How are the nukes?

  • Topic Archived
You're browsing the GameFAQs Message Boards as a guest. Sign Up for free (or Log In if you already have an account) to be able to post messages, change how messages are displayed, and view media in posts.

User Info: PyroDesu

PyroDesu
7 years ago#21
If The nuclear weapons were realistic, the would:
1:destroy the city
2:generate fallout a là civ 4
3: take MASSIVE amounts of resources to create
4:possibly lower terrain tile of impact/raise surrounding tiles (crater)?
5:if target city had a nuclear shelter/bunker, possibility of creation of settler post impact in about 3-4 turns?
6:be multiple subtypes:
6a.ICBM;what is above, arrives turn after launch, target anywhere, 100%? chance of stoppage via SDI
6b.Long Range Tactical, above, Arrives immediately, long range (1/4 round the planet?), 75%? chance of hit by SDI
6c.Medium Range Tactical, as long range but: Medium Range (1/8 round the planet), 50% chance of hit by SDI
6d.Short Range Tactical, as long range but: Short Range (1/16 round the planet), 25% chance of SDI hit
6e.Nuclear Artillery:Nothing above, same range as regular artillery, no SDI effect, heavy damage to target, 50% chance of 1 tile of fallout (1 shot only affects 1 tile)
7:ICBM and Long/Medium/Short Range Tactical hit 3x3 grid a là civ 4.
This would be balanced enough for this game.
_-=PyroDesu=-_

User Info: Somniance

Somniance
7 years ago#22
Dunno, never played Alpha Centauri. If I had to take a wild guess, it'd probably be because it was well-played into the balance of the game.

==It was, for the most part. They took a lot to build, and they could be shot down with Orbital Defense Pods, much like SDI. But they were unquestionably the most powerful weapon in the game, since shooting down a Planet Buster wasn't a sure thing, and an orbital defense pod would have to be sacrificed for every one.

It was an awesome set-up, and I'm sure that Civilization could fit it in.

What's wrong with you? This is a turn-based strategy game. This game doesn't need over-powered weaponry anymore than it already has. Nukes ARE already powerful. Just because they don't DESTROY a city with one nuke doesn't mean they aren't.

==It means they aren't realistically powerful. Which I have a problem with. It's hard to have a cool nuclear-heavy scenario because of how underpowered they are.

And you would know that if you had a serious bone in your body that took into consideration the balance of this game.

==Given your earlier admission that Planet Busters, weapons which could sink continents, likely fit into the balance of that game, you stand in a precarious position in stating that even a fraction of that power is not able to be balanced by the very same team years later in a very similar series.

Hence why big kabooms ARE relative to Halo, a popular FPS series whose crowning achievement is to dazzle folks with big explosions to ignore the shallow depth of the entire series.

==It's meant to be a simple series. That's its draw.

That is NOT what Civ is. Civ is more akin to a game a chess. What you're asking for is a way to be able to nuke part of the board in a chess game. That's how ridiculous this suggestion is.

==Considering that you can already nuke part of the board in said chess game, your analogy falls flat on its face.

Someone learned a new word in high school today, I see. When you get back in class, learn how to use it correctly.

==Why do you continue to assume that everyone that disagrees with your position is a high-schooler? Moreover, why do you feel the need to hold such a view in a negative light? Can high-schoolers not have intelligent positions?

I'm sorry, but I'm simply not going to fall for your bait. You're not going to irritate me in the manner which you are attempting.

There have always been nuclear scenarios in Civ. There are serious enough repercussions involved in using them. They are pretty powerful weapons as it is.

==But not as powerful as I would like. I enjoy more nuclear-prevalent games, especially in a series such as Civilization which concentrates on the progression of humanity from cave-dwellers to spacefarers (of a sort).

The fact that I have to repeat myself of this point once again just further proves you wish to ignore things like balance and reality and you want fantasy nukes that can blow up chunks of the world. As I said, Halo is that way ----->

==I don't understand. Are you saying that nuclear weapons are incapable of destroying the vast majority of a city's infrastructure?

