 |
|  |
 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote: From the Soren AI Transcript...
You can't destroy enemy cities with nukes... Nukes do not destroy enemy cities... it used to work that way but it was deemed too powerful. so there is no way of doing it |
Umm... someone tell that to Japan. Regardless of cities, someone mentioned a nuke not even being able to kill any of the 10 knights they dropped it on. It seems like a nuke is simply a $1billion cherry bomb which just makes lots of smoke. Why pay so much for it & risk so much (global warming & having the other AIs hate you) only for smoke? And if having it do more damage would be deemed "too powerful", couldn't you do other things to offset that power. Example - increase the production cost, increase the unit fee for nukes (instead of 1 gold/turn, 10 gold/turn), make it cost a population point or 2 (people leaving your civilization for making it), increase the odds that cities will now defect from your civilization for using a nuke, for each nuke used a protestor will appear in each town for x turns, make nukes unable to target capital cities, or... something.
But bottomline if someone puts a salad in front of me & tells me it's a hamburger... that doesn't make it a hamburger. Likewise, the Civ3 nuke isn't a nuke... it seems like more of a big expensive cherry bomb.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
Agree!
You fascist bastards! We will now punish you with our superior cherry blossom bomb! The cute effect is so strong it may even kill one of your soldiers of a heart attack!
BTW, you thread showed one of the best titles in a while, IMHO
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Skanky Burns
And the Manhatten project shouldnt allow everyone to start their own nukes. |
Right. Luckily now The Manhattan is a MINOR wonder, so everybody has build THEIR OWN before building nukes, at least this is mich better - and welcome.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
Haven't got the game yet--what exactly do nukes do, then?
In Civ2 they destroyed all units in a city, reduced the population by half and polluted some squares. They were pretty weak for my taste back then.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Haphazard
|
|
They're weaker now. Only 50% chance to kill each individual unit in blast radius. What's the difference between Tactical and ICBMs except range?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
derdede
|
|
Aachen, Germany
Apr 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
It might be slightly OT, but the same applies to cruise missiles.
I really loved those in CIV II. Long range, enough firepower to sink even a cruiser (which isn't all that unrealistic) and inexpensive. But now...
You can't put them in a sub !!!!!!!!
They aren't treated like a nuclear missile, nor like an air unit. Instead they are an artillery type of unit !
You have to put them on a transport, they have a movement of 2, and they aren't allowed to destroy anything.
They suck !
|
|
|  |
 |
|
derdede
|
|
Aachen, Germany
Apr 1999 time: 05:16
|
|
Oh, I forgot. Their range also sucks !
|
|
|  |
 |
|
David Murray
|
|
Surely there must be some way to tweak the firepower/range/attributes etc of units in the game.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mharmless
|
|
quote: Umm... someone tell that to Japan. |
The civilopedia says that the 'tactical nuke' is a sub-five megaton yeild weapon. Compare this with the 'Fat Man' bomb droped on Nagasaki, which was was the more advanced and complicated of the two devices used. It was a plutonium implosion weapon, and had a yeild of about 20 megatons.
Nagasaki is still inhabited to this day, and in fact there is a lovely park at the point on the ground above which the Fat Man device was detonated. The destruction was immense, but it certainly did not wipe out the city. A five megaton yeild is pretty damn weak.
That being said, I wish at least the ICBMs packed some more punch. For me, the nukes fail the 'fun' test. Now SMAC nukes, those pass the fun test. My god, those were some extremely potent weapons =)
Edit:
Oh, and Manhatan project is definitly still a major wonder. The americans built it in my last game, and I was sudenly able to make nukes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Venger
|
|
Keeper of the Can-O'Whoopass
Jan 1970 time: 23:16
|
|
quote: Originally posted by mharmless
The civilopedia says that the 'tactical nuke' is a sub-five megaton yeild weapon. Compare this with the 'Fat Man' bomb droped on Nagasaki, which was was the more advanced and complicated of the two devices used. It was a plutonium implosion weapon, and had a yeild of about 20 megatons. |
Holy $hit you are wrong as all hell! 20 KILOTONS.
quote: Nagasaki is still inhabited to this day, and in fact there is a lovely park at the point on the ground above which the Fat Man device was detonated. The destruction was immense, but it certainly did not wipe out the city. A five megaton yeild is pretty damn weak. |
Holy $hit you did it again! 5 Megatons is weak? The US doesn't even actively deploy anything approaching a 5 Megaton bomb! Most yields are under one megaton.
quote: Oh, and Manhatan project is definitly still a major wonder. The americans built it in my last game, and I was sudenly able to make nukes. |
Well you got this part right.
