Nukes

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes are actually very balanced as it is. What is serious is the strength (well, lack of) of cruise missiles.

A third nuke would be kinda dumb. Although a super nuke wonder would be fun, I think tactical nukes are fine, except for their lack of range.

Now, a land based nuke artillery should be in the game. It should be slow, like take 2 or 3 turns to move a single square. It should require you to "load" a nuke into it. It would have the same range as artillery, but would be more expensive and slower.

[Panag]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
Nukes are actually very balanced as it is. What is serious is the strength (well, lack of) of cruise missiles.

A third nuke would be kinda dumb. Although a super nuke wonder would be fun, I think tactical nukes are fine, except for their lack of range.

Now, a land based nuke artillery should be in the game. It should be slow, like take 2 or 3 turns to move a single square. It should require you to "load" a nuke into it. It would have the same range as artillery, but would be more expensive and slower.

hi ,

there should be a nuke with a range of lets say 20 , ....to fill the hole between the to ones there are now , .......

also , there should be the option to give airunits more range , ....
and more units in general , and why not put some buildings in it , that are needed to build this or that unit , ......

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

You don't need a special building to make any units. And a nuke with 20 range is about as far as needed in most games, seriously. The ICBM is fine, we don't need another nuke. I want a stronger cruise missile with more range.

[Panag]

Originally posted by King of Rasslin
You don't need a special building to make any units. And a nuke with 20 range is about as far as needed in most games, seriously. The ICBM is fine, we don't need another nuke. I want a stronger cruise missile with more range.

hi ,

please read again , ........

more units , and why not make them true buildings , thus adding more buildings aswell , ........

and maybe some blank units , so that the players can fill in the valuefields themselves , ....

as for the rest there should be many units extra , and the option to play with them or , ...

example ; player one wants three nukes , player two only two , ...
if there are options to toggle these units yes or no , then every type of player can have it his way , ..........

have a nice day

[Ijuin]

I still favor the idea that the first nuke will kill all the units in and around a city, plus half the population, as it already does, and the SECOND nuke will obliterate the city. This lets you wipe out cities if you wish to, without the need for creating a whole new class of nukes. Perhaps to show the difference between Tactical Nukes and ICBMs, only ICBMs would be able to obliterate a city and additional Tactical Nukes can only destroy part of the population and some Improvements.

That's another thing. I think that a nuke attack should destroy half of the Improvements in a city (chosen at random), but Great Wonders and Small Wonders should still remain standing until the city itself is destroyed.

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes shouldn't be city killers. They are so powerful as it is. I do think improvements should be destroyed. Units should be reduced to 1 hp and have their defence halved as long as they are in the radiation.

In fact, I think a -25% defence should be in store for units in polluted squares. I like the idea of a city square becoming polluted for 10 turns or so. The real power of a nuke is getting a freaky 100% defence bonus city down to a reasonable 50% defence bonus city with injured units.

[Solver]

No, no, current nukes are extremely weak.

Though think... if you could obliterate a city with two nukes, wouldn't it be too much? Build Nukes only, get yourself 60 nukes, and get rid of any civ you don't like.

[King of Rasslin]

Nukes are not weak at all if used with combined arms. Nuke a size 20 city to reduce the defence bonus to 50% and kill the weakened units with armor just outside the city. Nuking a city across the world is powerful enough, but nuking a nearby city is instant defeat for it if you use other units with it. Why would you nuke a city and allow the injured units to heal themselves? I would gladly take a nuke over using artillery to the same effect, except artillery are so f'n slow and they are just not powerful enough.

[dexters]

What is this preoccupation with realism? Reducing a city from pop 12 to pop 4 or whatever and polluting its surrounding tiles with pollution is enough.

Repeat several times on 10 cities of a major civ in a normal map, and you have essentially crippled the AI economy and can go in for the kill with conventional units.

I find it highly illogical for players to keep demanding a god weapon. I'm sure we'd have threads whining about the "overpowered" nukes and the "cheap" AI if Nukes were able to wipe out entire cities and the AI actually used it against the human players. And they will. We all know it.

[Carver]

Good points, Travathian.

Originally posted by Ijuin

That's another thing. I think that a nuke attack should destroy half of the Improvements in a city (chosen at random), but Great Wonders and Small Wonders should still remain standing until the city itself is destroyed.

It is pretty silly that all those libraries, cathedrals etc. are never destroyed by nukes. Some improvements should be destroyed - at random. Yes, wonders should remain, afterall the Parthenon is still a wonder although its in ruins.

[Denday]

Originally posted by Ijuin
Here is a possible compromise: The first nuclear strike acts normally, but if a second nuke hits a city after all its units are destroyed (that is, if it strikes an undefended city), then the city should be obliterated.

what do units have to do with it

nuke a city = no city

nuke a city = survirors

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Denday

what do units have to do with it

nuke a city = no city

nuke a city = survirors

Make a nuke kill a city = no strategy = no fun

[LaoTze]

If you want a 3rd type of nuke put nukes on bombers. That was the major delivery system till the 60's. At any rate, the US had 30,000 (4,050 stratgic) nukes for 15,977.17 megaton yield by 1963 most of those were tactical nukes but the reasoning behind so many was the first strike mentality and fools whining about the missile gap. Never existed, Russians only had 4,000 (589 stategic) by '63. Then you had to rebuild your nuclear force when the delivery system was changed in the face of growing Soviet air defence capabilities etc. You can't nuke the world over 3 times if the other guy nukes your nukes on the ground. So overkill was a good thing in that shining enlightenment of cold war mentality:-)

[Panag]

Originally posted by LaoTze
If you want a 3rd type of nuke put nukes on bombers. That was the major delivery system till the 60's. At any rate, the US had 30,000 (4,050 stratgic) nukes for 15,977.17 megaton yield by 1963 most of those were tactical nukes but the reasoning behind so many was the first strike mentality and fools whining about the missile gap. Never existed, Russians only had 4,000 (589 stategic) by '63. Then you had to rebuild your nuclear force when the delivery system was changed in the face of growing Soviet air defence capabilities etc. You can't nuke the world over 3 times if the other guy nukes your nukes on the ground. So overkill was a good thing in that shining enlightenment of cold war mentality:-)

hi ,

keep talking , ........

what about a fourth type of nuke , ....;the one that the a unit like a spy puts there , almost like in civ2 , similar but improved greatly , .......

have a nice day

[King of Rasslin]

The difference between a tactical nuke and a bomber is that you cannot rebase the nuke. Because the bomber could be shot down before reaching it's destination, the nuke shouldn't be expensive. It should be weaker and cheaper than tactical. Maybe it shouldn't really generate much pollution but it should kill 1/4 of the city and an improvement. Something minor but good.