Yeah, that would be this weird thing called balance, or else 50-turns-worth of infrastructure, armies, and improvements could be wiped out by one nuke that could be built in a couple of turns with rushed production.

==Why is this unbalanced? This is balanced in the nuclear weapons' favor, but it just promotes a different playstyle. Suddenly, players can't make super-cities that can do everything. Couldn't it be argued that with weapons that could destroy cities in a single blow, that it would balance it in its own way?
Gamertag: Esau of Isaac

User Info: MrBurpy

MrBurpy
7 years ago#23
The best move would to have realistic nukes be a toggleable option tbqh. Clearly, not everyone wants to have them in their games, so it should probably be off by default. This is pretty much the only way I see people being satisfied with nuclear weapons in this game.

User Info: Agamemnon485bc

Agamemnon485bc
7 years ago#24
It means they aren't realistically powerful. Which I have a problem with. It's hard to have a cool nuclear-heavy scenario because of how underpowered they are.

They reduce a city's population by 33%, they have a chance to destroy buildings in the city, they have a chance to destroy units in the city, they have a chance to destroy improvements and units in the eight adjacent tiles from the point of impact, and then there's a chance for fallout to occur to make the adjacent plot of land unworkable. In terms of game structure, one nuke is DEVASTATING enough as they were in Civ 4. You could effectively reduce the production of a city by 200% with one nuke. This isn't even including the fact that a factory/barracks/forge could be destroyed and then you'd have to rebuild those before you could build armies again.

As I said, anyone who calls Civ 4 nukes underpowered are people looking for a cheap flashy explosion. Am I really going to have to direct you to Halo again?


Given your earlier admission that Planet Busters, weapons which could sink continents, likely fit into the balance of that game, you stand in a precarious position in stating that even a fraction of that power is not able to be balanced by the very same team years later in a very similar series.

Mostly because they probably smartened up and learned from their mistakes. Judging by your lack of 100% confidence in calling them balanced, I wouldn't be surprised if I searched beyond you for some veteran Alpha Centauri players on their opinion on the weapons and whether they thought they were balanced. Considering all Civ games have gone through strenuous play-testing, we can only imagine who is in the right camp here.


Considering that you can already nuke part of the board in said chess game, your analogy falls flat on its face.

Only if you misconstrue the analogy and play the obtuse, which you are. Congrats on you. You show me where in a game of chess you can virtually remove a part of the board, okay? Nukes in Civ work much like a piece in chess, namely the queen, given its numerous points of attack. That makes it for a powerful piece. It doesn't make it for a piece that can render files and rows in a game of chess impassible for the rest of the game. And you would've gotten that, as I said, if you weren't being purposefully obtuse.


Why do you continue to assume that everyone that disagrees with your position is a high-schooler? Moreover, why do you feel the need to hold such a view in a negative light? Can high-schoolers not have intelligent positions?

Because high school is the breeding ground for the adolescent to believe he is a unique and beautiful butterfly of originality, and will usually cling to something and pretend to be a connoisseur in a subject. In this case, your vernacular is more than showy when you can put your point across without reading off a 10th grade word list of the week.

And please, don't try and go the route of selling me on it's your major. I'm an English major. I know plenty of other English majors. The last thing you ever do is throw your knowledge in someone else's face when the reading level of most people is at a 7th grade level. Any Eng Lit 101 professor will tell you using showy words is one of the worst things you can do in common conversation and through the written word.

Unless you are the latter, which probably means you've got a chip on your shoulder and show off your peacock feathers when ever you can, which would probably explain your needless pursuit to try and continue to say, "I'm right, I'm right."

User Info: Agamemnon485bc

Agamemnon485bc
7 years ago#25
But not as powerful as I would like. I enjoy more nuclear-prevalent games, especially in a series such as Civilization which concentrates on the progression of humanity from cave-dwellers to spacefarers (of a sort).

