Nukes, yes or no????

[admiralk]

Finally after weeks of playing i got far in the modern age. I built my first nuke and after rejoiceing for a couple of minutes i decided to test it on my friend. (well he was, until he threatened me a few turns b4) I saved the game and then launched. Boom!!!! England and Persia out of nowhere declear war on me. I watch the awesome graphics of the city blown up. And the reload the saved game.

***Now the main question is what should i really do with my nuke. I mean if the world is gonna hate u cause u use them then its pretty much obsolete. So any1 got any good suggestions on the use of nukes???***

[Daveraver]

What I usually do is hoard a large amount of ICBM's and then completely level the world... or at least most of it... seeing as they're going to all declare war on ya anyway... I then follow it up with a healthy dose of modern armor to raze the rubble... and then... game over. Conquest victory... somewhat satisfying.. although there isn't a movie for winning! Its SO annoying.

[Kolyana]

I recently managed to *LEVEL* England with over 30 Nukes and only one country turned against me ... aside from England themselves, ofcourse!

Not sure why, but Babylon was warring against them anyway and they were cautious of me. When I nuked the living heck outta them, Bablyon suddenly likes me. Go figure

Now, the devastation in England was well worth it and with a healthy Modern Armor blitz I managed to wipe their very large civilization off the map in just a handful of turns.

I have decided, however, that nukes are more of a deterent than anything else. If I feel that a large power is building up and a potential threat to my security, I like the feeling that i can cripple their entire economy in one turn

[Redstar]

During the cold war, it was tac. nukes that would stop the bear steamroller.

(The US planned to use them to destroy the superior qualitative russian armor advantage).

In civ3 that works like a charm. Its a beautiful sight to see 56 modern tanks/mechs vapourized with a few nukes.
I also love to use nukes against sea targets where there is no pollution damage (granted eco-destruction has nowhere near the penalty civ2 did).

[korn469]

So any1 got any good suggestions on the use of nukes

don't build more than 3, they are a waste of money, you'd be better off building modern armor

(in real life 192 nuclear warheads on one of america's 18 ohio class ballistic missile submarines could kill 1/3 of russia's entire population, so if people complain about airplanes not sinking ships then they should be furious about had badly neutered nukes are on the power side, and how poorly balanced they are on the diplomatic side)

[Skanky Burns]

Put it this way:

Effects of nuking a city:
50% of the garrison destroyed
50% of the population lost
Up to 8 squares temporarily unusable

compared to the
Effects of a city culturally reverting from you
100% of the garrison destroyed
100% of the population not working for you
ALL city squares permanently unusable by you
The enemy gains an entire city

Something is deeply wrong when civilians are more to be feared than nuclear weapons.

[Thomas Paine]

I would really, really love to see nuclear weapons take ALL cities down to a population level of one, thus more accurately reflecting the mind-numbing devestation wrought by the power of the atom.

Trying to dilute their power in the interest of "game balance" serves as a total afront to logic. The atom bomb was the twentieth century's greatest boogie man, and deservedly so. The game should mirror that terror. Why?

Because it would be so freakin' cool !

[Akka]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine
I would really, really love to see nuclear weapons take ALL cities down to a population level of one, thus more accurately reflecting the mind-numbing devestation wrought by the power of the atom.

Trying to dilute their power in the interest of "game balance" serves as a total afront to logic. The atom bomb was the twentieth century's greatest boogie man, and deservedly so. The game should mirror that terror. Why?

Because it would be so freakin' cool !

I would prefer a fixed loss in population (10 or 15) to be able to DESTROY cities with nukes, and to only let BIG cities survive.
Penalty for using nukes should be tremendous (civil unrest, diplomatic vendetta, etc...) but nukes should be tremendously powerful.

[Stryfe]

Originally posted by korn469
don't build more than 3, they are a waste of money, you'd be better off building modern armor

I don't agree at all, and it is not at all pre-determined that using nuclear weapons will lead to anyone declaring war on you at all. It all depends upon your power and culture, not to mention diplomatic relations. More importantly: those ICBM's tend to push up your power rating and deter the AI a little from using them on you. Only use nukes if you have a large stockpile.

Also, people don't seem to be mentioning that nukes, while not destroying ALL units in the city, actually do kill many of them.

However, beware nuking a city multiple times. Pretty quickly all the city tiles surrounding it become desert (or flood plains).

[Stryfe]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine
I would really, really love to see nuclear weapons take ALL cities down to a population level of one, thus more accurately reflecting the mind-numbing devestation wrought by the power of the atom.

