were in SMAC. Anything you could do with a nuke you could do better with units, with the possible exception of destroying and enemy continent without transports, and even then, there is no material gain for you, and the AI still has the cities standing.
Only real use I can see is for some psychopath to build a ton and launch them at some backwards Civ with no SDI just for kicks. But then you might as well play Civ 3 for that, it was much more gratifying to see nothing but a pollution covered continent.
For starters, they are ungodly expensive. After you've built your nuke, you realise that you could've built two modern armours (which aren't one shot wonders) for the same price. As well, you realise that one nuke is pretty pointless against your rival nation, who has SDI already. You will need more than one nuke to hit. Probability wise, 1 in 4 SHOULD hit. So you would need 4 nukes to get one hit on an enemy city. You can make 8 modern armours for this, and drive it up to the city, kill the defenders and take it (or mix it up and have combined arms for cheaper). Now your new city will be productive once it comes out of revolt (with some exceptions).
When your nuke hits, if they've got a fallout shelter, it will barely scratch the enemy. Even without, I have never seen a nuke kill all the units in the city. Now you still need to drive units into it to take the city. To make matters worse, once you have it, you need to parade some workers up to clean up the guck to make it productive. It also starts global warming, which creates useless deserts, many in your own territory no doubt.
So there's really no sane reason to build and use nukes. They aren't even a good deterrent weapon, like planet busters were in SMAC. Anything you could do with a nuke you could do better with units, with the possible exception of destroying and enemy continent without transports, and even then, there is no material gain for you, and the AI still has the cities standing.
Only real use I can see is for some psychopath to build a ton and launch them at some backwards Civ with no SDI just for kicks. But then you might as well play Civ 3 for that, it was much more gratifying to see nothing but a pollution covered continent.
Havn't any of you ever played a game where you're in a stand-off with someone who has similar military strength and skill? Both sides are likely to lose a lot more attacking than defending and in such a situation. Being able to hit a commerce/production city that's out of reach of your aircraft/border skirmishers is very nice. Especially if you're also using spies (whose sabotage is usually easily negated unless the enemy is tied up with other stuff, like repairing the damage done by a nuke 
).
).SomethingWitty said:
Nukes are certainly not useless or why do you think North Korea, Pakistan and Iran put/ are putting so much effort and diplomatic risk in getting them?
The main reason nukes have not been used in the past 50 years are morale issues(e.g. Vietnam would have been won by nukes, with the morale problem, that half of the people, that should have been given freedom would have been dead) and the threat to be obliterated by a counterstrike.
And as morale issues cannot be simulated, after all nobody feels pity for the nuked enemy citizens, it's difficult to integrate nukes in a realistic way.
If the real world leaders would all be as indifferent to their subjects as most civ players are, US would have nuked Soviets before 1950.
Carn
automator
King
I finally got to use Nukes today. Best game I've ever played (certainly not in score, though). I'd spent most of the game in the bottom half, score wise, and was just holding on by being the pacifist trader, choosing my allies wisely. I was finally lucky enough to score a permanent alliance with russia, who was 3rd place. The instant combination set us in second place against Egypt.
Then Egypt declared war. Russian and Egypt shared borders, but I was far away on another continent (it took 8 moves for destroyers and transports to make it there). Egypt was crushing my partner. So I set up a steady stream of air support and was able to keep them from taking any more cities. Then I brought over some armor and drove the units out of Russian territory.
But I was having no luck taking any border cities. The Egyptian cities had enough fighters in their skies that air bombardment was costing me two stealth bombers a turn. Their choppers were destroying my modern armor. I was unable to tilt a war of attrition in my favor.
Then I got my hands on the nukes (being sure to build the SDI, since I couldn't gain control of the uranium in Egypt's territory). Two ICBMs per border city and they fell. It was glorious.
Then Egypt declared war. Russian and Egypt shared borders, but I was far away on another continent (it took 8 moves for destroyers and transports to make it there). Egypt was crushing my partner. So I set up a steady stream of air support and was able to keep them from taking any more cities. Then I brought over some armor and drove the units out of Russian territory.
But I was having no luck taking any border cities. The Egyptian cities had enough fighters in their skies that air bombardment was costing me two stealth bombers a turn. Their choppers were destroying my modern armor. I was unable to tilt a war of attrition in my favor.
Then I got my hands on the nukes (being sure to build the SDI, since I couldn't gain control of the uranium in Egypt's territory). Two ICBMs per border city and they fell. It was glorious.
in my point of view nukes in game are quite similar to what they really are but i agree with the topic creator when he says SDI + bunkers + UN is a bit too powerfull against ICBMs.
i love the UN and all its resolutions (including the nuclear bombs baning) and i love the SDI technology so it would be cool if bunkers were nerfed in a next patch...
-75% of nuke's damage is simply too strong and moreover when manathan project is built you can protect every big city in no time with bunkers whereas ICBM's aren't ready!
the production cost of bunkers should be raised and they should prevent 50% of civil losses only (excluding buildings and non-infantry military units)
i love the UN and all its resolutions (including the nuclear bombs baning) and i love the SDI technology so it would be cool if bunkers were nerfed in a next patch...
