Nukes suck in this game

[Arnelos]

I will say this, though... the model for defense against nukes in Civ4 with bunkers is completely unrealistic. I've actually read bits and pieces of some rather extensive research on the impact of a nuclear exchange (the CIA publicly released some research on their analysis of that subject as it related to the Soviet civil defense program in the late 70s) and am not completely ignorant on it.

That said, Civ4 is also a GAME, not a simulation. There are a lot of features in Civ4 that are horribly unrealistic, but which contribute to it being a game rather than a simulation. I'm fine with that, especially where it comes to play balance. Not everything you could simulate to a point of greater realism would make for a better *game*.

If you want a more realistic situation with nukes or another mechanic, it can be modded.

[Kuciwalker]

Nukes could be removed and I wouldn't care. IMO they shouldn't be a major part of strategy, because they're so radically different from every other mechanic, and exist for only a tiny fraction of the game.

[lear]

Originally posted by Masuro


I'm not sure exactly what 'tighty whiteys' means but I gather it is a personal attack directed at Imran Siddiqui. These forums are here for us to discuss the game and disagreement is a part of dicussion. Disagreeing with someone is fine but personal attacks are not welcome here. Many of us are paying members of Apolyton and we do not want the boards filled up with trash talk.
Thank you for understanding.

Here, Ill help you out. The internet is your friend. Try www.google.com or www.yahoo.com
I'm sure you don't want to bother with that, so I did it for you.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=tighty+whiteys

"whiteys are the form of underpants worn by small children ranging from age 3 to 12."

"Tighty-whiteys can also be used in an offensive term against the caucasian population"

"commonly known as 'regular underpants'"

You may also check out the dictionary.com link

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=tighty%20whities

[marcuspeddle]

So it was an insult. Thanks for looking it up.

[James009]

Originally posted by ProfessorPhobos
Liao-Tzu rested against the side of his tank, and tore open a tin of beef. He sighed, and stared at the torn track which had disabled his Type 54 two days earlier.
...
*thunk* *thunk* *thunk*.

I liked that, any more?

Its true ever consider that maybe though the enemy might not be doing anything to you tank the terrain is? So you attack longbowmen fortified on a hill and expect nothing? The hill itself is bound to cause trouble. Tanks are not invincible. Consider that though you have tanks and they have longbowmen, maybe they have some type of explosive? Use some imagination like Phobos!

... and fire the guy in charge of that tank platoon!

In addition, nukes are well balanced. They still kick ass and needed a slight balancing act. They changed so much of the game, why not the nukes?

[alva]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Nukes could be removed and I wouldn't care. IMO they shouldn't be a major part of strategy, because they're so radically different from every other mechanic, and exist for only a tiny fraction of the game.

Absolutely!

I don't play many modern games and hardly ever use nukes. I usually do one to see the animation but otherwise not really.

[Fried-Psitalon]

So you miss the C2 nuke which broke the game? I remember the days of one nuke + one Alpine trooper = city taken. How was that balanced? You found that fun? No questions asked, no problems had, get to nukes first and instantly, totally win?

Sorry, I play CIV for the fun and challenge of it - not because I want to be first to a tech and then automatically win the game.

And, uh, yes... I've played the game to the point where an opponent got SDI before.

Once or twice.

[Snotty]

How much unhealthiness does a nuke give, and for how long? does the unhealth stack if you hit the city with two nukes?

[ahsingjai]

I rather disable nukes with U.N then having nukes in to play. First it causes a global uproar and if your playing high difficulty, you wil have a lot of mean AIs up your butt.

What better way to disable ur opponents' resources via spy? I was sending spys all over neighboring civs sabotaging their oil and major resources. I'm glad they came back up with civ2 style spys, at least this time it's somewhat balanced with their abilities.

[kaigun]

Originally posted by Arnelos
I will say this, though... the model for defense against nukes in Civ4 with bunkers is completely unrealistic. I've actually read bits and pieces of some rather extensive research on the impact of a nuclear exchange (the CIA publicly released some research on their analysis of that subject as it related to the Soviet civil defense program in the late 70s) and am not completely ignorant on it.

.

Not really the USSR is not a good case study rather look at the only country that introduced a 100 per cent Bunker programme for the whole population...it was thev law all houses etc had to have a bunker fully equiped etc.

That was Switzerland there are copious references on the map......with that level of expenditure in a nation the Civ 4 if anything underplays survivability if you look at the swiss model.

[kittenOFchaos]

Originally posted by Fried-Psitalon
So...

having the ability to sever an opposing resource without enemy recourse, slap their city with massive unhealth, maim dozens of units to the point where you can waltz in with any modern unit, and shatter their infrastructure from any point on the globe TO any point on the globe....

...that's not powerful enough for you?

Nope, I want to see a big stinking crater where a city used to be

[Skawpya]

For SDI and Bunkers, It should be something incremental. say in stages of ten percent. Thus yes, after a long while you can develop that 75% but not before reaching future tech and spending the full amount to build each 10 percent increment. Thus Norad would be nuke proof, while the sdi around your capitol would likely shoot down most of the incoming, but outside of that...

[jdchambe]

I did find a use for them in single player. Game was coming to a close, I was up on points, but my next rival was close to finishing the space ship so I had to make war with him and disrupt his production by whiping out key resources and devestating minor cities. He had SDI, so the nukes were useless.

But what happened was my neighbor on the other border tried to take advantage of the fact that I'd pulled defenses off my flank. Now, he had no chance of winning but if he took out a couple cities he could easily hurt me enough to pull my point total down.

That neighbor did not have SDI. As soon as he declared war, I nuked every city in his empire. That enabled me to neuter his counter attack without having to pull forces off the front line.

But other than that, against an opponent who has build the SDI, nukes are pretty useless. I don't know if I consider that good or bad though.

[Addled Platypus]

can you nuke tiles? only

just a radicall thought

[beeper917]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
can you nuke tiles? only

just a radicall thought

I thought of that but no, sdi blocks every tile in that nation.

And to respond to another comment...since there is no paradropping in this game it would not be as broken as in Civ2. So nyaaah.