Nukes

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
(have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
firing theirs and without destroying the world.

Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
long long time ago.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Doug" <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:ididnXSh1PL4GDTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
> When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
> anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
> (have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
> and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
> defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
> attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
> enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
> city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
> land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
> without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
> in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
> until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
> the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
> mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
> missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
> control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
> button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
> cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
> would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
> respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
> sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
> time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
> would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
> firing theirs and without destroying the world.
>
> Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
> issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
> long long time ago.

Glad you got it off your mind
Perhaps there will be better handling of nukes in civ4.

I used about 40 nukes in a game i was milking and the whole world turned to
desert and floodplain. The rivers dried up so metropolis' that didn't need
aqueducts had to be starved down to size 6 so one would become an option
again. The seas receded and i had many many landlocked cities with harbors.
There were 150 or so tiles per turn suffering from global warming and it
certainly didn't reduce in # very fast. All in all, it raised hell with my
milking for score.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

Don't get me wrong, pollution can be a royal -!, but think of the cold
war. Do you think the US or the USSR could get all their missiles to
their targets without the other seeing it and firing theirs? And other
countries? If reality worked much like Civ, I don't think there would be
no world today because if we thought (at the time) we could nuke the old
USSR and knock out all their missiles while they're still in the ground,
and thought all we would have to deal with is the radiation, I think we
might have done it. But that wasn't the case. Knowing that it was likely
your enemy would get their missiles up in the air before your missiles
could hit.. nobody wins a nuke war.. that fear alone was enough to stop
it from ever happening.

The Stare wrote:
> "Doug" <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:ididnXSh1PL4GDTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>
>>When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
>>anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
>>(have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
>>and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
>>defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
>>attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
>>enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
>>city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
>>land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
>>without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
>>in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
>>until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
>>the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
>>mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
>>missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
>>control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
>>button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
>>cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
>>would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
>>respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
>>sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
>>time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
>>would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
>>firing theirs and without destroying the world.
>>
>>Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
>>issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
>>long long time ago.
>
>
> Glad you got it off your mind
> Perhaps there will be better handling of nukes in civ4.
>
> I used about 40 nukes in a game i was milking and the whole world turned to
> desert and floodplain. The rivers dried up so metropolis' that didn't need
> aqueducts had to be starved down to size 6 so one would become an option
> again. The seas receded and i had many many landlocked cities with harbors.
> There were 150 or so tiles per turn suffering from global warming and it
> certainly didn't reduce in # very fast. All in all, it raised hell with my
> milking for score.
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Tue, 18 May 2004 06:45:47 GMT, "The Stare"
<wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:

>
>"Doug" <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>news:ididnXSh1PL4GDTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>> When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
>> anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
>> (have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
>> and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
>> defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
>> attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
>> enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
>> city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
>> land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
>> without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
>> in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
>> until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
>> the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
>> mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
>> missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
>> control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
>> button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
>> cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
>> would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
>> respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
>> sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
>> time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
>> would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
>> firing theirs and without destroying the world.
>>
>> Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
>> issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
>> long long time ago.
>
>Glad you got it off your mind
>Perhaps there will be better handling of nukes in civ4.

Not likely. Sid deliberately made nukes a powerful but usable
weapon system. In Civ3, the effect is pretty extreme -- the worst of
all versions so far -- but it remains something which is viable to use
in warfare.

Also, the numbers used just aren't that large. What does an ICBM in
Civ represent? If it is like the other military units, it isn't just
a single weapon.

But in the real world, a single nuke *does* make a big difference.
As you all know, it only two *two* tiny ones used in war to achieve
victory.

Any weapon system in Civ which offered that sort of advantage, with
a potential doomsday effect, simply couldn't be used in the game.
Definitely, would you trust the AI not to just blow up the world to
stop you from winning?

