Nukes

[Wiglaf]

Guess nukes are worth somethin.... funny I never thought of using them in the water in the millions of years I've had the game .


[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 06, 2000).]

[Lefty Scaevola]

. Nukes baaadd! Short sword Good! Stick sword in enemy's belly & twist. Blood & guts & little bit of liver gush out! Goooood, very gooooood!

------------------
Gaius Mucius Scaevola Sinistra
Pontificator Pendanticus
older richer & wiser than you

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Lefty Scaevola on 12-06-2000 05:19 PM . Nukes baaadd! Short sword Good! Stick sword in enemy's belly & twist. Blood & guts & little bit of liver gush out! Goooood, very gooooood!

Alright, anyone else?
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 06, 2000).]

[CornMaster]

Nukes rule when it comes to nuking every unit that steps foot near my border.

SDI ain't going to save you now!!!!

But really in Civ 1 I remember all of Russia being covered with polutition because I was nuking every barb unit that appeared there!! And that was a lot!!! Needless to say I had a slight over-heating problem.

------------------
"I'm too out of shape for a long fight so I'll have to kill you fast"
"If LESS is MORE, just think of how much MORE, MORE would be!"
I AM CANADIAN!
Civfanatics.com Civ 2 Multiplayer Ladder!
My Civ 2 Scenario Page.

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by CornMaster on 12-07-2000 10:07 AM Nukes rule when it comes to nuking every unit that steps foot near my border.

That's expensive and (like you said) causes global warming. Doesn't make me all that enthusiastic about using 'em

[Mercantile]

SMACed, nukes are great on the water if you time it right, you can achieve many kills without the pollution and if you do it periodically its as cheap as a small but efficient navy.

Granted nukes on the ground are more havoc than they are worth, not to mention expensive, but a tactfull nuke followed by a mass of engineers to help fix the radiation problem can go along way.

No one is saying nuke the WHOLE planet, just a capital here and maybe a pest here. Then roll in the tanks, howies, spies, mech inf, and bombers and show them what a real invasion is all about. Of course you could be a Wussy empire like us Canadians, and just let people bully you, but then again, YOUR changing history right

Whatever it takes to win is the bottom line

[Scouse Gits]

I hate nukes

The primary purpose of spies (should my game ever get that far) is to sek out and destroy the Manhatten Project wherever it might raise its ugly little head.

I hate nukes



------------------
____________
Scouse Git[1]

"CARTAGO DELENDA EST" - Cato the Censor
"The Great Library must be built!"
"A short cut has to be challenging,
were it not so it would be 'the way'." - Paul Craven

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-07-2000 10:56 PM No one is saying nuke the WHOLE planet

But that's not in your control. If you develop the Manhattan Proj at all, you give every AI or person the ability to fire a nuke - and against the computer, it likes to do that a whole lot .

[Mercantile]

True you cannot prevent the ai from trading techs to allow others to nuke, and you cant' prevent the ai from ganging up on you. Not too mention, sometimes the ai is right up there in research with you. I find this is what makes civ such a great game. I want a threat. I want a missle crisis, i just hope that i am prepared as much as possible for it. It adds realism to me and makes the game more challenging. War happens in this game from time to time. You have no problem using crusaders with impunity on a capital, why not nukes? You use Howies and Tanks and bombers, why not nukes. It seems to me that a couple of nukes here or there, when used correctly is like a big modern battery ram for that castle that just doesn't want to fall. Now if you can't hanle this powerfull tool, perhaps you should go back to catipults for invasions Seriously though, don't use them if you don't like the ai's only chance in hell to wreak havoc on your inevitable world conquest.

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-08-2000 07:11 PM You use Howies and Tanks and bombers, why not nukes.

There is a bit of a difference there (at least in reality)

quote: Now if you can't hanle this powerfull tool, perhaps you should go back to catipults for invasions

Not quite sure I understand, I wouldn't call it a "tool", I'd call it an expensive piece of junk that causes global warming.

quote: Seriously though, don't use them if you don't like the ai's only chance in hell to wreak havoc on your inevitable world conquest.