Trying to dilute their power in the interest of "game balance" serves as a total afront to logic. The atom bomb was the twentieth century's greatest boogie man, and deservedly so. The game should mirror that terror. Why?

Because it would be so freakin' cool !

I don't think that's really very accurate as far as the damage done by nukes goes, and frankly, I get the feeling that no one here has been involved in a large scale nuclear war yet. Wait until you are; then talk about whether nukes are underpowered or not. One nuke, two nukes, hell even four or five nukes wouldn't have won a war between the US and USSR; and the two atom bombs dropped on Japan didn't have the sort of amazing effects that people are looking for in the game; incredibly destructive, yes, but the coming of Shiva, no.

Anyway, large scale nuclear conflicts in civ3 are represented just fine. I recently had one, in which every single AI launched every ICBM they had (mostly on each other). The destruction was debilitating, and the world didn't recover for decades--in fact it hasn't yet recovered in that game, and never will, because global warming has reached the point of converting about 50-75 tiles a turn now. For a while it was more like 100-150, but it's slowed down a little thanks to clean up jobs.

Taken in the abstract, the 8 polluted tiles seem like a minor problem. But they are much more than that; for one thing, all improvements are destroyed. For another, double nukes--of which the AI is fond--transform the tiles into desert. Thirdly, since you're obviously at war, you probably aren't very gung ho with your workers right now, so the pollution just sits there. And finally: since most nuclear wars involve the nuking of multiple cities, the actual clean up jobs take decades to complete. I had dozens and dozens of workers moving into to China, for instance (who the Babylonians had helpfully nuked for me) and it took me about 50 years to clean up the whole country. Meanwhile, the Babylonians had problems of their own, of course...

In summa, please actually ENGAGE in a nuclear war before you begin complaining about how lame the nukes are in civ3. The effects are devestating enough, believe me (and using tactical nukes on transports, armadas, and carriers is just plain cool).

[Thomas Paine]

since most nuclear wars involve the nuking of multiple cities, the actual clean up jobs take decades to complete.

That aspect of the Grand Nuclear Exchange is well implemented - the enviromental factor. The havoc wreaked upon the countryside becomes the true devestating force of the nuclear payload.

What many players find perplexing is a city's post-nuclear defensive ability. To discover half of a city's garrison to still be alive and well enough to defend off a major offensive after an ICBM rained down atomic hellfire is to grossly undermine the horrindous power of such a weapon. When such a military scenerio unfolds, many players are surprised and frustrated.

It's an honest reaction, one based from real world observation. Think back on the newsreals of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did the survivors look up to a fight? Those that survived day one were not picking up arms against the newly arrived Americans. In fact, the destruction was so complete, so mind numbing, that even the conquering armies, upon arrival, could only stare in mute disbelief at the deathscape of twisted metal and concrete rubble. After the bomb, there was nothing left to conquer. What was once a thriving seaport in Kyushu was now an unrecognisable lunar landscape.

That is the power of the Bomb. The damage done by the game-nuke more closely resembles a major industrial accident - Chernobyl or the Exxon Valdez. But in human terms, both civilian and military, the nuclear exchange should be far, far more costly than what is presently reflected in the game's simulation.

Don't think of any of this has complaining. It's just a game, after all (that's a relief! ) Think of it more as...the players' initial thoughts and feedback.

[Thomas Paine]

One game change I do welcome is the technological research gap between the development of nuclear missiles and the Star Wars anti-missile defense. Back in the good ole' Civ2 days, a nation could feasibly begin building ICBM "umbrellas" right on the heels of the Manhatten Project, thus rendering the cold war a still born from it's very start! Civ3 eliminates this instantaneous "offense/counter-offense" scenerio by insuring that enough time will lapse between the two innovations to allow the entire world to hover on the brink for a generation or two.

Kind of like...now. Just ask Civilization players like Putin and Bush!

[korn469]

I don't agree at all, and it is not at all pre-determined that using nuclear weapons will lead to anyone declaring war on you at all. It all depends upon your power and culture, not to mention diplomatic relations. More importantly: those ICBM's tend to push up your power rating and deter the AI a little from using them on you. Only use nukes if you have a large stockpile.

Also, people don't seem to be mentioning that nukes, while not destroying ALL units in the city, actually do kill many of them.

Stryfe

i'd rather have 5 modern armor units any day instead of a single ICBM...they are more useful and can do the job just as well under all but a few specialized circumstances

[smellymummy]

yes to nukes.