>I used about 40 nukes in a game i was milking and the whole world turned to
>desert and floodplain. The rivers dried up so metropolis' that didn't need
>aqueducts had to be starved down to size 6 so one would become an option
>again. The seas receded and i had many many landlocked cities with harbors.
>There were 150 or so tiles per turn suffering from global warming and it
>certainly didn't reduce in # very fast. All in all, it raised hell with my
>milking for score.

It is rather devastating.

A similar devastation happens in the Test of Time Midgard scenario.
The "Ice Age" Ragnarok result pretty much kills of civilization, as
well as your chance to end the game with a decent score. Not only is
most terrain rendered worthless tundra, it destroys cities and roads
as well!


--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

As far as risking the AI to use nukes, AI already handles nukes fine. I
have yet to be in a war against the AI and see it use nukes against me,
even if it's near defeat. I have seen in similar cases where if I'm not
able to take a city (or cities), I've nuked them in the past and that's
when it seems the AI begins using them against me, and another AI races
that I wouldn't be at war with would sometimes declare war against me
and start to use nukes themselves after I've fired the first shot.

Where it's unrealistic (I know, it's a game.. but so what) is that if I
stock pile enough nukes and unleash them all at once in one turn, there
could be little if not no nuclear response from AI. With or without
defenses against nuke attacks, and even with defenses, if a missile is
shot down, I could fire several more to do the job.

Take the pollution factor out of it.. and instead look at the use of
nukes themselves. In a real world, it just wouldn't be that easy to hit
and devastate your enemy in one strike without avoiding an attack from them.

Ok, I'm done. You can scream at me again. 😉

Jeffery S. Jones wrote:
> On Tue, 18 May 2004 06:45:47 GMT, "The Stare"
> <wat1@not.likely.frontiernet.net> wrote:
>
>
>>"Doug" <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>news:ididnXSh1PL4GDTd4p2dnA@comcast.com...
>>
>>>When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
>>>anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
>>>(have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
>>>and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
>>>defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
>>>attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
>>>enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
>>>city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
>>>land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
>>>without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
>>>in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
>>>until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
>>>the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
>>>mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
>>>missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
>>>control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
>>>button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
>>>cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
>>>would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
>>>respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
>>>sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
>>>time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
>>>would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
>>>firing theirs and without destroying the world.
>>>
>>>Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
>>>issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
>>>long long time ago.
>>
>>Glad you got it off your mind
>>Perhaps there will be better handling of nukes in civ4.
>
>
> Not likely. Sid deliberately made nukes a powerful but usable
> weapon system. In Civ3, the effect is pretty extreme -- the worst of
> all versions so far -- but it remains something which is viable to use
> in warfare.
>
> Also, the numbers used just aren't that large. What does an ICBM in
> Civ represent? If it is like the other military units, it isn't just
> a single weapon.
>
> But in the real world, a single nuke *does* make a big difference.
> As you all know, it only two *two* tiny ones used in war to achieve
> victory.
>
> Any weapon system in Civ which offered that sort of advantage, with
> a potential doomsday effect, simply couldn't be used in the game.
> Definitely, would you trust the AI not to just blow up the world to
> stop you from winning?
>
>
>>I used about 40 nukes in a game i was milking and the whole world turned to
>>desert and floodplain. The rivers dried up so metropolis' that didn't need
>>aqueducts had to be starved down to size 6 so one would become an option
>>again. The seas receded and i had many many landlocked cities with harbors.
>>There were 150 or so tiles per turn suffering from global warming and it
>>certainly didn't reduce in # very fast. All in all, it raised hell with my
>>milking for score.
>
>
> It is rather devastating.
>
> A similar devastation happens in the Test of Time Midgard scenario.
> The "Ice Age" Ragnarok result pretty much kills of civilization, as
> well as your chance to end the game with a decent score. Not only is
> most terrain rendered worthless tundra, it destroys cities and roads
> as well!
>
>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:41:17 -0400, Doug <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote:

>As far as risking the AI to use nukes, AI already handles nukes fine. I
>have yet to be in a war against the AI and see it use nukes against me,
>even if it's near defeat. I have seen in similar cases where if I'm not
>able to take a city (or cities), I've nuked them in the past and that's
>when it seems the AI begins using them against me, and another AI races
>that I wouldn't be at war with would sometimes declare war against me
>and start to use nukes themselves after I've fired the first shot.

