Nukes, yes or no????

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


And remember : Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20 Kt bombs. Actually, ICBM are more several MEGATONS bombs. Yup, a THOUSAND times more powerful. Just try to imagine what kind of horrific destruction would bring such a doomsday weapon.

Fortunately no one can really say what exactly an accurate level of realism for an ICBM is. I'd have no problem with ICBMs being more powerful in the game. But if you want that increase in perceived realism, it should be countered by an equally realistic anti-nuclear movement unhappiness factor that can throw your civ into anarchy. I think using nukes should have a seriously negative effect on your own citizens happiness.

[Akka]

Originally posted by jgflg


Fortunately no one can really say what exactly an accurate level of realism for an ICBM is. I'd have no problem with ICBMs being more powerful in the game. But if you want that increase in perceived realism, it should be countered by an equally realistic anti-nuclear movement unhappiness factor that can throw your civ into anarchy. I think using nukes should have a seriously negative effect on your own citizens happiness.

That's the idea.
A democracy and a republic should have tremendous civil disorders and a very high chance of going into anarchy if a nuke weapon is used without provocation. A dictatorial system should have civil disorders and a rise in corruption. All the other civs should start to hate you (if every civ use nukes, it would end up having all the civ hating each other and all being in civil disorders ^_^).
Feel free to find other negative effects on using nukes.
It should be possible too to have two kind of nukes : big ones (ICBM) that have the improved destruction power and bring the high negative effects as above, and small (tactical ones) that keep somehow the same power as actually, and bring lighter penalties.

[Redstar]

hmm

"In summa, please actually ENGAGE in a nuclear war before you begin complaining about how lame the nukes are in civ3. "

So you have been in a nuclear war?

with all due respect, it is possible to appreciate what a nuke can do based on simulations and extrapolation. You don't actually have to be under one.


Nukes were much more riskier to use in civ2...because global warming changed every tile. Now its not a big deal because you can clean up the pollution in just 1 turn. This, of course, is slightly different if you choose to use nukes deep in enemy territory. But then there is no advantage to do that (other than cutting off foreign trade in a capital).

[Stryfe]

Originally posted by korn469


Stryfe

i'd rather have 5 modern armor units any day instead of a single ICBM...they are more useful and can do the job just as well under all but a few specialized circumstances

What if you already have 75 modern armor?

[Stryfe]

Re: hmm

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Redstar
"In summa, please actually ENGAGE in a nuclear war before you begin complaining about how lame the nukes are in civ3. "

So you have been in a nuclear war?

with all due respect, it is possible to appreciate what a nuke can do based on simulations and extrapolation. You don't actually have to be under one.[/QUOTE[

I was referring to a civ3 nuclear war, not a real life one (duh).

Nukes were much more riskier to use in civ2...because global warming changed every tile.

Which is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. The environmental damage wouldn't be immediate.

Now its not a big deal because you can clean up the pollution in just 1 turn. This, of course, is slightly different if you choose to use nukes deep in enemy territory. But then there is no advantage to do that (other than cutting off foreign trade in a capital).

Ummm....did you read about my experiences with nuclear war? Maybe if there's just one nuke, you can clean it up in TWO turns. But usually, there are 12 or more nukes, and that's a very different situation; and when it occurs amongst the AI, allies may nuke the instigator back, leading to the use of say 12 ICBMs per nation, lets say 48. And by that time, everything has gone to hell.

First of all, the roads are gone in most cases (the AI loves to double nuke), so you can't do it in one turn. Secondly, even in the best case scenario, you need 32 workers per city to clean up one city in two turns. But there are mountains and hills too, which are much harder to clean. And guess what: the AI does nuke cities deep in enemy territory. By targeting the largest cities, it removes the other civ's manufacturing capability. And now the worst thing of all: the AI loves to raze cities, but doesn't necessarily move in to occupy the territory very quickly. So AI nuclear wars tend to leave large areas simply uncleaned and polluted for long periods of time.

I do agree with Paine that the units should be more damaged. I guess the best representation would be a certain random number killed (between 6-12 units) and then all other units given a 50-50 chance of either being killed or having 1 hp left.

[korn469]

Stryfe

What if you already have 75 modern armor?

then win the damn game already instead of spend 1000s of shields on nuclear weapons

[Redstar]

ya, point taken..

"Ummm....did you read about my experiences with nuclear war? Maybe if there's just one nuke, you can clean it up in TWO turns"

You are right as you must spend the first turn moving them to the square. I forgot about that.

And ya, i missed that whole thing about AI nuking AI. I saw it...it just didn't register..'cause that is totally out of my experience.

I am used to seeing maybe 20 +squares of pollution a turn and cleaning up my neighbour's mess. usually i only get 1 or 2 squares changing every other turn or so.

So since it takes so much damage and time to actually see all those changes you mention, i do not see it as unreasonable since the damage is not immediate.

I just find it curious that the change only effects the odd square.
it would be more reasonable to call this kind of damage contamination. The kind of eco-damage that occurs with the likes of Sudbury (CANADA) mining --where the surrounding land had become a moonscape fit only for NASA studies.

bottom line: point taken

[felder]

I like nukes, and think it is very realistic that everyone turns on you if you use one. Imagine what would happen if India nuked Pakistan or vice-versa. You can bet the rest of the world would probably go in there and put a stop to that real quick.

In addition nukes add to your power rating (or so the game says). Since your power has a lot to do with how other Civs treat you, building a lot of nukes should theoretically allow you to bully the AI around a bit.

Also, they do a good bit of damage. It may not be as much as a real nuke, but they (ICBM's) allow you to pretty well ignore all the AI's defenses and you can drop one anywhere on the planet. Dropping a nuke on each of the AI's cities will literally bomb them back into the stone age.

Finally, nukes do cost quite a bit, but I usually just build them as a side note. My last game I had a city that pumped out 120 shields a turn, so it could produce an ICBM every 5 turns or so. It's kind of nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city and feeling pretty snug in the fact that you can really stick it to the AI the next time Germany demands tribute from you. :-)

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by felder
Finally, nukes do cost quite a bit, but I usually just build them as a side note. My last game I had a city that pumped out 120 shields a turn, so it could produce an ICBM every 5 turns or so. It's kind of nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city and feeling pretty snug in the fact that you can really stick it to the AI the next time Germany demands tribute from you. :-)

And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

[felder]

Originally posted by Xentropy


And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

You, are of course, assuming the AI has nukes.

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Xentropy
And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

this is very true. When a city of yours gets nuked lots of units get destroyed, there is some sort of chance to it, but i think since the patch it's higher. Anyway even units such as artilery will get destroyed so I'd imagine your ICBM's would too. Never happened to me though.

With nuclear subs able to follow/escort a carrier now, its faster to produce tactical nukes and nuke subs, and deploy these around the world, either stacked with carrier or on its own. I truly doubt the AI would send an ICBM on your subs.. maybe chase it down, but you would be able to spot any AI unit coming giving you a chance to run.