 |
|
Grond
|
|
A lot of people have been asking for a no nuke option since their is a big window between when you get nukes and when you can get missile shield. The way it is playing out now is try and nuke the opoonent as much as you can until you get close to armageddon so he can't nuke you back and then whoever is about to lose launches another nuke to end the game. I suggest that there be a civil unrest option in the start up screen you can turn on for using nukes. Production would decrease around 10% for all resources for each nuke you used. This way its still an option but only to be used in important circumstances instead of do it to them before they do it to you.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Flip McWho
|
|
New Zealand
May 2002
time: 17:28
|
|
I have to say that i might be the only one that gets a heap of satisfaction from ICBMing (has to be ICBMs as nukes ain't powerful enough for me) every single city of my enemy just before i rush in there and take everything. The explosion and the carnage just leaves me in awe of the destructiveness.
I would agree though that there is really no deterrant to using nukes at all. I mean the embargo while yes it is slightly annoying mostly you only have to wait a bit to gain enough resources to build another one anyway. But yeah the computer does like to use nukes an aweful lot (as in the human has to be quick if they want to chuck a few around) but for my experience its usually been at other computer players and besides if i throw nukes and ICBMs around freely then i should be able to take them.
I can see how this would be fustrating to people that don't use nukes but have to suffer from getting hit by them though.
I like the attrition damage thing that u mentioned ADG. It does make u wonder where all the radioactiveness has gone.
Just my thoughts on the matter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Grond
|
|
Just wanted to make clear that I think this should be an option that could be turned on or off and I would prefer it to the no nuke option that I've seen requested.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
niDe
|
|
I think nukes should maybe cost a bit more and the -10% to your economy is cool.
It could last for 2 minutes like embargo and it should be stackable, i.e. if you launch 2 nukes, you get -20% for 4 minutes.
This would sure help make people less trigger happy with their nukes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
I've only had a few games last into the nuke age, but in one game where I did not build any nukes myself, I seemed to be excluded from all of the nuclear mayhem.
I was playing Toughest and Survival vs. 3 AI opponents and counted 8 nuclear attacks among them while I was building the missile shield. It seems odd, since I was being bombed and attacked by ground forces during this part of the game, but was not the recipient of any nukes.
One game is hardly conclusive evidence, but it's possible that you only have to pay the dues after joining the club.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UndyingFlame
|
|
I think computers target the strongest player. In other words, one of the toughest computers might have been considerably more powerful than you, so nukes were being used against him. I really don't know too much about it, however.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Undying Flame,
A plausible theory, but in my most recent game on Toughest, I was first into the last two ages and had a slight lead over the three AI opponents in terrain and point score with the same result. I was not nuked.
It may be as in CivII, if you are ahead in power the AI become meek and submissive.
I still have not had that much experience in the end game, but it makes sense to me to wait until after building the missile shield to research nukes. The shield can be built instantly, too, if it is preceded by the Supercollider wonder.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UndyingFlame
|
|
Like I said, i don't know much about it, so I really am not qualified to argue - but I think the one with the most military strength - i.e. if you attack a country repeatedly or take out their navy to the point where they are totally landlocked - then they seem to target you. At least - that has been my experience with the AI. Deal with the largest threat.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
solo
|
|
Lowell, MA USA
Jan 2001
time: 05:28
|
|
Now I see what you mean. I was playing defensively during both games. I also believe that if you initiate attacks and/or provoke enough you are more likely to be a targeted by nukes.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
ded_man_walkin
|
|
I like nukes as they are now, but they still suck. One time a dude had nuked and cpatured my capital. That is not fair! I think that nukes cannot be used on capitals, and reseraching missile shield will allow a player to blow nukes in enemy terriory, but there shall be a chance that they will blow up in mid air, before reaching the target, or if they hit one of your cities, u will get a free nuke. oh yes and, nukes will be more powerfull, and there shall be a 5 minute 85 attrition damage to anyone who enters the nuke area (nuclear zone). Also, there should be an option when a player blows up 10 nukes, instead of armageddon, his commerce and pop limit cap, moves down greatly, for 12 minutes. any unit that is over the pop limit will instanly die, allowing the other player[s] to recover their economy, and strike back at the weakened enemy.
Also, for cruise and v2 rockets, once they hit a building (expet for a cities and wonders) they instantly demolish it, and as for cities and wonders they only recieve so much damage.
suggested new missiles and nukes.
anti-missile rocket (building, does damage to missile, like a SAM)
attack 90
patriot missile (factory) a truck that carries a mlrs system that can only shoot at enemy missiles
attack 49 per each rocket launcehd
counter missile(requires missile shield, when a nuke or a cruise missile enters your territory, the missile is automatically launced towards it, and destrys the enemy missile. There is a chance that it may fail.) Enemy nukes, when destroyed explode in mid air, and damage the below units, causing a small attriotion damage for a short period of time to units that pass under it.
attack-kills missile instantly
Nuke:
400 hp
3000 attack, demolishes any buildings and units excpet for cities instantly (cities get 3000 damage) Capitals and buildings in radius recieve no nuke damage, and no nuke attrition (units do get damaged though).
you see it fly. there is a chance that it will miss.
v2 rocket
200 hp
300 attack demloishes any building instantly, excpet for cities and wonders. there is a chance that it will miss.
icbm
500hp
6000attack demolishes any buildings and units excpet for cities instantly (cities get 6000 damage) Capitals and buildings in radius [of the capital] recieve no nuke damage, and no nuke attrition (units do get damaged though).
you see it fly. flies faster, and is always accurate
cruise missile
300 hp
450 attack
always accurate
demloishes any building instantly, excpet for cities and wonders.
these are my suggestions for a new nuke policy that will make the game more fair.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Xelvonar
|
|
I think nukes in the game are pretty well balanced. I fear them---and shouldn't I? I also like the distinction between nukes and ICBMs: you can recover from a nuke attack if you work quickly, but an ICBM essentially devastates any city.
What I would like to see is an anti-nuke building that lets you counter nukes. Something like a SAM, but that works only on nukes. And it doesn't work on ICBMs: only the missile shield stops those babies.
I also think cruise missiles should always be accurate, and should destroy any ship targeted. Perhaps the Advanced Cruiser (the tech level 8 cruiser) could be able to shoot them down in flight.
And yes, I think a no-nuke option in the menus should be available. But it sounds like that's on the way.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:28.
Apolyton Time is 00:28. |
top of page
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
15-06-2003 12:10
|