Why even put Nukes in the game?

[carn]

the point is without nuclear warheads nobody would bother to plan to counter conventional missiles with SDI (hence your point of SDI could exist without nukes does not make much sense)

basically if we didn't have nukes on earth, bush wouldn't try so hard to get a missile shield project. very simple

For chemical warheads it would be still worth the money.

Carn

 

[Zekrazey1]

..........

 

[Blazer6]

I wonder why they won't make SDI fire on anything else? It is a space weapon that targets anything in the air at least.

 

[romelus]

For chemical warheads it would be still worth the money.

Carn

if only we had chem weapons in civ... yeah

 

[warroom]

What happens if I control the UN, build nukes, then get the world to agree to a "No Nuke" policy. Do I get to keep my nukes? . . .

 

[carn]

What happens if I control the UN, build nukes, then get the world to agree to a "No Nuke" policy. Do I get to keep my nukes? . . .

AFAIK yes.

Carn

 

[Nilrim]

What happens if I control the UN, build nukes, then get the world to agree to a "No Nuke" policy. Do I get to keep my nukes? . . .

Not only can you keep them but you can use them, you just can't build replacements and the AI can't build any to counter, such a LAME UN part of the game. You think just becuase the UN doesn't want N. Korea or Iran building Nukes that it will stop them from doing so???????

 

[kgbuller]

But OH MY! the intense satisfaction of dropping a nuke on a friend!!!! JOY!!!! I giggled like a little girl everytime I launched one and snickered like an evil villian (Read: Bwah haw haw haw haaaaw!) at the animation. THAT is the ONLY reason there are nukes...

And just as a tip, the best way to drop them in this game is without warning. Contact another AI Civ close to your human enemy, and promise them the moon to gain their trust. Set up a mutual protection act with them. Then invite them to declare war on your human enemy by goading/cajoling and bribing. Bribing usually works best. When they go to war, so do you! Wheeeeeeee~

Was that the sound of his Emergency Broadcast System I just intercepted?

 

[balthamael]

People apaprently think Nukes are Useless right?
so people might neglect SDI etc?
BOOM!
i think Nukes are ok, but i dont beeline for them or anything, but nuking a city you dont intend to capture is usefull.

 

[Zhahz]

Why did they bother putting Nukes in the game when they basically made them all but useless?

We have nukes in real life yet they are hardly ever used - be we still have them!

Use real strategy and tactics rather than a desire to rely on weapons of mass destruction - which in a game like civ, are basically an "I win button."

As someone else indicated in another similar thread, the goal of the Civilization game is to develop a civilaztion, not eradicate all life on the planet.

 

[Nilrim]

We have nukes in real life yet they are hardly ever used - be we still have them!

Use real strategy and tactics rather than a desire to rely on weapons of mass destruction - which in a game like civ, are basically an "I win button."

As someone else indicated in another similar thread, the goal of the Civilization game is to develop a civilaztion, not eradicate all life on the planet.

The goal should be whatever I want to set it too don't you think? I thought the Devs said they wanted to make Civ 4 all about options, so why take that one away from me?

It is not like that is the way I would play every game, infact I might only do it once for the fun of it but once again it should be about options and as the game stands now a 'nuk victory' is near impossible.

 

[tezster]

The goal should be whatever I want to set it too don't you think? I thought the Devs said they wanted to make Civ 4 all about options, so why take that one away from me?

It is not like that is the way I would play every game, infact I might only do it once for the fun of it but once again it should be about options and as the game stands now a 'nuk victory' is near impossible.

I realize this isn't a canned solution, but if you don't like it, just mod the effectiveness of Nukes/SDI/Bunkers via the XML. That's what I did... they're not quite as apocalyptic as singulary planet busters in SMAC, but still not too bad

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

I had an interesting nuke experience that was pretty disappointing. My buddy was planning a huge nuclear attack on a nearby civ. He built about 30 (the first civ to build any nukes) and launched them all. Very disappointing. Units were completely surviving, left and right. And the civ's score didnt drop all that much for being having EVERY city nuked...maybe 300 points. What point is using nukes, and in some cases MULTIPLE nukes, if you cant even kill off all units in one city?

