安装 Steam
登录
|
语言
繁體中文（繁体中文）
日本語（日语）
한국어（韩语）
ไทย（泰语）
български（保加利亚语）
Čeština（捷克语）
Dansk（丹麦语）
Deutsch（德语）
English（英语）
Español-España（西班牙语 - 西班牙）
Español - Latinoamérica（西班牙语 - 拉丁美洲）
Ελληνικά（希腊语）
Français（法语）
Italiano（意大利语）
Bahasa Indonesia（印度尼西亚语）
Magyar（匈牙利语）
Nederlands（荷兰语）
Norsk（挪威语）
Polski（波兰语）
Português（葡萄牙语 - 葡萄牙）
Português-Brasil（葡萄牙语 - 巴西）
Română（罗马尼亚语）
Русский（俄语）
Suomi（芬兰语）
Svenska（瑞典语）
Türkçe（土耳其语）
Tiếng Việt（越南语）
Українська（乌克兰语）
报告翻译问题
讨论规则及指引
举报此帖
Try using your councilors more and ground armies less.
Save nukes for the aliens and only as a last resort.
I think the lesson here is don't start wars that you cannot finish. Either finish them or try to find another way. :)
I can agree that there probably should be some limitations on who can make a nuclear program, however.
I'm not so sure. If the US could do it in 1945, and then multiple nations copied them, why not any country in 2030? Proliferation is a serious issue. (Heck, just look at North Korea.)
What I can image, however, is more severe sanctions and/or sabotage mechanic. This is why so few nations possess nukes IRL, no?
Until then, I think the current system is fine. 80IP is a steep price for any small nation.
You need money, because nuclear programs are extremely expensive (in the case of North Korea, though their economy is small, they put a vast percentage of their economy into the task because they're a totalitarian hellhole that spends nothing on its population).
You need population, because only a very small percentage of people are able and willing to work on such a project, so you need the population to have enough of those.
And you need access to the natural resources involved, namely uranium, which means having a significant quantity in the country, or relations with another country that is willing and able to send it.
That is a large part of the reason, yes.
- stopping an army which is close to finish the siege of the nation's capital
- as a retaliation after getting nuked in an offensive way themself.
Just don't invade countries with nukes - unless you actually control the executive of both. attacker and defender.
It's just a really annoying problem should the alien nation form and take over a country which has nukes. It will be very hard to completely wipe it out, and only doable by sacrificing lots of armies, depending on the amount of nukes the alien nation got their hands on.
Im not against nukes, no they should have a role and I would love to fire my deathsticks at the aliens but nukes the way they are in the game should go. Either make them an actual gameplay element or remove them and not leave them as a 1/4 baked gameplay barebones mechanic that doesnt have any interesting significant gameplay impact.
Nukes would be good but there should a) be some form of counterplay against it (FFS we are in the tech era where we can 100% effectively stop a near lightspeed metal slug with pinpoint accuracy over a few thousand km of range yet we cannot stop a thruster with wings. What logic follows that, just putting this into perspective, we sealclub an enemy thats technologically superior than us in every way yet a basic ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ missile is unavoidable?) and b) some form of after effects. Enviromental damage, economical damage, MASSIVE morale damage if your own nation gets hit by a nuke, even more if its your own nuke to the point where it should have like idk, 60-70% chance for a coup, rising the more you nuke yourself, just SOMETHING that allows interaction with it in some way other than: Yep, cant attack that, gotta cross that off my list now. And yeah I know, guaranteed coup on self nuke? Thats not op and unrealistic. Yes. As it SHOULD be, no matter HOW much your people are behind you, NO nation will tolerate it if your government kills your own people as collateral damage. Not in these numbers. If you drop a modern nuke on say bangladesh, that couuntry is DEAD. Gone, ♥♥♥♥♥♥♥ erased from existence. There is no way it would just keep going like nothing happened. Yet it does ingame.
Point is: Nukes the way they are are awfully implemented and dont have any engaging gameplay element to it. Id make a mod that does this but my coding isnt good enough so HOPEFULLY I can get people for a nuke rework so maybe this mechanic actually GOES somewhere where it would be interesting to have in a game. But for now Id honestly rather wish they were completely gone rather than the way they are now
Also btw, we could entirely finish this, we could nuke the globe several times and still have enough nukes left, we have 33 Armies, all on lvl 6.5, we could statcheck ANYTHING. Its just not fun pressing pressing the nuke button, a pointclick button should not invalidate an entire gameplay element that, unlike the pointclick button, is actually fleshed out
Orbital anti-nuke defenses are a good idea, I think. It's something that is possible even today. Best case, this would depend on the orbital bombardment capacity and firepower of a fleet and/or station.
But not all nukes are being delivered via ICBM, IRBM or dropped from an air plane. In fact, precisely those dreaded defensive self-nukings are quite impossible to intercept.
Currently in the game, the only way is to get your hands on the launch codes themselves (i.e. take over the nations executive). Perhaps there could also be a councilor sabotage mission to delay a nuclear strike?
Overall, I can see the potential and desire to better include and balance nukes inside a large-scale terrestrial warfare game mechanic.
As it stands they are mostly a 'don't touch me' button for nations (or the occasional alien presence removal tool), and personally I am fine with that, because I never needed nor expected from them to be more. But that doesn't mean nukes are perfect or can't be improved upon. :)
and at that point the rest is not that hard.
the US insane cost of a nuke in 1945 has nothing todo with todays cost.
nukes are very easy to get every country even small ones can do that if they want to.
Israel did it with it's tiny economy south africa did it too.
and uran ore isn't that impossible to get. Bangladesh even has a mine.
can Kiribati build a nuke ahh unlikely can the majority of countries do that easily if they have the will to do so. yes.
you can look up if scientist could build a nuke in a garage i let it up to the reader to believe that or not.
I agree with this, but I would like to add/concede this: nuclear barrages in TI are more than a single nuke. They are at least dozens of potentially high-yield war heads, plus an un-defined intercontinental delivery system. We are not talking about 'dirty bombs' here.
This is probably indeed beyond many tiny nations' capability. I think nukes could simply be locked for 1CP nations.
EDIT: scratch that, NK is also 1 CP and has nukes. lol
Depends on the nuke. Extremely small nukes like the Davy Crockett had a yield of "only" 20 tons of TNT, which is probably on the scale of flattening a city block or so.
They do. They lose population, pcGDP, and the area permanently gains 1 level of radiation, which severely damages population growth in the country.
lol they aren't anywhere NEAR light speed. They're not even fast enough that it's worth bothering to calculate the effects of relativity.
But aside from that, this is a difference between terrestrial and space combat. In space, there's no atmosphere and there's no cover. On Earth, the atmosphere substantially degrades the effectiveness of directed energy weapons, and low-altitude missiles can use both terrain features and the shadow of the Earth itself to evade detection. And that's just missiles, there's also the issue of just some guy carrying a suitcase nuke near your position and suicide bombing you.
I really doubt that would happen if, say, Poland nuked an invading Russian army.
That is literally what nukes do in reality. The threat of a push of a button is the chief reason why no nuclear state has been invaded except in very small-scale fights like the Kargil War.
And that's really the point, the barrier for nukes is so low these days that even North Korea can get them.