Why even put Nukes in the game?

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[Zekrazey1]

One game (and an OCC game at that ) and you've already jumped to a conclusion.

 

[SomethingWitty]

Because there are nukes in the real world and they're pretty much useless.

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[Zekrazey1]

A warrior will lose to a tank. Hard to dispute that, must mean warriors are useless .

The point is that it's more a question of timing and situation. How big is the window from nukes to an operational SDI to a ban on nukes and how broad or narrow is the set of situations in which you will find yourself with nukes? Those facts you mentioned mark qualitative changes in situation, they don't prove anything by themselves.

 

[RoddyVR]

puny man. only 10 nukes? if you want to "win by nuke" build more of them. build spies and send them to the nations you are going to nuke and prevent them from building the SDI.

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[Zekrazey1]

Against a tank yes, warriors are useless.

Your conclusion was that nukes were useless in general. We know they're useless in certain situations. There are a few steps in showing that those situations are in fact most situations and that those situations where they are useful aren't important.

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[Zekrazey1]

And that when they are useful, it's no big deal?

Warriors don't last very long either, but the 20 or so turns you have them, they're critical (because otherwise you lose your entire civ which is comprised of one city ).

Nukes probably aren't as critical during their time-frame but it's still a long way to showing uselessness .

 

[*Nosferatu*]

Did you stack all the nukes and launch then at once? If you do that it will screw them over completely, and don't attack cities, attack farms, cottages and stuff so thier citizens starve and econ cripples.

 

[Zannhart]

aaaaa

 

[Zekrazey1]

I'm not trying to connect dots. I'm saying that you havn't . Neither am I comparing warriors to nukes. I'm providing the time-frame and situation of warriors (as I could do with any unit) as an example of what you should be looking at when claiming nukes are useless. All you did initially was provide a bunch of useless facts. So I provided my own useless facts about warriors which you, while realising they're useless, don't seem to realise are useless for the same reason your own useless facts are useless .

 

[*Nosferatu*]

Have you tried stack attack? I grouped ten of them and hit the button, boom 4 hit, city starves to 1, then I forget I didn't have ecology when I captured it.

I'm not saying that it's the best thing, but people need to be a little more creative with certain things instead of saying this or that. Like the Jaguar, not the best, but with no need for iron you can bee-line for iron working and start building an army in the beginning.

It's all about situation, remember, don't try and put everything into a "general game" it's all dependent.

 

[tbd]

SDI has never been used in any real-life situation and i seriously doubt if it's results would be that high. Not including SDI in the game or reducing it's success rate may have been better than leaving out nukes (IMO)

 

[robaughjr]

SDI has never been used in any real-life situation and i seriously doubt if it's results would be that high. Not including SDI in the game or reducing it's success rate may have been better than leaving out nukes (IMO)

Or maybe sucess rate increases over time. Someone on another thread pointed out that patriot missles which have been in use for 10+ years still don't have a 75% hit rate. It seems unlikely that it would start off with a 75% rate. start it with 25% intercept rate and give it a 2% increase with each turn. Then give it an additional 5% increase for each sucessful intercept up to say 60% (75% seems way too high even when "perfected").

 

[Caprice]

Fine, let me rephrase: Why even put Nukes in the game when their usefulness doesn't last very long?

The way I see it, based on reality, the period of time in which nuclear weapons were a useful threat/deterrent/weapon (the ICBM style anyway, not talking about suitcase bombs and the like) was relatively short. I think it is reasonable to say that, unless a rogue nation builds one and stacks it on top of a stolen launch vehicle, there is no way anyone is going to use one today.

I think that is the feel Civ4 is sorta trying to duplicate. I happen to think that this is realistic, even if it is artificially created within the game. Perhaps at some point spys should have a "plant nuke" option or something to make nuclear weapons more useful again...

 

[wylergnu]

I agree that the whole nuke / SDI thing was very poorly thought out and the chance to intercept can be too high. I dont like them myself so I havent put too much thought into it, however ive always thought that you should get warning of an impending nuke strike which would at least allow a retaliatry responce, more similar to IRL.

 

[DarkMaster]

Look, I totally agree with you, so just do like I did: go to your XML files, reduce SDI efficency to 50%, increase its cost, go to the bomb shelter, reduce to 50%, increase its cost, and you're done!
I've increased 20% in cost for each, and nukes are perfectly fine in my game.

 

[RoninWarrior]

how about cause leaving them out would leave you saying "why didnt they put nukes in the game"

historical accuracy for one... i can see much more reason TO put them in the game then not to... sorry but it seems that your just a tad bitter over having them be intercepted