Yeah, but a big nuke-fest between the ai and me just doesn't add up to realism. And it really doesn't wreak havoc on anything - a simple SDI defence ends all ai nuclear warfare anyway.
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 08, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

- a simple SDI defence ends all ai nuclear warfare anyway.

Ah, spies can still plant nukes in cities that have sdi

It does add to realism, i like the missle crisis threat, and if one or two launch by mistake, oh well.
<

[Mercantile]

Really,tell that to the Americans who dropped two bombs of that nature on the Japanese. Seems realistic to me. I realize one doesnt' want the game to be a nuke fest or a bribe fest, but bribing a city is less realistic, certainly not with the cheap model they use for civ2


[This message has been edited by Mercantile (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-09-2000 01:35 AM Ah, spies can still plant nukes in cities that have sdi

That's easily stopped by positioning a vet spy of your own by any of your cities near the ai border - and the odds are so against successful planting that it's ridiculous.

quote: It does add to realism, i like the missle crisis threat, and if one or two launch by mistake, oh well.

By mistake? Seriously, in civ2 the ai will use nukes like you've never seen. When you retaliate, and you know you will, you devolve the game into "who can build the most nukes and destroy the other guy." And in real life, I believe it was you who said it earlier, the bombs were not used often. To have every game come down to a nukefest as soon as you become at war is unrealistic. I really wish the computer would be rational, but every nuclear power in the game will launch everything it has to wipe you out, global warming or not, realism or not.

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-09-2000 12:59 PM Other than the pollution, especially if the other side doesn't have nukes, there is no difference in decimating a city by howies or by nukes, you achieve the same result, as the population decreases without city walls.

True, but realism takes a hit when you use nukes on the grounds that they're the same as howitzers in terms of the effects they bring. When I see myself firing twenty of them because troops are similar, it justs seems too much like a fictional game over 'reliving history.'

quote: Yes it causes mass destruction and pollution. I call that casualties of war.

I honestly don't think you can use nukes on that basis.

quote: its not like one doesnt' have a million engineers running around in the late game with very little to do anyways.

Here comes realism again. Launching nukes on that basis hurts everything. Ok, I'll nuke them into submission because I can clean it up with my radiational mops. Nah.

quote: The one thing we can agree on is that nukes do let a serious monster out of the game and are one way the ai has to stalemate you. Granted an ending like that is and has been a most disappointing way to finish a game.

The ai really can't stalemate you with itself because of the SDI. Sorry, we don't agree .

quote: Such is life, use nukes with caution

Once again, this is out of the player's control. You use 'em, the ai uses 'em, you've got nuclear war on your hands.
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

Well if your cities have sdi, then you have nothing to worry about Be prepared when you use nukes. I disagree that nukes don't add to realism. Nothing better than the Indians searching for the stars and the russians racing for Manhattans Project, to me thats realism

Where did i state decimating a city with a bunch of nukes? I stated that one nuke does the same damage as a bunch of howies without city walls plus the added pollution.

Realism? Seems realistic to destroy a civ with 16 howies on their rail system in one turn as well I think not!

Realism? Every civ ganging up on you every single game because your supreme, yet they don't do that against the ai when it is supreme.

Where is the realism of unlimited missle/fighter/bomber ai ranges?

Like i previously stated, if you can't handle nukes, go back to the command and conquer way of tanks and howies. The only skill there is getting your transports onto the ai's land, once there, *yawn* well we know the rest.

And realism? Yah lets bribe EVERY ai city because were fundy and have lots of money, wow, there is fun.

Or perhaps the realism of crushing the ai with 8 vet knights in the early game. Like one little army can take over the real world, i doubt it.

So, i see nukes (once again) as someting to use as a last resort. Nowhere am i say or wanting to get into a nuke slugfest with anyone. Anyone who has played the game long enough knows what can happen if you trade blows. However, one or two nukes especially at sea where there is no pollution is viable at times.

Oh and one more case for realism. Cruise missles only killing one unit in a city and not doing any damage to improvements , yah theres realism

In reality, cruise missles should destroy IMO one unit and one improvement per missle.

Anyways just my thoughts, which are obviously different than yours. If we ever meet in an MP game that goes that far, you will know that i will gun for the Opportunity to use a nuke if i get the chance