Nukes!

Brent · January 15, 2001, 15:37

Why do nukes neccesarily have to be a rare occurence in the game? I was really annoyed in my recent SMAC games because I somehow couldn't manage to get more than one Planet Buster! We should be able to destroy the entire world if we want to. If we can view the world as a globe, we should be able to see gigantic craters. I wanna see an apple core Earth! Sure, bring gravity into it, but it's just so doggone cool! Maybe in some scenarios, as some civs, you can even win by doing this.

blinder2451 · January 15, 2001, 18:58

I am at a disadvantage because although I have played Civ1, 2, and CTP2, I have never purchased Alpha Centauri.

Nukes were great in Civ2, AFTER I disabled the SDI defense (which is fantasy, not reality). This made alliances very important, because only if you are allied with someone could you feel comfortable building a city next to them.

I like your suggeston because I like mass destruction and the ensuing struggle to survive. Instead of blowing half the earth to smithereens, I want the following features:

1. 3-D terrain (was it in AC?) Imagine the tactical challenges if you had to fight uphill to the enemy stronghold.
2. Fast, minimizable toolbar windows, instead of Tabs on a control panel like CTP2. Look at PSP7, the windows move out of the way, and easily pop into view if necessary.
3. 200+ units,... If I'm building Minutemen, I should be prevented from building Samurai. I want different units than my enenmy, but with balanced capabilites. Think of Starcraft, but instead of 3 you have 20 civs to choose from and each has different units. (Or grouped together).
4. Please utilize my 3D accelerator card! Please?!

JosefGiven · January 15, 2001, 19:17

Nukes...Mmm...sweet nuclear power..

My major whinge with nukes in Civ II, is that the AI civs tend to toss 'em about as if there were no tomorrow. If this had happened during the Cold War, there would not have been!

No, seriously, the decision to deploy nuclear weapons in Civ III should be should be one that conjours up a suitable sensation of horror and gravity. The nukes in Civ II had the relative explosive power of the very early nuclear weapons, despite having advanced rocketry based delivery vehicles. (There is a thread somewhere on this site that deals with nuclear weapon delivery systems and payloads in much greater detail).

What I say is this. As nuclear technology advances, available nukes should become so powerful that the idea of using them in warfare becomes ridiculous in terms of destruction and pollution terms. Unless this is your idea of fun, of course...

One last thing, let's not call 'em 'nukes'...It makes them sound almost 'friendly'. I prefer the full, impressive majesty of 'nuclear missile/bomb/weapon' etc.

------------------
Josef Given
josefgiven@hotmail.com

niteowl · January 17, 2001, 15:07

I agree...Nuke 'em back to the Stone Age

------------------
"My dear girl don't flatter yourself. What I did this evening was for king and country. You don't think it gave me any pleasure do you?

--- James Bond
<><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><><>
Feel free to contact my via email:
niteowlsc@netscape.net
[This message has been edited by niteowl (edited January 17, 2001).]

Evil Capitalist · January 17, 2001, 18:43

quote:

Originally posted by JosefGiven on 01-15-2001 06:17 PM
If this had happened during the Cold War, there would not have been!

The Ai does just that in the WW3 scenario. Oddly enough, it seems to be mainly against China though.

Koyaanisqatsi · January 17, 2001, 18:49

I want neutron bombs...the worst part of a nuke in CivII was that it took out so many structures.

Fierz · January 18, 2001, 12:58

what about biological weapons, this would be funny

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · January 18, 2001, 14:43

quote:

Originally posted by Bell on 01-17-2001 05:49 PM
I want neutron bombs...the worst part of a nuke in CivII was that it took out so many structures.

What are you talking about? in civ2 nuke warfare was like playing in your backyard, it was totally unrealistic, and nukes didnt do anything except destroy the population in the city and create polution around it.

to the rest of you, I dont think I need to say my suggestions for nuclear warfare again, I've listed my own personall suggestions well over 5 times in different places. But if you want to hear it, to bad!

I'll just say this: civ2 nuke warfare was not good enough, it was way too easy to start nuclear exchanges. in civ3, nuclear warfare should be realistic, and realistic is that nuclear warfare is feared, even by the leaders of the countries of the world. nuclear warfare should be devastating, just down right DEVASTATING. I dont think I need to explain that word to anyone.

I would also like to see chemical and biological warfare in civ3.