Nuclear free zone?

[DarthVeda]

so is there a way to disable nukes in the game or turn off the armageddon clock? I'd hate to see so many high-tech games ruined because of that...

[Inverse Icarus]

most games get real close to nukes anyway, especially the naval ones. i've only been "rushed" once on an atlantic map, and it was still with gunpowder units.

as for nukes, i've noticed that people don't use them as often as you might think (well, the better players anyway). but once you nuke someone, they wont hesitate to drop all of theirs.

[DarthVeda]

It'd still be nice not to have them at all.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by DarthVeda
It'd still be nice not to have them at all.

nah. they're fun

turn off the modern / information age. you'll be stuck with old tanks and crappy planes, but no nukes

[Enriquillo]

One disadvantage of the Armageddon counter is that the losing player can try to bring it down to zero in order not to lose the game.
I think you should either allow nukes and as many as you want , or take them out alltogether. This 'nobody wins' kinda sucks for multiplayer.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by Enriquillo
One disadvantage of the Armageddon counter is that the losing player can try to bring it down to zero in order not to lose the game.
I think you should either allow nukes and as many as you want , or take them out alltogether. This 'nobody wins' kinda sucks for multiplayer.

i disagree. i actually forced a "draw" the other day, and it's quite interesting.

it was a 3v3, and my allies sucked something horrible. they all died before nukes were even invented.

i was first to nukes, and started building em. they all attacked me and my navy held them off for a solid 10 mins, while i proceeded to nuke their cities. then my navy died.

they started landing on my beaches. i started nuking my own beaches to hold them off. it worked for a while.

my main army engaged them, and won easily. the armegeddon counter went down to 0, and it was a draw.

phew.

[Bridger]

Originally posted by Enriquillo
One disadvantage of the Armageddon counter is that the losing player can try to bring it down to zero in order not to lose the game.
I think you should either allow nukes and as many as you want , or take them out alltogether. This 'nobody wins' kinda sucks for multiplayer.

That's the point einstien

If your winning by using nukes, every nuke you use will increase the chance that the looser can force a Tie. Now the armagedon counter is set at such a high limit that there's really no way that the "looser" could set it off all by himself. If he could, he wouldn't be loosing lol.

So that forces a strategic decision on the part of the person in the lead. Do you want to ensure your win by hitting his capitol with a nuke? Or maybe if you do he'll start throwing them up to hit the counter?

The point of the counter is to avoid "gee lets build 50 nukes to win the game" situation. Nukes are something to be used WISELY, not at a whim. Even 1 is very powerful (espeically ICBM) so why would you even need to come close to hitting armagedon when it's useually at 7 or 8 (for a 1v1).

[DarthVeda]

I still think it should be an OPTION to turn them off. If you like the interesting situation the nukes present, you can leave them on. I would prefer have them off because of the draws they have a tendency to force.

One example. This afternoon I was playing 4v4 with computers (I still have the demo ). They pretty much stayed off of causing a draw until the armageddon counter went back up to 4 when somebody researched missile defense. Then those who had nukes all felt they needed to drop every nuke they had.

I really want an option to turn them off or to change the armageddon counter, or both.