Venger
|
|
|  |
 |
|
HugoHillbilly
|
|
Ontario
Nov 2001 time: 00:16
|
|
I admit the nukes are kind of lame, but they are really usefull if you use them properly. First of all the ICBM has unlimited range. This is extremely awesome, you dont have to worry about protecting it like in previous civ games.
Also because of the fact that cities of >12 give a better defensive bonus then <13 cities a drop in half is REALLY useful. the 50% to destroy enemies is an added bonus. Remember it now destroys enemies around the city not just in it.
Ok now if that isnt enough, it destroys all the improvements around it and pollutes all those squares. The nuke would be super-weak in Civ2, but this is Civ3. That city is now disconnected from the trade route, ie no strategic/luxury resources. Their production is totall fcked, reinforcements cant be warped into the city ala railroad, it is starving (and combined with some artillery bombardment) you can easily get it to <7 for NO defense bonus.
whew ok that is alot, I think the Nuke is Extremely powerful Balanced for civ3 not civ2.
My only complaint is after its dropped you gotta wait for the computer to calculate before the effects are seen, so the fun factor is missing.
As I said I think the nuke is lame but thats my opinion, I think its good if everyone considered the other side instead of ranting and raving on the forum.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Yoleus
|
|
Hugo[...], that's a nice point of view. It seems it makes sense. Anyway, I miss the Big KaBoom!!!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Shadowstrife911
|
|
20 kilotons? No I believe it was megatons...unless u were being sarcastic.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ProfessorPhobos
|
|
The Atomic weapons dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were in Kilotons. All tactical nuclear weapons (artillery, torpedoes, etc) are in Kilotons. Some of the bigger, long range hydrogen devices went into the megaton range, but eventually both sides realized that there really wasn't much point to anything above a megaton. In fact, most Soviet ICBM's were about 500 kilotons. A Nuclear Weapon doesn't kill everything in a city, blight the landscape for 200000 years, and destroy every military unit in the city. (50% might actually be a tad excessive...)
Most major cities were targeted with multiple warheads to ensure total destruction. The only real problem with Civ3's nukes is that they are pretty expensive, not because they don't do enough destruction.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Freeze
|
|
Seething
Oct 2001 time: 05:16
|
|
So will they be adding Planet Busters to the game?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Seraphim
|
|
They're right: the one dropped on Hiroshima had an explosive force of 12-15 kilotons, the one on Nagasaki was 20-22 kilotons. You can read a technical description of each of them here.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ProfessorPhobos
|
|
<<<<3rd, if we were playing for 100% historical accuracy most of the unit stats would be skewed & we would have 1 warped game. The bombs that hit Japan didn't destroy "all the improvements around it", yet I didn't see ProfessorPhobos complain about that. At any rate would you rather lean towards historical accuracy or fun? >>>>>>>>>
Whoah! Since when am I complaining? I like the nukes how they are, and I was only trying to point out the strong historical analog to their current settings.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Pyrodrew
|
|
quote: Whoah! Since when am I complaining? I like the nukes how they are, and I was only trying to point out the strong historical analog to their current settings. |
Complain was too strong of a word? ok. Anyways, I was only saying your points were one-sided since you left out all the inaccurate historical parts of the Civ3 nukes.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
mharmless
|
|
Yup, screwed the pooch on that one. Fat Man was definitly a 20 KILOTON bomb. Civilopedia definitly says sub-five megatons on the tactical nuke entry, more than two orders of mangnitude more powerfull. Maybe they are being under represented =)
|
|
|  |
 |
|
ProfessorPhobos
|
|
<<<<,Complain was too strong of a word? ok. Anyways, I was only saying your points were one-sided since you left out all the inaccurate historical parts of the Civ3 nukes.>>>>>
Well, naturally. If they were historically accurate, their effects would be much different, we'd be able to build MIRV weapons, missile silos, mount dozens of missiles on a single submarine, load them into artillery, and load 'em on bombers...
But there's strong indication that they shouldn't be as powerful, as, say the planet busters in SMAC. Or even as powerful as they were in Civ2. (They could probably be a lot cheaper, though.)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16. Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|