Korn I also frequently end up with cities producing 100 shields per turn when my economy is mobilized, and that adds up to only 3 tanks for an ICBM... I think anyone would like to add in an ICMB for the cost of 3 tanks into the mix.
I agree with your statement that an optimal strategy probably doesn't involve nukes... my point was that maybe 30% of the time a nuke would be useful.
You drastically underestimate the costs of taking out an enemy civ in the late game. 1000 minerals! My offensive force cost 3600 for air units, 2000 for subs and battleships, 2000 for sea based transports, and 4000 or more for ground units... not to mention the reinforcements I dropped in. That adds up to 1200 minerals total... so I *could* have built 20 ICBMs... this is on a *standard* map. It was overkill to a certain extent, but my economy was mobilized and I was behind in the space race because all 3 of the other civs had allied against me.
The other civs wouldn't trade me for nuke technology, but I would have liked to have had an ICBM or two, 10% isn't a significant percentage of this cost.
The damage a nuke does to infrastructure isn't terribly significant, but if you need to take a city of strategic value it allows you to sacrifice long term goals. 6 bombers really isn't that significant, 5 modern armor is good but not fantastic.
I don't factor in the manhatten project because I would rather let another civ build it... it is rather worthless to have nukes 3 or 4 turns ahead of other people, if that.
Also human players are very different than AIs, I would *LOVE* to have a nuke in a human vs human conflict, I actually consider them much more useful in that context. Say both of you are in the space race, he is slightly behind and launches a massive invasion. You have been focusing on naval defense overall but neglecting your ground defense because you think no one will be able to punch through your fleet.
Well rather than trying to fight your fleet he simply ignored it- made sacrificial destroyers, you simply do not have enough battleships to destroy everything he has. But you do manage to force him to focus his forces in one square.
Nukes can be effective as a deterrant for getting your enemy to stop concentrating his forces- this could be extremely important on large maps, where you might have a lot of units on one square. Rather than having to worry about a massive attack coming from one direction (which could be nuked) you have to worry about much more spread out attacks. Nukes do very little to cities, but 50% of a stack of 50 units is very significant.
I think we will see a tendancy for large stacks like that a lot in PvP conflicts, I saw that AI frequently drop 15+ units at me, but they didn't go on the offensive a whole lot against me. Nukes seem actually QUITE cost effective in naval combat- no player would want to spread his naval units over more than a 8x8 box, you can attack a significant chunk of this box at once with a tactical nuke. A single battleship costs 200! If you manage to take out two battleships that is a good return on your investment, if you are so lucky as to destroy a transport full of modern armor that is 1300 minerals... more than quadruple the cost of your tactical nuke, and more than double the cost of an ICBM.
Nukes are the only thing preventing players from making "stacks of doom"... there is no other attack that damages a percent of a stack... Also nukes are perfect for neutralizing armies.
To summarize-
Nukes aren't that expensive
They are best used against units, especially stacks, especially player vs player combat.
In naval combat or in taking out armies (1 army with 4 modern armors is 880 mins) nukes are cost effective, otherwise they are mainly a deterrant.
Nukes are totally useless in Civ3 if you use them in their real life use of destroying infrastructure and population, but if you use them to focus on naval fleets and unit stacks they have the *potential* to be great.
I agree with your statement that an optimal strategy probably doesn't involve nukes... my point was that maybe 30% of the time a nuke would be useful.
You drastically underestimate the costs of taking out an enemy civ in the late game. 1000 minerals! My offensive force cost 3600 for air units, 2000 for subs and battleships, 2000 for sea based transports, and 4000 or more for ground units... not to mention the reinforcements I dropped in. That adds up to 1200 minerals total... so I *could* have built 20 ICBMs... this is on a *standard* map. It was overkill to a certain extent, but my economy was mobilized and I was behind in the space race because all 3 of the other civs had allied against me.
The other civs wouldn't trade me for nuke technology, but I would have liked to have had an ICBM or two, 10% isn't a significant percentage of this cost.
The damage a nuke does to infrastructure isn't terribly significant, but if you need to take a city of strategic value it allows you to sacrifice long term goals. 6 bombers really isn't that significant, 5 modern armor is good but not fantastic.
I don't factor in the manhatten project because I would rather let another civ build it... it is rather worthless to have nukes 3 or 4 turns ahead of other people, if that.
Also human players are very different than AIs, I would *LOVE* to have a nuke in a human vs human conflict, I actually consider them much more useful in that context. Say both of you are in the space race, he is slightly behind and launches a massive invasion. You have been focusing on naval defense overall but neglecting your ground defense because you think no one will be able to punch through your fleet.
Well rather than trying to fight your fleet he simply ignored it- made sacrificial destroyers, you simply do not have enough battleships to destroy everything he has. But you do manage to force him to focus his forces in one square.
Nukes can be effective as a deterrant for getting your enemy to stop concentrating his forces- this could be extremely important on large maps, where you might have a lot of units on one square. Rather than having to worry about a massive attack coming from one direction (which could be nuked) you have to worry about much more spread out attacks. Nukes do very little to cities, but 50% of a stack of 50 units is very significant.
I think we will see a tendancy for large stacks like that a lot in PvP conflicts, I saw that AI frequently drop 15+ units at me, but they didn't go on the offensive a whole lot against me. Nukes seem actually QUITE cost effective in naval combat- no player would want to spread his naval units over more than a 8x8 box, you can attack a significant chunk of this box at once with a tactical nuke. A single battleship costs 200! If you manage to take out two battleships that is a good return on your investment, if you are so lucky as to destroy a transport full of modern armor that is 1300 minerals... more than quadruple the cost of your tactical nuke, and more than double the cost of an ICBM.
Nukes are the only thing preventing players from making "stacks of doom"... there is no other attack that damages a percent of a stack... Also nukes are perfect for neutralizing armies.
To summarize-
Nukes aren't that expensive
They are best used against units, especially stacks, especially player vs player combat.
In naval combat or in taking out armies (1 army with 4 modern armors is 880 mins) nukes are cost effective, otherwise they are mainly a deterrant.
Nukes are totally useless in Civ3 if you use them in their real life use of destroying infrastructure and population, but if you use them to focus on naval fleets and unit stacks they have the *potential* to be great.
Comment