Look for another game then. Try out World in Conflict--I hear that game is all sorts of nuke-happy. Maybe even DEFCON. It's WarGames minus the supercomputer. Civ, on the other hand, is a game firm in the base of reality in which countless conflicts in our history have been settled through the aims of politics and a marching army. Building an entire game out of a complex infrastructure that is aimed at having you play out and win the game through those tactic would be rendered useless, numb, and infantile if you had your super nukes the way you wanted.


I don't understand. Are you saying that nuclear weapons are incapable of destroying the vast majority of a city's infrastructure?

You can go in circles all you want. I'm sure someone is bound to join you as well. Not going to be me though.


Why is this unbalanced? This is balanced in the nuclear weapons' favor, but it just promotes a different playstyle. Suddenly, players can't make super-cities that can do everything. Couldn't it be argued that with weapons that could destroy cities in a single blow, that it would balance it in its own way?

What part about the way nukes work now did you not understand? You can severely cripple a city with current nukes. That is the balance. With one nuke you can pretty much cause a fracture in your enemy's production and plans. DESTROYING an entire city wouldn't cause a fracture. It'd be like removing a body part and then being expected to finish the race with one leg. It's ridiculous. There is no balance to such a feature as that. If two warring civilizations had eight cities and one of them lost a city to a nuke, then it'd be game over for that civ. They would never be able to make up for the loss in production value, not to mention the possible resource and unit value, and their opponent will make it up for the better by profiting from their displacement of losing only ONE city.

Now multiply this by how many nukes you want in one play session and the game can be over in five minutes after a player attains nukes.

I really don't know how many ways I have to repeat myself and provide solid factual points as to why this is a bad idea. Either way, I'm convinced I'm talking to a brick wall that thinks Civ 5 is Burger King and he wants it his way. Thankfully that's not going to happen and developers instead focus on what the majority of players want, which is a balance to a game. I'm oddly reminded of the influx of newbies to Starcraft II that were asking for Protoss Motherships to have the ability to shoot giant beams at targets beneath them, causing massive damage, and that they should have kept the time displacement ability, etc. Except what everyone else realized is that if they kept such abilities to the unit the game would be IMBALANCED.

The sooner you realize that's the entire crux of your argument, the sooner you will realize you are arguing a nonsensical point.
agdom.wordpress.com
Agdom, where I blog about video games.

User Info: The_Sword_88

The_Sword_88
7 years ago#26
As long as they are easily moddable I'll be happy
E8500, GTX 285, 8 GB OCZ Plat1066, Win7 Ult x64
Gamertag:TheRoyalKnight PSN:TheRoyalKnight88

User Info: Somniance

Somniance
7 years ago#27
They reduce a city's population by 33%, they have a chance to destroy buildings in the city, they have a chance to destroy units in the city, they have a chance to destroy improvements and units in the eight adjacent tiles from the point of impact, and then there's a chance for fallout to occur to make the adjacent plot of land unworkable. In terms of game structure, one nuke is DEVASTATING enough as they were in Civ 4.

==It's not incredibly devastating. As far as resources go, there's not a huge incentive to build them, rather than just churning out more military units to swarm an enemy.

You could effectively reduce the production of a city by 200% with one nuke. This isn't even including the fact that a factory/barracks/forge could be destroyed and then you'd have to rebuild those before you could build armies again.

==But neither will probably happen, and given that SDI will shoot down the majority that are launched anyways, the chance of them being as effective as you are stating is little to none.

As I said, anyone who calls Civ 4 nukes underpowered are people looking for a cheap flashy explosion. Am I really going to have to direct you to Halo again?

==You can keep going. It's not going to irritate me regardless of how often you repeat it.

Mostly because they probably smartened up and learned from their mistakes. Judging by your lack of 100% confidence in calling them balanced, I wouldn't be surprised if I searched beyond you for some veteran Alpha Centauri players on their opinion on the weapons and whether they thought they were balanced.

