Nukes

[Wiglaf]

Great, my head's spinning

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-09-2000 05:56 PM Nothing better than the Indians searching for the stars and the russians racing for Manhattans Project, to me thats realism

Arghh.

quote: Realism? Seems realistic to destroy a civ with 16 howies on their rail system in one turn as well I think not!

Well it is quite possible to do what the game is attempting to portray - mounting a massive attack based on utilizing the enemy's transit systems.

quote: Realism? Every civ ganging up on you every single game because your supreme, yet they don't do that against the ai when it is supreme.

This has to do with difficulty, not realism by any means. They could realize your intelligence and not trust you as much as the others, who knows.

quote: Where is the realism of unlimited missle/fighter/bomber ai ranges?

Good point. Darn.

quote: Like i previously stated, if you can't handle nukes, go back to the command and conquer way of tanks and howies. The only skill there is getting your transports onto the ai's land, once there, *yawn* well we know the rest.

If nukes are the only thing separating civ2 from c&c, you'd better pawn your CD.

quote: And realism? Yah lets bribe EVERY ai city because were fundy and have lots of money, wow, there is fun.

Err - it is possible to buy nations, don't you watch the news ? Seriously, it may not be fun, but it is possible to bribe city leaders - so what if you do it to every city?

quote: Or perhaps the realism of crushing the ai with 8 vet knights in the early game. Like one little army can take over the real world, i doubt it.

The key thing you said was "in the early game." Naturally, because knights were the common choice of troops "in the early game", it only makes sense to conquer people with them - especially when it's "early" and there are little defences to be had.

quote: Nowhere am i say or wanting to get into a nuke slugfest with anyone.

You have no control over that.

quote: Oh and one more case for realism. Cruise missles only killing one unit in a city and not doing any damage to improvements , yah theres realism In reality, cruise missles should destroy IMO one unit and one improvement per missle.

Your opinion isn't worth anything if you want to talk realism. It's perfectly possible for it to miss. Sheesh

quote: Anyways just my thoughts, which are obviously different than yours.

I agree. Savor this moment.

[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

Wow, no replies to a couple or at least one of my points, i am progressing as an arguementor

Its quite possible to mount a large attack using the opponents rail system. Yes it is, but highly unrealistic that you could conquer a whole nation in one turn. Even Hitler needed three weeks to take Poland.


I wansn't refering to C&C, I was portraying a later game civ 2 strike force, sorry for the confusion. Still that is all it takes and ho hum.

Bribing city leaders, to some extent i will agree with, but not the whole nation once the capital falls. Totally unrealistic. Bribing in this game under the current model is too cheap and too easy.

You miss my point on the knights. They or crusaders are obviously the choice for early attacks. I find it unrealistic to think that a marauding horde of knights could conquer the whole known world. I know the Mongols did it with horsemen actually horse archers but it still reeks.

its also perfectly possible for the missle to miss completely, yet that isn't a choice in civ2 now is it. Therefore your opinion is worthless as well

My arguements seem weird to you i am sure , but i am the guy who believes caravans are too powerfull as well. Happy holidays and great debate btw

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-09-2000 07:00 PM Wow, no replies to a couple or at least one of my points, i am progressing as an arguementor

It was two, I think. I was hoping you wouldn't realize the glaring faults in my points . Never underestimate Mercantile!

quote: Its quite possible to mount a large attack using the opponents rail system. Yes it is, but highly unrealistic that you could conquer a whole nation in one turn.

Well, depends on how 'large' the attack is . Ahh, my argument is slowly but surely being separated and blown out of the water.

quote: Bribing city leaders, to some extent i will agree with, but not the whole nation once the capital falls. Totally unrealistic. Bribing in this game under the current model is too cheap and too easy.

If the capital does fall, to me it seems very realistic to bribe the pieces out of a nation. Riots will ensue and then the city leaders won't need much money to defect. Maybe I'm just poor, but without riots, the system isn't that cheap. You must realize how expensive these things are .

quote: You miss my point on the knights. They or crusaders are obviously the choice for early attacks. I find it unrealistic to think that a marauding horde of knights could conquer the whole known world. I know the Mongols did it with horsemen actually horse archers but it still reeks.

I'm afraid I still miss your point on knights. The fact that the Mongols did it is case in point. Now I'm coming back!

quote: its also perfectly possible for the missle to miss completely, yet that isn't a choice in civ2 now is it. Therefore your opinion is worthless as well

Alright! See the white flag? I would like to see your response on the knights/bribing "points" though. I'm not completely done with.

quote: My arguements seem weird to you i am sure

No, they seem devastating .

quote: great debate btw

It isn't over. No way .

[Wiglaf]

Oh, about your remark "the Indians never flew a spaceship and the Russians never built the Manhattan Proj," you have to admit the names in civ2 are just window dressing.
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 09, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

i refer to a couple of nukes leaking out, as your OWN and do it quickly. There is usually a window of opportunity in the game to take advantage of this tactic. Yes it causes mass destruction and pollution. I call that casualties of war. Other than the pollution, especially if the other side doesn't have nukes, there is no difference in decimating a city by howies or by nukes, you achieve the same result, as the population decreases without city walls. A well defended city will crumble in population after a long siege or evaporate by one half with one nuke. I prefer tactical nukes for those cities that need gentle coaxing to be removed.