Same game, we reloaded it and waited till the end of the game. Plan was to use all these nukes right before the game ended, take a timed victory. We figured SDI would be up (and it was) but out of our 30, that means about 8 or so should get through. Right? Not even close. Only ONE got through. 1 out of 30. That 75% was a pile of lies.

So, to echo the title of the thread...why even put nukes in the game? Huge cost, small window of opportunity, sdi works much better then 75%, and they cant even kill off units in a city.

Nukes are MUCH more powerful in real life then this game.

EDIT: In fact, thats why I chose the civ 2 nuke for my avatar. To recall the days when nukes were powerful and worth the effort.

 

[podraza]

I've always thought the Nukes were underpowered. I think they should have the effect of razing the city, killing all units within the radius and making the tiles unworkable for some large number of turns.

 

[SPQR300]

or at least make them much more cost-effective. Maybe weak nukes are good for game-balance, but then make them a lot cheaper to use. Kill SDI completely!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, then at the very least, possession of nukes should be limited only to those prepared to invest in a 'Manhatten Project'-like National Project and, more to the point, possession of nukes SHOULD have an impact on diplomatic relations-whether you use them or not. i.e. if an AI player is talking to a nation who he knows has nuclear weapons, then he should be more deferential to that player's face (even if they are currently annoyed etc with that player). It should also make it more likely that any AI facing a nation with nukes is going to act against said nation 'on the sly', rather than directly. Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Flendon]

I think Nukes have a place in the game. They are balanced for Multiplayer however. With some of the changes listed here I think they would be much more realistic. The great thing about this game is the modability of it. I'm planning to fiddle with nukes eventually and try to implement some changes. This is what I think needs to be changed:

Manhatten Project - National Wonder and affects only your civ. Cost 750. Once complete spies able to "steal nuclear secrets" boosting research on fission or hammers towards Manhatten Project.

Suitcase Bombs - Spies are able to use suitcase bombs. High $$ price (I'll have to do some work on balance vs ICBM cost). Success ensures no evidence pointing to attacking civ. Lack of warning means nothing has a chance to reach shelters.

Bomb Shelters - Provides populace, workers, settlers and unmounted unit 75% protection. Units protected are unharmed. Units in the 25% take full or partial damage as normal. No effect for improvements, mounted units, tanks, air units or naval units.

Military Shelter - Enlarged shelter has space for larger units. 75% protection for mounted units, tanks, air units. Naval units and units that can reside in Bomb Shelters are unaffected.

Missle Defense - Missle based defense system. National Wonder 750 hammers. 50% defense vs missles.

SDI - Cost 1500. Worthless against suitcase bombs. May move to later in the game.

Diplomacy - Nukes will affect chances for peace and submission to demands. Use of nukes hurts enemy moral and war wariness.

Chemical weapons - No fallout or improvement damage. Available earlier.

SRBM - Short Range Balistic Missle, similar to the Cruise Missle in earlier Civs.

Subs - Missles launched from subs outside your city radius are untraceable to you.

Fusion bombs - Affects an extra square in all directions. Double the damage of Nukes. Suitcase variety as well.

Dirty Bomb - No damamge to improvements, but double damage to populace and units and double the fallout.

Geiger Counter Checkpoint - All entrances to a city require passing through a checkpoint to be scanned for radiation. 75% chance to prevent suitcase bomb. Fusion bombs require fission for detination so they have the same chance to be detected.

I know a lot of people would not see the points to these, but they make it more realistic to me. If I have success and I don't know if I will or not I will post the mod.

 

[Mr. Civtastic]

OK, then at the very least, possession of nukes should be limited only to those prepared to invest in a 'Manhatten Project'-like National Project and, more to the point, possession of nukes SHOULD have an impact on diplomatic relations-whether you use them or not. i.e. if an AI player is talking to a nation who he knows has nuclear weapons, then he should be more deferential to that player's face (even if they are currently annoyed etc with that player). It should also make it more likely that any AI facing a nation with nukes is going to act against said nation 'on the sly', rather than directly. Hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I think this would be great. It definately affects diplomacy...look at today with Iran.

 

[carn]

Chemical weapons - No fallout or improvement damage. Available earlier.