==I am a veteran Alpha Centauri player. I have been playing the game consistently for eleven years. They were balanced fine.

Considering all Civ games have gone through strenuous play-testing, we can only imagine who is in the right camp here.

==So you will go on record in stating that there is nothing within previous Civilization games --all strenuously playtested, as you stated-- that has been unbalanced?

Only if you misconstrue the analogy and play the obtuse, which you are. Congrats on you. You show me where in a game of chess you can virtually remove a part of the board, okay?

==You show me a game of chess where you can make diplomacy with your enemy.

Your analogy lacked any parallels with what you were pointing out.

Nukes in Civ work much like a piece in chess, namely the queen, given its numerous points of attack.

==Which nukes? ICBMs? You would call something that has a 75% chance of being blocked a Queen?

Okay.

That makes it for a powerful piece. It doesn't make it for a piece that can render files and rows in a game of chess impassible for the rest of the game. And you would've gotten that, as I said, if you weren't being purposefully obtuse.

==You're implying that Planet Busters would do such a thing. They didn't in Alpha Centauri, I don't see why a semi watered down version in Civilization would be much worse.

Because high school is the breeding ground for the adolescent to believe he is a unique and beautiful butterfly of originality, and will usually cling to something and pretend to be a connoisseur in a subject. In this case, your vernacular is more than showy when you can put your point across without reading off a 10th grade word list of the week.

=="Preceding" is a showy word to you?
Gamertag: Esau of Isaac

User Info: Somniance

Somniance
7 years ago#28
And please, don't try and go the route of selling me on it's your major. I'm an English major. I know plenty of other English majors. ... Any Eng Lit 101 professor will tell you using showy words is one of the worst things you can do in common conversation and through the written word.

==If you consider any of my vocabulary used within this topic as showy, you're not an English major.

Unless you are the latter, which probably means you've got a chip on your shoulder and show off your peacock feathers when ever you can, which would probably explain your needless pursuit to try and continue to say, "I'm right, I'm right."

==The irony. Please god, make it stop.

Look for another game then. Try out ... Building an entire game out of a complex infrastructure that is aimed at having you play out and win the game through those tactic would be rendered useless, numb, and infantile if you had your super nukes the way you wanted.

==Untrue. The same didn't hold true in a game eleven years aged. It wouldn't be impossible to balance weapons of such strength, and I certainly doubt that it would reduce the game to a useless level, as you seem to believe. And while I am sure that this series is built around the idea of melding political and military, I highly doubt the latter is meant to be engaged through a solely marching army. Mostly because there are options militarily that don't include such.

But really, should I just take this as you not knowing the explosive yield of a modern nuclear explosion? Because I'm fine with informing you of the situation, if so. Because they could pretty easily obliterate more than 33% of an average city's infrastructure in the 40s, let alone today.

DESTROYING an entire city wouldn't cause a fracture. It'd be like removing a body part and then being expected to finish the race with one leg. It's ridiculous. There is no balance to such a feature as that.

==Numerous ways to shoot them down, exorbitant costs to build them, being far along the tech tree, requiring hoops to jump through, need of resources that are hard to get.

There are many ways in which to balance such a feature.

If two warring civilizations had eight cities and one of them lost a city to a nuke, then it'd be game over for that civ.

==I think that's speaking a bit strongly, but even if I agree with you, I don't see how this makes them unbalanced. Is chess unbalanced because the Queen can move in such a varied manner?

They would never be able to make up for the loss in production value, not to mention the possible resource and unit value, and their opponent will make it up for the better by profiting from their displacement of losing only ONE city.

Now multiply this by how many nukes you want in one play session and the game can be over in five minutes after a player attains nukes.


==I guess, if the nuclear weapon had nothing that worked against it. And if they were playing on a small map. And if there were only two of them. And if the opposing player failed to catch up to his opponent technologically.

