Atomic Bomb vs Nuclear Missile damage

Is there a damage difference between Atomic Bomb (AB) vs Nuclear Missile (NM) damage?

I'm up at that stage (rarely) and I'm considering AB purely on the production cost. However, if there is a more-bang-for-your-buck factor here, I may consider NM.

Solution 1:

The Nuclear Missile has upgraded damage, which means that it has a higher percent chance to destroy units and deal heavier damage to cities within its blast radius. This effect is somewhat randomized, however, and I don't know what the formula is for them, so I can't give you a data-based comparison, except to say that the damage is higher. The damage is also likely to depend on the power of the units and cities that the weapon effects.

Another factor for your consideration is that atomic bombs are launched from carriers and friendly cities, while nuclear missiles are launched from cities, missile cruisers, and nuclear submarines. Depending on your enemy's technology level, you might have an easier time getting a sub or cruiser close to the launch site rather than a carrier. You may also want to account for the production cost of the "transportation unit" if you plan to transport it.

If you're building them to deter, I'd probably go with the atomic bomb, since I don't believe the AI makes a distinction between them when considering your capabilities.

Solution 2:

Atomic bombs have a 50% chance of being intercepted by AA units and/or jet fighters, I believe, while NMs have 0% chance.

Do they both have the same range? I think NM has larger range as well.

And yes, I think nuke subs are easier to sneak close to a coastline than carriers are, but carriers can carry fighters/bombers as well