The AI seems to use nukes first when they have decisive superiority.
But once they start flying, they seem content to use as many as they
can -- there is no sign that they see the use of them as a high risk
of global devastation.

>Where it's unrealistic (I know, it's a game.. but so what) is that if I
>stock pile enough nukes and unleash them all at once in one turn, there
>could be little if not no nuclear response from AI. With or without
>defenses against nuke attacks, and even with defenses, if a missile is
>shot down, I could fire several more to do the job.
>
>Take the pollution factor out of it.. and instead look at the use of
>nukes themselves. In a real world, it just wouldn't be that easy to hit
>and devastate your enemy in one strike without avoiding an attack from them.
>
>Ok, I'm done. You can scream at me again. 😉

OK -- that is a sequence of play thing. Same applies to whoever
makes the first ground attack -- the first blitzkrieg wave of armor
rolls over several cities, and in an ideal case, executes a deep
decaptitation attack all the way to the capital.

Same goes for first air strike, first naval strike, etc. All of the
aggressor's attacks go off before the enemy can do a single
counterattack.

You don't get around that in a turn based game, not without greatly
complicating the sequence of play.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Mon, 17 May 2004 23:39:17 -0400, Doug <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote:

>When will it ever be done? Working ICBMs? I have Civ3 so I dunno if
>anybody thought of it yet after Civ3, but the current use of nukes are
>(have been) stupid. You can literally fire all your nukes in one turn
>and destroy your enemy.. an unrealistic scenario. Sure, if the enemy has
>defenses, SOME might get shot down.. and the pollution you get after the
>attack kinda hurts.. Who cares about pollution when you can destroy your
>enemy in one turn. And nukes cut down the size of cities.. to me, the
>city-blasting bombs (ICBMs) should completely destroy the city and the
>land squares around it. Tactical nukes might just drop a city's pop
>without destroying it outright. And pollution caused by nukes should be
>in the form of radiation that can't be cleaned and will only go away
>until many years pass, and you can't build on them, or near them. And
>the big ICBMs should actually be something like missile silos (not
>mobile missiles) that hold a few missiles each. Every city that has
>missile silos in it can target a couple of cities around the world. The
>control of those nukes should be in the form of a single command or
>button that when pressed launches all missiles from silos in all your
>cities and puts them on a path to their targets. The actual impacts
>would occur in the next turn, giving all the other AI players time to
>respond to your act of insane aggression by getting their nukes that are
>sitting in their silos in the air. Using a tactical nuke at any given
>time would also trigger a POTENTIAL response from AI. In this way, it
>would make it near impossible obliterate your enemies without them
>firing theirs and without destroying the world.
>
>Eh, that's my two cents.. Hardly ever post anything but this little
>issue's been eating at me since I bought the original Civ game a long
>long long time ago.

The other player does get a chance to fire their nukes back at you
since they are not destroyed unless you take the city. Population has
only halves during the initial blast. Yet everything that existed in
a terrain square is destroyed. That means many more may starve until
you can build back roads and clear the pollution. If you happen to
capture one of these cities with no supporting culture than you will
have no food except for the center tile. Your population will likely
drop to 1 before you can clean things up.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

On Thu, 20 May 2004 18:41:17 -0400, Doug <dahjr@comcast.net> wrote:

>Where it's unrealistic (I know, it's a game.. but so what) is that if I
>stock pile enough nukes and unleash them all at once in one turn, there
>could be little if not no nuclear response from AI. With or without
>defenses against nuke attacks, and even with defenses, if a missile is
>shot down, I could fire several more to do the job.

Unless you take or destroy the city they still have all their nukes to
fire back at you. The only exception is if you are playing one of
the regicide games.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

if the com has nukes ALL of the countrys will fire them in responce.....so
getting them first is the key