Weird Nuclear War

[problem_child]

Re: Re: Weird Nuclear War

Originally posted by mattcj

I think you mean "suffice" ?

well spotted, you're right- I did mean suffice, I was in a hurry when I tapped that out, there's no need to give me the roll-eye for it though, that just makes you look like a bit of a pr*ck.

[problem_child]

I agree with the point made about ROPT to decrease the likelyhood of wars. I find it's often a good idea to encourage civs that look like their spoilin for a fight to attack your enemies (if you have tech you don't mind selling, you can even get civs to pay for the privalege of fighting your wars for you, I had this one game were I got the Aztecs to pay me upto 44g per turn (14-16th centuaries) just for tech and fighting the threats on other borders. I managed to play it so that by the time the Aztecs took me on they were weakened from years of waging wars and paying Egypt (me). Then when they got rowdy (just like I knew they would) I got everybody else on the continent to beat up on them (again, whilst paying me- Egypt, per turn for the pleasure)

Also I've noticed that the AI almost seems to be concerned about saving face sometimes. If you tell them 'Our troops approach your cities..' etc, they usually refuse to talk peace, but if you go into negotiation and work your way down to them paying you whatever little money they have (plus per-turn payments) they see sense more often. I love ending a war with the other side paying out more then they can afford. Victory thru povertification dude

Of course I always click on 'Our troops approach...' first anyway, just so they know I consider myself to be the winning team (pure superstition of course, I'm sure Sorens AI can't really be psyched so to speak, but what the hey)

[problem_child]

Oh yeah- and one more post for today, does anybody bother with Tactical Nukes?

I find usually ICBMs are available shortly after TacNukes are available, at least by the time you've built, loaded and deployed your subs, so why bother?

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by problem_child
Oh yeah- and one more post for today, does anybody bother with Tactical Nukes?

I find usually ICBMs are available shortly after TacNukes are available, at least by the time you've built, loaded and deployed your subs, so why bother?

TacNukes are cheaper ... since I never actually use nukes, I build basic nukes because they give you the same boost to your power rating as ICBMs but much cheaper.

Cheers
~Thadalex

[1]

Tactical nukes have one huge advantage that will become incredibly even more important with multiplayer.... they're mobile. And if they are in a sub, they are also invisible. Anyone can plant a spy and scout out your cities to see which ones have ICBMS (ie... which ones to take out the first turn of war) but there is no way to find out where someone has hidden that one sub with one nuke... that is most likely chugging full speed at your capital. (well unless you spend tons of production on AEGIS, which to cover your typical coast line, would just be completely infeasible to set up in a way to see them before that sub moves in those final 5 spaces and launchs) I also, tactical nukes are very effective on border cities, because they are cheaper than ICBMS.

[Carver]

1 thing 1, the ICBMs down in their silos always survive nuclear strikes. However, I build tacts too. I want nukes ASAP so I don't get left behind. Not being able to respond to a nuke attack in kind sux.

[Unspeakable Horror]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander
There's no AI bug. If America in your game has no nukes of any kind and they know you do, then they'll want peace and fast. Don't forget also that your POWER at the start of your nukefest that turn must have been massive because nukes add a lot to your power, and if the AI is at war with someone more powerful then they'll probably want peace.

But here's something odd that happened to me the other night ... I make a peace treaty with the AI and then I ask them to move their troops and they declare war on me again!

I offer peace, they accept. I ask them to leave, they declare war. All in the same diplomacy thread. ARGH!!

Cheers
~Thadalex

I think that you spend too much time in Apolyton

[ThaddeusAlexander]

Originally posted by Carlos113
I think that you spend too much time in Apolyton

Well thread was the best word i could think of in my enraged state



Got a better one?

Cheers
~Thadalex

[problem_child]

Originally posted by 1
Tactical nukes have one huge advantage that will become incredibly even more important with multiplayer.... they're mobile. And if they are in a sub, they are also invisible. Anyone can plant a spy and scout out your cities to see which ones have ICBMS (ie... which ones to take out the first turn of war) but there is no way to find out where someone has hidden that one sub with one nuke... that is most likely chugging full speed at your capital. (well unless you spend tons of production on AEGIS, which to cover your typical coast line, would just be completely infeasible to set up in a way to see them before that sub moves in those final 5 spaces and launchs) I also, tactical nukes are very effective on border cities, because they are cheaper than ICBMS.

Carver said the first thing I wuz gonna say (ICBMs always survive strikes) before I realized this- that's the advantage I had thought the Tacs give. But not only is this untrue, it's also very easy to sow the seas with cheap conventional submarines to spot enemy nuclear subs, meaning for me- Aegis Cruisers are largely pointless too, although if I have them- I'll usually include them in my Carrier fleets.

Still, I love it when the AI builds Tacs and has the nuclear subs too, this adds that tention, knowing an arch-rival could have subs laying in wait in the innocent looking seas just off my coast- waiting for when I'm feelin lucky

[Solomyr]

just the talk of multiplayer is getting me excited...and the fact that i'm getting high speed connection tomorrow

oh, damn my courses

[Unspeakable Horror]

Originally posted by ThaddeusAlexander


Well thread was the best word i could think of in my enraged state



Got a better one?

Cheers
~Thadalex

Actually... no
*Carlos113 thinks that he is spending to much time in Apolyton too

[HazieDaVampire]

i cant wait to nuke the **** out of sombody on-line! I always have a super nuke arsenal! I can usualy wipe out my enemy 2 times over, and destroy all of the world useful citys leaving just the city places with 3 pop points! Then i can run my little NBC troops around and let them clean up the mess for me!

I WANT TO PUSH THAT DARN RED BUTTON!

[Solomyr]

alright, but here is the question i have for you guys: i have never gotten into a nuke war, how the heck are you guys doing it. but the modern age i have at least a 2 tech lead, and my i rock everyone when it comes to production. are y'all playing at deity, is that why it is some competitive? i hear about these great games, and i am over here getting bored at the monarch level

[Keeper of Hell]

RoP on Regent on up is a dangerous proposition. Sub-Regent, the AI is usally both peaceful enough and concerned about its reputation enough that it won't abuse RoPs. But playing on Regent, I've had AIs exploit RoPs to attack a back-line city (typically the capital, or the next largest one with no defenders). Fortunately, the AI misuses the tactic horribly; rather than moving all their troops up to striking position, they send a single unit on the attack, thus igniting a war and cancelling the RoP. I guess the point of all this is don't let anyone have a RoP if you don't have to.

[1]

I know the nukes are immune to nukes. But what I ment of "where to strike first" is where your enemy will deploy troops to, and try to take the first turn, via coastal landings, or using the ROP rape, etc. The cities with ICBMS, will be what is taken out the soonest. Tactical nukes don't have that same problem. But your impression from what I said is completely understandable.