Besides, had the Romans nukes in their era, they most certainly would have used them on Carthage, remember these are the same people who believed Carthage should never be inhabited again, i believe they soiled the land with salt, nukes are soiling with radiation, and its not like one doesnt' have a million engineers running around in the late game with very little to do anyways.
The one thing we can agree on is that nukes do let a serious monster out of the game and are one way the ai has to stalemate you. Granted an ending like that is and has been a most disappointing way to finish a game. Such is life, use nukes with caution

------------------
Do you shovel snow in your birkenstocks?

[Mercantile]

Sorry let me rephrase that, the Germans rushing towards the Manhattan project along with the Americans. The Russians racing to the stars along with the Americans, now i think i am historically correct but your correct, it really is window dressing.

Ok i shot myself in the foot because of the Mongol comprarison, with the knights. I will concede the point that it is irrelevant what type of army you use to conquer the world. The Mongols used horsemen, the Romans the legion, etc.... many civs were conquered by whatever technology was available. The Assyrians used chariots, the Romans were eventually toppled by knights and other heavy armoured mounted troops.

In Civ you can use nukes to do the same thing. In history, the Americans dropped two nukes on Japan, and although they did not "conquer" Japan in that sense of the word, they did end the war very dramatically this way, which can also be done in civ. I have dropped nukes in civ when the ai hasn't had them and they were mighty eager for a cease fire, so i see it as totally realistic.

Bribes. Granted trying to bribe a Babylonian city near the capital at size 10 or so is going to cost around 1000-2000g and that is expensive, it can be done in the late game with relative ease. Agreed on the fact that the capital gone makes bribing easier, but i dont' know of any nation who was bribed out of existence, which is very easy to do in civ and unrealistic to me. Bribing parts of a civ, yes i agree, but not the whole nation History dictates that when empires split, they split into factions ie the Greeks or the Romans. True bribes were used to garner loyalty or to join another leaders side, but no leader bribed the whole country and that is the only point i am trying to make.

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-10-2000 06:02 PM but your correct, it really is window dressing.

Case in point.

quote: Ok i shot myself in the foot because of the Mongol comprarison, with the knights. I will concede the point that it is irrelevant what type of army you use to conquer the world. The Mongols used horsemen, the Romans the legion, etc.... many civs were conquered by whatever technology was available. The Assyrians used chariots, the Romans were eventually toppled by knights and other heavy armoured mounted troops.

Case in point.

quote: In Civ you can use nukes to do the same thing. In history, the Americans dropped two nukes on Japan, and although they did not "conquer" Japan in that sense of the word, they did end the war very dramatically this way, which can also be done in civ. I have dropped nukes in civ when the ai hasn't had them and they were mighty eager for a cease fire, so i see it as totally realistic.

Case in point.

quote: Agreed on the fact that the capital gone makes bribing easier, but i dont' know of any nation who was bribed out of existence, which is very easy to do in civ and unrealistic to me. Bribing parts of a civ, yes i agree, but not the whole nation History dictates that when empires split, they split into factions ie the Greeks or the Romans. True bribes were used to garner loyalty or to join another leaders side, but no leader bribed the whole country and that is the only point i am trying to make.

Well, it's arguable as to buying control of offices - that's very, very arguable actually. I'm not talking about empires splitting, I'm talking about buying someone out of office, and that has been known to happen. The fact that it must be done piecemeal in civ is simply a way of raising difficulty.
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 10, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

Fair enough I would say we exhausted this topic, shall we duel out another

[Wiglaf]

Alright, now - if the moon were cheese, would you eat it? Think of the consequences that would have...

[Mercantile]

LOL, ok were really stretching this time. Well if the moon were cheese i guess it would be swiss. Seeing as it is white and full of holes just like the moon. Swiss isn't my favorite so no i wouldn't eat the moon.

Besides if i ate the moon, the tides on earth would be screwed up and all the surfers in the world would be

Maybe, just maybe before the last iceage there was a great civ which had used nukes and inadvertantly a couple of nukes ended up hitting the moon and that is why the moon has holes in it

------------------
Do you shovel snow in your birkenstocks?

[Wiglaf]

What if it weren't swiss? Then you'd only mess up surfers, and that's okay. Think of the people it would feed, though. There wouldn't be any more hunger at the expense of...the surfers - think about it. I say we bring it down here and eat it.

[Mercantile]

You want to eat it Ok are we going to send people up there to scrape chunks off, or perhaps we should just nuke it If it were chedder i would eat it. Mind you i surf so ..... gr... I don't know. I think eating it would only feed people for so long and then we would be without the beautiful moon

[Wiglaf]

To be serious, though - I've always wanted to know why democracy in civ collapses when a unit is away. I don't think that has any historical reference -- does it? It's better than talking about cheese. Maybe I should start two new topics - "All about cheese" and "What's wrong with civ2 demo?"

[Wiglaf]

quote: Originally posted by Mercantile on 12-11-2000 07:57 PM I think eating it would only feed people for so long and then we would be without the beautiful moon

You're right. Let's let a few million die so we can have our beautiful moon forever...we do surf, after all.
I love this quasi nuke, quasi cheese, quasi moon discussion
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 11, 2000).]

[Mercantile]

maybe somewhere in history the democracy collapsed because the troops were away and then some coup came along?

[Wiglaf]

There hasn't been a democracy in a pretty long time (although the news would have you think otherwise..grr), it's all republics. I'm pretty sure demo never outright collapsed because of a war. Now, back to the cheese...
Anyway, if I think of something worthwhile I think I'll start a new topic - people would have to wade through nuclear warfare, the game's realism, whether or not we are under a swiss moon and how many democracies are out there .
[This message has been edited by SMACed (edited December 12, 2000).]