Tweet
I just beat the game by winning the space race and after I won I decided to launch the 20 or so ICBMs I had built up. I was dissapointed with the results. In Alpha Centauri a nuke (Planet Buster) was a huge deal. If you launch one it blew a hole in the world. In Civ 3 I was dissapointed to find that not only did no one declare war on me when I was done with my rampage but there where no holes and the city was still there. Is anyone else dissapointed in the power of ICBMs in the game?
-
Last edited by Sheik; June 6, 2002, 10:55. -
There was quite a discussion about this about a week ago. (The tread is probably on page 2). Some poeple turn the Manhattan Project into a commerce wonder or something so that they can play Civ sans nuclear weapons. That camp says nukes remove strategy since you can just nuke enemy cities and roll your armour right in. Some say nukes in Civ are underpowered as modern thermonukes will wipe out cites, not cut their population.
I tend to agree that SMAC style planet busters are unbalancing and could actually get quite boring. The Civ nuke is probably about right for gameplay - even if not an accurate reflection of reality.
-
Planet busters are more powerful than the nukes on Earth now. It would be too odd if they were that powerful."Yay Apoc!!!!!!!" - bipolarbear
"At least there were some thoughts went into Apocalypse." - Urban Ranger
"Apocalype was a great game." - DrSpike
"In Apoc, I had one soldier who lasted through the entire game... was pretty cool. I like apoc for that reason, the soldiers are a bit more 'personal'." - General LuddComment
-
it would be real sweet to blow a hole in the world eyCSPAComment
Comment