They are very powerful. Destroying nearly all units if not all, reduces population by half or so, transforms all surrounding tiles to one class lower (in most cases) plus the polution and destruction of roads. Oh and the destruction of improvements too.

Mass up a large bunch of nukes/icbms and destroy your enemy....

However might be a good idea to plant a spy and make sure that the enemy doesnt have some nuke subs with tactical missiles waiting to launch on YOU! That's what happened to me in a recent game and I was kicking myself in the but for not waiting to reach the point where I could build the SDI wonder. In short, the AI was able to nuke 6 of my best towns, and within 10 or so turns renuke my capital and a few other good cities. A real bummer but fun.

Other civs wont automatically declare war on you, but in my experience their opinion of you decreases - and if they put on a happy face, trust me it's just a lie to lull you the player into not nuking them.

Once you have the SDI wonder though, ah yeah! Nothing is better than to see a nuke being destroyed especially after being nuked repeatedly.

The only drawback though, is when global warming totally destroys all grasslands into plains, but then continues and creates huge deserts (you'll know what I mean if you see the sun icon dark/blood red).

[Akka]

Originally posted by Thomas Paine
It's an honest reaction, one based from real world observation. Think back on the newsreals of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Did the survivors look up to a fight? Those that survived day one were not picking up arms against the newly arrived Americans. In fact, the destruction was so complete, so mind numbing, that even the conquering armies, upon arrival, could only stare in mute disbelief at the deathscape of twisted metal and concrete rubble. After the bomb, there was nothing left to conquer. What was once a thriving seaport in Kyushu was now an unrecognisable lunar landscape.

That is the power of the Bomb.

And remember : Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20 Kt bombs. Actually, ICBM are more several MEGATONS bombs. Yup, a THOUSAND times more powerful. Just try to imagine what kind of horrific destruction would bring such a doomsday weapon.

[jgflg]

Originally posted by Akka le Vil


And remember : Hiroshima and Nagasaki were 20 Kt bombs. Actually, ICBM are more several MEGATONS bombs. Yup, a THOUSAND times more powerful. Just try to imagine what kind of horrific destruction would bring such a doomsday weapon.

Fortunately no one can really say what exactly an accurate level of realism for an ICBM is. I'd have no problem with ICBMs being more powerful in the game. But if you want that increase in perceived realism, it should be countered by an equally realistic anti-nuclear movement unhappiness factor that can throw your civ into anarchy. I think using nukes should have a seriously negative effect on your own citizens happiness.

[Akka]

Originally posted by jgflg


Fortunately no one can really say what exactly an accurate level of realism for an ICBM is. I'd have no problem with ICBMs being more powerful in the game. But if you want that increase in perceived realism, it should be countered by an equally realistic anti-nuclear movement unhappiness factor that can throw your civ into anarchy. I think using nukes should have a seriously negative effect on your own citizens happiness.

That's the idea.
A democracy and a republic should have tremendous civil disorders and a very high chance of going into anarchy if a nuke weapon is used without provocation. A dictatorial system should have civil disorders and a rise in corruption. All the other civs should start to hate you (if every civ use nukes, it would end up having all the civ hating each other and all being in civil disorders ^_^).
Feel free to find other negative effects on using nukes.
It should be possible too to have two kind of nukes : big ones (ICBM) that have the improved destruction power and bring the high negative effects as above, and small (tactical ones) that keep somehow the same power as actually, and bring lighter penalties.

[Redstar]

"In summa, please actually ENGAGE in a nuclear war before you begin complaining about how lame the nukes are in civ3. "

So you have been in a nuclear war?

with all due respect, it is possible to appreciate what a nuke can do based on simulations and extrapolation. You don't actually have to be under one.


Nukes were much more riskier to use in civ2...because global warming changed every tile. Now its not a big deal because you can clean up the pollution in just 1 turn. This, of course, is slightly different if you choose to use nukes deep in enemy territory. But then there is no advantage to do that (other than cutting off foreign trade in a capital).

[Stryfe]

Originally posted by korn469


Stryfe

i'd rather have 5 modern armor units any day instead of a single ICBM...they are more useful and can do the job just as well under all but a few specialized circumstances

What if you already have 75 modern armor?

[Stryfe]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Redstar
"In summa, please actually ENGAGE in a nuclear war before you begin complaining about how lame the nukes are in civ3. "

So you have been in a nuclear war?

with all due respect, it is possible to appreciate what a nuke can do based on simulations and extrapolation. You don't actually have to be under one.[/QUOTE[

I was referring to a civ3 nuclear war, not a real life one (duh).

Nukes were much more riskier to use in civ2...because global warming changed every tile.

