 |
|
solar
|
|
Why are the ICBMs so expensive in Civ3. During the Cold War both the US and USSR had thousands of ICBMs. Building that many ICBMs is almost impossible in Civ3. The ICBMs in Civ3 cannot represent a group of ICBMs like a tank represents a group of tanks because if an ICBM was ever used against a city only one would need to be fired. I know that this would make the game unbalanced, but they are unbalanced in real life. If the US and USSR had gone to war they would have destroyed themselves, but this does not happen in Civ3. There is never a positon where two civs can destroy themselves in a war.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Iron Chancellor
|
|
ICBMs are expensive. The USSR fell because they spent most of their money on arms and nukes to keep even with the USA, in addition to blowing it on a giant sponge like SDI. The USA won the cold war because a powerful free market economy can support a larger military and a few wasteful projects.
Real life ICBMs are expensive, the danger is of small suitcase bombs made of ICBM materials purchased dirt cheap from corrupt officials
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Mr. Schwang
|
|
Salt Lake City, USA
Aug 2002
time: 05:22
|
|
In case you don't know Solar how much ICBM's cost in real life, they're ALOT.
And if you don't like the cost of them, it is very easy to change that in the editor.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by solar
. There is never a positon where two civs can destroy themselves in a war. |
Sure, you can't have a nuke war that would destroy everything, as the cities would eventually be reduced to size one, need trooops to occupy.
That said, I have had nuclear exchanges which have been quite devastating (at least for the other side , I wait until I have SDI, then attack, reducing the counter strike quite nicely.)
While you can't eradicate cities, you can reduce them to rubble, as they destroy both improvements and population. Andperhaps more importantly, you can destroy the trade of the civ. Nuke every luxury, every resource, every airport/harbor. Will bring a civ to its knees quickly. Not destroying a civ, exactly, but quite punishing.
[Being rambling/] As an aside, I kinda wish that if you went through one of these wars, and have access to resources and trade routes cut off, you would lose technologies (going through a dark age ala warday, alas babylon, the postman etc) or that the cities cut off (or distant) from the capital would revolt and perhaps secede. [End rambling/]
Also, a nuke attack will destroy all of the units in the city (eventually) but they leave the resident nukes intact, thus allowing a return exchange and the abiltiy to harm the other. Granted, the system could be a lot cooler, a MAD system or whatever, but this does ok.
I wish there was a way to transport the ICBMs in civ3. Is there? am I insane? I'm hoping they will allow us to use the airbases in PTW as silos.
I've been toying with the idea of modding the nukes in my game. Since there is only one type of ICBM, i am pondering adding additional nukes to 2-3 later techs, each dropping the cost of the unit. This is to reflect the newer, sexier missles we have in RL, since we can't change the effect, we can make them cheaper thus allowing more to be built.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by asleepathewheel
While you can't eradicate cities, you can reduce them to rubble, as they destroy both improvements and population. Andperhaps more importantly, you can destroy the trade of the civ. Nuke every luxury, every resource, every airport/harbor. Will bring a civ to its knees quickly. Not destroying a civ, exactly, but quite punishing.
|
My apologies, that was probably an overstatement, destroying the buildings and population would be more damaging than just the trade of a civ. But it is fun to go after the luxuries and trade routes as punishment.
I should add that the green house effect is painful as well.
In my current game, 25 squares were effected in one turn!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blue Moose
|
|
Columbus, Ohio USA
May 1999
time: 00:22
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Iron Chancellor
ICBMs are expensive. The USSR fell because they spent most of their money on arms and nukes to keep even with the USA, in addition to blowing it on a giant sponge like SDI. The USA won the cold war because a powerful free market economy can support a larger military and a few wasteful projects.
Real life ICBMs are expensive, the danger is of small suitcase bombs made of ICBM materials purchased dirt cheap from corrupt officials |
I think a bigger reason why Russia fell is because it was basically a third world country trying to keep up with a first world one. The government didn't help, but the fact is that they didn't have a good infrastructure either (because they spent money on weapons as opposed to other things).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solar
|
|
quote:
No, they had thousands of warheads, not thousands of ICBMs. |
Sorry, I guess I misunderstood the amounts. Never mind this thread.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Iron Chancellor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blue Moose
I think a bigger reason why Russia fell is because it was basically a third world country trying to keep up with a first world one. The government didn't help, but the fact is that they didn't have a good infrastructure either (because they spent money on weapons as opposed to other things). |
That's exactly what I said. All there money was spent on the arms race and financing international communism, so they had no cash left over for infrastructure, investment, etc. A country like Russia only has so much wealth that can be taken before it collapses
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AlecTrevylan00
|
|
saying that the SU fell cuz they paid for nukes is a gross simplification
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Iron Chancellor
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by AlecTrevylan00
saying that the SU fell cuz they paid for nukes is a gross simplification |
Of course it is. The USSR fell because it didn't have the economic power to back its military, and it couldn't tax the private sector because there was no private sector. The arms race was a huge drain on the USSR's resources, and basically kept the USSR from spending money on more intelligent projects like build infrastructure, investment, etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Proteus_MST
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Myrddin
The USSR did not fail for economic reasons but for political reasons - the people stopped believing in it, and with less repression they stopped pretending that they believed in it |
But first the Administration had to change, to bring the political System of the USSR to fall. It was Michail Gorbatschow, who introduced Glasnost and Perestroika and opened the USSR to the West. Gorbatschow wanted to renew the Communism and make it more human, thus preventing the collapse of the USSR.
But de facto his Reforms gave the People the freedom to express their displeasure about the Communism and demonstrate freely and at last made the USSR a Democracy.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
AlecTrevylan00
|
|
in civ2, on a real world map, i filled the inside of the US up with airfields and put my nukes in them, cuz the bad guys, when they attacked, always ignored airfields. I'd leave 1 or 2 nukes in cities so that they would nuke them and airattack them and during a war they would ignore the airfield and just do cities, becuz they thought it would slow their conquest once they had used nukes
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:22.
Apolyton Time is 00:22. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
08-09-2002 02:56
.
|