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
I haven't had a civ use nukes on me yet so I don't know if anti-aircraft (SAM) or jet fighters will do anything against them.
__________________________
As background, I built a bunch of nuclear submarines and moved them into position halfway around the world near the most annoying civ in my game (India). I then built 8 thermonuclear warheads. Interestingly, the nukes show up on the subs as soon as they are built, you don't need to waste time moving them. Once I realized that 8 x 16gpt was sending me into bankruptcy, I launched what I needed to get back to a positive gpt (3 of them). It took me 10 turns to get units over to take out the cities that I just bombed and then another 15 turns to send in some builders to do the cleanup and repair (In hindsight I should have sent builders in with the military). In the interim I launched 4 more nukes expanding the devastation.
Once I started taking cities that had almost no defense, and cleaning up nuclear waste, the game started crashing. Load up, try something different and I crash in a different spot. 15 or so crashes and I decided to start another game.
I'd like to see a way to stop a nuke in flight before it hits target... with the chance of success as a probability, but if so, destroys the incoming and defensive measure... say as I mentioned above... a "Counter Missile". Once used, gone. Like the Guided missile. Once used, gone. The strategy to defend is stacking many Counter Missiles. The Strategy to attack is use Guided missiles to draw out the Counter missiles... before the Nukes! Still... to have some sort of Countermeasure is much more accurate to real world history than not having any!!
I tried asking for, and suggesting this, sence Civ V vanilla, before expansions. And for Civ VI... never seen it!
Nobody believes that these two warring nations sent exactly one tank and one APC. They are battalion-level units. The APC carries stand-off missiles that cream the tanks before they can get into firing range. The various support units duke it out. There could be many battles like this in the twelve months between 19815 and 1986. All we see is the canned animation.
So too for nukes. Likely there would be a lot of political posturing and things like test detonations and such. Maybe there are even nukes launched and nukes shot down. All you need is one to make it through. The animation is just an abstraction of months of fighting and warfare compressed into the most important moment.
The whole idea of a nuke is unstoppable destruction. Anyone who believes that all nukes can be stopped via kinetics is living in a fantasy world. That's why so far the best defense against a nuke is the ability to fire off a retaliatory nuke. It's a really ♥♥♥♥♥♥ deal, but those are the cards we have been dealt.
Yes, the threat of counter attacking a nation with your own nukes is one probable way of hoping to stop a nuke. But that's all the counter attacking does or is... a threat. Relying on merely one possibility of wether i'm going to have the capability to counter attack with my own nukes for the purpose of the game is simply not enough in my opinion.
If I had measures of counter measures of physically stopping a nuke, with the chance of being succesful... and 5 nukes come at me, and I stop 3, but two get through... than I respond with my own nukes, and only half of mine get through, to me that would feel like a much more enjoyable experience in the game than simply dishing out nuke after nuke after nuke... til both have no nukes left, and no cities left because neither side had chance to develop the countermeasures to reduce the effective nuke strikes.
It's lackluster developement in my opinion.
AND concerning your comment about the timeline represented within the game... that makes no difference to me. I abandoned all references to the timeline in game back in Civ III, IV, and still in V! You emperor/king/president, that you start with in Historic ages still alive in futuristic ages? The fact that one civ can still be stuck with swords and arrows, while another civ has early rifles learning flight, while another civ already has generation 2 flight, all at the same time?? but your civ is in the industrial era?
To me, referring to all Civ games I've played, Timeframe means nothing to me. I play the game base on time referrenced from the turns, and don't care if the game says 10k years for so many eras, or 10 years per so many turns. I don't matter to me, cause everything concerning time is not accurate!
Air craft in the air for years at a time? 10's or 20 years to maybe hundred or more years to cross a continent with land units? thousands of years to circumvent the map of the globe? none of that is any where accurate!!
Looks to africa and middle east. They are still stuck in stone age dude, not even settled cities, still playing as barabarians.
Probably not, diety AI still busy building horsemen in 1900´s.
by the time you can build nukes, the game is supposed to end soon. they are the lazy way to wrap up a domination victory if you failed to finish it with conventional weapons. nothing more really.