Which is pretty unrealistic in my opinion. The environmental damage wouldn't be immediate.

Now its not a big deal because you can clean up the pollution in just 1 turn. This, of course, is slightly different if you choose to use nukes deep in enemy territory. But then there is no advantage to do that (other than cutting off foreign trade in a capital).

Ummm....did you read about my experiences with nuclear war? Maybe if there's just one nuke, you can clean it up in TWO turns. But usually, there are 12 or more nukes, and that's a very different situation; and when it occurs amongst the AI, allies may nuke the instigator back, leading to the use of say 12 ICBMs per nation, lets say 48. And by that time, everything has gone to hell.

First of all, the roads are gone in most cases (the AI loves to double nuke), so you can't do it in one turn. Secondly, even in the best case scenario, you need 32 workers per city to clean up one city in two turns. But there are mountains and hills too, which are much harder to clean. And guess what: the AI does nuke cities deep in enemy territory. By targeting the largest cities, it removes the other civ's manufacturing capability. And now the worst thing of all: the AI loves to raze cities, but doesn't necessarily move in to occupy the territory very quickly. So AI nuclear wars tend to leave large areas simply uncleaned and polluted for long periods of time.

I do agree with Paine that the units should be more damaged. I guess the best representation would be a certain random number killed (between 6-12 units) and then all other units given a 50-50 chance of either being killed or having 1 hp left.

[korn469]

Stryfe

What if you already have 75 modern armor?

then win the damn game already instead of spend 1000s of shields on nuclear weapons

[Redstar]

"Ummm....did you read about my experiences with nuclear war? Maybe if there's just one nuke, you can clean it up in TWO turns"

You are right as you must spend the first turn moving them to the square. I forgot about that.

And ya, i missed that whole thing about AI nuking AI. I saw it...it just didn't register..'cause that is totally out of my experience.

I am used to seeing maybe 20 +squares of pollution a turn and cleaning up my neighbour's mess. usually i only get 1 or 2 squares changing every other turn or so.

So since it takes so much damage and time to actually see all those changes you mention, i do not see it as unreasonable since the damage is not immediate.

I just find it curious that the change only effects the odd square.
it would be more reasonable to call this kind of damage contamination. The kind of eco-damage that occurs with the likes of Sudbury (CANADA) mining --where the surrounding land had become a moonscape fit only for NASA studies.

bottom line: point taken

[felder]

I like nukes, and think it is very realistic that everyone turns on you if you use one. Imagine what would happen if India nuked Pakistan or vice-versa. You can bet the rest of the world would probably go in there and put a stop to that real quick.

In addition nukes add to your power rating (or so the game says). Since your power has a lot to do with how other Civs treat you, building a lot of nukes should theoretically allow you to bully the AI around a bit.

Also, they do a good bit of damage. It may not be as much as a real nuke, but they (ICBM's) allow you to pretty well ignore all the AI's defenses and you can drop one anywhere on the planet. Dropping a nuke on each of the AI's cities will literally bomb them back into the stone age.

Finally, nukes do cost quite a bit, but I usually just build them as a side note. My last game I had a city that pumped out 120 shields a turn, so it could produce an ICBM every 5 turns or so. It's kind of nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city and feeling pretty snug in the fact that you can really stick it to the AI the next time Germany demands tribute from you. :-)

[Xentropy]

Originally posted by felder
Finally, nukes do cost quite a bit, but I usually just build them as a side note. My last game I had a city that pumped out 120 shields a turn, so it could produce an ICBM every 5 turns or so. It's kind of nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city and feeling pretty snug in the fact that you can really stick it to the AI the next time Germany demands tribute from you. :-)

And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

[felder]

Originally posted by Xentropy


And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

You, are of course, assuming the AI has nukes.

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by Xentropy
And then that city gets nuked first, as the largest most productive city, according to the spy network, and ooooooops, there goes your arsenal to counterattack with ;>

Nice having a ton of ICBM's in a city, nicer having them spread around all over. Can ICBM's be captured or are they destroyed if the city they are in is taken?

this is very true. When a city of yours gets nuked lots of units get destroyed, there is some sort of chance to it, but i think since the patch it's higher. Anyway even units such as artilery will get destroyed so I'd imagine your ICBM's would too. Never happened to me though.

With nuclear subs able to follow/escort a carrier now, its faster to produce tactical nukes and nuke subs, and deploy these around the world, either stacked with carrier or on its own. I truly doubt the AI would send an ICBM on your subs.. maybe chase it down, but you would be able to spot any AI unit coming giving you a chance to run.