I really don't know how many ways I have to repeat myself and provide solid factual points as to why this is a bad idea. Either way, I'm convinced I'm talking to a brick wall that thinks Civ 5 is Burger King and he wants it his way.

==You realize that you were earlier trying to prove that you are intelligent. And you are a Burger King analogy. A bad one.

Really.

I'm oddly reminded of the influx of newbies to Starcraft II that were asking for Protoss Motherships to have the ability to shoot giant beams at targets beneath them, causing massive damage, and that they should have kept the time displacement ability, etc.

==Did you explode in a giant ball of narcissism then as well?
Gamertag: Esau of Isaac

User Info: redness19

redness19
7 years ago#29
Get off your soapbox Agamemnon485bc. While you may have a point, I am actually embarrassed to admit I agree with someone as pretentious (over a video game of all things) as yourself.

Nukes that destroyed the entire city were great in Civ Rev because you could only make one. With nukes being an actual production choice, it'd just be ridiculous to allow them to destroy a city in one shot. Every game would just evolve to nuclear warfare with every city being reduced to dust until the last one stood alone in a uninhabitable world/.
G T- Redness19

User Info: Agamemnon485bc

Agamemnon485bc
7 years ago#30
It's not incredibly devastating. As far as resources go, there's not a huge incentive to build them, rather than just churning out more military units to swarm an enemy.

Okay. Glad you don't find an incentive to build them. I don't ever find an incentive to build a caravel so early in the game. Maybe we should add some nukes to the ship so I can feel better about producing it?


But neither will probably happen, and given that SDI will shoot down the majority that are launched anyways, the chance of them being as effective as you are stating is little to none.

Yeah, this is after someone has built the SDI. It's interesting how your arguments hang by a thread that require a checklist of things to go wrong to try and keep your argument up about how nukes are "underpowered." By the time everyone is rocking out with SDIs, you should be building multiple nukes instead.

Unless you don't want SDIs at all and everyone can just send each other into the Stone Age with nukes. Which just keeps going back to a point you keep ignoring.


I am a veteran Alpha Centauri player. I have been playing the game consistently for eleven years. They were balanced fine.

You're one person, and an arrogant one at that. Excuse me if I do not take your word on it.


So you will go on record in stating that there is nothing within previous Civilization games --all strenuously playtested, as you stated-- that has been unbalanced?

Yep, because that's exactly what I said. Being obtuse must be fun!


You show me a game of chess where you can make diplomacy with your enemy.

Your analogy lacked any parallels with what you were pointing out.


You keep bugging out at a perfectly good analogy, okay Cochise?


Which nukes? ICBMs? You would call something that has a 75% chance of being blocked a Queen?

Okay.


Yet again with this terrible argument.


You're implying that Planet Busters would do such a thing. They didn't in Alpha Centauri, I don't see why a semi watered down version in Civilization would be much worse.

Of course you don't. I'm sure it's tough to see logic and reason beyond your eyes of ignorance.


"Preceding" is a showy word to you?

Oh yes, because that's the only word you used in the entire context of your pointless rant.


If you consider any of my vocabulary used within this topic as showy, you're not an English major.

As I said, you're the latter; vain and arrogant and wanting to show off.


The irony. Please god, make it stop.

Pot? Meet kettle.


Untrue. The same didn't hold true in a game eleven years aged. It wouldn't be impossible to balance weapons of such strength, and I certainly doubt that it would reduce the game to a useless level, as you seem to believe. And while I am sure that this series is built around the idea of melding political and military, I highly doubt the latter is meant to be engaged through a solely marching army. Mostly because there are options militarily that don't include such.

As I said, essentially your argument is that you want a Burger King game.

Report Message

Terms of Use Violations:

Etiquette Issues:

Notes (optional; required for "Other"):
Add user to Ignore List after reporting

Topic Sticky

You are not allowed to request a sticky.

  • Topic Archived