Why nerf the nukes?

[hobbsyoyo]

Is there any gameplay reasons why ICBMs have been nerfed in CiV? It's really frustrating that they took out the intercontinental part of ICBM. I heard they added range to ICBMs in G&K but I haven't gotten one yet.

I really like how the games CivIII-CiV have two levels of nukes - (albeit with different names sometimes) tactical and strategic. But in CiV having a hex range for the ICBMs just doesn't make any sense to me.

Could someone explain this? Comments?

Also, I know some ppl are going to say that ICBMs are OP, but that's the point of ICBMs.

PS I would really like to play OCC on settler and build up an arsenal of ICBMs and win the game. I love how they can finally outright destroy cities in CiV.

 

[FeiLing]

Well... make yourself a scenario with unlimited uranium or nukes not requiring it and having unlimited range I guess.

 

[Holy Crusader]

They took away any defense against it, so they made it so you were forced to use it tactically basically, unless you are on same continent.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Well... make yourself a scenario with unlimited uranium or nukes not requiring it and having unlimited range I guess.

too lazy

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I also heard there are bomb shelters in G&K. Not sure what they do, but this also nerfs the already nerfed ICMBs.

If I wanted to use nukes tactically, I'd just build atomic bombs. They cost less hammers and uranium, but I believe are just as good against units. But ICBMs always have been for turning cities and beautiful landscapes in nice shiny glass.

 

[Holy Crusader]

I also heard there are bomb shelters in G&K. Not sure what they do, but this also nerfs the already nerfed ICMBs.

If I wanted to use nukes tactically, I'd just build atomic bombs. They cost less hammers and uranium, but I believe are just as good against units. But ICBMs always have been for turning cities and beautiful landscapes in nice shiny glass.

There already were bomb shelters in previous CIV games weren't there? All they do is nerf population loss I believe.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

There already were bomb shelters in previous CIV games weren't there? All they do is nerf population loss I believe.

Yes I know there was in CIV. But I'm not sure what exactly they do in CiV, or even if they only nerf pop loss in CIV or also prevent unit damage/building loss. There was also an SDI but I think that was only in a BtS future scenario. It shot down 3/4 of launches which sucked.

I don't mind bomb shelters, but if my missiles can't target across the globe without being loaded on subs AND they have to contend with bomb shelters then that just isn't fun.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Does anyone know why they nerfed nukes? Were they that unbalanced before?

 

[Esperr]

Does anyone know why they nerfed nukes? Were they that unbalanced before?

Its irrelevant anyway, if somebody hasnt won by the time somebody hits nukes then something went horribly wrong in the first place.

 

[Sonereal]

Is there any gameplay reasons why ICBMs have been nerfed in CiV? It's really frustrating that they took out the intercontinental part of ICBM. I heard they added range to ICBMs in G&K but I haven't gotten one yet.

Nerfed? If anything, nukes are more powerful. They have the ability to destroy cities, armies, and there are no counters against them (well, there is in Gods and Kings, but Bomb Shelters don't really "counter"). The high uranium cost and range limitation is there to make other units actually viable.

 

[Princeofnigeria]

Am I the only one who thought of a particular WKuK scetch when I heard the title "nerf the nuke"?

 

[Gucumatz]

Nukes are still TOO powerful. More powerful than in Civ 4.

You can blow cities off the map with them. Kill almost every unit around a city with them. Reduce the defense of a city to almost nothing in an instant. A nuke in Civ 5 can hit multiple cities depending on where you aim it.

======

And there is no practical defense to them... other than getting nukes and nuking it out. Normally whoever gets nukes wins in multi first. If two players or more get nukes around the same time, expect the border cities to become worthless and cities to be taken back/forth every turn.

If anything - Nukes are TOO powerful. No chance of shooting them down at all.

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

Nukes are still TOO powerful. More powerful than in Civ 4.

You can blow cities off the map with them. Kill almost every unit around a city with them. Reduce the defense of a city to almost nothing in an instant. A nuke in Civ 5 can hit multiple cities depending on where you aim it.

======

And there is no practical defense to them... other than getting nukes and nuking it out. Normally whoever gets nukes wins in multi first. If two players or more get nukes around the same time, expect the border cities to become worthless and cities to be taken back/forth every turn.

If anything - Nukes are TOO powerful. No chance of shooting them down at all.

Just like real life then.

I don't want to pull the "realism" card, but they SHOULD be overpowered WoMD. It's not like the AI use them often.

 

[animalguy]

It's not like the AI use them often.

LOL . That made my day hearing that. Anyway back on topic, can you imagine the AI with unlimited range nukes. By the late game every one is at war and the nukes just get tossed at any city in range (usually) like they are going out of style, at least in my games.

 

[Sonereal]

I don't want to pull the "realism" card, but they SHOULD be overpowered WoMD. It's not like the AI use them often.

Making something overpowered is bad game design. If I wanted a realistic Cold War nuclear situation, I'd be saving my money for Paradox's East and West.

 

[Naresh]

LOL . That made my day hearing that. Anyway back on topic, can you imagine the AI with unlimited range nukes. By the late game every one is at war and the nukes just get tossed at any city in range (usually) like they are going out of style, at least in my games.

Elizabeth declared war on her long time peace Russia... the only reason I could think of was "we have nukes to spare"

Russia lost a city, but instead of firing her nukes back, decided to load them onto ships and bomb Siam, which lost two cities.

Siam then nuked me...


In the space of 5 turns the game went from peaceful diplo-run to 40 nukes being thrown in 5 turns. (abundant settings)

 

[Jabberwockxeno]

LOL . That made my day hearing that. Anyway back on topic, can you imagine the AI with unlimited range nukes. By the late game every one is at war and the nukes just get tossed at any city in range (usually) like they are going out of style, at least in my games.

That wasn't sarcastic.

Maybe its a difficulty thing, im playing prince right now. Working my way up the totem pole.

Making something overpowered is bad game design. If I wanted a realistic Cold War nuclear situation, I'd be saving my money for Paradox's East and West.

Maybe its because I haven't actual seen a nuke in use, bit I assume its balanced out by an extreme diplomatic penalty. I would also guess the AI are programmed to not use nukes on other nuclear powers without a really, really good reason.

Or am I overestimating the AI?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Ok, ok...so they are more powerful than before.

But I still stand by everything I said. Missiles shouldn't have range limits. And as some people think the range limits are imposed because they are so powerful, that would mean they are in fact nerfed. And buffed. At the same time.

Is the consesus that the reason they have limits is because they are so powerful? Because that just doesn't make any sense to me. As previously stated, they are supposed to be super OP.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Maybe its because I haven't actual seen a nuke in use, bit I assume its balanced out by an extreme diplomatic penalty. I would also guess the AI are programmed to not use nukes on other nuclear powers without a really, really good reason.

Or am I overestimating the AI?

In this case I believe your assesment is correct. In all other cases, it is impossible to not overestimate the AI.

 

[Sonereal]

Ok, ok...so they are more powerful than before.

But I still stand by everything I said. Missiles shouldn't have range limits. And as some people think the range limits are imposed because they are so powerful, that would mean they are in fact nerfed. And buffed. At the same time.

Is the consesus that the reason they have limits is because they are so powerful? Because that just doesn't make any sense to me. As previously stated, they are supposed to be super OP.

Overall, nukes have been buffed since CivIV. They're not supposed to be overpowered. As stated already, something being overpowered is bad game design for a game like Civilization.