Nukes

[dexters]

If it is minor it cannot be good.

In fact, having bombers equip nukes isn't a bad idea. But it is a redundant one, and could lead to some serious balance issues.

Regular bombing runs already has the ability to reduce a city's population by 1. Instead of building one nukes, just build 10 bombers. It is probably cheaper and you can do major damange to cities and they are reusable.

[tinyp3nis]

About balance, i just won my first space race game on deity, and i had to fight for it, i had to send troops to take their capital because they would have launched in few turns (yes, destroy capital=ship needs to be rebuild, if someone didnt know)... with nukes some of u want i just bomb the damn city, no troops at all... and it would be bad for play balance. Someone said better cruise missiles, i agree. Nukes are fine, and very effective

[Non Flammable]

That makes a good point: where did the suitcase nukes go?

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Non Flammable
That makes a good point: where did the suitcase nukes go?

The same place where the spies did...

[Panag]

Originally posted by Non Flammable
That makes a good point: where did the suitcase nukes go?

hi ,

storage ,.........

have a nice day

[Arrian]

"Lawyers are like nuclear weapons. They have theirs, so I have mine, but once you use them, they screw everything up." - Danny DeVito, Other People's Money

-Arrian

[AlecTrevylan00]

i think all nukes must be kept in silos(like airfields), tacticals hit same turn (so a bunch of nuke subs are useful) ICBM's next turn, and you have to have nukes AIMED at a city (takes one turn to aim, stays that way and returns fire if fired upon)

[Coracle]

Whatever. The simple fact is there is NO WAY any civ would wait until "next turn" to use what little were left of their nukes.

I would never use nukes without a Quick Response to a First Strike; in otherwords, when HIS nukes are airborne but haven't landed I get to also launch.

As for Espionage, we should also have the option of using it to detect when another civ starts to FUEL their nukes. Good espionage SHOULD allow us to hit some of them before a launch.

[Tuberski]

Originally posted by AlecTrevylan00
i think all nukes must be kept in silos(like airfields), tacticals hit same turn (so a bunch of nuke subs are useful) ICBM's next turn, and you have to have nukes AIMED at a city (takes one turn to aim, stays that way and returns fire if fired upon)

All that does is add unneccesary micromanagement to the game. ICBM's travel A LOT faster than tactical nukes, why should it take longer for them to hit their target?

[SIZE=1] Originally posted by Coracle{/SIZE]
Whatever. The simple fact is there is NO WAY any civ would wait until "next turn" to use what little were left of their nukes.

I agree, if somebody was nuking me, I'd do the same.

There is even a real-world term for it:

Mutually Assured Destruction.

[Ben Williams]

You're not happy when a pikeman kills a tank, why should you settle for such unrealistic nukes? Nuclear weapons belong in a class of their own, they don't work like normal units. Of course, it would take a lot of programming to change the nuke system, so it's probably never going to happen in civ3. When it really comes down to it the problem is dumb AI, one with which you could never have an interplay of threats and detterence the way the US and and USSR had, any realistic system would fail when put to the test of an AI which, lets face it, sucks.

-ben

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Coracle
Whatever. The simple fact is there is NO WAY any civ would wait until "next turn" to use what little were left of their nukes.

Maybe you aren't old enough to remember. The US and Russia originally were in postition to wait till the nukes hit. Watch Failsafe or even Dr. Stranglove to see how it worked. That was prior to the USSR having an effective ICBM. After that the missles were put in hardened silos that were proof against anything but a very near hit by a very large nuke. For a long time the USSR did not have missles capable of that degree of accuracy even when they had fairly large warheads.

I would never use nukes without a Quick Response to a First Strike; in otherwords, when HIS nukes are airborne but haven't landed I get to also launch.

This is a turn based game. Not a real time game. Get used to it.

As for Espionage, we should also have the option of using it to detect when another civ starts to FUEL their nukes. Good espionage SHOULD allow us to hit some of them before a launch.

Again you show little knowledge of ICBMs. The early missles often used solids and the liquid fueled Titan II's were ALWAYS fueled and ready to go. The later missles were solids again. Solids are always ready to go with no need for storing the kerosene and LOX that was used in the Titans. All the US ICBMs that were in silos were intended as a second strike option.

Of course the main and sure second strike option of the US is and has for many years been the sub launched missle. One single Triton sub could destroy the USSR with around 200, 300 kiloton warheads at ten warheads per missle.

[Ethelred]

Originally posted by Tuberski


All that does is add unneccesary micromanagement to the game. ICBM's travel A LOT faster than tactical nukes, why should it take longer for them to hit their target?

Depends on what the tac nuke is. SRBM or some sort of battlefield launched weapon. In either case though the ICBM is constrained by the distance it travels. It takes about 20 minute to go from the USSR to the US and visa versa. Thats because its BALLISTIC and not thrusting all the way. They launch and reach a near orbital velocity which should be a bit less than the Shuttle reachs, then they travel the rest of the way on momentum. If they went faster they would go into orbit and that wouldn't exactly get them to the target.