Subs - Missles launched from subs outside your city radius are untraceable to you.

Fusion bombs - Affects an extra square in all directions. Double the damage of Nukes. Suitcase variety as well.

I know a lot of people would not see the points to these, but they make it more realistic to me. If I have success and I don't know if I will or not I will post the mod.

I think your suggestions would make things more realistic, though in the above quoted some things are not realistic afaik.

Chemical weapons are less destructive than nukes and easier to protect against, mask already help and any bunker just has to be airtight, could in principal be an improved cellar.

Missles launched inside the city radius from subs can very well be detected, but reacting towards them. Therefore US/Sowjets made such a fuss of keeping track of enemy subs, because if one could have got a big number close to enemy coast, he could have intiated a first strike, without the other side firing a lot back. The time from detection of enemy missles to firing back could be about 3-6 minutes, while a missle fired launched close to the US coast can reach any US target inside 6 minutes. Therefore a mass of enemy subs getting close to own territory was a danger.


Fusion bombs also destroy far more of the city, e.g. 10 citizens or 80%, whatever is more. And suitcase versions i think are beyond current capability. I think it needs more space, because not only one fission bomb plus fusion fuel is avaible, but also some construction arrangement is necessary, so the fission blast compresses and heats the fusion fuel enough.

Suitcase bombs have far higher tech requirements than normal nukes, a normal nuke can be as simple as a tube with 2 plutonium balls at both ends which are accelerated by conventinal explosives to collide with each other. But that setup cannot be made very small. Fusion suitcase even higher requirements.

Carn

 

[Flendon]

I think your suggestions would make things more realistic, though in the above quoted some things are not realistic afaik.

Chemical weapons are less destructive than nukes and easier to protect against, mask already help and any bunker just has to be airtight, could in principal be an improved cellar.

It really depends a lot on the weapon. I was really oversimplifying. Yes an improved cellar would work for most chemicals and many biological agents, but saying only 75% of the population and military reached them would still be fair. And they would have to be improved, not just a storm cellar, so some city improvement would still be needed. I put no fallout, but a persistant weapon would leave the area contaminated and in need of cleanup just as bad as a nuke would. Also that would mean people would be trapped in the cellars and starve or units would take damage before they could be rescued.

Missles launched inside the city radius from subs can very well be detected, but reacting towards them. Therefore US/Sowjets made such a fuss of keeping track of enemy subs, because if one could have got a big number close to enemy coast, he could have intiated a first strike, without the other side firing a lot back. The time from detection of enemy missles to firing back could be about 3-6 minutes, while a missle fired launched close to the US coast can reach any US target inside 6 minutes.

I'm not sure exactly what you are saying is wrong with this. Are you saying a sub launching should still affect the rep of the launcher no matter what? If the sub is invisible and in nuetral waters or enemy waters it can't be traced who launched. Now if it is seen by another sub or maybe a new improvement that allows tracking of subs then yes it should be traceable. Maybe I'll add an improvement that allows tracking of subs within that cities radius, since a lot of effort is put into tracking subs in real life. But with subs invisible I don't see it making sense to track them without some tech or improvement.

Fusion bombs also destroy far more of the city, e.g. 10 citizens or 80%, whatever is more. And suitcase versions i think are beyond current capability. I think it needs more space, because not only one fission bomb plus fusion fuel is avaible, but also some construction arrangement is necessary, so the fission blast compresses and heats the fusion fuel enough.

Yes a suitcase bomb generally does not really fit in a suitcase. But it would fit in a truck. I don't like to quote movies, but the scene in True Lies was realistic as far as far as smuggling a bomb in to a country which is essentually what a spy would be doing. And yes a fusion bomb would destroy alot more. I think both types should even raze cities based on size, maybe 5 for fission and 10 for fusion sounds like a good start.

Suitcase bombs have far higher tech requirements than normal nukes, a normal nuke can be as simple as a tube with 2 plutonium balls at both ends which are accelerated by conventinal explosives to collide with each other. But that setup cannot be made very small. Fusion suitcase even higher requirements.

Carn

Yes they are not something you can build in a basement. I still stand by the fact that both could fit in a medium to large truck.

Thanks for the input. I will keep all of that in mind when working on this.