-75% of nuke's damage is simply too strong and moreover when manathan project is built you can protect every big city in no time with bunkers whereas ICBM's aren't ready!
the production cost of bunkers should be raised and they should prevent 50% of civil losses only (excluding buildings and non-infantry military units)
FYI Pakistan is a known nuclear power.carn said:
It couldbe simulated by cooling relations with practically everyone in the world. I can't remember whether the tradition of using a Nuke would cause a world war is maintained, but suppose that even the worse enemy of the nation would take a negative in relation for saying that you've used a nuke. This would make players think twice about using it - because damaged relation can cause trade to be broken off, or embargo, or making a previously friendly country less friendly with you. I'd think if the US now uses even a tactical nuke without being struck first would make UK not very happy about it in public.carn said:
They prefer this method because the ICBM is much harder to hit, unless the SSBN is very noisy and basically tracked at all times (which is the case for early nuke carrying Soviet submarine, until John Walker sold the secret that American subs had been tracking their subs undetected for decades)
i had one game where i really needed some nukes. earth scenario, going for conquest with the germans.
while conquering the world i wanted to build the largest empire seen so i settled the new world (beat some barbs), build cities everywhere and micromanaged like hell etc.
has been a long game
by the time i finally reached japan most of their cities has been easy to conquer, but tokyo was nearly untouchable. tons of grenadiers and riflemen in there. didn't have the time to get enough of my siege weapons and tanks on this island.
so i made use of two nukes, barraging the units and taken tokyo within the next turn with like 20 tanks.
luckily japan hasn't sdi or bunkers though
while conquering the world i wanted to build the largest empire seen so i settled the new world (beat some barbs), build cities everywhere and micromanaged like hell etc.
has been a long game
by the time i finally reached japan most of their cities has been easy to conquer, but tokyo was nearly untouchable. tons of grenadiers and riflemen in there. didn't have the time to get enough of my siege weapons and tanks on this island.
so i made use of two nukes, barraging the units and taken tokyo within the next turn with like 20 tanks.
luckily japan hasn't sdi or bunkers though
I hate the SDI, you cant tell me its only 75% intercept chance! More like 90%
Personally I thought the SMAC "SDI" was much better implemented. You can build multiple SDIs but they can only shoot down one per turn. It was interesting because it lead to a kind of arms race where you would try and outstrip your opponents satellite and nuke production.
Personally I thought the SMAC "SDI" was much better implemented. You can build multiple SDIs but they can only shoot down one per turn. It was interesting because it lead to a kind of arms race where you would try and outstrip your opponents satellite and nuke production.
netbjarne
Aaargh! Angry!!
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2005
- Messages
- 112
Okey. I confess..
I was having a great time with a few hours of single player, going for a diplomatic or cultural victory when my otherwise friendly neighbours concluded that I was easy prey, and thus, had to die.. I tried defending them off for a while, but having them comming from all directions, I realise that I had lost - big time - no point in going on.
I felt that just resigning, was a bit dull though.
Then the "world builder" option suddenly occured to me... Never tried it before.
So, I gifted myself with 20+ nukes, dropped them on all my enemies cities, watching these gigantic fatal mushrooms rise above their heads, poluting their crops... Total retaliation!
Childish? - maybe. Cheating? - indeed. Satisfying? - very.
Besides that? - I don't like the nukes much, and typically votes for a ban asap.
I was having a great time with a few hours of single player, going for a diplomatic or cultural victory when my otherwise friendly neighbours concluded that I was easy prey, and thus, had to die.. I tried defending them off for a while, but having them comming from all directions, I realise that I had lost - big time - no point in going on.
I felt that just resigning, was a bit dull though.
Then the "world builder" option suddenly occured to me... Never tried it before.
So, I gifted myself with 20+ nukes, dropped them on all my enemies cities, watching these gigantic fatal mushrooms rise above their heads, poluting their crops... Total retaliation!
Childish? - maybe. Cheating? - indeed. Satisfying? - very.
Besides that? - I don't like the nukes much, and typically votes for a ban asap.
Nukes are horribly underpowered, and i think i heard ppl say that this is much like the real world. Well if all the nukes juz get shot down by some starwars program, and some bunkers and reduce all teh dmg they deal by 75%, including building and ppl actually listening to the UN and dont use nukes, why the hell would there be a problem with pakistan developing Nuclear Technologies?
Becoz Nukes dont get intercepted at 75% and hell not ICBM's they fly trough space and disapear of the radar only to repear over the target, much to late to react, and becoz nukes do erase a city from the face of the earth, this is an ICBM talking and they are by far more powerfull then any traditional Tactical Nuke used, comparison: Tactical Nuke = downtown New York, ICBM=Whole state of New York and then some, and this includes the majority of its populus. And bunkers dont help unless they are within an entire mountain. And not everyone gives a **** about what the UN says, and i dont juz mean the countries like Pakistan and Iraq.
Becoz Nukes dont get intercepted at 75% and hell not ICBM's they fly trough space and disapear of the radar only to repear over the target, much to late to react, and becoz nukes do erase a city from the face of the earth, this is an ICBM talking and they are by far more powerfull then any traditional Tactical Nuke used, comparison: Tactical Nuke = downtown New York, ICBM=Whole state of New York and then some, and this includes the majority of its populus. And bunkers dont help unless they are within an entire mountain. And not everyone gives a **** about what the UN says, and i dont juz mean the countries like Pakistan and Iraq.
Similar threads
